So we raised nearly $3,000 in about two days, and combined with our $2,500 in matching funds we contributed around $5,500 to five great candidates: Charlie Brown (CA-04), Debbie Cook (CA-46), Hannah-Beth Jackson (SD-19), Alyson Huber (AD-10), and Manuel Perez (AD-80).
Great work, everyone. Thanks so much for participating. You rock.
OK, we’re over $2,600, but we still need to get $500 per candidate to reach our matching goal. Thanks so much, everyone. If you want great Democrats like Hilda Solis in Washington and in Sacramento, please do what you can to help us out.
Thanks.
(You guys are awesome. Thanks so much for getting us to our goal. But there’s still more work to be done before midnight; we need to get $500 raised for each candidate. Right now 4 of our 5 candidates need a little more. Visit our ActBlue page and donate!)
Calitics Match candidate Charlie Brown is facing California’s Alan Keyes, perennial candidate Tom McClintock, in the most hotly contested Congressional race in the state. And I think the pressure is getting to McClintock.
He put together a website called “Vets for Tom” which has a page with a list of resources for veterans. There is substantial evidence that McClintock’s team plagiarized the resource list from Charlie Brown’s website.
Campaign manager Todd Stenhouse said that not only did a list of resources on the site exactly match what was on Brown’s site, but one link that was broken on Brown’s site had the same problem on McClintock’s site.
When visitors clicked on the “AmVets” link on McClintock’s site, Stenhouse said, the broken address took visitor to a site with an address from Charlie Brown’s site, in what Stenhouse called “a smoking gun.”
“Everything he’s learned about veterans and the military, he’s apparently learned from Charlie Brown,” Stenhouse said, referring to Brown’s criticism of McClintock, a state senator, for voting against legislation related to veterans. McClintock established the veterans’ site late last week.
There’s really not much more to say on that. Some people lead and others follow.
Meanwhile, Brown and McClintock are strating to meet in forums and debates. Last week Brown called into a Sacramento radio show where McClintock was appearing, and last night they discussed the financial industry bailout. As expected, McClintock favors the exact same failed solutions which brought us to this crisis in the first place, like suspending the capital gains tax. Brown’s position is more nuanced, supporting enforceable standards on executive compensation and returning proceeds from selling assets to taxpayers, while concerned about the consequences of doing nothing (which is McClintock’s specialty).
The larger point is that McClintock is an enthusiastic supporter of the failed policies of the past, while Brown would reliably represent the future and lead on key issues.
((I’m told that Act Blue is back up and running, so you can donate now. And we’re almost to our goal! $180 left! Who will put us over the top?) – promoted by Robert in Monterey)
Thanks to everyone who has supported our five candidates in the Calitics Match thus far. We’re past halfway to our goal, and Debbie Cook has well surpassed our $500 match (way to go!).
Today is crunch time. It’s the final day before the end of the third quarter, which is the reporting deadline for federal candidates. This is the best opportunity to make your donations the most meaningful; the quarterly fundraising announcements are key to gauge support, and money put into field and messaging now will pay bigger dividends in the future than a quick cash infusion at the last minute. Please support these candidates and Calitics will match you dollar for dollar.
The Yacht Party Republicans still think you’re stupid. They believe they can hide behind the gated communities they’ve created through gerrymandering, and that Sarah Palin’s presence at the top of the ticket will lift their hopes. No, really:
A statewide poll this week underscored the effect Palin has had on the Republican base. According to the Public Policy Institute of California, GOP satisfaction with their presidential choice has doubled since Palin joined the ticket. Unfortunately for McCain, that has not translated into gains against Democrat Barack Obama in California, which has gone to the Democratic presidential candidate in the last four presidential elections.
Still, state Republicans were rejoicing at the possibilities. Thomas G. Del Beccaro, the state party vice chairman, said new volunteers were streaming in faster than at any time since the 2003 recall election. Republicans, he said, were hopeful that a resulting increase in voters would help the party in legislative and congressional races where they might not have been as competitive otherwise.
