Press "Enter" to skip to content

Bosworth Campaign Lied about Self-Funding

After reporting that U.S. Senate candidate Annette Bosworth-Haber's third-quarter campaign haul included no personal funds, Bosworth campaign operative and well-placed Republican consultant Patrick Davis must now admit he was lying.

As you read first here yesterday, Bosworth's third-quarter FEC report shows that she contributed a quarter of her reported campaign contributions from her own pocket.

Even truth-challenged Dakota War College has to step away from running interference for Bosworth* and admit what this blog has documented since June: Annette Bosworth is full of crap:

Could these be expenses that she’s reimbursed for at some point? Sure. Regardless, it makes her total take tumble to $38k, not the $50K that the campaign was crowing about.

And it certainly doesn’t match up with the message the campaign had promoted two weeks ago [Pat Powers, "Now That's Not What Had Been Mentioned Before. Bosworth Didn't Exactly Raise 50K," Dakota War College, 2013.10.28].

Why Powers, Davis, and other Republicans would want to throw in with Bosworth defies practical sense. Trusting reality-free candidate Bosworth puts one's own credibility at stake. Perhaps some Republicans will have to get burned by Bosworth's brazen fibbery before they realize she's a sideshow not worth their money.

*On running interference: consider the bias in DWC reporting on campaign spending. Bosworth ends her first quarter of official campaigning in debt, and Powers calls her spending aggressive, a popularly positive term used in describing truck tires and marketing strategies. Fellow Republican Stace Nelson raises more money with less from his own pocket, focuses his aggressive spending on campaign signs and marketing items, manages to finish his first couple months quarter with zero debt... and Powers dismisses his spending with "It comes in and it goes out." Why maintain such blatant cognitive dissonance for the sake of a vanity candidate with nothing to offer?


  1. Rorschach 2013.10.28

    Hey, if PP can help out his old friend Patrick Davis and his long-time patron Mike Rounds at the same time, why wouldn't he do it?

  2. interested party 2013.10.28

    What part of quid pro quo escapes you people?

Comments are closed.