Sunday, April 16, 2006

FEC Report Open Thread (Republican Side)

One key factor is that Pete McCloskey has raised more money from individual contributors than Pombo has. Of course, Pombo has all of the PAC money rolling in, corporate sponsorship, just like he wants to sell for our national partk.

I wonder if he has Annette on Commission like John Doolittle put his wife on commission. She get 15% of everything that rolls in to Dolittle. With that, Anenette could afford to buy her own RV.

Well, enough snide comments. The following is a press release today from McCloskey campaign. It shows exactly where the big contributions to Pombo came from. Gee, I wonder why Haliburton would support a Drill the ANWR Republican. It must mean that Pombo is in good with Cheney as well as DeLay. Oops, I said enough snide comments.

For From McCloskey for Congress:

For Immediate Release: April 15, 2006

Contact: Rob Caughlan, McCloskey for Congress
(650) 575-9448

McCloskey's Individual Contributions for First Quarter 2006 Top Pombo's

But Pombo Gets Huge Infusion of Special Interest Corporate PAC and Lobbyist Cash

Lodi, CA - Quarterly reports filed with the Federal Election Commission (FEC) reveal that Republican congressional candidate Pete McCloskey raised more money from individual contributors than 7-term incumbent Congressman Richard Pombo, R-Tracy. But Pombo far out-raised McCloskey in total contributions for the quarter ending March 31, because he received a huge influx of contributions from corporate, industry group, and other special interests represented by political action committees (PACs).

McCloskey, a former Bay Area Congressman, is challenging Pombo for the Republican nomination in the June 6 primary to represent California's 11th Congressional District.

"The campaign finance filings make it clear that Pete McCloskey will not be beholden to special interests," said McCloskey finance chairperson, Albert Schreck. "It is also quite clear that Congressman Pombo continues to rely on out-of-district wealthy special interest industry groups to finance his campaign in his desperate attempt to stay in power."

When McCloskey announced his intent to challenge Pombo for the Republican nomination for Congress on January 23, 2006, he stated he would not accept any special interest PAC contributions. Instead, he set a goal to raise $500,000 from small individual donors - ordinary citizens - to finance his campaign. These contributions are limited by federal law to a maximum of $2100 per person.

In its FEC filing, the McCloskey campaign reported that as of March 31, 2006, it had raised a little over $205,000 from 626 small individual donors. Many of these donors are former constituents of McCloskey's, from the time he represented the district that today includes the economic engine known as Silicon Valley. In contrast, Pombo raised approximately $163,000 from individual donors.

"We are on track to meet our fundraising goals for our campaign, and I'm very grateful to so many friends and former constituents for their generous financial support," McCloskey said. "I hope that by election day June 6, we will have reached our goal of raising $500,000 from small individual donors. It is time for ordinary citizens to take back their government from the special interests and the corrupt politicians they control."

"We can't outspend Congressman Pombo, but I'm hopeful that 11th District voters will recognize and support a candidate who is not beholden to Halliburton, Texas oil interests and Indian casino operators," McCloskey said.

The FEC disclosures show that Pombo has now raised over $1.4 million during the 2005-2006 election cycle, leaving him with over $1 million in cash-on-hand in his campaign war-chest. About half of the $326,000 in new money Pombo reported for the quarter came from special interest PACs and other Committees, and additional sums came from individuals employed as lobbyists.

Much of the PAC money came pouring into Pombo's coffers in the last few days of the quarter; more than $75,000 on March 30 and 31st alone. A substantial amount came from committees controlled by other Republican congressmen in the Tom DeLay wing of the party, such as Lamar Smith, Jim McCrery, Pete Sessions, and Henry Bonilla. The report suggests that DeLay Republican congressmen in "safe" districts are coming to Pombo's aid by handing him parts of their war-chests.

A key issue in the campaign of course, is how Mr. Pombo's votes continue to reflect the huge contributions he receives from powerful special interest groups. For example, among the top four industries contributing to Mr. Pombo's "Million Dollar Take" for the 2005-2006 cycle to date are: "Casinos/Gambling" ($160,447), "Leadership PACs" ($99,034), "Oil and Gas" ($92,200), and "Lawyers/Law Firms" ($71,298). (Data from the Center for Responsive Politics and the FEC.)

Mr. Pombo also receives substantial additional sums from mining interests, Indian tribes, electric utilities and others who regularly have business before the House Resources Committee, which he chairs.

"It is typical of Pombo to provide his "services" to those who give him campaign funds. Last fall he single-handedly inserted a provision in the Budget Reconciliation bill in November 2005, with neither committee discussion nor floor debate, calling for the sale of vast tracts of public land to private mining companies. This action closely followed a fundraiser for Pombo organized by mining industry lobbyist Duane Gibson, a former Counsel to the Resources Committee, who left to pursue more lucrative work on convicted criminal lobbyist Jack Abramoff’s team," McCloskey said.

Abramoff, who has pled guilty to conspiracy to bribe members of Congress, has also showered Pombo with cash from himself and his many clients. TIME magazine reported that Pombo and John Doolittle are the two top California recipients of funds from Abramoff and his allies.