This is bravado. The wingnut base wasn’t going to stay away from a Presidential election. It’s the growing decline-to-state base, along with increased Democratic registration statewide, that has the potential to sink the Yacht Party just as Sarah Palin’s favorable ratings have sank as voters face the terrifying prospect of her in a position of power. This is the real shift in the electorate:
Since the two parties largely settled on presidential nominees in April, voter rolls have increased by roughly 19,500 – or 2 percent – in Placer, El Dorado, Sacramento and Yolo counties, according to new figures from the California secretary of state’s office. Democrats accounted for 10,500 of those new voters. Just 2,400 were Republicans. Most of the others declined to state an allegiance.
The regional numbers mirror a statewide trend. California’s Democratic voter rolls have increased by 181,118 since April while the number of Republicans grew by 6,823. Republicans saw a net loss of registered voters in 25 counties, including a loss of more than 15,000 in conservative Orange County. Similar trends are playing out nationally, in several battleground states.
You can see the data for yourself. Particularly in this financial crisis, Californians are ready for a new direction away from failed conservative policies.
All that stands between our five candidates and victory in November is making sure they have the resources to compete. We can help provide that today. Please visit the Calitics Match Act Blue page and give what you can. We’ll double your donation to make it that much more meaningful.
The most remarkable quote of the week came from a backbencher Yacht Party Republican named Mark Wyland, commenting on the historically late state budget. If the California Democratic Party had a locker room, this would be serious bulletin-board material:
Voters are unlikely to punish lawmakers for the budget delay in any substantive way on Nov. 4 unless it’s to pass a ballot measure that would change how political districts are drawn, said state Sen. Mark Wyland (R-Carlsbad).
“My experience with voters is that they really don’t care how long it takes to get a budget,” Wyland said, following his participation in a panel discussion at an event on reforming state government.
According to Wyland, prolonged budget stalemates like this year’s sometimes encourage voters to keep their incumbents. Because districts are usually heavily skewed in registration to one party or another, he said, sitting legislators are more likely to hear encouragement for their party’s ideological position than disfavor.
And voting against the party – in Wyland’s example, for tax raises or to reinstate the unpopular vehicle-license fee – is an invitation to face a primary challenge in the next election cycle, he said.
This is the calcified opinion from the Yacht Party, and why they’ll never be moved from their ideological perches. They believe that they have more to fear from internal challenges on the grounds of insufficient fealty to failed conservative policies than from the consequences of those policies. And there’s a lot of evidence on their side, although not as much as they think.
But the most glaring point made in this statement is one of contempt. It shows contempt for voters to act in the best interest of an ideology than in the best interest of the state. It shows contempt for voters to hold the budget hostage, causing extreme hardship in the lives of state employees, community health centers, policemen and firefighters, and public schools, and expect nobody to notice. It shows contempt for voters to use the tyranny of the minority to advance a cause completely at odds with the prevailing opinion of the state. Real people were affected and harmed by this budget, and all of us will be in the future as the bills of conservative borrow-and-spend economics and systematic destruction of government come due.
And the thing is, Wyland is relying on a failed model. Demographic shifts and a reckoning of the failure of conservatism has made no district safe. Indeed Californians can punish Yacht Party Republicans for their intransigence and obstructionism. There are a number of races at the federal and state level where Democrats have more than a chance to unseat Republicans and turn seats blue. In fact, with some luck and proper resources we can get very close to that 2/3 majority needed to pass budgets and fix the structural revenue deficit. That’s where you come in.
The Calitics Editorial Board has identified five seats which strike a balance between winnable races and progressive leadership. We’ve decided to start a major fundraising push for these five candidates between now and the end of the quarterly reporting requirement on September 30. That gives us only a few days, but here’s the kicker – Calitics will match every donation made to these candidates up to $500 each, for a grand total of a $2,500 candidate match.
Please visit our special Calitics Match ActBlue page and support any or all of these five great candidates:
Charlie Brown (CA-04): A recent Research 2000 poll showed Brown leading perennial candidate Tom McClintock 46-41 in this deep red district. Brown, a retired Air Force Lt. Colonel, nearly defeated indicted Congressman John Doolittle in 2006 and has shown tremendous leadership on veteran’s issues and the FISA fight before even coming to Congress. He’s a better Democrat we can all be proud of.
Debbie Cook (CA-46): Running in a tough district against certifiably crazy Rep. Dana Rohrabacher, Debbie Cook is running with an unabashedly progressive message. The Mayor of Huntington Beach, Cook is an expert on peak oil and energy issues, and would instantly be one of the most knowledgeable voices in the Congress on how to move toward a post-carbon future. She also believes in ending the Iraq occupation responsibly and achieving the goal of quality and affordable health care for all.
