Money Is An Issue In The 14th Congressional Race

by: WurfWhile

Sun Dec 09, 2007 at 00:27:24 AM CST


Money is a big issue in the 14th Congressional race - but too many people are confusing the issue.  Let's get some basics out of the way:

  • I believe in public financing of elections - but I don't believe in unilateral disarmament.

  • Leading Republican Jim Oberweis has said he will spend as much as $2.5 million of his own money for the primary and another $2.5 million for the general election - and experience suggests he could do that or more.

  • Leading Republican Chris Lauzen has already loaned his campaign $325,000 - and had $525,000 cash on hand in his third quarter FEC report.

    Now, let me tell you about a Democratic candidate who is running in the 14th congressional district.  

    		•
    WurfWhile :: Money Is An Issue In The 14th Congressional Race
    He's a long-time resident of the district and a first-time candidate.  He is working hard to raise campaign funds - making over 2,200 personal fundraising calls between August and October.  Here is what he's doing fundraising-wise:

  • In the 3rd Quarter he had 680 donors - 80% of them were first-time political contributors and his average donation was just above $300.

  • He led every other candidate in the race (both parties) in total small dollar (under $200) donations 3rd quarter - and came close to equaling all other candidates in total small dollar donation amounts.

  • He raised the second-highest donor dollar amount in the race 3rd quarter (both parties) - only $1,000 less than the top fundraising candidate, and leads all other Democrats in donor contributions for the whole race - exceeding the total amount of all their donor dollars.

  • He is the only Democratic candidate to raise more than $100,000 in a quarter - he raised over $200,000 in the 3rd quarter.

    Who is this candidate - the only Democratic candidate demonstrating any hope of the fundraising ability necessary to wage a competitive general election campaign in the 14th Congressional District? His name is Bill Foster.  As I've said before, Bill Foster's money is a real issue in this campaign.  He is the only grassroots fundraising candidate successfully reaching out to new and small donors.  The others are not.  

    Oh, and there's one other thing you should know about Bill Foster.  He's got the ability to go toe to toe financially with the Republican candidate in the general election.  Bill helped found a successful lighting company when he was 19 - and he's pledged that he will spend up to $1 million of his own money for the primary and up to $1 million of his own money in the general election.  No other Democrat is making similar promises.

    Money is an issue in the 14th Congressional race.  Bill Foster is the only Democrat showing a grasp of the issue - no matter how you look at it.

    		•
    Tags: , , , , , , , , (All Tags)
    Print Friendly View Send As Email
    Money Is An Issue In The 14th Congressional Race | 71 comments
    Small problem Hiram (0.00 / 0)
    Oberweis' net worth is $53 million.  Any Dem who thinks they can outspend - or even compete with - Oberweis to win this election is doomed to disappointment.

    Oberweis has already said he plans on spending many more millions of his own cash than Foster plans on spending - or even HAS.  So any analysis that says Foster is the only Dem who can compete with Oberweis on cash is deeply flawed at the base of it: because Foster just can not get anywhere near Oberweis' ballpark.

    Money decides it = Congressman Oberweis

    So you might as well go ahead and call the election now, if you believe money is and will be the deciding factor.

    The only way a Dem takes this district is not to play Oberweis' game on Oberweis' field.  And Foster is doing just that.

    flawed logic... (0.00 / 0)
    but then, you knew that.  it's not necessarily a function of who spends the most.  if that were the case, incumbents would never lose.  but there is a threshold that any competitive candidate most reach in order to compete.

    in this race, it's $3.8 million.  we know that both major republican candidates can reach this threshold.  the question is, can any democratic candidate?  and the answer to that question is, apparently.  bill foster at least is doing the work.

    your final sentence is pure hyperbole.  personally, i don't like depending on miracles to win elections.  i get that the laesch pack does, because that's all they have to offer.  but then, it's hard to consider them serious about winning.

    the fact is that we have real indicators that bill foster is serious about running for congress.  he's making the calls, he's making the rounds, he's winning support -- inside and outside the district.  i think jotham has also made a fine effort.  but john laesch hasn't.  a vote for laesch is a concession of the seat to republicans.  the choice that democrats in the 14th have is between sending a message to democrats or sending a democrat to congress.  you clearly prefer sending a message.  we'll see soon if democrats in the district share your ideological predilections...  

    "We did not come to fear the future. We came here to shape it." - President Obama, Sept 9, 2009

    [ Parent ]
    so... (0.00 / 0)
    why is $3.8 million the threshold? is that just for the general?

    if you want to have a chance to win a race, technically you just have to get your message out to a majority of people who will vote.  if those folks like your message best, you win.  you can get your message out mostly with volunteers, but cash is needed for things like phone lines, lit, etc.  what are the items that $3.8 million will pay for?

    and if it is $3.8 million, are we admitting that only a self-funder can compete anyhow?  how many candidates can raise that kind of money without putting in their own million or two?  how much has foster actually RAISED, if we are to understand him as the hardest working man in the CD-14 campaign business?  the fine effort by stein doesnt even matter if the bar is that high, so why point it out?


    William J Maggos

    [ Parent ]
    How Much Has Foster Raised? I Told You (0.00 / 0)
    Hi William,

    All numbers I wrote above for Bill Foster (not counting the $1 million mentioned at the end) are Raised numbers - that is the $209,000 third quarter is $209,000 Raised From 680 Non-Bill Foster Donors - yes, he did contribute $200,000 in matching funding in the third quarter (total raised in that sense $409,000) - but I did not mention Bill's money to himself - I was focus on what Bill raised from others - not himself.

    [ Parent ]
    sorry (0.00 / 0)
    you said over $200,000 in the 3rd quarter.  i didnt know how much over $200,000.  was/could anything be raised before that?  so again, even archpundit's more reasonable threshold of $500,000 seems only possible including both the primary and general periods for non-self funders who work as hard and have the big money connections like foster.  and like Michael and archpundit have said, that doesnt even count the ground game that so much time fundraising may impact negatively.

    it seems we all agree that you need to raise a certain level of money in each race and also need a great volunteer network to do the ground game.  it seems we greatly disagree on what that amount is in this race, and i dont think we appreciate how the volunteers need to be inspired and well led by the candidate.

