Burr consultant will pay for poll

Huh.

That's odd.

"I think it's ridiculous to go through hypothetical head-to-heads," Burr said.

"The next election is not even something I'm thinking about. Nor should I, until I know who I'm running against," he said.

Burr said he hasn't run any of his own polls yet.

"Why should I poll?" he asked.

IVR polls can easily be done for $1,250.

Really? That's quite a game changer then.

So while even non-interactive robo-call firms that only read scripts to answering machines still charge similar fees for small projects due to the fixed costs associated with programming, long distance and sample, you're saying that Carolina Strategy Group alone has somehow managed to destroy the cost threshold associated with more expensive Interactive Voice Response technology and making the extra dials required for the rejections of live respondents and diminished the cost per interview on a 3.5 margin of error, 800 respondent survey like this that captures demographics as well as congressional ratings, ratings of Harry Reid, ratings of Nancy Pelosi, who respondents would rather control Congress and head to head ratings of Elaine Marshal versus Richard Burr after rating which of each would do a better job as a “check and balance on the policies of President Obama," and then RUN CROSS TABS for like a buck fifty per interview and still make a profit!?!

If so, then not only is Carolina Strategy Group the cheapest polling outfit in the U.S., those guys are GENIUSES!

Or unethical. One of those two.

Edited to add link to full results, cross tabs and executive analysis on 800 sample, 3.5 MOE survey conducted over two days by Carolina Strategy Group as in-kind to Richard Burr for Senate Committee at amazingly low price of $1.50 per interview. For similar pricing on your next Senate run, contact Paul Shumaker, Polling Philanthropist.

GiggleBox,

It depends on if you are doing a live-caller poll or IVR.

IVR polls can easily be done for $1,250.

Granted, I'm no DOME reporter, but after only a few calls I found that I was not able to purchase anything close to a reputable statewide senatorial survey with a head to head match-up for a mere $1250.

One firm actually said that would buy me a deli tray for a focus group, or barely cover the long distance COSTS on a quantitative survey worth at least 5 digits or more.

Isn't that odd?

What is the difference in $1250 and $20,000 anyway?

Three to five in a room with Jim Black?

In this case, Burr's campaign paid for the toy.

In all seriousness, that's not accurate at all and the most problematic for Burr's forthcoming FEC report yet.

Paul Shumaker, owner of the polling firm, agreed to pay his own firm for the poll, and have the campaign, which also pays Shumaker, call it an in-kind from an individual, since an in-kind from a polling firm would be a serious violation of FEC law.

All sorts of fun questions will now be asked once the report is made public.

Is a mere $1,250 really the fair going rate for Shumaker's "independent polling" or did he grant himself a sweetheart charge just covering costs, creating yet another in-kind violation from a business to a political campaign? Is Shumaker's salary or any forthcoming bonuses with Burr really just going to pay Shumaker back for his in-kind? And does the money Shumaker paid himself for polling, just go straight back to Shumaker anyway, literally adding fraud and a form of sad, pathetic money laundering to an in-kind poll done on behalf of the Burr campaign?

At this point, the only thing that makes this go away is what you said, the Burr campaign itself paying the going rate for the poll out of campaign funds. Anything short of that is now worse than if they had stuck by their original story that the campaign didn't benefit or receive any additional data from the poll than the media, or any earlier than it was made public. I suppose they know that not to be true though, as we all do, since the poll in question was literally conducted by Burr's top campaign strategist.

I agree with cdtew. All we have here is yet another "lapse in judgment" from the Burr camp, coming this time from Burr's top consultant and the head of a powerful Republican strategic firm that simply couldn't help himself any more than a "5 year old" in a toy store.

Perfect analogy for Burr's campaign.

All we can hope for now is that no ATM's were harmed in the making of this latest rookie move.

Unfortunately for you, he didn't actually violate the law. A violation of campaign laws requires intent, and in this case intent is conclusively disproved by the campaign's admission that a lapse in judgment occurred, and by the correction of that lapse.

Its much as if you went into the grocery store and after paying for your items and leaving the store, your 5 year old son had put a toy in the basket you hadn't paid for. It doesn't become a crime until you decide not to tell the store manager and pay for the toy.

In this case, Burr's campaign paid for the toy.

Why is this not front-page news under a leading headline that says "Burr consultant violates campaign law"? Is it becasue Richard Burr never ticked off the N&O? If you're going to go after corruption, go after it with some consistency.