Hannah-Beth Jackson (SD-19): A former Assemblywoman and creator of Speak Out California, a blog and resource for Golden State progressives, Hannah-Beth Jackson has proven her progressive bona fides time and again. Running in rapidly changing Ventura County against the former state director of the Club for Growth, Tony Strickland, Jackson can prove that even Tom McClintock’s old seat is not safe from the progressive wave. She would lead in the State Senate on issues of economic justice and the environment.
Alyson Huber (AD-10): AD-10 is another district where the demographics are changing, and Alyson Huber is perfectly suited to take advantage of this and turn the seat blue. Huber, an attorney and working mother, is focused on increasing access to health care and education for all Californians. She would help tremendously in bringing us closer to that needed 2/3 majority.
Manuel Perez (AD-80): A transformative leader, Manuel Perez is ready to take that leadership to Sacramento. Part of a growing group of Hispanic-Americans in the Coachella Valley who are leading a major progressive challenge to the typical politics of the region, Manuel has created community health clinics, served on the Coachella School Board as a trustee, taught classes, and organized his community to fight for change. He is uniquely suited to take his varied experience and lead in the State Legislature.
The time is tight, but we need to make Mark Wyland and the Yacht Party Republicans he represents cry. Please contribute to our Calitics Match fundraising effort before Tuesday!
The general election has begun. On a random Thursday night, when most political junkies were watching POW McCain’s cottage cheese and lime Jello speech at the RNC convention, in a town notoriously hard to get anywhere in on time, 2,000 people showed up at the opening of Barack Obama’s first campaign office in Southern California.
There were a couple speeches from locals (Eric Garcetti, Harb Wesson, Mark Ridley-Thomas, and a couple others) at the beginning, and they handed out a few yard signs and bumper stickers, but basically, this was an office opening. Just a walk-through of the building. And the campaign sent only one email out about it, with just 24 hours advance notice.
Two thousand people.
Wow.
over…
Practically every local TV station in L.A. was out there, including a NEWS CHOPPER. It basically turned into a block party, with supporters waving signs at passersby on the street. But there was also some positive work being done. Most of the people who turned out to the event signed up to volunteer, whether by phone banking or traveling to Nevada. It’s a large enough office to handle a lot of volunteers at once. And they are organized and ready.
I was able to talk with Mitchell Schwartz, who will be the California Field Director for the next two months. He said the goal of the office was to win California, and then help Nevada. So there will be legitimate actions taken here to increase turnout, which bodes well for the propositions and downticket races, even though the Obama campaign will strictly be trying to identify and turn out Obama voters. The CDP is running a coordinated campaign for downticket (they had their opening in Santa Monica on the same night, which kind of shows how the two entities aren’t really working together).
What’s more, Schwartz told me that there are going to be up to 10 field offices opening in California over the next week or two, including 3-4 more in the SoCal area (East LA and San Bernardino are likely to get one, among other locations). There will be places to work.
There was a genuine excitement last night. I think what we’re seeing on the ground post-Palin is a real determination to get to work. There is a backlash to the conservative culture war backlash they are trying to ride to victory. The community organizer slur in Republican speeches on Wednesday continues to be a rallying cry for Democrats, spawning viral videos and major media coverage.
For community organizers, the Republican vice presidential candidate didn’t just drag their profession through the mud, she mocked the entire belief that Americans can’t collectively work to solve problems.
“I think it demonstrated that they don’t take common people seriously,” says Gonzalez. “They put all their trust and faith in themself and other electeds… just elect me and I’m gonna fix your problems. Who believes that?” […]
“I think it was a cute line that she felt like she could deliver,” says Gonzalez. But, “it invites a contempt for organized Americans, and I think that is incredibly dangerous and short-sighted.”
The denigration of community organizing really hit a nerve, and I think now there’s a common opponent, one that’s bigger than McCain and more visceral. “We’re going to show everyone what community organizing is about,” said one attendee to me. I think Jon Stewart summed it up best, as per usual:
So to everyone out there trying to make a difference in your communities, FUCK YOU! You stupid asses! You jerk-offs! You know what you are? You’re a thousand points of bullshit, that’s what you are. By the way, if it seems odd that the GOP was denigrating community service, the night after making “service” their slogan… you’re confused. Those Republicans were not praising service with those signs, they were demanding it from the waitstaff.
