Comments on: Financial reports – local House races

By: Anon E. Mouse

Anon E. Mouse — Fri, 05 Jun 2009 15:53:10 +0000

Oooh, the 51st is even worse. The incumbent, Paul Nichols, received over $400,000 in donations, and got NO MONEY AT ALL from people in his district. (His opponent also got no money from his district, but at least they would be even!)

By: Anon E. Mouse

Anon E. Mouse — Fri, 05 Jun 2009 15:39:52 +0000

Well, just looking at the first on on the list — the 1st District, Kilgore got most of his money, by far, from outside his district and from companies, not individuals. His opponent, however, not including himself, Mark Warner, or the Democratic Party, received $750 from out-of-district (UAW & AFL-CIO) and $1100 from individuals, all of whom were inside his district.

What I propose would hamper the incumbents far more than it would the challengers. (That is why it will never happen.)

By: Anon E. Mouse

Anon E. Mouse — Fri, 05 Jun 2009 15:14:00 +0000

Yes, the names are there, too. I can look them up to be absolutely sure, but have not done so.

By: Anon E. Mouse

Anon E. Mouse — Fri, 05 Jun 2009 15:13:06 +0000

Vivian, the zip codes of the donors are in the reports. If part of that zip code was in the district, I assumed that the donor was in that district.

By: vjp

vjp — Fri, 05 Jun 2009 14:14:13 +0000

Mouse – do you have access to the voter file? If not, you can’t make claims that the donors live or don’t live in the district. Plus, looking at primary numbers versus general election numbers are quite misleading. Go back and pull the reports from 2007. Then tell me that donors should be limited to people who can vote for them.

By: Anon E. Mouse

Anon E. Mouse — Fri, 05 Jun 2009 02:07:17 +0000

Just looking at the one delegate primary you have listed, the 90th, Howell (the incumbent) and Spruill are both getting their money locally, but Howell has only $1000 from ONE individual, while Spruill has ALL of his $1825 from 10 individuals.

The only other primary I can find with an incumbent is the 38th. Hull, the incumbent, has $5000 from out-of-state (the Teamsters), and only $4850 from in-state. His biggest individual donor ($1000) does not live in his district. Of the other five, four are Vietnamese — maybe they can vote for him, and maybe they can’t. (And maybe they will either way.)

His opponent, Kay Kory, however, has 31 individual donors, and all but two are from the 38th district. She has no corporate sponsors, while Hull has six. (Remember, he only had six individuals contribute.)

Tell me again how my idea will hurt the challengers.

By: vjp

vjp — Thu, 04 Jun 2009 23:49:21 +0000

You think like I do, Max – locally. It might hurt incumbents some but it would absolutely kill a challenger.

By: vjp

vjp — Thu, 04 Jun 2009 23:48:25 +0000

Good points.

By: Max Shapiro

Max Shapiro — Thu, 04 Jun 2009 22:04:26 +0000

Chris Dodd is a Senator. You limit house of delegates races to contributions from within the district and you would kill most anyone’s chances of running. Even an incumbent would have a hard time raising money.

By: Max Shapiro

Max Shapiro — Thu, 04 Jun 2009 21:16:06 +0000

The basic premise is that given new technology and free use of PUBLIC airwaves, the government should create a mechanism that educated all citizens about their elected officials. We have a postal service, why not have them give out booklets detailing all candidates positions? In some states when you register for an absentee ballot you got something just like that. We give TV stations and radio stations free use of airwaves, they should be required to air debates featuring all the candidates as well as interviews with all the candidates regularly. All public highschools should be host to debates throughout the campaign season. With a system like that you could run without having to spend hundreds of thousands campaigning. Think about it, 300 grand for a HOD district with 30k voters. That is $10 per voter, its horrible.

By: Anon E. Mouse

Anon E. Mouse — Thu, 04 Jun 2009 21:15:55 +0000

I do not follow your logic.

It seems to me that the incumbents’ primary advantage is their access to donors outside their districts. (Chris Dodd is a perfect example — very little of his money comes from Connecticut.)

By: vjp

vjp — Thu, 04 Jun 2009 19:47:42 +0000

Also, candidates should only be able to take money from people who are registered to vote in the election the candidate is running in.

Then an incumbent would never lose. The deck is already stacked in favor of incumbents. You want to make it impossible to challenge them?

Max – I have to think more about what you propose. Thing is, the system we have isn’t working so I’m inclined to try almost anything at this point.

By: Anon E. Mouse

Anon E. Mouse — Thu, 04 Jun 2009 19:19:53 +0000

Absolutely not.

However, I do favor only allowing PEOPLE to contribute. Not corporations, PACs, unions, or lawyers.

Also, candidates should only be able to take money from people who are registered to vote in the election the candidate is running in.