    William J Maggos

    [ Parent ]
    bigger problem Hiram (0.00 / 0)
    the actual numbers:
    (courtesy of opensecrets.org:)

    As the costs of running for office have escalated, more and more candidates are jumping into politics using their personal fortune, rather than trying to raise all those funds from other people. Though they don't lack for money, self-funded candidates typically lose at the polls.

    Hmmm...

    [ Parent ]
    yep... (3.00 / 2)
    there's no question that the "recruit a self-funder and then forget about it" scenario doesn't work.  but bill foster doesn't fall into that category.  uniquely for a self-funder, foster volunteered (extensively) in a congressional race two years ago and got his feet wet.  in a sense, because he's had the good sense to a.) surround himself with good people (AND take their advice) and b.) seriously go out a raise money, he can't be tarred with the traditional self-funder label.  it is very, very unusual for self-funders to outraise their opponents, primarily because they are either too busy to raise money (why do so if they are going to put money in themselves) or they hate it as much as most people do.

    one of the benefits of raising money as normal congressional candidates do is that the conversations they have with potential contributors finds their way into their campaigns.  one of the reasons why i'm less concerned about what i consider foster's errors on things like a national id is that i understand that position will be moderated by actual contact with other people of means who understand the privacy implications that he's overlooked.

    john laesch doesn't have access to that same form of input because he refuses (basically) to do call time.  the problem y'all are going to have with foster is that he will continue to defy simplistic categorization.  but there's hope (i realize) in simplicity, and it's probably all y'all can hang your hats on...

    "We did not come to fear the future. We came here to shape it." - President Obama, Sept 9, 2009

    [ Parent ]
    not helpful (0.00 / 0)
    but there's hope (i realize) in simplicity, and it's probably all y'all can hang your hats on...

    William J Maggos
    [ Parent ]
    Other people of means? (0.00 / 0)
    Sorry to get into this so late, but I've just become a participant.  You said "I understand that position will be moderated by actual contact with other people of means who understand the privacy implications that he's overlooked."  You're saying that we shouldn't worry about gaps in a candidate's positions if the candidate can raise money from rich people?  You're saying that we can count on the rich to be sensitive to privacy issues that those of us in the great unwashed couldn't possibly appreciate?  You misspoke, right?  I'm reading too much into this, aren't I?
    [ Parent ]
    i think you misundertood the point... (0.00 / 0)
    when people raise money, they don't simply collect money from people.  the process of asking for one's support requires a conversation, one that necessarily reflects on what the (potential) supporter thinks is important.  this is more true for a non-incumbent than perhaps someone already in office.

    foster, being a new candidate, started from the position of what he thinks is important or a good idea.  those positions become moderated with contact with people, and, quite frankly, most politicians have a lot more contact with contributors than they do with constituents.  contributors are not only the people that candidates seek out, they are the people most likely to seek out candidates and elected officials.  contributors to political campaigns are much more engaged in politics and government, exponentially so.

    how you derived your conclusions from what i wrote is a mystery.  explaining how serious candidate's positions move because they have considerably more contact with other people and their political views than sheltered candidates (such as laesch) shouldn't be viewed as advice not to worry. you should always worry about people in power.  that's the minimal participation that we have in a democracy.  our system of government is not vote-and-forget-it.  we have a role in the process every day.

    not understanding where you're coming from, i have no idea why you would think anyone would argue that the rich or the non-rich would have more interest in privacy concerns.  instead of thinking in terms of classes, i was thinking in terms of numbers.  again, this goes back to the greater frequency of contact that foster is having with people and their issues than a candidate who refuses to fundraise.  there are sufficient numbers of people in this country -- and i suspect the average would be far higher among scientists than non-scientists -- who are concerned by protecting their privacy that foster would have to have heard this, having talked to thousands of people in his fund raising efforts.  because i understand both the beginning and the end of running for office, i understand how candidates change their views as they are exposed to more and more views different from their own.

    foster has demonstrated that he's talking to thousands of people in this way.  stein clearly is, as well.  i know, from talking to laesch's volunteers and supporters, that he (laesch) refuses to do this.

    where you got the idea that only "rich people" contribute to campaigns i have no idea.  perhaps you've never contributed to a campaign before.  or, if you have, perhaps you consider yourself rich.  but, in my experience, rich people make up only a small percentage of the people who contribute to campaigns -- and thus, only a small percentage of the conversations that a candidate would have with potential contributors.  this has been true my entire career in politics.  i can't speak to your view that people are unwashed...

    "We did not come to fear the future. We came here to shape it." - President Obama, Sept 9, 2009

    [ Parent ]
    I did clearly misunderstand you. I tthought I might have (0.00 / 0)
    Thank you for your response.  At the outset, let me make it clear that I never said that Bill Foster has overlooked privacy concerns.  If this is really true it is news to me.  Do you mean to say that he just failed to highlight these concerns in his position statement or that he just hasn't thought much about the subject yet?

    My visceral reaction was to your statement that Bill Foster's positions will be "moderated by actual contact with other people of means."  "Moderated" is a word that troubles me a bit.  I read "toned down" when I think it is really a time for unshakable conviction.  Maybe "modified" would have affected me less.  And then of course "people of means" sounded awfully elitist to me.  I didn't suggest that only rich people contribute to campaigns.  I know that not to be true.  But I believe that they have an undue amount of influence in the process and it worries me.

    Thank you for mentioning Jotham Stein in a favorable light.  I don't know enough about him, thinking this to be just a Laesch/Foster contest.  I should probably give him a look.

    [ Parent ]
    well... (0.00 / 0)
    *i* have issues with foster's national id proposal (i have some other issues, as well).

    i don't really know how to respond to your comment about unshakable conviction.  the fact is, at least in my experience, that people who run for office are shaped and influenced by all the people they talk to.  this will undoubtedly happen to foster.  i'm not sure how being influenced by the input from others effects someone's convictions.  i guess that would depend on what their convictions were.  my own convictions lead me to want to see smart and thoughtful people elected to office, and that everyone basically have a voice in our government.  i'm not sure how those would be moderated, as it were, by talking to lots of people.  like i said, it probably depends on what were their convictions...

