Caroline Kennedy is the latest to be called out for failure to contribute to candidates.
“It calls into question her commitment to politics and to government.”
A couple of weeks ago, it was Terry McAuliffe.
McAuliffe’s lack of donations to Virginia candidates, especially considering his generous giving to federal candidates, could become fodder for his two rivals for the nomination
So today’s question is simple: does a candidate’s lack of contributions to other candidates in any way affect your decision about that candidate?
For information on contributions to and by Virginia candidates, check out vpap. Contributions to federal candidates can be found at the FEC website.
VIVIAN J. PAIGE | All Politics is Local 
Nope.
I’m more interested in seeing if a candidate has donated their time and energy to another candidate.
Bryan Scrafford,
But Terry did donate his time and effort into another candidate. Just seems some might fault him for focusing on national elections and not local ones.
Perhaps you might be displeased that he supported Hillary? That wins him a point in his favor on my charts.
I’m going to double post.
I am not a Terry McAuliffe supporter. I’m still trying to decide who to support. My considerations include Republicans.
I wasn’t trying to claim Terry didn’t donate his time or energy to another candidate and I actually find it rather interesting that you automatically thought I was attacking him. My statement was essentially saying that in general I’m more impressed when people donate their time because, in my opinion, it’s generally a better indicator of their dedication to the cause.
No and its actually a negative for me as someone who doesn’t really like either party. It shows that they don’t bring much change to the process and once elected they will be like a typical politician (I’ll let people decide what that is for themselves)
Bryan Scafford,
I think I still have you in my sights.
Glenn Nye got elected to Virginia’s Second without supporting anybody else. He was elected because he was worthy.
Get my point?
It demonstrates a “machine” mentality when we talk of having people who seek offcie having at some point in the past supporting others in any other way than at the polls. Money buys alot of things, especially in the political world and maybe its refreshing to have people that are more grounded to the masses whom at this point may not have money to contribute. Kennedy has sought to do alot with her resources for things that matter like education and what does not matter is how much a check she made out to someone. Its sad really. It smacks of buying your way in through the window instead of walking in the front door in my view. The idea that this matters will also keep people who may not have been active in the past on local levels to run for higher office as well thinking they must pay dues somehow to the insiders. Fact is the “insiders” of both Parties have managed to wreck this country from within. maybe we need more people who do not contribute to others initially but contribute to fixing this nations future. Visions should matter. ideas should matter. Not this.
Little David, I think you need to read what I wrote before you try to continue trying to criticize. I never say that donating time, money, energy, or anything is a requirement for running for office. All I said is that “I’m more interested in seeing if a candidate has donated their time and energy to another candidate” than if they donated money. Please actually read statements (especially when they’re so short) before drawing all these incorrect conclusions.
Federal candidates’ financial information can also be found at Open Secrets. That and VPAP are among my very favorite sites, along with Open Congress (voting records).
No. What should matter is what you bring to the table in terms of experience, vision, and talent. I don’t see why it should be treated different from any other job. I want to see a resume and I want the candidate to explain why I should hire them. Giving people money is not a qualification I can think of necessary for any position.
Honestly, I do look at the contribution reports, mainly to see if there are any patterns. If someone never donated very much and then suddenly started shelling out money left and right six months before he filed, it’s a pretty clear sign he’s the sort that thinks that support is bought, not earned. If someone donates to a few select candidates regularly, particularly local candidates, I know they’re probably connected to someone they support. If someone has zero donations, I start to wonder if they’re political neophytes–do they not understand elections enough to have donated to some candidate, ANY candidate in the past? Are they so poorly connected that no one ever thought to ask them for money?
I don’t wonder that last bit about Caroline Kennedy, for obvious reasons.
I’m actually reactive to the concept.
It just reminds me that much of politics these days seems to be “inside baseball” within each major party and that voters and citizens are viewed much less the hapless kids in a nasty divorce.
I think one of the reasons for “gridlock” in Congress and in Virginia is fighting between the two parties who seem at time to be much more interested in kowtowing to their respective bases than those folks in the middle…
It is a positive if they do donate, but not a negative if they do not.
When it comes to Terry McAuliffe being absent from Virginia politics and then wanting to be chief executive, his contributions to Virginian candidates does matter. I was very pleased to hear of his contribution of $5,000 to John LaCombe, who is running in the special election for the House 81st district, but it seems too little too late for me to believe he’s really interested and involved about Virginia’s issues and politics.
– Joel McDonald
Virginia Beach Progressives