(Never underestimate the ability of Republicans to keep two contradictory notions in their head at the same time. Indeed, in last night’s address, John McCain appeared to flip back to advocacy for community service and community organizing. They are for service, except when it’s done to help scary black people. That’s basically it in a nutshell.)
This is no joke. The Obama campaign raised $10 million in one day this week, after a fundraising email explicitly mentioned the slur on community organizing. That speaks volumes. People are energized and fired up. The spirit of 2004, as Van Jones termed it at the DNC last week, is back. We almost carried a weaker candidate over the line that year because everybody worked together and did whatever they could to win. And now we’re seeing that to the nth degree, with better organization and more energy.
Go out and get involved.
NOTE: Because I never gave it out, the Los Angeles HQ is at 3619 Motor Ave. in the Culver City area.
I’ve been mulling this around in my head for a few days. Three powerful members of the House Judiciary committee have have sent a letter to the Justice Department calling for an investigation into leaks surrounding the inquiry into State Senate President Pro Tem Don Perata.
No article since November 2004 has explicitly said that any information came from a federal government source. But in a letter to U.S. Atty. Gen. Michael B. Mukasey obtained by The Times on Monday, U.S. Reps. John Conyers Jr., Linda Sanchez and Zoe Lofgren wrote, “We are disturbed and concerned that news story after news story . . . has cited federal law enforcement sources as the basis of information.”
The only article specifically mentioned in the July 31 letter was a story in the San Francisco Chronicle. The article cited “sources familiar with the probe,” a broad term that could encompass federal agents, defense attorneys and people who have been questioned […]
On Friday, the day after the congressional letter was sent, a Wall Street Journal article said the investigation into Perata “gained momentum over the past year.” The article’s details were attributed to anonymous people “close to the defense,” who said Perata’s longtime political consultant, Sandi Polka, was granted immunity to compel her to answer questions.
(Here’s that SF Chron article mentioned in the letter.)
The Perata investigation certainly has dragged on for years, leading to him needing more and more funds to raise in his defense. In particular, the dumping of $250,000 from the California Democratic Party into his legal defense fund raised a lot of eyebrows around these parts. After the initial explanation of “We’re the CDP and we can do what we want,” a secondary explanation was that the investigation had been politicized and that this was part of the DoJ’s efforts to prosecute and delegitimize Democrats. A couple weeks later, out comes this letter, signed by two members of the California delegation. But it’s Conyers’ participation that makes me believe that this is a real concern. I trust Conyers enough to think that he wouldn’t simply badger the DoJ to help out a political problem in California.
Of course, let’s look at what the letter is actually alleging. It’s not suggesting that the investigation itself is unnecessarily political, but that someone inside the investigation is using the media to disparage Perata. That may well be true, but it doesn’t necessarily follow that the whole investigation is a farce.
Let’s now look at what this does NOT suggest:
• It in no way excuses the CDP for paying off Perata with $250,000 in the middle of an election year, whether that money was simply laundered through them and earmarked for Perata or not. Based on this SacBee report, it appears Perata is perfectly capable of raising money for himself:
Senate President Pro Tem Don Perata has solicited at least $200,000 this year from political interest groups for a nonprofit foundation that promotes and rallies support for one of his bills.
The arrangement, apparently legal, allows the Senate leader to solicit unlimited funds for his own political agenda without having to detail how the money is spent.
“He may have found a loophole in the Political Reform Act that needs to be closed,” said attorney Bob Stern, a co-author of the state’s Political Reform Act who now runs the Center for Governmental Studies in Los Angeles.
Which leads me to point 2:
• There is no way that Perata should still be Senate President Pro Tem at this point. While he has done a good job of hammering Republicans for their intransigence on the budget, this image hit, as well as the constant distraction of having to find new ways to raise money for his legal bills, are not what we need at this sensitive time, ESPECIALLY when Darrell Steinberg is waiting in the wings and perfectly capable of performing the same duties without the black cloud of indictment hanging over the head of the Democratic leadership. They haven’t even taken a caucus vote on this yet, to my knowledge – it’s currently scheduled for August 21, but during these budget negotiations that’s doubtful to come off.