    "We did not come to fear the future. We came here to shape it." - President Obama, Sept 9, 2009

    [ Parent ]
    Convictions (0.00 / 0)
    need to change in the face of evidence that they're wrong; in the face of thoughtful input from others: for instance, the fact that George Bush is convinced that Iran poses a nuclear threat in the face of evidence to the contrary may mean he's a man of conviction: but imho it also shows a stubbornness and an inability to admit he was wrong.

    I think was we want are thoughtful people who can listen and absorb new evidence, who can respect other's opinions, and make their decisions based on the available evidence.  Oh, and how about someone who can admit he's wrong occasionally?  

    So I would expect a candidate's positions to modify while out on the campaign trail: people who are passionate about their issues will speak to him/her, and with any luck the candidate learns from those interactions.  

    [ Parent ]
    Let's talk numbers... (0.00 / 0)
    Henry has done a good job outlining, in his terms, Foster's money advantage on a 'big' issue, not 'the' issue.

    I think that it's also fair to point out Jim O's millions didn't do too much for him in previous elections.  His public stance on immigration issues, free of charge, did a lot more to hurt him.

    Let's elevate the discussion.  If someone wants to dispute Henry's numbers, or provide alternative facts regarding other candidates, I want to hear them.  If Leasch has a compelling money story, I think it should be told.  

    There is no doubt all the candidates are working to get elected...and clearly we Dems can only vote for one of them. I welcome these discussions so long as they don't evolve into sour grapes posts.

    Who's Henry? n/t (0.00 / 0)

    [ Parent ]
    aka hirum... (0.00 / 0)
    that's how i read it...

    "We did not come to fear the future. We came here to shape it." - President Obama, Sept 9, 2009
    [ Parent ]
    The Distinction is do you have enough money (0.00 / 0)
    I'd argue a half million or close to it is the starting point of serious candidates barring some intervening factor. And at a half-million, that includes a ground game, not as a substitute for it.  

    The most glaring problem with the arguments about money versus grassroots is that in a campaign with limited funds, you still need the limited funds for mail, radio, cable tv, and general operations.  

    A good grass roots candidate can raise the money to be competitive if they work at it.  They have to find new avenues of money and they have to be extremely frugal with the resources they have.  

    Right now only one person has demonstrated an ability to hit the half-million mark in the Democratic field.  It's legitimate to be critical of Foster for not having as effective of a grassroots element as other campaigns, but he's the only one who is even close to a threshold level needed to increase name recognition.  

    [ Parent ]
    Either-Or argument (4.00 / 2)
    I agree with you Larry. But to try to steer this discussion in a positive direction, what I'd like to highlight is that both money and passionate grassroots activists are going to be needed to win in a GOP leaning district like IL-14. If this discussion keeps on being about why Foster is "the one person" due to nothing more than his fundraising, he's going to lose the people he will need to complete the money+grassroots equation in the general.

    The way I see this right now is from a perspective of utter confusion. Why the concern here about whether or not Foster is the right candidate? He has the funding to burry his primary opponents in mail and TV. Based on this, why the apparent concern over whether or not Foster will win the primary? At this point, is that really in question? What I'd rather see is Foster reaching out to the supporters of his opponents in ways that show respect for what they are doing and how Foster himself will carry, at least in some form, their banner. He has to show he will do more than fundraise to earn the respect of those working so hard for other candidates in this race.

    At some point, Foster is going to have to provide a way for these people to get behind him. It needs to be an emotional argument that allows these people to feel like they have not sold out their values. An argument of inevitability and money is not going to do it, but instead make it harder for them to support him.

    [ Parent ]
    he can't reach out until he's won... (0.00 / 0)
    rule of thumb: never look past this election...

    "We did not come to fear the future. We came here to shape it." - President Obama, Sept 9, 2009
    [ Parent ]
    Yes and no (0.00 / 0)
    He can't reach out directly as a candidate, but his media and outreach plan can change their approach as I've noted in the response above.
    [ Parent ]
    The Reason to Support Foster Goes Beyond Money and Viability (4.00 / 1)
    As Plainfieldrob notes, "Henry" (just joking - I assure you I've been called worse) has outlined "Foster's money advantage [is] a 'big' issue, not 'the' issue" - he's right I wrote "an issue" on purpose - and on my blog I've called the money and communication dominance "Part I" of my decision to support Foster.  Now I'd throw endorsements into that same category since they also speak largely of organizational viability.  Tonight, children-willing-to-go-to-sleep, I will write "Part II" which will deal with the policy case for Bill Foster.  I'll cross-post here - stay tuned.    
    [ Parent ]
    endorsements (0.00 / 0)
    i tend to doubt that the money issue didnt play into these.

    William J Maggos
    [ Parent ]
    Make no mistake... (0.00 / 0)
    ...the money issue did partly play into the endorsements. IL-14 is NOT a sure thing for Democrats and that is partly what makes it a more expensive district in which to run a campaign. The geography is the second reason.

    No organization or elected official who endorses wants to entirely bankroll a campaign in IL-14. Nor should they. Our union in particular is very careful about how we spend members' money and our resources. Paying for pipe-dreams isn't on our agenda. If it was anyone but Bill Foster in IL-14, I don't believe we would have endorsed at all. As our executive director said, "IL-14 will be a hard district to win, but we believe if anyone can do it, Bill Foster can".

    What played into more than one of Bill's endorsements is that Bill Foster is, all around, a much better candidate than either John Laesch, Jotham Stein, or Joe Serra. If we're comparing Bill to John, Bill is the grown-up in the room. He's put together a very qualified and organized campaign team meant to win. He has an incredible resume, he's kind and personable, and he's doing what he needs to do.

    It's very obvious to anyone involved with the Foster campaign that they're doing the right things.

    William, have you met Bill Foster?

    [ Parent ]
    nope - n/t (0.00 / 0)


    William J Maggos
    [ Parent ]
    I'd agree (4.00 / 1)
    And I think the campaign would like to talk about issues more.

    The mistake that was made was when Bill said he'd caucus with the Blue Dogs. Obviously many people heard that statement and made a bunch of assumptions about his positions.  The problem is that he thought of it as being on fiscal and deficit issues only and not all the other baggage.

    I don't agree with him on everything, but he's a pretty strong candidate on civil liberties and the war.  His immigration stances aren't perfect, but he's also not scapegoating immigrants.  

