Posts with the tag 'fundraising'
Not a lot of money, but I’m not a rich man, either…but it is time, dear conservatives, that we stepped firmly up to the plate. Now that we’re 99% sure Obama will be the nominee and while the current lay of the political land indicates a renewed Democratic Congressional majority, we daren’t fail to do whatever we can to ensure McCain’s victory. Backing McCain is taking on the characteristic of a basic act of patriotism, because someone as ultra-left as Obama will do great harm to the United States.
Yes, I know all the objections - real and imagined - to McCain from my fellow conservatives…but that doesn’t matter in the least right now. Its a time of choosing. You can have McCain and a bit of conservatism plus a war won, or you can have Obama and pure liberalism plus a lost war.
Pick one.
If you pick correctly, then go here.
Tags: fundraising
May 24th, 2008
Still far short of the vast amounts HillBama raise, but a gain is a gain:
Senator John McCain raised approximately $18 million during the month of April, according to a spokeswoman for his campaign.
That is the most that McCain has raised in any month of the campaign so far. But it is less than half of what the Obama campaign says it raised in the month of March, $41 million, and less than what Senator Clinton reoprtedly raised that month as well, $20 million.
The Democratic rivals have not yet released their April fundraising numbers.
The Arizona Republican, who is scheduled to receive the nomination of his party for president in September, has dedicated considerable time and resources to his fundraising effort in recent weeks.
McCain’s campaign, which needed a $4 million loan in order to keep operating at the end of 2007, has seen a remarkable turnaround in its fundraising prowess. At a New York City fundraiser in early May, McCain raised $7 million in one evening.
Under a new fundraising structure created by the campaign and the Republican National Committee, a donor can give up to $70,000 to the “McCain Victory 2008,” significantly more than the $2,300 individual donor limit set by campaign finance laws. If a donor gives the maximum amount the money is split into multiple funds that all benefit McCain’s campaign: the first $2,300 of that money goes to the McCain campaign itself, the next $28,000 goes to the RNC, and the rest is divided among four swing states the campaign plans to target in the general election. Those targeted states are: Wisconsin, Minnesota, Colorado and New Mexico.
Interesting that this early on McCain is targeting Wisconsin and Minnesota - both States when for Kerry in 2004, and McCain is already trying to poach them…and I’ll bet he’s got a good shot at both. The bad news is that we’ve got to shore ourselves up in Colorado, which is becoming the most Democrat of the Mountain West States (though still, on balance, Republican); New Mexico is a State we lost in 2000, won in 2004…both by excruciatingly narrow margins, so it could literally go either way in 2008.
Anyways, a good month for McCain on a lot of levels - Democrats still battling, Obama on the defensive and looking absurd on foreign affairs, Democrats still spending money like water, McCain able to present a consistent message of genuine reform…and his fundraising is picking up. Now, how about you stop by and pony up?
Tags: fundraising, Swing States
May 21st, 2008
While fat cats are out there buying Obama and Hillary still has massive questions about her fundraising - past and present - it takes a Democrat to just ignore all that, and turn about and try to trip McCain up on what is, at worst, a campaign finance technicality:
The Democratic National Committee announced today it will file a lawsuit in U.S. District Court Monday to force Sen. John McCain to stay in the public financing system until he formally accepts the Republican presidential nomination in September.
The lawsuit asks the Court to compel the FEC to conduct an investigation into McCain’s decision to unilaterally withdraw from the public financing system, and, should the FEC continue to fail to do so, to allow the DNC to sue McCain directly for disobeying campaign finance laws.
“We believe he’s breaking the law every day,” said DNC Executive Director Tom McMahon on a conference call Sunday.
The complaint faces some significant hurdles. For one, the FEC is hamstrung from dealing with the complex legal issues by a shortage of commissioners — four of six seats are vacant pending senate confirmations — and each additional step in the suit would drag out the process. So long as it remains unresolved, McCain will be able to continue to spend above the primary limits.
Then there is the McCain campaign’s argument — crafted by the candidate’s lawyer, a former FEC chairman — that public financing is voluntary, and McCain had every right to withdraw from the system when it became clear the campaign wouldn’t need federal matching money.
Why are Democrats doing this? Two reasons:
1. They want to prevent McCain from effectively capitalising on the mess in the Democratic nominating process. As time goes on, the fissures in the Democratic party grow wider and cobbling the coaltion back together in September is already going to be hard enough - they don’t want it to also have to overcome months of McCain presenting a postive image of himself to the national audience.
2. They want to deflect attention from the campaign finance irregularities prevalent not just in the Democratic Presidential campaigns, but throughout the larger party, and of course in those “independent” expenditures which always seem to dovetail so nicely into DNC plans. Muddy the waters and hope to coast past the election before anyone really calls into question what the Democrats have been up to.
