Sue Myrick Spends Almost $1.3 Million Advertising with her Family Ad Firm

Dating from the 1996 election cycle to the 2006 election cycle, Sue Myrick has spent approximately $1,294,869 on media buys and other advertising through her family's advertising firm, now known as Myrick Gunter Advertising. From what I know, that's all perfectly legal, but was it necessary?

In that same time period her opponents have raised a total of about $217,312. Myrick had won by huge margins garnering at least 69% of the vote until last year when she received 67%. Her job appears safe. Her district is one of the most Republican congressional districts in the state.

Was it necessary to spend an average of $220,000 on media buys and other advertising in campaigns where your opponent can barely afford to buy yard signs? Why would she need to be on television? Why would she need billboards? If there is a need for advertising and a family business can provide the service, there should be no problem with a campaign using a family business. The question here is whether there was a real need for advertising since Myrick was facing underfunded opponents in a district that votes Republican. Did her family profit from her advertising purchases because she really needed to get her name out, or did she create this need for advertising?

In the six election cycles where data is readily available, Myrick spent about 24% of her total receipts with her family's own advertising firm. It isn't a question of whether it is legal. It's a question of whether it is fiscally responsible.

1996 Election Cycle - Sue Myrick Faces Michael Daisley

In the 1996 election cycle Sue Myrick spent 35% of her receipts with her family's advertising firm. According to Open Secrets, in the 1996 election cycle Sue Myrick had total receipts of $544,223 and her opponent was able to raise a little over $64,000. Myrick spent over $192,000 through Myrick Advertising that cycle alone. That doesn't include mailers, yard signs or other forms of advertising. On October 24, 1996 Myrick's campaign wrote a check to Myrick Advertising for $67,756.24 which was more than her opponent had raised for the entire election cycle.

1998 Election Cycle - Sue Myrick Faces Rory Blake

The 1998 cycle brought a familiar opponent in Rory Blake. Myrick had faced him in the 1994 campaign and had defeated him handily. In the 1998 cycle Blake raised a grand total of $35,050 which is not an amount of money that would pose a threat to a two-term incumbent Republican in a heavily Republican district especially considering the fact that Myrick had total receipts of $762,365. This cycle Myrick spent 27% of her total receipts through Myrick Gunter Advertising. (Name change) Facing an opponent who had raised only $35,000 with which to fund his entire campaign, Myrick spent approximately $202,637 through her family's firm for among other things, radio and television ads. Blake could barely afford direct mail.

2000 Election Cycle - Sue Myrick Faces Ed McGuire

In the 2000 cycle Sue Myrick raised about $900,000 more than her opponent, Ed McGuire. She raised $965,364 to his $65,543. She spent $276,673.38 through Myrick Gunter Advertising which is a total of almost 29% of her fundraising receipts that cycle. This does not include the $29,000 spent through Adams Outdoor Advertising for billboards and through other companies for direct mail, newspaper ads or other forms of advertising.

2002 Election Cycle - Sue Myrick Faces Ed McGuire

This cycle Ed McGuire did not raise enough money to report to the FEC. That didn't stop Sue Myrick from spending approximately $177,034* through her family's advertising firm for media buys and advertising. In a cycle where her opponent doesn't appear to literally have been able to buy yard signs to blanket his neighborhood, let alone a congressional district, Sue Myrick spent 27% of her total receipts on advertising and her family profited.

2004 Election Cycle - Sue Myrick Faces Jack Flynn

In 2004 Sue Myrick raised almost $1,000,000 more than her opponent, Jack Flynn. He raised $38,149 to her $1,034,424. In this cycle Myrick spent $281,667 on outdoor advertising, television ads and media buys. That's 27% of her total receipts. She had won in the previous cycle with 72% of the vote. With that margin of victory, there's no indication Myrick was in trouble or needed to boost her name id.

2006 Election Cycle - Sue Myrick Faces Bill Glass

Bill Glass raised $9,760. Sue Myrick raised $1,287,147. She won in the previous cycle with 70% of the vote. This didn't stop Myrick from spending $130,500 with Adams Outdoor Advertising for billboards and $162,000 with Myrick Gunter Advertising. Myrick spent almost $300,000 with these two companies to run against a man who had raised less than $10,000.