    One of the reasons I decided to support him wasn't just the money, but that I think his positions are good overall.  He's pro-choice as well. He's pro-labor.

    He may not be as liberal as other candidates in the race, but it does seem to me that there aren't any actual positions that are disqualifiers.  

    [ Parent ]
    Oberweis (4.00 / 1)
    has yet to be able to win elections with all his money.  The thing about money is this, I think: you need money to win elections, but money can't buy an election.  What the "money" represents is two things: one is having actual cash-on-hand to spend on things like campaign staff and print material and TV ads, and two is a measure of outside support you have.  The problem with millionaires self-funding is that why they can buy all the ads and campaign staff they want, the money doesn't represent outside support.  I'm always interested in small dollar donations, as I think those are the donations that show real support (and later on, if the election is won, provide accountability) -- and the numbers Hiram provides for Foster are pretty good.  
    correction (0.00 / 0)
    sheesh, should have caught this in preview:

    "the problem with millionaires self-funding is that why ..." should be "the problem with millionaires self-funding is that while ..."  

    [ Parent ]
    we actually have rules of thumb here... (0.00 / 0)
    ok, republicans have rules of thumb that apply (and, obviously, i still resort to):

    * 1 donor (in the district) brings 25 other voters with them
    * 1 volunteer (in the district) brings 10 other voters with them

    just from their normal interaction with their friends and family (not from anything done additionally campaigning).  old-school grassroots denigrated the support of donors "because they didn't get into the trenches" -- something that wasn't necessarily true.  what howard dean did, and what laesch refuses to do, is to turn the grassroots into donors as well as canvassers.  who wouldn't rather bring 25 people with them than 10?  but you can't unless you ask.  and ask again.  iow, beg.

    the sad thing is that laesch's ardent supporters are very likely to be shocked after election day -- due to the new world that howard dean brought to democratic politics.  it appears that they simply don't get it...    

    "We did not come to fear the future. We came here to shape it." - President Obama, Sept 9, 2009

    [ Parent ]
    Way before Dean... (0.00 / 0)
    ...Paul Wellstone asked every single one of his supporters to donate to his campaign. The idea was that nearly everyone had the means to contribute at least a dollar and, if they did, they would feel more fully invested in the campaign.

    If someone has invested in an endeavor, he or she wants to see it work out.

    Dean based his campaign largely on Paul Wellstone's model.  

    [ Parent ]
    something i did not know... (0.00 / 0)
    and, yes, investors care deeply about the outcome.  cool beans...

    "We did not come to fear the future. We came here to shape it." - President Obama, Sept 9, 2009
    [ Parent ]
    And, of course, Barack (0.00 / 0)
    is using exactly this strategy with the low dollar fundraising events.  

    It's a common organizing tool in areas that are relatively poor-but by encouraging the donation however small you get people to literally feel a part of the campaign.  

    [ Parent ]
    And let's be fair... (0.00 / 0)
    It's ignorant and insulting to make assumptions about peoples' financial situations. People should be treated equally, and that means asking EVERYONE for what they can comfortably afford.
    [ Parent ]
    Look at Iowa (4.00 / 1)
    in the presidential race - Romney has all the money, Huckabee is underfunded, but Huckabee is cleaning up and Romney's cash can't buy the votes.

    Oberweis has been wasting his substance trying to buy some office - any office - for so long, he's become a joke.

    [ Parent ]
    Can't dispute your point (4.00 / 3)
    And I don't think anyone is disputing that Foster is the only candidate who can compete with any of the Republicans on a strictly fundraising level.

    However, I think the focus on this is where the issues regarding Foster are coming from. What keeps being said about Foster is that he has the money to compete - not what he believes and will fight for. Where is the fight? I'd suggest that the promotion of Foster be moved away from money, money, money, and more toward actions and positions he will stand for - not just say he supports.

    I honestly think posts like this do more to alienate the supporters of Foster's primary opponents regardless of the accuracy of the numbers. Foster will need these passionate people in the General. Telling them that their candidate can't compete, no matter the truth in it, implies they are wasting their time because ultimately their candidate is a loser. Foster brings parity financially. This does not equate to a sure thing. Money is very important and will give Foster the ability to get his message out and counter GOP slime. But it won't inspire. In a Republican leaning district, Foster will not only have to spend, but he will have to inspire. Shift the focus in hopes of not further alienating more activists Foster will need.

    IMO one of the key reasons the Democratically controlled Congress has such low approval ratings is that it has many members who have done the politically smart things and refuse to take action when it may be politically risky. This is the narrative that is being painted of Foster by the other campaigns and posts like this: "Foster is inevitable and the only "electable" candidate because of his ability to compete financially." That doesn't inspire and in many ways enhances the narrative of "buying" the seat. We need more and better Democrats in Congress. IMO Foster has to show that he is not just in the "more" category or risk losing supporters of high primary opponents he will need in the General.  

    I agree (0.00 / 0)
    I certainly think that many Democrats in Congress have lost sight of their values and what it means to have a spine.  And I think the only way we can change that is by running candidates, including primary challengers, who have spines. I keep writing passionate emails to my congressman who has a total pass to ignore them because, what, he's going to face a serious challenger? please.  Clearly he knows more about the mood of the people than I do: even though I am one of his constituents ... oh well.  Enough.  Maybe someday we'll be able to find the perfect candidate to mount a primary challenge against Rahm.

    But I definitely see a concern with Foster over lack of conviction in his positions: and by lack of conviction, I don't mean that he's morally unscrupulous or will say anything to get elected, but I do mean a lack of passion about them. What is the one thing that makes Foster want to run in this race?  Why are his supporters inspired by him?  

    [ Parent ]
    One guess: Rahmbo (2.00 / 1)
    The grassroots have nothing to do with Foster.  Rahmbo is helping him.  The Democratic Majority is a fractured fairy tale on The Hill because Rambo is loading it with Blue Dogs.  Add Foster to the list.  Definitely bad news for the people.