There is something extra disgusting in the party which patented illegal campaign finance presuming to tell Mr. Campaign Finance Reform that he’s in violation of the finance laws. While the likes of William Jefferson still sit in the Democratic House caucus, is this really the proper time for Democrats to concern themselves with the more arcane aspects of our campaign laws? Well, yes, of course it is - Jefferson and his cold, hard cash aren’t a problem - McCain is. Why is that? Because McCain poses a threat of Democratic defeat in November, and that - for Democrats - is the worst thing which can happen. Next to that, a mere dishonest slander of an American hero is nothing…
Tags: fundraising, liberal lies
April 14th, 2008
A pretty good start:
WASHINGTON (AP) - Sen. John McCain raised more than $15 million in March for his presidential campaign, a top performance for the likely Republican nominee that still falls far short of the cash gathered by rival Democratic Sens. Barack Obama and Hillary Rodham Clinton.
The amount was confirmed to The Associated Press by two campaign officials speaking on condition of anonymity because the numbers haven’t been made public.
One official said McCain intends to accept public financing in the general election - a sum of about $84 million. McCain donors are now being asked to supplement that public financing with donations to the Republican National Committee, with a goal of raising $120 million through a joint Victory Committee.
And, yes, it is far short of what the Democrats are raking in - but, fortunately, they are also spending money like water in their nomination fight. Broke and exhausted is just how we want the Democrats in September.
Meanwhile, we do have to help our man McCain out, and just this evening I ponied up $50.00. Isn’t it time that you, too, joined the battle? Head over to McCain’s website, and make a donation for victory.
Tags: fundraising
April 8th, 2008
It is a curious election year, that is for sure:
As national Democrats gloat about a massive fundraising advantage the party’s House and Senate campaign committees hold over their GOP counterparts, the story on a statewide level is decidedly different, and local Republican parties could provide a key cash advantage in several states, reports filed with the Federal Election Commission show. In the forty three states where parties report their financial situations on a monthly basis, Republicans hold a cash advantage in twenty five, many of them battlegrounds that will feature prominently in both the presidential contest and in down-ballot races on which federal dollars can be spent.
While fundraising on behalf of the National Republican Congressional Committee and the National Republican Senatorial Committee has lagged far behind that of Democrats’, some GOP donors frustrated with their party in Washington have found other outlets for their contributions. All told, Republican state parties raised nearly $13.4 million in federal dollars, known as “hard money,” this cycle through February, while Democratic parties have hauled in $9 million in the same period, according to data compiled by one GOP operative and verified by Real Clear Politics.
When you break it down into battleground States, it becomes even more stark. Real Clear Politics points out that in Pennsylvania the GOP holds a 10 to 1 money advantage over the Democrats, while even in Ohio - a disaster for the GOP in 2006 - the GOP has more than twice the available funds than the Democrats.
Why is this? Perhaps GOP donors, still ticked off at the Congressional GOP, are shifting their donations to the State parties? And this, in turn, may indicate that the Democrats supposed fundraising advantage isn’t as high as it seems; perhaps it isn’t so much a lack of GOP enthusiasm, but a lack of focus for such enthusiasm? Only time will tell on this.
Tags: fundraising
March 29th, 2008
Interesting - from Real Clear Politics:
The host committee for the 2008 Democratic National Convention in Denver has missed a key fundraising goal, the Rocky Mountain News reports today. The committee, which was supposed to come up with $28 million by yesterday, stands about $5 million short, according to a spokesman.
It is the second time Denver has missed a deadline, making some nervous the party might not reach the $40.6 million goal by mid-June. Even that figure, the spokesman said, is probably short of the $45 to $50 million convention organizers will need to operate the four-day event without going into debt. Those watching convention fundraising suggest the shortfall is caused by the lack of a Democratic nominee.
The report does go on to note that the Convention fundraising is still outpacing 2004’s effort - and so is the GOP’s Convention fundraising effort. But one is left thinking - are Hillary and Obama just sucking up all the Democratic money? Will there be enough left for the Convention and the fall campaign? And not just the Presidential contests, but all those down-ballot contests for House, Senate, State legislature and governorship?
Time will tell…
Tags: 2008 Campaign, Denver, fundraising
March 19th, 2008
Perhaps she’s not as finished as some people think:
WASHINGTON - More than doubling her January fundraising total, Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton’s advisers said Thursday that she will raise $35 million in February, a figure rival Sen. Barack Obama’s campaign said it would surpass.
The $35 million would be Clinton’s biggest fundraising mark yet and represents a remarkable recovery for her campaign. Obama raised more than she did last month, $36 million to $14 million, and she was forced to lend her campaign $5 million.