It is perfectly consistent to be skeptical of the Justice Department’s case against Perata and to ALSO demand that he step down from his leadership position, and to excoriate the CDP for their conduct in either shoveling Perata money or acting as a conduit for that fund transfer.
This is a budding scandal. The front page of the Washington Post today profiles Harry Sargeant III, a bundler for John McCain who has a knack of getting big-dollar donations out of working-class people in the Inland Empire who’ve never made a political contribution in their lives.
The bundle of $2,300 and $4,600 checks that poured into Sen. John McCain’s presidential campaign on March 12 came from an unlikely group of California donors: a mechanic from D&D Auto Repair in Whittier, the manager of Rite Aid Pharmacy No. 5727, the 30-something owners of the Twilight Hookah Lounge in Fullerton.
But the man who gathered checks from them is no stranger to McCain — he shuttled the Republican on his private plane and held a fundraising event for the candidate at his house in Delray Beach, Fla […]
Some of the most prolific givers in Sargeant’s network live in modest homes in Southern California’s Inland Empire. Most had never given a political contribution before being contacted by Sargeant or his associates. Most said they have never voiced much interest in politics. And in several instances, they had never registered to vote. And yet, records show, some families have ponied up as much as $18,400 for various candidates between December and March.
Both Sargeant and the donors were vague when asked to explain how Sargeant persuaded them to give away so much money.
This is extremely odd. Non-donors don’t just pop up and max out, especially when they don’t fit the profile of having $2,300 to spare. There’s at least the possibility here of straw donations, where these names are either picked out of the phone book and used as shells so big-money folks can deliver more than campaign finance limits to the candidate, or the contributors are willing participants who give and then get the money back (with a little extra for their trouble) from the same big-money boys.
Adding to the intrigue is that these donors declined to talk about the donations (at first denying they had made them) or who asked them to do so. Half these people aren’t registered to vote. And all of them appear to be Arab-American, a community with which Sargeant has unique contacts:
Sargeant’s business relationships, and the work they perform together, occur away from the public eye. His firm, International Oil Trading Co. (IOTC), holds several lucrative contracts with the Defense Department to carry fuel to the U.S. military in Iraq.
“It is very difficult and is a very logistically intensive business that we have been able to specialize in,” Sargeant said. “We do difficult logistical things that don’t necessarily suit a major oil company. It’s a niche we’ve been able to occupy.”
The work has not been without controversy. Last month, Rep. Henry A. Waxman (D-Calif.) initiated a review of IOTC’s contract to determine whether it was overcharging the military for jet fuel, and to learn how the company, which did not submit the lowest bid, landed the contract to supply the fuel. The Pentagon has said that IOTC won the contract because it was the only company with a “letter of authorization” from the Jordanian government to move the fuel across its territory to Iraq.
Greg Sargent and Eric Kleefeld have more on this element of the story – Sargeant (no relation to the TPM writer) is apparently being sued by the brother-in-law of the King of Jordan.
This is a very shady tale and I’m guessing we haven’t heard the end of it. John McCain’s absentee leadership has led to serious violations of campaign finance law already – and this could be the worst yet.
He’s running for two offices at the same time. Tom McClintock is actively raising money for a 2010 Board of Equalization campaign in the event that he loses the Congressional race against Charlie Brown. The proof is right here. From the press release from the Brown campaign:
Since the beginning of the year–and even after he announced his exploratory committee for Congress– Tom McClintock spent over $50,000 for his potential 2010 campaign for California State Board of Equalization and raised over $32,000 during this time period. These figures include 3 contributions to his 2010 statewide campaign fund on the same day he announced his congressional bid for CA-04, and thousands more in the months that followed—including a contribution from tobacco giant Reynolds American.
Reminiscent of Congressman John Doolittle, Senator McClintock also made a $15,000 donation marked “charity” to his own political organization—“Tom McClintock’s Citizens for the California Republic .”
In addition, Senator McClintock employed the same finance director – Igor Birman – to solicit contributions for both his federal and state committees. Mr. Birman was paid to solicit funds for the non-federal committee through March 5, 2008 and began receiving payments from the federal committee on Feb. 6, 2008.
Using state campaign funds for a federal campaign is illegal.
I think McClintock has to admit that he has a problem. The man is addicted to running for office, so much so that he can’t stop one campaign before he starts another. Even Alan Keyes has enough sense to run one race at a time.
