burlingtonfreepress.com

Sponsored by:

vt.Buzz ~ a political blog

Political notes from Free Press staff writers Terri Hallenbeck, Sam Hemingway and Nancy Remsen


2.06.2007

 

Money matters

Some musing on the final House and Senate campaign finance reports, which were filed with the Federal Election Commission last week.

Consider this. The year-end FEC filings show that Democratic Congressman Peter Welch ended his campaign with $328,351 in cash on hand. That's a nice chunk of change to build on for his re-election run in 2008. It's also a new post-election record for a rookie member of Vermont's Congressional delegation.

According to the ever-useful folks at Political Moneyline, Bernie Sanders had only $3,216 in his campaign account balance after winning his first race for Congress in 1990. Heck, Sanders didn't amass the kind of post-election cash-on-hand money Welch has right now until after Bernie had won his fourth re-election race in 1998.

Still need to be impressed? Political Moneyline records indicate Welch is more flush with post-election cash than Jim Jeffords was when he won his initial Senate race in 1988, and that was AFTER Jeffords had been in Congress for 14 years. Even Leahy didn't have this kind of post-election stash until after his 2004 non-contest with Republican Jack McMullen, 20 years after Pat's arrival in Washington.

Other do-dads from the FEC files. It appears Republican Martha Rainville had to pass the hat among her friends in December in order to collect $3,407 in additional funds after her November loss to Welch in order to stay in the black with her final report-- barely. She also got a $1,000 donation post-election donation from what looks a political action committee fr state Rep. Rick Hube, R-Londonderry. Bottom line: Rainville has just $162.71 left in her account. Makes you wonder if she wants in on a 2008 rematch with Welch.

Over in the Senate, Sanders ended up with $177,466 in his account after the most expensive Senate race in Vermont history. Sanders went into the 2006 election cycle with $612,195 in cash on hand. You can bet he'll be replenishing that account bigtime between now and 2012.

And what of Rich Tarrant, the multi-millionaire IDX co-founder who had already spent a jaw-dropping $6,925,000 of his own money in his 33-percentage loss to Sanders. Turns out he had to drop another $25,000 into his account on Dec. 21 in order to pay some final campaign-related bills. He has $15,459 in cash on hand left in his federal account, but who's counting.

You can go to fec.com to check the latest FEC reports out for yourself, but I suggest you click HERE, which will take you to Political Moneyline. It has the figures and easier access to past campaigns, plus some interesting breakdowns on contributors and expenses.

-- Sam Hemingway

Comments:
This only tells part of the story.

Keep in mind that Martha got a LOT more help from the Republican National party than Welch got from the Democratic National party.

I don't have the numbers in front of me, but the RNC spent almost as much, or more on Martha's campaign than Martha did.
 
Money isn't everything - look at the difference in the state Auditors race. Or look at how much money Matt Dunne spent - to no avail.
 
A real strong showing here for Welch. He is well positioned for 2008. Another sign of a well run and disciplined campaign. Martha still has her clean campaign pledge. And of course the 161 dollars.
 
Looks like Bernie was trying to run up the score big time on Tarrent.
 
Now, once and for all, can we please dispose of the meme going forward about how it is the Republicans who are the monied party in Vermont? It is indisputable that the Democrats are the party of the well-heeled, unearned income crowd. When Republcians are flush with cash, its shows how callow and beholden to monied interests they are. When Dems have the cash, however, it magically becomes a sign that they are the anointed ones.
 
Yes, the Vermont Dems have a lot of money.

The Vermont Repubs have just as much and -- in the case of Tarrant and Douglas -- much more.

Both parties raise heavily from out of state.

Heck, half of the money spent on Martha's campaign didn't even hit her campaign bank account. It was raised and spent by the national party.
 
In Vermont, Democrats hold their own on fundraising.

On the national level, Republicans spend much more on their campaigns.
 
I think Campaign Finance is the biggest non-issue in politics today. Let them take whatever they want from whomever they want but let's make sure that it all is disclosed to the public. No limits, full disclosure. That way our lawmakers can forget about trying to "clean up" elections and this other BS and get down to solving the real problems facing our country and world. I think it's wrong that our lawmakers and our media spend more time worrying about Campaign Financing than about the genocide in Darfur.
 
If they spend less time talking about campaign finance, they'll use it to talk about Britney Spears and Lindsay Lohan.

They aren't going to talk about Darfur.
 
That's wrong. Political reporters from major news outlets are not going to be spending time covering Lindsay Lohan and Britney Spears. Furthermore, I can guarantee that Congress will not be discussing Spears or Lohan; it'd be nice if they spent some time dealing with real political issues.
 
"Political reporters from major news outlets are not going to be spending time covering Lindsay Lohan"

Yea, they are. And yea, they do.

It is wrong ... but they do it.

Read a major national newspaper lately? They report of Lindsay Lohan.

Sorry.
 
When's the last time that the first section of the NY Times has featured a story on Lindsay Lohan by one of the Times's POLITICAL, not cultural/arts, reporters?

Basically, your argument doesn't make any sense. It doesn't come down to Lohan/Spears or Campaign Finance. Those are not the decisions that editors at REAL newspapers are making.
 
Editors in REAL newspapers aren't talking about Darfur.

REAL newspapers devote tons more space to entertainment and what's on TV than they do to campaign finance and Darfur put together.

REAL NEWSPAPERS AREN'T TALKING ABOUT DARFUR.

THEY AREN'T GOING TO TALK ABOUT DARFUR.

99% AMERICANS ARE NOT PAYING ATTENTION TO DARFUR.

IT'S TRAGIC ... IT S@CKS ... IT'S A FACT. I'M SORRY.

Ignoring campaign finance issues won't change that.
 
New York Times Front-Page Headline 2/9/07:

"JUDGE BLOCKS REQUEST FOR ANNA NICOLE SMITH'S DNA"

(no stories about Darfur.)

The Washington Post Front-Page Headaline 2/9/07:

"ANNA NICOLE'S HAPPILY EVER AFTER"

(no stories about Darfur.)
 
Post a Comment



<< Home

Recent Posts

Recent Comments

Archives

June 2006   July 2006   August 2006   September 2006   October 2006   November 2006   December 2006   January 2007   February 2007   March 2007   April 2007   May 2007   June 2007   July 2007   August 2007   September 2007   October 2007   November 2007   December 2007   January 2008   February 2008   March 2008   April 2008   May 2008   June 2008   July 2008   August 2008   September 2008   October 2008   November 2008   December 2008   January 2009   February 2009   March 2009   April 2009   May 2009   June 2009   July 2009   August 2009   September 2009   October 2009   November 2009   December 2009   January 2010   February 2010   March 2010   April 2010