“It was incredibly gratifying to see people come forth with this vote of confidence in me,” Clinton told reporters in Hanging Rock, Ohio. “Obviously this is a tremendous benefit to my campaign.”
Obama’s campaign, reacting promptly to her campaign announcement, promised an even higher number but divulged no totals.
Raise and spend, raise and spend, Democrats - just that much less for you in the fall, which is fine by me.
As for the practical aspects of this - money doesn’t mean victory, but clearly Hillary still has some reservoirs of support out there; whether it will be enough for her to rebound in the votes is something we’ll have to see.
Tags: fundraising
February 29th, 2008
Money in politics - boy, are well all tired of it, right? I mean, if we could only get the money of Big Oil, Big Tobacco, Big Insurance and Big Pharmacy out of politics, we’d at last be able to get some laws passed for the benefit of the common people.
So goes the theory - and to back it up, we can see that since 1990, Big Oil has put $211 million into politics, Big Pharmacy $150 million, Big Tobacco $59 million and Big Insurance $283 million. That’s a lot of infuence-buying, ain’t it? If we could just get that money out of politics, we’d have such a much better country…right?
Well, perhaps…but if we could get Big Lawyer’s $866 million out of politics, I think we’d have a better shot at cleaning up the mess. I mean, given that Big Laywer has given more than Big Oil, Big Tobacco, Big Insurance and Big Pharmacy, combined. Oh, and does anyone want to guess which party has been the recipient of 73% of that Big Lawyer money?
Source: Open Secrets
Tags: fundraising, money in politics
February 16th, 2008
Lets see where we are so far in 2008.
According to Open Secrets:
- Big Tobacco has given substantially less than $2 million - 60% to Republicans, 40% to Democrats.
- Big Telecommunications has given a bit more than $3 million - 53% to Republicans, 36% to Democrats.
- Big Accountant has given a bit more than $6 million - 52% to Republicans, 47% to Democrats.
- Big Casino has given a bit more than $6 million - 60% to Democrats, 40% to Republicans.
- Big Pharmacy has given a bit more than $9 million - 51% to Democrats, 49% to Republicans.
- Big Oil has given a bit more than $9 million - 72% to Republicans, 28% to Democrats.
- Big Education has given about $12 million - 76% to Democrats, 24% to Republicans
- Big Lobbyist has given a bit more than $13 million - 57% to Democrats, 43% to Republicans.
- Big Bank has given a bit more than $14 million - 51% to Democrats, 49% to Republicans.
- Big Hollywood has given a bit more than $15 million - 77% to Democrats, 23% to Republicans.
- Big Insurance has given about $16 million - 50.5% to Republicans, 49.5% to Democrats.
- Big Lawyer has given a bit more than $82 million - 77% to Democrats, 23% to Republicans.
I guess this all means the Democrats are right - we GOPers are bought and paid for by Big Tobacco, Telecommunications, Accountant and Oil, while Big Insurance hedges its bets…still, at least we’re not as completely and fully bought as the Democrats are by Big Casino, Pharmacy, Education, Lobbyist, Bank, Hollywood and Lawyer. I mean, think of it - if you add up all the money the GOP has been given by Oil and Tobacco, its nothing compared to what Democrats have receved from Big Lawyer, alone.
Now, money buys influence - who do you want your government influenced by - oil companies who actually make something useful, or lawyers who sue everyone over nothing?
We report, you decide.
Tags: fundraising
February 15th, 2008
Yeah, I ponied up - gotta win this year, ya know?
Hey, have you thought about just what a President Hillary Clinton or President Barack Obama would be like?
Ok, now that you’ve got that nightmare firmly in your head, perhaps a trip over to the RNC would be a worthwhile activity?
Tags: fundraising, RNC
January 25th, 2008
Interesting:
Republican National Committee Chairman Robert M. “Mike” Duncan announced today that the RNC raised more than $83 million in 2007, easily outpacing the Democrat National Committee and even the RNC’s own internal goals.
“Across the country, millions of hard-working Americans are rejecting the Democrat vision of higher taxes, government-run health care, and retreat from the War on Terror,” Duncan said. “They know that it is the Republican Party that has a positive vision for our future – a future with lower taxes, limited government, and a strong national defense. That is the vision Americans expect from their leaders and a critical factor in our successful year.”
In raising more than $83 million over the course of the year, more than 800,000 supporters sent an average of $227,000 to the RNC every single day. The RNC is debt free and had $17.2 million cash on hand at the end of the year, all of which will be dedicated to helping elect Republicans in 2008.
“Our goals in 2008 are simple: we are going to elect a strong Republican to succeed George W. Bush in the White House and elect more Republicans to the U.S. House and Senate,” Duncan added. “These resources will give us a head start from the very beginning of 2008.”