Charlie Brown’s statement:
“I decided to run for Congress to do what the career politicians have repeatedly failed to do-bring people together to solve problems in our district and across our country. I have no ambition for higher office because I believe there is no greater honor than to serve the nation I dedicated my life to defending, and to represent the community where I have lived, worked and raised my family these past 17 years.
It’s time for State Senator McClintock to level with the people in our community. What office are you running for? Will you give back all the money you’ve raised for your statewide bid since February 1, 2008 – including the money you took from the tobacco companies?”
Aside from being illegal, how could voters in the 4th District expect that the guy who’s already looking for his next office has any interest in or concern for their lives and their challenges? McClintock is just trying to cash a paycheck. He has one political job, and is running for two or maybe three more.
This is the defining narrative of this whole campaign – leader vs. opportunist.
Swing State Project did the definitive cash-on-hand rankings for House races. I’ve culled just the California ones from that list, and then used their massive fundraising round-up to add in the other California challengers, and then plowed through the FEC database to find the rest. I wanted to add in how much money each person raised in Q2 to give you guys an idea of how their recent fundraising is going, but I had no idea how to find those numbers for the other candidates not in SSP’s database. For example, check out Brian Bilbray. There’s NOTHING about how much he raised from April 1 to May 14 this year. Huh. I have no idea how the SSP guys got their $210,000 figure, so I’m not even going to try and derive those numbers. Oh well. (I’ve put McClintock as the incumbent because he belongs to the same party as Doolittle. Same for Duncan Hunter’s son.)
Cash figures are in the thousands of dollars. Fundraising table after the fold.
Update: The races David listed have now been added, and I finally figured out how to find the Q2 fundraising numbers for everybody. Well, almost everybody.
| District | Challenger | Party | Q2 | CoH | Incumbent | Party | Q2 | CoH | Cash Power Index |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| CA-04 | Brown | D | $355 | $675 | McClintock | R | $1,269 | $117 | 577% |
| CA-50 | Leibham | D | $246 | $267 | Bilbray | R | $210 | $528 | 51% |
| CA-11 | Andal | R | $174 | $663 | McNerney | D | $416 | $1,376 | 48% |
| CA-03 | Durston | D | $125 | $189 | Lungren | R | $173 | $615 | 31% |
| CA-45 | Bornstein | D | $96 | $122 | Bono Mack | R | $336 | $421 | 29% |
| CA-52 | Lumpkin | D | $129 | $54 | Hunter, Jr. | R | $338 | $198 | 27% |
| CA-46 | Cook | D | $110 | $97 | Rohrabacher | R | $86 | $388 | 25% |
| CA-49 | Hamilton | D | $18 | $27 | Issa | R | $158 | $120 | 23% |
| CA-44 | Hedrick | D | $49 | $36 | Calvert | R | $174 | $319 | 11% |
| CA-41 | Prince | D | $3.6 | $91 | Lewis | R | $161 | $952 | 9.6% |
| CA-26 | Warner | D | $161 | $125 | Dreier | R | $247 | $1,904 | 7% |
| CA-48 | Young | D | $68 | $9.7 | Campbell | R | $252 | $408 | 2.4% |
| CA-02 | Morris | D | $8.5 | $8.6 | Herger | R | $204 | $474 | 1.8% |
| CA-42 | Chau | D | $34 | $12 | Miller | R | $130 | $950 | 1.3% |
| CA-25 | Conaway | D | $1.26 | $0.3 | McKeon | R | $127 | $300 | 0.1% |
| CA-21 | Johnson | D | $3.0 | $0.9 | Nunes | R | $206 | $972 | 0.09% |
| CA-24 | Jorgensen | D | $0.54 | $0.075 | Gallegly | R | $141 | $841 | 0.009% |
| CA-40 | Avalos | D | ??? | ??? | Royce | R | $151 | $2,431 | ??? |
Then I decided to look at some of our own incumbents that are deemed “safe”, just for comparison’s sake. There are some incumbents missing from this list because their Republican challengers have raised so little, they haven’t even filed FEC fundraising reports. I believe I’ve gotten every single race where the challenger has an actual FEC report for Q2. Unlike above, which is ranked by the Cash Power Index, these are arranged by congressional district.