"It's no wonder," McCloskey noted, "that Pombo has been designated by one nonpartisan watchdog group, Center for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington (CREW), as "One of The 13 Most Corrupt Members of Congress." Another watchdog group, Public Citizen, has named him one of its first six inductees to the "The Congressional Hall of Shame."



Anonymous rick said...

On the issue of individual vs. PAC contributions:

Would it make any difference that if instead of receiving $5,000 from a mining industry PAC, five individuals employed by the mining industry each wrote $1,000 checks to Pombo's campaign? The money is ultimately from the same source.

Along these lines, McCloskey has stated that he won't accept "special interest" PAC money, but apparently has not ruled out individual contributions from persons affiliated with "special interests." First, how does he define "special interest?" And second, is there really a difference between individual "special interests" and PAC "special interests?"

Finally, since PACs typically want to see proof that a candidate is viable before writing a check (e.g. polling figures, campaign fundraising numbers, etc.), isn't bashing PACs a convenient ploy by candidates with no hope of getting PAC money to begin with?

Some food for thought...

11:18 PM, April 16, 2006  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Mr. 2% of a buck again (hi, Ric, er Robert) with another real good PR release by the McCloskey crowd that bears reading about, then making sure gets out and about:

Although he voted for HR 4437, a bill that specifically contains these extreme provisions, Pombo, R-Tracy, told the Contra Costa Times in an April 11 article that he “favors a guest worker program and disagrees with those that want to criminalize illegal immigrants and the people that help them.”

“Pombo says one thing at home and does the opposite in Washington,” Republican opponent and former Congressman Pete McCloskey noted. “It’s a sign of someone staying too long in Washington and becoming corrupted.”

I know, the usual (4) point structure is missing, but this was so important that I figured even I could be flexible...

$.02 out.

8:29 AM, April 17, 2006  
Blogger VPO said...

Maybe I misunderstand campaign financing, and please correct me if I am wrong, but wouldn't the 5 mining executives giving Pombo $1000 each have to give that from their own money, whereas a mining PAC would be giving from corporate funds?

I realize that this could be finagled so that the mining corporation gave each of the 5 execs a "bonus" of $1000 with the clear message that it is expected they donate it to Pombo, but that is a bit of a workaround, plus the execs would still be taxed on the bonus as income.

So there is some difference there, I think. It is more that with a PAC, it is "the industry" speaking, whereas with individuals, it is just that individual speaking. I think PAC donations carry more weight than 5 execs donating individually the same amount, just because it seems like the PAC money comes with one voice, whereas the individuals are not necessarily speaking for the industry -- they may have other, personal reasons to donate, whereas the PACs have no "personal" or "individual" reasons. They are extensions of the corporation and therefore speak for the corporation's interests alone.

8:30 AM, April 17, 2006  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

See Pete's hitting the bottle hard again. I dont understand why it is you guys want to support a Liberal who is embarrassed to call himself one. He's taking money away from dems, (most of his contributors.) He also only had 3 contributions within the 11th CD district. yes. 3.Talking about him makes Pombo look good. stop it already.

2:36 PM, April 18, 2006  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Mr Anonymous,

Er - ah, I'm confused.

First you mention McCloskey only got 3 donations from within the district. Then you say he's taking all the money that would have gone to the Dems.

The way I see it, he's bringing in money from all over the state (if not the country) that would otherwise have NOT gone to a Dem (in this race), and putting it to good use against Pombo. So tell me again why you have a problem with that??

In contrast, the money IN THE DISTRICT is still there for the taking. Now tell me why you have a problem with that as well?

Hey - you also stole my name!

I'm Anonymous Too! (2?)

11:45 PM, April 18, 2006  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Mr. 2% of a buck again (and I'll make it short)

1) Looks like AceKing is up to his lil' tricks again -- coming over to this site to carpetbomb McCloskey under the guise of "anonymous" -- See Pete's hitting the bottle hard again. I dont understand why it is you guys want to support a Liberal who is embarrassed to call himself one. He's taking money away from dems, (most of his contributors.) He also only had 3 contributions within the 11th CD district. yes. 3.Talking about him makes Pombo look good. stop it already.

2) Note the poor use of punctuation (missing apostrophes, commas, capitalization, etc.) and the use of...

3) ...the L word!!!!!!!!

4) AceyDeucey -- do us all a favor and go back to that cob web you love soooooooo much -- and please post something inane there.

It's so stale, birds won't touch it.

$.02 out.

P.S. Speaking of cob webs, look's like the Dickster is gonna spend some of that fat cat, PAC moola on new web content.

10:50 AM, April 19, 2006  
Blogger Matt said...

Good catch on the Pombo website.

11:13 AM, April 19, 2006  
Blogger VPO said...

Correction -- here is Pombo's new website: U.S. Congressman Richard "Dick Pombo

9:29 AM, April 20, 2006  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Mr. 2% of a buck again...ROTFLMFAO!!!!!!!!!

Touche, VPO, touche!

$.02 out.

10:21 AM, April 20, 2006  

Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home