* This does not include reported amounts paid to the firm for staffing and temporary labor.

Comments

Legal vs. Ethical.

IOKIYAR

Jesus Swept ticked me off. Too short. I loved the characters and then POOF it was over.
-me

Irresponsible

in my book. I wonder if she feels any responsibility to her donors to spend their money wisely? Many of them may not even care, but maybe there will be some who decide to give to a candidate who doesn't simply turn around and spend it on something that directly benefits her own family.

Robin Hayes lied. Nobody died, but thousands of folks lost their jobs.



***************************
Vote Democratic! The ass you save may be your own.

Maybe not illegal

But this definitely tops the sleaze charts.

As I've said before, this is basically money laundering. Sad Sue is using money received as contributions for honest citizens and redirecting it to enhance her personal wealth.

Media Buys

You can get some sweet commissions through media buys depending on how you structure it and what media you buy. While the straight 15% agency commission on media is becoming more and more a thing of the past, it is often still part of the "retail" price." There is also money in media planning which certailny has value, but can be padded too.

You can also make some good money off creative and production fees.

The only way to really know how much money was retained by the agency is to look at the agency's bills from the media outlets. I don't know if those would be public documents.

With the number of large checks

I imagine the bills included amounts for different services, but I can't be sure.

Robin Hayes lied. Nobody died, but thousands of folks lost their jobs.



***************************
Vote Democratic! The ass you save may be your own.

I've been talking about this one for awhile

What did the Senate Ethics committee say about Thomas J. Dodd when they censured him in 1967? He diverted $116,000 for his own use ... how much of this money ends up in Sue's pocket?

1 Thessalonians 5:21: But examine everything carefully; hold fast to that which is good.

I always wanted to be the avenging cowboy hero—that lone voice in the wilderness, fighting corruption and evil wherever I found it, and standing for freedom, truth and justice. - Bill Hicks

A couple of things about Myrick/Gunter

Glad to see that this is finally percolating to the surface. Now if you think that this is going to go anywhere, you are sadly mistaken. I talked to reporters in the Charlotte area about this over the last two election cycles. No interest. I even pointed out to them that there is no phone number for Myrick/Gunter and no website. Now I work in the advertising/graphic design and I know of NO advertising agency in this day and age that does NOT have a website or a phone.

I have made sure that the candidates running in the Ninth for the nomination had this info. I hope that this time the local media takes notice. But I am not holding my breath.

Well, and remember the timing

of this article. A month after the election, not a month before.

1 Thessalonians 5:21: But examine everything carefully; hold fast to that which is good.

I always wanted to be the avenging cowboy hero—that lone voice in the wilderness, fighting corruption and evil wherever I found it, and standing for freedom, truth and justice. - Bill Hicks

Jack

I just spent 20 minutes looking for Myrick/Gunter online. You are right. They don't exist.

I've been in the advertising industry for 30 years, and I've heard about plenty of scheming going on between clients and agencies, especially in the sleazoid world of outdoor advertising. I've heard about kick-backs and whoring and extortion and more.

There is no question in my mind that this is a MONEY LAUNDERING scandal waiting to blowup. Myrick's contributors poured hundreds of thousands into her coffers. She then "spent" that money through an agency owned by her family. I'm guessing the margins on outdoor advertising are in the 40% range for a mature company that basically has no sales costs. That would mean that for every $100 of contributions Sue received and spent on advertising through her firm, $40 went straight into her Gucci pocketbook.

This is t another version of the same slimy crap that John McCain has been accused of because he had the hots for a young blond lobbyist that looks like his trophy wife.

Well...it isn't money laundering

That's taking bad money and cleaning it all up to look good and legal like.

Myrick Advertising exists as a corporation in the state of NC. I think it now goes by Myrick Enterprises. Sue was shown as an officer while she was running for office and in her first run for Congress they were nice enough to show her as President of the company, but as soon as she was elected she was dropped from the officer role.

You can see their reports filed at The Secretary of State's office.

Ed Myrick started the firm - or incorporated the name - in 1963. Annual reports are shown from 1991, I believe. Myrick Enterprises might be their Amway business.

Robin Hayes lied. Nobody died, but thousands of folks lost their jobs.



