Progress Illinois

GOP Rep. Mark Kirk was the first Senate candidate to announce his third quarter fundraising totals yesterday, disclosing that he had brought in $1.6 million and ended the filing period with $2.3 million cash on hand.  In the 24 hours since, three of the Democratic candidates have put out their own figures. 

Former Chicago Inspector General David Hoffman was first.  He says that he raised $400,000 and loaned his campaign an additional $500,000, while spending about $50,000.  Attorney David Meister raised $27,000 from outside sources, while loaning his campaign $1 million. Last but not least, State Treasurer Alexi Giannoulias announced that he raised $1.1 million ("a total that does not include any contributions from Giannoulias' personal funds") and ended the third quarter with $2.4 million on hand -- more than any of the other candidates.  He previously raised $670,000 during the second quarter and $1.1 million during the first.

From a press release:

"I am honored so many have given so generously of themselves in these trying economic times.  Our fundraising total demonstrates that people believe we can change how Washington works, create better opportunities for Illinoisans and get our nation back on track," said Giannoulias. [...]

"Lobbyists and special interests in Washington have blocked change for too long. Mark Kirk has taken their money and voted their way and the people of Illinois deserve better," Giannoulias concluded.

Cheryle Robinson Jackson has yet to release any details of her fundraising efforts.

Via Capitol Fax, Cal Skinner notes on his blog that $1.2 million of the $1.3 million in contributions reported by state representative and potential Democratic gubernatorial candidate Jack Franks actually came from himself and five other individuals.  Three of those major contributors share his last name:

- Eileen Franks, Eileen, Occupation: retired, Marengo - $450,000
- Herbert H. Franks, Occupation: attorney, Marengo - $250,000
- Deborah Franks, Occupation: housewife. Marengo - $200,000

This is one way to make yourself look like a legitimate statewide candidate: Log some huge donations by close friends or family, generate some buzz, and attempt to convert it into some actual fundraising.  Then, later in the campaign, maybe some of those large contributions get refunded.  We'll see.

And if you need some idea what a Franks for Illinois campaign will sound like, be sure to listen to this audio of him railing against the stopgap budget -- from the right -- on the House floor last week:

Internal mp3

FRANKS: What we've been doing is we've been focusing on redistribution of wealth.  We've been talking about tax increases when we should be talking about growing the economy so more people can get to work.  And we have to lift people up -- not hold them back.

"Redistribution of wealth"?  Sounds an awful lot like the McCain playbook, doesn't it? 

In the first 15 days of October, Democratic challenger Dan Seals outpaced GOP Rep. Mark Kirk in fundraising by more than $100,000.  According to his "pre-general" Federal Election Commission filing, Seals raised $233,000 during this brief period, retaining $269,000 cash-on-hand. Meanwhile, Kirk raised $127,000 and was left with $885,000 cash-on-hand. 

Seals is also benefiting from the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee's huge, last-minute advertising buy in the district. The Swing State Project recently reported that, on October 28, the DCCC dropped $957,000 on the race.

GOP congressional candidate Marty Ozinga had loaned $320,000 of his own money to his 11th District campaign by the end of the third quarter. Campaign finance reports show that, in the month since, he has given an additional $250,000 to the effort, bringing his total personal contribution to $570,000 this election year. This amount flies in the face of Ozinga's statement in September that he wouldn't be "writing big checks for my own campaign. I just don't believe in that."

It also begs the queston: if the Supreme Court had not struck down the Millionaire's Amendment earlier this year, would Democrat Debbie Halvorson now be able to raise some last-minute funds from her maxed-out donors?

First some background.

Continue reading »

Yesterday, marked the deadline for congressional candidates to file their quarterly fundraising reports.  As in the first and second quarters, we've compiled the figures in the table below.

Continue reading »

After GOP Rep. Mark Kirk last week reported raising $850,000 during the third quarter, Democratic challenger Dan Seals announced some impressive numbers of his own this morning.  From a press release:

Today, Democratic Congressional Candidate Dan Seals' campaign reported that it had raised over $700,000 in the 3rd financial quarter, posting their strongest quarterly numbers yet. While Mark Kirk's fundraising stalled—he reported raising less than he had during the 2nd financial quarter—Seals' campaign fundraising continued to build momentum, raising approximately $70,000 more than he had in the previous 3 month period.

On the tails of the Research 2000 poll released yesterday showing a six-point race, the Seals campaign has to be feeling pretty good today.