    Qui tacet consentire videtur - "Whoever seems silent, consents."
    [ Parent ]
    I keep hoping that a great Progressive candidate (0.00 / 0)
    will move into IL 05 to mount a challenge to Rahmbo ... perhaps one of those who he ran Blue Dogs against?  Christine was asked, but she just laughed .... Frankly, I'd like to see someone move into the district just to run a challenge against him, because he's done it so often with his candidates ....
    [ Parent ]
    You have no idea what you are talking about. (0.00 / 0)
    P.F.,

    Rahm Emanuel is not behind Bill Foster's campaign, nor are they collaborating with Rahm Emanuel. Bill Foster built his campaign from the ground up and he's done a damn good job of it. It's especially funny that you referenced a source (Down with Tyranny blog) written by folks who also have no idea what is going on.

    I am so incredibly sick of people and the "Rahmbo" B.S. The last I heard, Rahm was pretty busy running the House Democratic Caucus, not interfering with Chris Van Hollen's job as chair of the DCCC.

    Are you also going to spend some time bashing on our fine Senator who endorsed Bill Foster? Maybe bash on AFSCME and Planned Parenthood, too?

    If you don't like Bill Foster, fine. But what is the point of speaking about things of which you have no idea?

    [ Parent ]
    Facts are Facts (1.00 / 1)
    Believe what you want.  Others know that Rahmbo is quietly supporting self-funded candidates.  They have no problems mentioning it, and I have no problem spreading the word:
    One of the worst examples of Rahm Emanuel interference so far this year is in Illinois' 14th CD, where a grassroots, progressive, John Laesch, is battling it out with Emanuel's millionaire Blue Dog shill Bill Foster. Several active participants in the training sessions, admitted to me off the record that Foster was an embarrassment and the least qualified candidate in the room. He'll never make it, one told me. Another, after seeing Foster in action, asked me if I knew the best way for him to get in touch with John Laesch asap. Apparently no one is sharing that intelligence with Emanuel, who is still pushing Mr. Blue Dog hard.

    [. . .] A Republican publication in Illinois, the Illinois Review, in a reference to the Democratic race in a story about the Republicans battling it out to replace Hastert, mentions that the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee quietly is backing scientist and first-time candidate Bill Foster, who has pledged to pour $1 million each into both the primary and general elections. Emanuel has been holding secret fundraisers with sleazy donors for Foster and has been demanding that institutional donors freeze Laesch out, despite the fact that Laesch did better against Hastert than any other Democrat since his freshman year in Congress and captured parts of the district never won by a Democrat before-- and despite the fact that most of the elected Democratic Party committeemen in IL-14 have already endorsed Laesch.

    So what's Emanuel's game? He generally votes with the Democratic majority on core issues but he aggressively seeks out reactionary candidates and does his best to destroy progressive and grassroots candidates. The Democrats' inability to get much done in this session is as attributable to Emanuel's candidate recruitment in 2005 as to Republican obstructionism and Bush's vetoes.

    This is what he does and is quite destructive about it.  He is in love with money and obviously that is all he cares about.  This comes as no surprise after 2006.  When I hear Rahmbo is involved, the rule of thumb is simple:  back the other Democrat regardless of his/her shortcomings.

    Many undecideds see no difference between Democrats and Republicans.  It has become so bad that Democrats refuse to vote for Democrats.  Or is that only happening in IL not Chicago where you do not care what is happening in politics in Podunk, IL unless it's really sexy and scandalous?  No wonder the man is still in Congress destroying the Party.

    Qui tacet consentire videtur - "Whoever seems silent, consents."

    [ Parent ]
    so when do we get the facts??? (0.00 / 0)
    i like facts.  facts are good.  so when do we get the facts?  what you wrote is neither factual nor current...

    "We did not come to fear the future. We came here to shape it." - President Obama, Sept 9, 2009
    [ Parent ]
    November 2007 (0.00 / 0)
    Last month seems rather current to me.

    Qui tacet consentire videtur - "Whoever seems silent, consents."
    [ Parent ]
    here i thought i had good contacts... (0.00 / 0)
    with the democratic committees, but i've only heard just the opposite.  so how can i verify that democrats are liars, and are going to extensive links to deceive those outside dc?  obviously, i'm not impressed by howie's blind devotion to laesch or other conspiratorial sources.  given that you are basically calling people i like liars, i require something more than idle speculation or tin-foil hat material...

    "We did not come to fear the future. We came here to shape it." - President Obama, Sept 9, 2009
    [ Parent ]
    Like what? (0.00 / 0)
    What have you heard locally?  What I read was Howie's response to a Truthout article.  He is not a fan of the Machiavelli of the 5th District and do not trust him especially after 2006.  Many feel the same way.

    Qui tacet consentire videtur - "Whoever seems silent, consents."
    [ Parent ]
    what i've heard... (4.00 / 2)
    is that rahm has very little to do with the dccc these days.  i have specifically been told that melissa bean has more influence at the dccc at this moment than rahm does.

    howie's response isn't meant to be factual, as near as i can tell, but to be inspiring.  he's using the specter of rahm's dccc as a means of gathering support for laesch -- just as the illinois gop is doing for their side.

    now howie and i disagree.  howie is a part of those who believe that the grassroots is everything and they should do battle with the party.  i strongly disagree.  the grassroots and the party shouldn't be fighting each other, but should be consulting each other and coordinating their efforts.  in this belief, i disagreed with rahm, too.  but i believe that each needs the other, that we are stronger when we work together.

    both howie and rahm disagree with this view because it requires both sides to change, both sides to compromise, both sides to work together.  what is interesting about this particular campaign (foster's) is that this is what they are doing, working with both the party and the grassroots.  it's the only way democrats can win this seat.  so howie's ongoing fight with the party is akin to laesch's -- although i have no doubt that laesch would take party support if it were offered (he's actually complained about the lack of party support in my presence, although naively so)...

    "We did not come to fear the future. We came here to shape it." - President Obama, Sept 9, 2009

    [ Parent ]
    Bean having any influence (4.00 / 2)
    at the DCCC does not bode well.  I really don't trust her.  
    [ Parent ]
    Thanx (0.00 / 0)
    I appreciate the info.

    Maybe things have changed throughout the year.  Maybe the Machiavelli of the 5th District has realized that concentrating on supporting self-funded millionaires over grassroots candidates does not work out so well (although I have never been a Laesch fan).  Sirota totally blasted him for the fragmented Party not getting anything done on The Hill -- thanks to all the Blue Dogs he helped get elected last year.  Still, one Dem consultant describes him as a very determined guy and he definitely has sharp elbows.  I describe him as untrustworthy.