***************************
Vote Democratic! The ass you save may be your own.

Yes it is.

I work with a number of global forensic investigators who argue that the definition of money laundering (in terms of either foreign corrupt practices or domestic corrupt practices) has broadened considerably past the conventional interpretation:

Conduct or acts designed in whole or in part to conceal or disguise the nature, location, source, ownership or control of money (can be currency or equivalents, e.g., checks, electronic transfers, etc.) to avoid a transaction reporting requirement under state or federal law or to disguise the fact that the money was acquired by illegal means.

The reporting requirement Sue is trying to avoid is that of telling the world that she is redirecting campaign contributions to enhance her personal wealth. If she hadn't laundered the money, she would have simply written herself big checks out of her campaign checking account. The "laundering" came when she wrote those big checks to a basically non-existent advertising firm instead with the primary purpose of funneling the money into her own pocketbook.

You've made a compelling case that she didn't need to spend the money to be reelected, and any reasonable person would conclude the same. So why did she spend it? To launder it.

Is what she did legal? That totally depends on how good her lawyers are.

Well...huh

they just haven't watched the Godfather as many times as I have...... :D

Robin Hayes lied. Nobody died, but thousands of folks lost their jobs.



***************************
Vote Democratic! The ass you save may be your own.

Oh....I must have that pillow!

Hahahahaha....that is the funniest thing I've seen in a while.

Robin Hayes lied. Nobody died, but thousands of folks lost their jobs.



***************************
Vote Democratic! The ass you save may be your own.

D'accord....

That's right Betsy. You tell them!

Apparently not a new subject

I found this page dated 1996

...But we might want an advertising agency, who understands the ins-and-outs of the media-buying game better, to place the ads for us, since they have established relationships with the stations, and can conceivably get the best placement and rates for the same spots. For this service, the ad agency normally gets a commission -- usually 15% of the total cost of the advertising, though that rate is often negotiated down to as low as 5%.

But in talking last week with numerous ad agency people, Myrick's and Daisley's campaign, and media salespeople, I was told that Federal Election Commission rules say that candidates are to be given the lowest possible rate the station offers to regular customers anyway, regardless of whether an agency was used or not. In fact, the Daisley campaign got the same 15% discount for running its ads -- without using an agency. The campaign benefitted by saving money. On the other hand, in essence, Sue Myrick is taking campaign donations, to be used for advertising, paying the discounted rate to the station through Myrick Advertising, while her company keeps the difference. She's pocketing, in a round-about way, campaign money.

Have I told you lately

just how awesome you are?

Robin Hayes lied. Nobody died, but thousands of folks lost their jobs.



***************************
Vote Democratic! The ass you save may be your own.

that's exactly right.

She's pocketing, in a round-about way, campaign money.

And it's not even a roundabout way. She writing a check to herself to perform a function she will perform anyways, but by writing the check she gets to keep some of the money.

That seems pretty straight forward to me.

Well...you know....

the FEC might not like this one. Should we find out? It doesn't take much to file a formal complaint and as the fates would have it....Suellen is my representative.

Robin Hayes lied. Nobody died, but thousands of folks lost their jobs.



***************************
Vote Democratic! The ass you save may be your own.

...and you use

the term "representative" loosely....

Speaking of Ms. Family Values....

The 9th District Progressive Democrats of America are going to have an organizing meeting on Feb 27 at 7:30 at the Morrison Branch Library. We are hoping both the Democratic candidates that are running in our district will be there.

"jump in where you can and hang on"
Briscoe Darling to Sheriff Andy

For Myrick Congress has never been about the people

I'm Ross Overby and I am running against Myrick in '08. Myrick's interest always follows the money. Jack Flynn told me about how she feathers her own nest with campaign contributions; it is good to know the obscene amount. We need to give her more pressure this election season than she has ever seen. Spread the word, she can and must be voted out of office.

Harry Taylor to file against Sue

Hello all

Harry Taylor is Filing for Congress
Tuesday, noon, Feb. 26
Mecklenburg Board of Elections
741 Kenilworth Ave, Charlotte, NC
Join us!

"jump in where you can and hang on"
Briscoe Darling to Sheriff Andy