Bryan
07-21-2008, 10:34 PM
I'll certainly be happy with whatever we raise but wanted to lay out a complete payout format just in case we do better than hoped (it's also good for the future at least :))- here's my thought:
. The winner will receiver the complete payout of the first $100,000, the first $5,000 will be a cash payout.
. Each of the remaining finalist candidates will receive a $5,000 cash payout (the max allowed per a PAC) starting with the second place vote receiver getting the next $5,000 and so on for all remaining finalist candidates.
. The winner will receive the remainder of the payout up to a $700,000 total.
. Each of the finalist candidates will receive the remainder of the payout to make their total up to $700,000 starting with the second place vote receiver getting the next block and so on for all finalist candidates.
. The winner receives the next block of $200,000 and then all remaining finalists starting with the second place on receive the subsequent blocks of equal size. Repeat this step.
Yes, this is crazy big money but it needs to be said. :) Anyway, here's the logic. We want to really prime the winner, but at the same time, giving out $5,000 is easy (write a check) and so it's good to give them a boost for taking part in the event. After that boost, we go up to about 2/3 of what I'm told it takes to win a seat. One could figure it would be best to not hit the max figure since the campaigns should be able to raise some more on their own. It doesn't seem to make sense to overload someone either however, so distributing the payout is good. However, after the first $5,000 it's a bit more effort for the PAC to work with multiple campaigns so it's best to keep is somewhat concentrated.
I like this format but certainly see lots of room for debate, at the very least with the $100K, $700K and $200K figures in how they effect everything.
Thoughts?
. The winner will receiver the complete payout of the first $100,000, the first $5,000 will be a cash payout.
. Each of the remaining finalist candidates will receive a $5,000 cash payout (the max allowed per a PAC) starting with the second place vote receiver getting the next $5,000 and so on for all remaining finalist candidates.
. The winner will receive the remainder of the payout up to a $700,000 total.
. Each of the finalist candidates will receive the remainder of the payout to make their total up to $700,000 starting with the second place vote receiver getting the next block and so on for all finalist candidates.
. The winner receives the next block of $200,000 and then all remaining finalists starting with the second place on receive the subsequent blocks of equal size. Repeat this step.
Yes, this is crazy big money but it needs to be said. :) Anyway, here's the logic. We want to really prime the winner, but at the same time, giving out $5,000 is easy (write a check) and so it's good to give them a boost for taking part in the event. After that boost, we go up to about 2/3 of what I'm told it takes to win a seat. One could figure it would be best to not hit the max figure since the campaigns should be able to raise some more on their own. It doesn't seem to make sense to overload someone either however, so distributing the payout is good. However, after the first $5,000 it's a bit more effort for the PAC to work with multiple campaigns so it's best to keep is somewhat concentrated.
I like this format but certainly see lots of room for debate, at the very least with the $100K, $700K and $200K figures in how they effect everything.
Thoughts?