    People are so disappointed with Congress that many will probably stay home for the Primary and not vote for anyone except president in November.  We shall see.

    Qui tacet consentire videtur - "Whoever seems silent, consents."

    [ Parent ]
    here's the thing... (0.00 / 0)
    rahm has gone from shaping the electoral prospects of the democrats on the house side to shaping the democratic message on the democratic house side.  thankfully (although i know not everyone will agree), we have nancy pelosi to balance him out.  i wouldn't say that rahm is any less influential -- and you could make the case that he's more so -- but he's less in the public eye, or at least the activist's eye.  i've heard, and i don't recall where, that rahm has ambitions to be speaker and i wouldn't bet against him...

    "We did not come to fear the future. We came here to shape it." - President Obama, Sept 9, 2009
    [ Parent ]
    Very quiet, highly active (0.00 / 0)
    A The Globe and Mail article from 01/04/2007 on the man included thise quotes:
    . . . nobody is predicting a quiet exit from the limelight.

    He can do whatever he wants, Democratic consultant Darin Cline says.

    You could imagine him eventually becoming Speaker of the House, mayor of Chicago, governor of Illinois or senator from Illinois, says Norman Ornstein, resident scholar at the American Enterprise Institute, a Washington-based think tank. Rahm is a young man and very definitely ambitious.

    He might be working in the shadows right now, but the ambition, his love of the win, and his love for money do not change.  That is why I consider him untrustworthy.  He does not work in the best interests of the people.  It is always what is best for him.

    Qui tacet consentire videtur - "Whoever seems silent, consents."
    [ Parent ]
    He's my congresscritter (0.00 / 0)
    and I agree with P.F. -- he's untrustworthy.  I don't agree he's behind every non-progressive candidate in the country, but I do think he's done some horrible things behind the scenes of the House.  
    [ Parent ]
    Everything you have posted... (0.00 / 0)
    ...by Down With Tyranny blog is all COMPLETE speculation on their part and not based upon facts. I'm basing my statements upon what I know to be true with the Foster campaign. I know that there is no collusion with Rahm Emanuel. Unlike you, I don't feel that Rahm Emanuel is the devil. I choose to recognize that the man has good points and bad points and I appreciate his contribution to a Democratic majority last year. I certainly wouldn't have a problem saying so if he was involved with Bill Foster.

    You are choosing to base what you "know" upon another blogger's broad speculations. That is certainly your prerogative, but it's ridiculous to masquerade this information as fact.

    I posted in that same thread that I care what happens in Podunk, IL but that I get enough of that through work. I'd rather pay attention to what happens in Northern IL on blogs I frequent.

    I would venture to say that people like you who constantly demonize other Democrats are actually the ones trying to destroy the party. Thankfully, most of us aren't buying it.

    [ Parent ]
    The bigger picture (4.00 / 1)
    I would venture to say that people like you who constantly demonize other Democrats are actually the ones trying to destroy the party. Thankfully, most of us aren't buying it.
    To whom are you referring to when you say "people like you"? If we put Rahm in the same bucket as the Blue Dogs, yes they are different but don't they both share the same distrust of grassroots political activists who have coherent progressive political views, then aren't you as well a person like PF?

    Where do you draw the line between demonize and criticize? And why would you draw two lines, one between you and Rahm and one between you and, well, me for instance?

    Cannot you support Foster and rebuff criticism of him without "demonizing" your own potential allies.  

    Jeff Wegerson

    [ Parent ]
    "People like you"... (0.00 / 0)
    ...was meant to include people who see sources such as Down With Tyranny blog as fact, people who choose to ignore information about other candidates if it isn't convenient (Bill Richardson and his conduct with women), and people who subscribe to wild conspiracy theories without any basis in truth.

    I'd say that just about covers it.

    I draw the line between demonizing and criticizing when one starts accusing someone of doing all kinds of outrageous things without any basis in fact. When all of the problems of the political world are due to "Rahmbo" (give me a break), I'd say that's demonizing. It's not only demonizing, it's ignorant.

    Bill Foster embraces grassroots political activists, so I'm not sure who you're lumping with who. Generally, I don't draw lines between people. Everyone is different and very few fit nicely into little boxes. Behavior is easier to categorize.

    [ Parent ]
    Not a secret (0.00 / 0)
    A DC reporter discovered that Rahmbo (or the Machiavelli of the 5th District to someone at the Daily Herald) has earned his demon status.  His tentacles were into a lot more in 2006 than I imagined, and he sacrificed whatever accomplishments the Party in IL could have achieved without his love for the greenback.  
    How Emanuel came to his decisions about which candidates to support against Democratic opponents is known only to Emanuel and his staff. Emanuel declined direct comment on this story. But an examination of individual races reveals a pattern of financial and political support for wealthy conservative candidates and an assault on their grassroots-supported opponents who were running on platforms that included a full withdrawal of US forces from Iraq.
    For whatever reason, this Daley protege' does not seem to have the interests of the people in mind:
    While Emanuel is given credit for turning power over to the Democratic Party in the House of Representatives, the majority is fractured.

       Many of the candidates that Emanuel helped elect have joined with a group of self-styled conservative Blue Dog Democrats and have cast key votes with Republicans and stymied Democratic efforts to end the occupation of Iraq and the Bush administration's warrantless wiretapping program.

    You have the links to DownWithTyranny.  Direct your temper tantrum towards Howie Klein since he has access to more sources for information that you disagree with.  Prove that he, the Illinois Review he cites, and Radio Left have it wrong.  Must be a coincidence that Foster (the only candidate on the list) use the same contractor as politicians and activists.

    As you stated, you care about the Podunk cornfields -- sort of:

    I just really don't care what is happening in politics in Podunk, IL unless it's really sexy and scandalous. Otherwise, I am bored.


    Qui tacet consentire videtur - "Whoever seems silent, consents."
    [ Parent ]
    Give me a break (0.00 / 0)
    Tom Bowen worked for Strategy Group and he's Foster's campaign manager.  Strategy Group is also a national mail firm that does good work and many candidates in Illinois use them.  Giangreco is related to Bob Creamer as well.  