We noted on Wednesday that Democratic congressional candidate Scott Harper's fundraising during the 2nd quarter was sure to raise eyebrows in the 13th District and beyond. Indeed, after hearing the news that Harper kept pace with GOP Rep. Judy Biggert -- raising $228,000 to her $240,000 -- the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee released this statement:

"Illinois voters have had enough of out of touch politicians like Congresswoman Biggert who rubber stamps President Bush’s failed agenda and is beholden to special interests. During these tough economic times, Scott Harper is winning over middle class families with his message of bringing people together to end our dependence on foreign oil, create jobs and deliver change."

The Harper campaign also sent out a memo featuring some interesting breakdowns of his fundraising totals, as well as some historical perspective:

- Harper raised $185,000 from individual contributors, which was a $55,000 advantage over Biggert.

- Harper had already raised more by the end of March than any Democratic candidate here has ever raised for an entire cycle.

- Scott has already raised more than the combined cycle totals of the last four Democratic candidates.

- Harper has received individual contributes from 732 donors compared to Biggert’s 534.

As we reported back in April, Biggert is on the DCCC's list of "targeted Republicans."

Could it be that many 10th Congressional District voters are starting to sour on GOP Rep. Mark Kirk and his repeated lies and distortions? In an email to supporters, Democratic challenger Dan Seals reported today that his campaign raised $635,000 from over 2,000 contributors in the second quarter, a personal record for the North Shore Democrat. The numbers are even more encouraging when compared to the second quarter of his 2006 bid for the 10th District seat, when he raised $391,250. From the release:

"Dan's message of bringing change to Washington continues to build unprecedented momentum across the 10th district," Seals Campaign Manager Patrick Mogge said. "While Mark Kirk has relied on playing the fear card against Dan and Barack Obama, 10th district voters have turned out in overwhelming numbers to volunteer and contribute to Dan's campaign to show that they are fed up with this type of politics. Like Dan, they know our country can do better and that it is time for a new direction in Washington."

Seals has raised approximately $2.1 million during the 2008 cycle, more than he did during his entire 2006 campaign for Congress.

UPDATED (7/8): Yikes. Kirk's second quarter numbers came out today. He raised $900,000 and has $2.85 million cash on hand.

This morning, the Obama campaign released the following video, in which Barack explains their decision to forgo public financing in the general election:

This decision isn't at all surprising. I don't think anyone thought Obama was going to retire his truly remarkable fundraising apparatus at this juncture. But what we get to see here is how the campaign plans to frame this decision in the face of impending criticism from McCain: "Declare your independence from this broken system and let’s build the first general election campaign that’s truly funded by the American people."

Today, the U.S. Supreme Court will hear a legal challenge to the Millionaires' Amendment, a section of the 2002 McCain-Feingold campaign finance reform bill that loosens fundraising limits for opponents of wealthy candidates who cut big checks to their own campaigns.

Jack Davis, a Democratic businessman who ran unsuccessfully for Congress in upstate New York last cycle, is challenging the provision, suggesting that the law violates his First Amendment and equal protection rights and deters wealthy people from running for office.

Many Republicans at both the state and national level would likely be thrilled to see the law overturned. Struggling to keep up in fundraising, they've turned to millionaire self-funders with increasing frequency; here in Illinois, Steve Sauerberg, Jim Oberweis, Steve Greenberg, and Marty Ozinga are all great examples. In the 14th Congressional District, Oberweis did his best to sidestep the campaign finance law during his special election race against Bill Foster, even though his campaign claimed unintentional errors accounted for the misunderstanding.

But if I was working at the NRCC, I wouldn't hold my breath. It will be pretty shocking if Davis wins his appeal, considering that his claims don't hold up under serious scrutiny. Look no further than this editorial in The New York Times today:

These claims are baseless. As the three-judge court that initially heard the case noted, the millionaires’ amendment does not deprive anyone of free-speech rights or the ability to spend money to run for office. Mr. Davis was able to spend as much of his own fortune as he wanted. The amendment simply adds to the total amount of speech by making it easier for less-wealthy candidates to be heard.

There is also no sign that the amendment is discouraging the wealthy from running or spending. The very rich are represented in Congress in large numbers. Contrary to Mr. Davis’s claims of “chilling,” the number of candidates who spent more than $1 million of their own money actually increased after the amendment took effect. It is now common for party recruiters to seek out “self-financing” — or wealthy — candidates.

The appeal is so one-sided that even the Bush Administration agrees that the provision is a "modest and constitutionally appropriate attempt to counteract the perception that a candidate who is wealthy enough can buy a seat in Congress." And that's saying something.