Untitled

Why did HillPAC contribute "less than 25%" of its money? HillPAC was a
>>> short, four month, full-speed-ahead effort, designed to create maximum
>>> impact the for all levels of the dem ticket, which it did in a very tight
>>> time frame under unique circumstances. Lets not forget that HP was
>>> rekindled on July 1 with NOTHING -- only $5000 in the bank - and after
>>> that managed to raise enough funds to accomplish hundreds of events, dozens
>>> of emails, hundreds of thousands raised, both directly and indirectly, for
>>> others. It could not have done so much in so little time without the
>>> valuable resource of the HCFP list, and therefore rented it for a
>>> multiple-use contract. In the fall of 2008, that list was fresh,
>>> energized, dedicated, etc, probably the best on the market (Obama's list
>>> wasn't for rent then). One can not buy or instantly create those attributes
>>> -- the organic value of the list, which was sown over many prior months,
>>> was invaluable to the effort of HillPAC. HP made direct contributions,
>>> which are apparent on the FEC report, but it also helped in other ways - it
>>> sent dozens of emails on behalf of other candidates, asking list members to
>>> donate directly to those candidates, to walk door-to-door for those
>>> candidates, to send emails to their friends and families about those
>>> candidates. It was a grass roots operation and effort as much as a
>>> financial/contribution effort, and the GR can not always be measured by the
>>> figures from an FEC report. Was HP the leanest operation around? Maybe
>>> not. But did it accomplish invaluable things for the dem ticket that no
>>> other politician was capable of at the time? Yes - no one else had the
>>> time, the political capital, and the ability to gather the same level of
>>> resources and put them to use.