By: Max Shapiro

Max Shapiro — Thu, 04 Jun 2009 17:17:49 +0000

Anyone else think we need a publicly funded election system? I’m not talking about the government giving money to campaigns, I’m talking about campaigns giving the government their entire policy platforms and then the government making sure all the voters in the district know where the candidates stand. Add to this mandatory radio and TV debates on local stations and you could have someone with 0 money possibly get elected. Several states have systems like this, all you need to be eligible is collect a certain number of signatures and small donations.

By: Steve Vaughan

Steve Vaughan — Thu, 04 Jun 2009 14:54:10 +0000

The importance of Robin Abbott’s fundraising total is that it makes it easier for her to leverage money out of the Democratic Caucus later in the race. The Caucus (and I’d assume the Republican Caucus as well, although I don’t know that for sure) tends to “help those who help themselves.” Thus, demonstrating fundraising ability early — and no, the caucus doesn’t care where it came from — is very important for a challenger.

By: Anon E. Mouse

Anon E. Mouse — Wed, 03 Jun 2009 19:00:44 +0000

I’m just messin’ with ya, Len. I wish I had such candidates in my district. Instead, our challenger is a school-board member who bends over backward for the PTA’s of the rich schools and ignores those of the poor schools.

By: Len Bennett

Len Bennett — Wed, 03 Jun 2009 18:22:19 +0000

LOL. Its a Consumer Protection law firm with no turnover and friendships throughout. It has a progressive and empathetic candidate for the House as a partner. And please…. come on by and see Robin and the paid campaign staff – four now – at work amongst the rest of us trying to save people from foreclosures, predatory loans, odometer rollback cars and identity theft. And watch Robin effectively juggle these efforts plus fund raising calls and doorknocking. She is a trooper. Need directions?

By: laura

laura — Wed, 03 Jun 2009 18:14:25 +0000

Gary West outraised Glen Oder in the 94th. Hoping soon to get the state to kick in.

By: Anon E. Mouse

Anon E. Mouse — Wed, 03 Jun 2009 17:26:54 +0000

I guess my little joke was not so far off the mark after all: “You! Volunteer or be fired!”

By: Len Bennett

Len Bennett — Wed, 03 Jun 2009 15:48:34 +0000

Actually – they are law firm resources that have at times been diverted to the campaign. So, Brian, it would be improper to avoid listing those resources. Or so you would argue if she did otherwise.

Len

By: Anon E. Mouse

Anon E. Mouse — Wed, 03 Jun 2009 15:44:49 +0000

Maybe they’re not volunteers, but were pressed into service!

By: Brian Kirwin

Brian Kirwin — Wed, 03 Jun 2009 15:33:31 +0000

When people are unpaid, most candidates call it “volunteering”

Abbott calls it “in-kind contributions” to inflate the totals

By: Brian Kirwin

Brian Kirwin — Wed, 03 Jun 2009 15:31:28 +0000

I don’t scream

By: Len Bennett

Len Bennett — Wed, 03 Jun 2009 14:58:14 +0000

Brian – of course I am a bit biased. I am Robin’s law partner. But check her numbers. While her firm gave a ton (just as we do to other Dem candidates and even at least one strong Consumer protection Repub), taking that money out she still raised a ton in the last 45 days since she started. She also still crushed Hamilton in dollars from actual human beings and pretty much matched him without the CLA money even with his lobbyist contributions.

Take a look at Hamilton’s donor base – it consists largely of industry PACS and lobbyists that have business before his Committees. In our book, that’s nothing to brag about. And it is the money from those out of state drug companies; from tobacco; from the Big Banks’ PAC and from the insurance industry that will continue to justify the intervention of consumer protection dollars as an offset.

Len

By: vjp

vjp — Wed, 03 Jun 2009 13:18:09 +0000

Aw, c’mon Brian. Does it matter where the money comes from? Doesn’t it spend the same regardless? Besides, you know that incumbents have a built-in fundraising advantage (ie, many groups only donate to incumbents) so challengers have to do things a bit differently.

If her firm hadn’t donated the money, you’d be screaming about that.

By: vjp

vjp — Wed, 03 Jun 2009 13:12:44 +0000

Sorry – I missed that race. I’ve updated it now to reflect what is available. Thanks for the nudge!

By: Johnny Longtorso

Johnny Longtorso — Wed, 03 Jun 2009 12:06:29 +0000

Any news from the 82nd? I see Peter Schmidt is raising some dosh, but there’s no report for Bob Purkey.

By: Brian Kirwin

Brian Kirwin — Wed, 03 Jun 2009 11:22:03 +0000

Oh, and 18,000 more is not cash, but donated office space and donated housing and staff working for free.

By: Brian Kirwin

Brian Kirwin — Wed, 03 Jun 2009 11:19:00 +0000

not hard when most of your money comes from one donor

By: Newport News Dem

Newport News Dem — Wed, 03 Jun 2009 00:31:10 +0000

Robin Abbott (D) – raised $104,379, on hand $71,297

Game on!!!!!