    Knowing a bit about the situation, Rahm knows of Foster, but isn't doing anything for him.  It's fiction to claim Rahm is running Foster.

    Foster is the odd guy in politics who is running because he is angry and didn't really know much about the entire process until he volunteered for Patrick Murphy last cycle.

    I like Howie--he's a great guy, but he overstates Rahm's influence on the DCCC--Van Hollen is in charge and while I doubt he's going to do everything exactly like everyone here would like, he's been far more open and transparent.  

    Adding to that, we really don't need to be citing Illinois Review as accurate other than in relation to what total wingnut loons are thinking that day.  

    [ Parent ]
    Re that Truthout article (0.00 / 0)
    The article opens with a scene of Christine contemplating how to tell her supporters she was going to withdraw. If she ever thought about withdrawing, she did a superb job of concealing the fact from her long-time volunteers -- meaning me. From where I sit, that paragraph undermines the credibility of the entire article.

    It's well known that Emanuel wanted a wealthy candidate in IL-06 (I don't think he gave an expletive about "conserative"). But he never got one. Instead he ended up with a Durbin-picked candidate who was neither wealthy nor conspicuously conservative. My suspicion is that without Durbin's intervention Emanuel would simply have sat out the entire race.

    Bill Thomasson

    Permission to reprint explicitly granted

    [ Parent ]
    Well . . . (0.00 / 0)
    I will agree to disagree based on what I know about the 2006 Primary.

    I do agree with your statement about Durbin.  Yet, the final decision is always with the person in charge -- the DCCC chair.  Factor in his not-so-friendly discourse (putting it mildly) with Dean, repeating the behavior in other CDs, and his pitbull personality -- the buck stopped with him.

    Qui tacet consentire videtur - "Whoever seems silent, consents."

    [ Parent ]
    well said - n/t (0.00 / 0)


    William J Maggos
    [ Parent ]
    Another way to crunch (0.00 / 0)
    Perhaps this complements your report? (although it's from October, before the special election cycle was arranged):

    Consider these fundraising numbers for the 3rd quarter:

    Burns: unitemized receipts of over  $9,600; itemized receipts from about  80 unique donors.

    Foster: unitemized receipts of over  $38,700; itemized receipts from about  275 unique donors.

    Laesch: unitemized receipts of  $19,250; itemized receipts from about  90 unique donors.

    Lauzen: unitemized receipts not quite $5,400; itemized receipts from about  100 unique donors.

    Oberweis: unitemized receipts of  $2,200; itemized receipts from about  50 unique donors.

    Stein: unitemized receipts over  $11,800; itemized receipts from about  85 unique donors.

    Unitemized contributions are small contributions that don't meet the threshold for separate reporting ($200 or less per individual or group per calendar year).  They are considered a measure of popular support. Large numbers of so-called "small donors" can be an advantage because the candidate can go back to them again and again up to a limit of $2300 per candidate, per election.  As you can see, Foster is that guy; his campaign claims more than 650 total donors at an average of $315 per donation, including 204 donors who each gave $14. In contrast, campaigns with a few "large donors," such as Lauzen's, have already reached some donor limits.

    The way I see it, every unique donor within the district translates into a vote but not every dollar does. IIRC about half of Laesch's unique donors (itemized) are from ActBlue donations from without IL-14.

    My far-right conservative friends are yukked out by Oberweis so IMO Lauzen is the guy to watch unless Burns can get much more exposure as the moderate of the bunch.

    Money, money, money (0.00 / 0)
    I doubt any of us would disagree that the ability to fund a campaign is essential to winning. Without money a candidate cannot invest in mail, TV, yard signs, rent on office space, travel expenses, etc. And without money a candidate cannot hire full-time staffers to make the campaign run 24 hours a day.

    I feel like I'm constantly reading this fallacious argument that centers around the question: Which is more effective, money or a ground game?

    The way the playing field is currently laid out, a candidate needs both and one doesn't work out very well without the other!

    At the very least, a candidate needs to be able to hire full-time staff to manage and grow grassroots support. Yes, volunteers are invaluable, but the people who know how to run this game do not work for free.

    If we're talking a barebones staff, that would be 1 campaign manager, a communications person, a field director (and at minimum 5 field organizers for a district like IL-14) and a finance director. That is going to cost a candidate anywhere from $25,000 a month (at the VERY, VERY least with not the most experienced people) to $60,000 for more experienced people.

    $25,000 to $60,000 a month just for staff. BARE MINIMUM! If a candidate cannot raise that, they cannot compete with the big boys and girls. We all know how labor intensive campaigns are. It is simply unrealistic in this day and age to assume that a candidate can depend on everyday people to work their tails off nearly 24 hours a day on a campaign. People have to work and they're working a lot more than they used to.

    So, aside from John Laesch's other problems, I have not seen him take seriously the fact that he needs to raise. Or else he is and people don't take him seriously enough to give.

    Well ... (0.00 / 0)
    We've had this conversation before. But the fact is that not everybody HAS to work for money. Yes, I'm currently working at a full-time -- often more than full-time -- job. But that's because I want to. My wife and I could live quite comfortably on our retirement incomes.

    I'm not saying any campaign can count on finding good people willing and able to work for free. They'd have to be very lucky to do so. But the possibility they may get lucky shouldn't be totally discounted.

    Bill Thomasson

    Permission to reprint explicitly granted

    [ Parent ]
    You're a rare gem ;) (0.00 / 0)
    Bill, I maintain my position that you are a rare gem that any campaign should be so lucky to find.

    You're by far in the minority of folks who are interested in working on political campaigns ;).

    [ Parent ]
    Effort not just Foster (0.00 / 0)
    Let me start by saying I would be quite happy with any of at least three people as the Democratic candidate in IL-14 come November. (I don't know much about Joe Serra.) I find Laesch, Stein, and Foster all attractive in different ways.

    But my point is that it's not just Foster who is making a serious fundraising effort. Michael and I have both had personal phone calls from Stein. I contributed just because, with no strong preference among the candidates, I felt this effort should be rewarded.

    I haven't heard from Foster. But that may just mean that he's working from a different list of potential donors than Stein is.