| District | Challenger | Party | Q2 | CoH | Incumbent | Party | Q2 | CoH | Cash Power Index |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| CA-05 | Smith | R | $0 | $0.5 | Matsui | D | $157 | $270 | 0.17% |
| CA-06 | Halliwell | R | $7.4 | $0.02 | Woolsey | D | $106 | $102 | 0.02% |
| CA-08 | Walsh | R | $129 | $45 | Pelosi | D | $581 | $455 | 10% |
| CA-08 | Sheehan | I | ??? | $3.7 | Pelosi | D | $581 | $455 | 0.8% |
| CA-10 | Gerber | R | $6 | $27 | Tauscher | D | $157 | $453 | 6% |
| CA-12 | Conlon | R | $30 | $4.5 | Speier | D | $336 | $570 | 0.8% |
| CA-23 | Kokkonen | R | $1 | $26 | Capps | D | $158 | $423 | 6% |
| CA-27 | Singh | R | $6 | $7.4 | Sherman | D | $183 | $1,835 | 0.4% |
| CA-29 | Hahn | R | $5 | $5 | Schiff | D | $154 | $1,583 | 0.3% |
| CA-34 | Balding | R | $3 | $3 | Roybal-Allard | D | $78 | $62 | 4.9% |
| CA-35 | Hayes | R | $5.9 | $1.8 | Waters | D | $110 | $90 | 2% |
| CA-36 | Gibson | R | $1.8 | $0.6 | Harman | D | $217 | $429 | 0.15% |
| CA-39 | Lenning | R | $0.5 | $2 | Sanchez | D | $74 | $200 | 0.99% |
| CA-43 | Roberts | R | $14 | $24 | Baca | D | $203 | $101 | 24% |
| CA-47 | Avila | R | $13 | $12 | Sanchez | D | $161 | $558 | 2.1% |
| CA-53 | Crimmins | R | $7.1 | $3.2 | Davis | D | $96 | $507 | 0.6% |
* Hayes’ Q2 number is actually Q1 and Q2 combined.
Notes: That’s not a misprint, Marta Jorgensen has a total of $75 cash on hand. And that’s not a misprint either, in CA-05, Paul Smith (R) officially raised a total of $0 in his challenge to Doris Matsui (D).
Christina Avalos doesn’t even seem to exist in the FEC’s electronic database. When I went here and entered the necessary info for CA-40, the only two people listed in the database were Royce and some woman named Florice Hoffman, who seems to have stopped running in 2007. This may sound harsh, but if you don’t exist in the FEC database, I’m not sure you can be called a serious candidate. At the very least, get your shit together without making any excuses like Bill Sali did.
Update: Found her. But it doesn’t help that the last listed contribution to her is from the year 2002, and that her page doesn’t list anything after her statement of candidacy… in 2001. Trying to search by her candidate ID to get fundraising numbers yields an SQL error 100 for some reason.
I almost feel a little embarrassed by listing some of those races in the first list on there. It may be one of those cases where we’re almost better off not knowing just how bad the disparity is.
I was a bit surprised at how little money McClintock has left after the primary. But beware, he was a fundraising monster in Q2, bringing in over $1.26 million. What happened with the spending limits here? There’s people like the Bloom family that gave McClintock $6,900 each. Looks like Doug Ose triggered the Millionaire’s Amendment when he gave himself a whopping $2.8 million loan for his failed campaign. But that was for the primary. Now that we’re in the general, is McClintock only allowed to get a maximum of $2,300 from those people? If so, hopefully we’ll see those Q3 numbers for McClintock drop significantly. Because raising $1.2 million in one quarter for a House race is sick.
Also, for those wondering about Cindy Sheehan’s independent bid against Pelosi, she never filed a final Q2 report, and whoever filled out that last report wrote that it goes through December 31, 2008. It looks like they meant 2007, but their filings seem pretty disorganized. They also got a stern letter from the FEC for not filing their Q1 report properly, and then another one for having several discrepancies in their filing.
As for Diane Watson, what’s going on with her fundraising? Her Q2 report says that while she has a little under $18,000 in cash on hand, her campaign committee owes over $25,000 in debts and obligations. WTF?
If you want to go by just the fundraising numbers, John Roberts (no, not the CNN anchor) would seem about as competitive against Joe Baca as Debbie Cook is against Dana Rohrabacher. Of course, we’ve got the big advantage with the DCCC being able to spend much more than the NRCC.