We should keep in mind, however, that our House and Senate Republicans aren’t doing nearly as well - but the fact that the RNC, in a very hostile environment, has managed to out-raise the supposedly riding-high Democrats shows that things aren’t, perhaps, as the MSM and Democratic spinmeisters would like us to believe.
Tags: 2008 Campaign, fundraising
January 2nd, 2008
Ron Paul received a $500.00 donation from a racist named Don Black (he runs a website which shan’t be named here, nor linked - look it up if you are really determined about seeing it). Paul says he won’t return the money because by taking that $500.00, he gives Black that much less money to spend on hatred, and it gives Paul that much more money to spread the libertarian message. Frank James over at The Swamp has this to say about it:
… lot of money is given to candidates by supporters with views out of the mainstream, views many other Americans would find objectionable. That’s a given. The only difference is that Black doesn’t hide his views.
Still, the unwritten rule in politics is that when you find yourself getting money from someone controversial because of what they do or say, someone with views repugnant to most Americans, you give their cash back like it’s radioactive.
Paul’s approach is certainly unorthodox, like so much about the man. That doesn’t necessarily make it wrong. And because it’s so different a way of handling such a situation, it presents an opportunity for a discussion about what’s right and wrong in such situations. In short, it makes you think.
Does it? Perhaps. Certainly it makes me think that Paul - a Christian, like me - has a practical amorality in is public actions. This would be in keeping with libertarian thinking, and it why the only thing, in my view, worse than a libertarian is a totalitarian. We are to be neither sheep nor wolves in our dealings with others - neither cowards nor predators. Ron Paul may rationalise his refusal to return a racist’s donation all he wishes, but the real effect of his action is to legitimise evil. Evil there is in this world, and we humans beings are incapable of eliminating it - but wise men and women will shun evil whenever they see it.
Black is free to hold whatever views he wishes, but as his views are evil, I want nothing to do with them, or him - and I’d much prefer it if I never come within a country mile of him or his views except to call him to repentance and with a mind to teaching him that we are all children of God, and thus brothers and sisters. Were Black to ever give me $500, I wouldn’t return it (Paul is right about the good in lessening Black’s resources for speading evil), but I wouldn’t keep it, either - I’d send it along to, say, Missionaries of the Poor (which, being that it is Christmas, you might want to send a few bucks to, anyways) - and ask them to send a kind thank you to Black, along with a picture of the people his donation helped (they are headquartered in Jamaica, ya see?).
Life is a series of opportunties for us to do the right thing - it is not a zero sum game, and its primary purpose isn’t our selves. Each decision is a chance to make the world a better place, and it is a shame that Paul takes such a narrow view of his moral obligations to society as a whole.
Tags: 2008 Campaign, Extremism, fundraising
December 23rd, 2007
Given this:
Last week, for the first time, Ms. Winfrey endorsed a political candidate, Senator Barack Obama, Democrat from Illinois. In an interview on “Larry King Live” on CNN, she said she was backing the senator “because I know him personally.”
Ms. Winfrey said that she had not made a financial contribution to Mr. Obama’s campaign, but acknowledged that her public endorsement was probably far more valuable. Campaign finance laws would prohibit her from donating more than $2,300 in the primary and $2,300 in the general election. (emphasis added)
Does Oprah’s public endorsement of Obama constitute an illegal, in-kind donation to Obama’s campaign? What, after all, would be the going rate to get Oprah to endorse a product or service? Such an endorsement could very well be something that would command a fee of millions of dollars. Just how much air time has this endorsement generated on television and radio? In print? What would be the cost to Obama’s campaign to actually pay for that sort of saturation?
You see, lefties, when you get into the game of regulating free speech by regulating who can give to what and how much, you open up a very large can of worms - and I think that a very strong case could be made under that CFR you so loudly called for that Oprah and Obama are commiting a very serious violation of the law…this is getting massive amounts of money into politics and it could, indeed, sway the election. One day, Obama might be sworn in as President because Oprah endorsed him and gave him a huge boost which would have cost him tens of millions of dollars to otherwise produce…and the boost he’s getting simply cannot be replicated by his opponents.
Remember, your theory underlying CFR is that it shuts out the common man from the political debate - unless you want to consider a billionaire like Oprah to be “common”, then you will have to admit that The Rich are very strongly influencing the campaign for the Democratic nomination and that this, under your leftwing definition, is unfair to everyone else in the Democratic party - and illegal under the laws you demanded.
What is your answer to this?
Tags: 2008 Campaign, fundraising, Oprah
December 10th, 2007
Ian Schwartz brought my attention to this story, which shows that dead people are still making political contributions… and a majority of those contributions from deceased is going toward Democrats and their committees.
Tags: fundraising
December 1st, 2007
Newer Posts