    Bill Thomasson

    Permission to reprint explicitly granted

    Great Discussion... (0.00 / 0)
    First, apologies to Hiram, I broke my own "no blogging before Coke Zero" rule...sorry.

    Back to the original point, money is certainly an issue...and Laesch supporters could rightly point out that there are plenty of examples of self-financed candidates being overcome by regular joes/netroots candidates by  other factors (both tangible & intangible) that eventually make the money factor moot.  Two books I've recently read discuss two of these intangibles are Freakonomics and Blink.  

    Speaking of intangibles, the most impressive person to reach out to me has been Burns...he called me personally after a LTE in the local paper.  He didn't know I was a Dem from my prose, but even after he did, he still made a good case if I were an independent.  I think we should be grateful that a moderate like him won't be getting the Republican nomination.

    Eek, I know (0.00 / 0)
    Everybody is too busy talking about the ice cream man and Lauzen, CPA to menton Burns.

    I've heard Burns mentioned on the doors quite a few times in Geneva. Granted, his support may not have expanded beyond Geneva, but he's definitely the favorite there as far as I can tell.

    [ Parent ]
    Burns (0.00 / 0)
    Yes, I keep hearing about how much people like Burns when they meet him in person--also about how much they like the city staff, too. One (moderate) person I talked to this week also said his is the only GOP website that doesn't have "scary stuff" on it.

    As for Freakonomics, the book has received a lot of criticism but its challenges to conventional wisdom are real brain stretchers, which I enjoy very much.

    [ Parent ]
    I liked Freakonomics (0.00 / 0)
    for the brain stretch; I'm not anywhere near up on economics so couldn't criticize it credibly if I tried.  
    [ Parent ]
    Issues (1.00 / 6)
    Foster isn't the only candidate that has a grap on the issues.  In fact, all of the Democrats and even the Repugnants have a good grasp of the issues.  Hirem, you're a schill and shouldn't be reporting on this race.

    As a journalist - you should be ashamed of yourself.  Armstrong Williams did the same for George Bush and you need to come clean with your connection with Foster's campaign.

    I don't get this post at all (3.00 / 1)
    This is a blog: where people post opinions.  We're not operating under any kind of fiction that what we're doing is "fair and balanced" -- despite that, we hit it a lot more often than many of the mainstream outlets.  That said, its not "journalism," or "reporting," whatever that means these days.  Anyone can post their opinions, the facts as they see them, their own experiences -- and the rest of us get to have a grand and sometimes heated debate about those opinions, experiences, and facts ... There are no Armstrong Williams here: even if you're paid to blog by a campaign, big deal.  You're still going to get the argument and debate that any other post gets, and will have to defend it (or choose not to, of course).  You seem not to get the difference between a newspaper and a community blog. If Hiram is getting paid by the Foster campaign, he should probably disclose it ... but so what? Are you alleging that Hiram is being paid? Here's the thing: we've had campaign staffers, and ex-campaign staffers, of campaigns post here: and they get to put their opinions and comments out there in blog-land as well as anyone else.  Its good to have the debate: its open to everyone. Including candidates, including campaign staffers, including passionate volunteers, including interested observers, including those who happen on the site by serendipity and have no idea what we're talking about or who we are.  Its an open forum.

    Its not a newspaper.  Its not TV or Radio.  Its not pretending to a "news outlet."    

    [ Parent ]
    Journalism happens (0.00 / 0)
    When most of the contributors, both diarists and commenters, are consistently demanding TRUTH, some journalism is going to occur as a by-product.

    The main sources for this diary were FEC reports, so the commenter must be disputing the conclusions. Too bad s/he couldn't do so without throwing the "shill" accusation into the mix.  

    [ Parent ]
    Suggestions for Allsright1 (0.00 / 0)
    Hi Allsright1,

    I highly recommend taking a deep breath and then, please, re-reading what I've written more carefully.  I'm not perfect - but I'm hardly as sloppy about writing as your comments suggest.  You write here (and elsewhere under another post of mine that I will cross-post this comment to) about things that simply don't make sense.

    That said, I will point you to my blog where I have laid out all my monetary connections to the Foster Campaign as well as how I came to endorse Bill Foster:

    - here I mention that Bill Foster bought me a six dollar omelet at a diner once, early in the campaign, that meal is the only money from him or his campaign I have ever personally received or expect to receive.

    - here in the context of critiquing John Laesch's press conference about immigration and saying I have a disagreement with Bill Foster about Bill's immigration stance I mention publicly for the first time (same day as I mention the six dollars above - which is the prior post) that Bill Foster has my support in the race.

    - here is my longer explanation (part one of two - the second is to come) about how I came to endorse Bill Foster, two days after the other two posts above.  I also mention my $14 contribution to his campaign - the only monetary contribution I've personally made in the 14th congressional race.

    I also should note that I have privately offered sincere political strategy advice to all four campaigns this cycle at different times (I include Joe Serra - but I did not offer any advice to Vern DelJonson while he was in the race - although I did blog about him twice), that I offered advice both this cycle and last to John Laesch (and this cycle he early on considered me a major source of news for the 14th congressional race), and that I have blogged in a positive manner about all of the Democratic candidates in the race (and have been constructively critical about all of them too).

    I'm not perfect, but I try to offer well-considered blog entries containing sourcing and justification for my arguments.  You (and others) are welcome to disagree with me - and if you have a good argument I'm happy to learn where I went astray.  Resorting to name-calling, misrepresenting what I've said through sloppy reading and attacking me through innuendo suggest you have nothing to say.  I hope you're better than that - and I hope you can contribute to a better understanding of the 14th Congressional race - as I said, I'm interested in learning more.  

    [ Parent ]
    "advice to all four campaigns" should be "all four Democratic campaigns" (0.00 / 0)
    just in case it wasn't clear - and the four campaigns are Jotham Stein's, John Laesch's, Joe Serra's and Bill Foster's.
    [ Parent ]
    Money Is An Issue In The 14th Congressional Race | 71 comments
    Prairie State Blue
    Front Page - Back Page


    Menu

    Make a New Account

    Username:

    Password:



    Forget your username or password?

    3 User(s) logged on.
    Search




    Advanced Search

    Misc
    View
    Powered by: SoapBlox