Reportedly, 600 people paid $549 to attend the conference, while another 500 paid $349 just to attend the lobster and steak banquet at which Palin spoke. Let's do the math:
600 x 549 = $329,400
+
500 x 349 = $174,500
_______
$503,900
Palin's speech reportedly cost in the neighborhood of $100,000, not including a cost associated with her rider (private jet for travel, hotel accommodations, etc.) that could cost anything from $10,000 to $50,000. Let's stay on the high end of things just to look at the worse case scenario.
Then there's the additional costs of putting on the conference. Let's say that cost is in the neighborhood of $200,000. Maybe this is on the low end of things. That would mean the two-day event runs just over $180 a head for all 1100 participants. That's far more than the cost per guest at a formal wedding -- and dollars to donuts there wasn't an open bar at the Tea Party.
That leaves roughly $150,000 in profit.
Then there's the revenue brought in from sponsorships. A month ago Politico reported:
And a tea party source familiar with the convention’s fundraising and planning efforts questioned whether it was wise to prominently feature Palin at an event purporting to be driven by grass-roots activists.
Plus, the source said the convention’s sponsorship requests exceeded the norm for such an event, adding, “I understand completely asking sponsors to chip in, but 50 grand is just way beyond.”
The Tea Party had multiple sponsorship levels: 4 sponsors at the Silver level, 3 at the Bronze, 3 "co-sponsors" and 5 "participants." Presumably no one bought into the "Gold" level or those were the sponsors that bailed. I can't imagine that any of those sponsors forked over $50,000 for their levels of sponsorship, but they sure as hell didn't do it for free.
Either way, the Tea Party Conference likely made a healthy profit from the festivities. How much gets pumped back into "the movement" remains to be seen.
Obviously, the economy isn't hurting the hosts of the event, who seem to have made out like bandits. Nor is it hurting the participants, who can pay a good buck to travel and attend an expensive gathering that was simulcast on C-SPAN ... so maybe these Tea Party folks shouldn't be so upset about one entity taking their money when they are so willing to give it away to another?
Posts
1 comment:
Hey Ground Control I'm here again,
Sorry to be off topic/bringing it forward. You're being prolific these days and the Tony Palemri's Bullshit Can Be Seen From Space article is down there somewhere and I wanted you to see this for sure.
Obviously I didn't click thru to TP's M-rant. Nor have I been around at all except for a fluke visit on Holden Caulfield day. nor do I read The Valley Scream or whatever that thing Palemri writes "Media Rants" for is called. But it just occurred to me -
if TP's still writing stuff for that mag that has anything to do with local issues, stuff he may vote on, stuff voters may care about, stuff that might even be on the fringes of topics that are germain to a yes Or No vote for HIM come election time... he should STFU.
Someone could make a pretty good argument for the idea that he is NOT a 'citizen journalist" but an elected person of power voting on millions of dollars and whoop-de-doo issues like giving the nod to major defense contractors and what-not. So he can't have a special protected little bully pulpit that no other people seeking or holding that same office can have.
If he's defending or selling or persuading voters and the public to his views in that rag then that ain't right. He can easily use that thing to keep his message flowing to voters in the non-campaign season, keep his face out front etc.
Did Frank whatever his name was get that extra media time too?
If Stew runs for council can HE continue to rant in the ONW in favor of this or that position?
Pressure that free paper, make them see that now TP's an official with power either ALL candidates and officials get columns or none of them do. If he's writing recipes (unless they're for Urban Deer Venison Sausages) for The Scream that's probably okay.
Lol "okay"...
as if any elected guy who rants in a free grocery-store-give-away mag about the local newspaper being "evil" looks like anything but a D-bag.
But you know what I mean. :P
Oh P.S.
I DID also see your observation that some offending person (a young lady I believe) should -
"eat a bag of dicks"
I have to say I hadn't heard that lovely sentiment before. It's an expression that I think will stay with me for some time. and I wonder how I can deftly inject that into conversation. not sure yet.
Post a Comment