Friday, March 24, 2006

Big Money: Part 2

The Times- Standard proves once again that anybody who's anybody in this county checks out my blog by their follow up on my Big Money post of yesterday. A little more info in their story than the Eureka Reporter's. Of course, they had the advantage of checking out this blog and reading the comments to get some ideas of what to include in their story.

For one thing, they mention that the Gallegos campaign spent something like $5000 on "polling and survey research". I think it would be fair to assume that means the push polls we were talking about yesterday. Now, aren't we all proud of ourselves for bringing up the subject?

I also found it interesting that, in most of the other races the Times- Standard mentions, what would be considered the left leaning candidates seem to be raising the most money. Bonnie Neely's raised something like three times the money Nancy Flemming has in the race for 1st District Supervisor. Nothing filed by self- described progressive, Richard Marks, the other candidate in that race. He's probably not planning on raising enough money to have to file papers.

Jill Geist has raised around three times more than challenger, Pat Higgins. This would be a hard one to say that the lefty in the race has out raised the other candidate since Higgins claims Geist isn't far enough to the left as she should be, for his tastes anyway. I guess we should take him at his word for it. He'd probably know better than we do how far to the left he is, at this point in time, anyway.

Proponents of Measure T have really beat the stuffings out of my very own No On Measure T Committee with close to $7000 raised to our $431. Of course, they've been at it for quite a while longer than us NO folks. Not sure if we're planning a big fund raising effort, or not. The Measure T folks have the inherent advantage of raising unlimited funds, though, whereas the NO folks have set a voluntary contribution limit of $500. A pretty funny situation in itself, it seems to me.

Oh, and if you haven't seen it, yet, I got a mention in the Times- Standard story towards the end. Yet another 15 minutes of fame for me!

I suppose, as far as the candidates are concerned, the big lead in fund raising by most of the lefties has to do with the advantage of incumbency. I guess that's bound to happen. Incumbents always have a big advantage over challengers. You'd think, though, that with all the whining over money in politics, some of the whiners would vote for the candidates and causes with the least money.

They never do, though. The only bad money in politics in most people's minds is the money that goes to the candidate they don't like.

18 Comments:

At 9:31 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

It is easy to limit contributions when the parents and kids in your family can each give $500. See p. 1 in today's T-S if you have doubt about this one. We will also see what right-wing anonymous 527's enter the fray this year.

 
At 10:10 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Whaaaa?

You are critical because a family multiple family members can individually give 500$, and say that its the same as getting 15 thousand from another "family member" Limiting everyone across the board to 500$ is a good thing -Nice attempt at trying to spin this one R. Trent, but it won't work. And at least the family members you referenced are local not out of state. And whats with Gallegos getting 50% of his contributions from out of the area folks? Not much support locally is there for this local solutions pawn!

 
At 10:24 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Who are the out of state contributers? Could they be family members? I don't see how that's wrong...

 
At 10:28 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

You just did in your 9:31 blog, but nice try Richard.

 
At 10:38 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

go suck some conservative dick asshole

 
At 10:47 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

New it was your Richard Salzman. Go wash your mouth out with soap!

GOTTCHA!

 
At 11:09 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

(sigh) My original comment was made in good faith. I am not Richard Salzman, but I guess that doesn't really matter to you. And I am not the same anonymous that refers to oral sex so gracefully. Peace.

 
At 11:50 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Thank you 11:09, it does matter - it matters a great deal. My apologies if you are not, but why did you add the name Salzman after "Richard" when I didn't use it in my blogs?

But I guess that 10:38 is Richard by his interesting and unique use of the english language.

No suprise there though, he has been so camped out at Gallegos' campaign headquarters banging away at the computer that it looks like he is super-glued to the seat.

 
At 12:52 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

I have yet to see Salzman at the Gallegos headquarters and I have been there many times.

 
At 1:56 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Well, I have seen him. He was at the opening last month having people sign the balloon tract petition and my friend who works nearby saw him at the computer with a lot of beer cans all over the floor one morning.

 
At 2:03 PM, Blogger Fred said...

" saw him at the computer with a lot of beer cans all over the floor one morning."

Hey...my kind of guy. Salzman for D.A.!

 
At 2:18 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Fred: You crack me up. Maybe anon 10:38 should partake in a coldpack and chill out!

 
At 4:14 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Predictions for the Elections?

I say Gallegos wins carrying 58% of the vote

Neely wins carrying 60% of the vote

 
At 8:51 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

I say the opposite is true. Gallegos is toast.

"Talented visionary" he is not.

 
At 11:29 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Neely 40% Marks 35% Flemming 25% in the 4th district race. Run off in November

 
At 11:51 AM, Anonymous JJ said...

In Your Dreams Anon 11:29

 
At 1:12 PM, Blogger Fred said...

I won't be so bold as to hazard a guess in that race, at least not yet.

 
At 6:30 AM, Blogger Fred said...

Anon 11:29 said: "Neely 40% Marks 35% Flemming 25% in the 4th district race".

I really don't think you'll come in second in that race, Richard, but best of luck.

It's more likely that the top two will be Neely and Flemming with any votes going to you taking votes that would otherwise be Neely's. That might throw the race to Flemming, but I won't bet money on it.

 

Post a Comment

<< Home