Tom Bakk (D):
- Total: $361,927 (began fundraising in mid-2008)
- 2009 Total: $208,682
- Cash on Hand: $133,000
- Other: none reported.
Mark Dayton (D): [NEW]
- Total: $641,821 (committee registered in early 2009)
- 2009 Total: $641,821
- Cash on Hand: $16,772
- Other: He loaned $570,00 to his campaign (!)
Matt Entenza (D): [UPDATED]
- Total: Over $400,000 (began around January)
- 2009 Total: $405,286 from contributors in 2009.
- Cash on Hand: $73,917
- Other: Matt made a $10,000 contribution to the campaign and loaned the campaign $70,000.
Susan Gaertner (D): [NEW]
- Total: $200,411 (began in 2007!)
- 2009 Total: $110,828
- Cash on Hand: $4,347
Steve Kelley (D): [NEW]
- Total: About $200,ooo (he never closed out his 2006 committee, so there are nominal contributions in 2007 and 2008, but he didn’t really start his push for this cycle until 2010)
- 2009 Total: $187,249
- Cash on Hand: $39,541
- Other: Loaned $16,400 to his campaign
Margaret Anderson Kelliher (D):
- Total: $254,000 (formally announced in September, not sure when she began fundraising)
- 2009 Total: $254,000 from contributors in 2009.
- Cash on Hand: $81,000
- Other: She made a direct contribution of $250 to her campaign.
John Marty (D): [NEW]
- 2009 Total: $105,895
- Cash on Hand: $18,910
- Other: None reported.
Tom Rukavina (D):
- Total: $135,000 (announced exploratory committee in the summer of 2009)
- 2009 Total: $135,000
- Cash on Hand: $60,000
- Other: None reported.
R.T. Rybak (D):
- Total: $278,000 (started fundraising at very end of 2009)
- 2009 Total: $138,000 (additional $140K raised in January, 2010)
- Cash on Hand: $25,000
- Other: None reported.
Paul Thissen (D):
- Total: $370,000 (began fundraising in late 2008)
- 2009 Total: $233,000
- Cash on Hand: $85,000
- Other: He also loaned his campaign $20,000
Marty Seifert (R):
- Total: $262,753 (stepped down as minority leader in June to form exploratory committee)
- 2009 Total: $262,753
- Cash on Hand: $133,072.
- Other: He also loaned his campaign $20,000 and transferred $20,000 from his now defunct MN House campaign
Tom Emmer (R): [UPDATED]
- Total: $114,852 (began this summer)
- 2009 Total: $114,852
- Cash on Hand: $19,154.
- Other: via Scheck: “His spokesman said he loaned the campaign and gave in-kind contributions that amount to roughly $10,000.”
I said it once, and I’ll say it again: The DFL numbers are blowing the GOP numbers out of the water. In fact, just for fun, let’s compare totals here:
Party Totals (so far): [UPDATED]
- DFL Candidates: $1,849,761 ($2,419,761 counting Dayton’s $570K loan to his campaign)
- GOP Candidates: $429,463 (includes GOP candidates I didn’t bother listing above)
Let’s not get overly-confident, but let’s also not fall for the argument that our cluttered field has dampened enthusiasm, because that is obviously not the case.
Thank goodness for public employee and service unions or the democrats would be having as hard a time raising money as republicans are.
I know, those hotel workers are throwing around their enormous cash reserves like crazy!
hahahaha. You can’t be serious!
Aside from spinning, Lloyd, can you think?
Theoko. Aren’t you the least bit worried about the corrupting influence of money in these campaigns? Following the arguments against the Citizens United decision, these donors wouldn’t spend all that money if it didn’t work for them, right?
So here is my thinking. Since you folks repeatedly tell me that the Republican party is the party of the rich and the Democratic party is the party of the little guy, and since the little guy has been absolutely crushed by the last 9 years of George W. Bush, the only people with the financial wherewithal to donate to Democratic candidates must be the public employee’s unions. Why? Because theirs is the only sector of the economy that has grown in the past year and theirs is the only sector that will undoubtedly grow if more Democrats are elected.
I’d love to be proven wrong on this but now that your party makes a habit of running against businesses large and small, who else would have any incentive to vote for you but those on the dole.
“the Democratic party is the party of the little guy, and since the little guy has been absolutely crushed by the last 9 years of George W. Bush, the only people with the financial wherewithal to donate to Democratic candidates must be the public employee’s unions.”
Yeah. I’m not taking this seriously. Let me know when you want to want to have a real discussion.
http://www.opensecrets.org/industries/indus.php?ind=P04
That’s a lot of taxpayer money.
How are union donations tax payer dollars Lloyd? They are all taken out of union dues. Unless you think that whatever public employees spend their money on is really your money.
If a public employee spends their paycheck on groceries is that “your” money Lloyd?
How the hell are union campaign monies at all “taxpayer” money? It is money from their members. People should be able to spend their paycheck however they want, shouldn’t they Lloyd? Or do they have to check with you first, before they spend their money?
So, Lloyd, according to your source,
ALL public sector unions contributed about $19 million in 2008, the last big year for donations. That’s a lot of money. (not one red cent was taxpayer money, mind you. It all came from employee paychecks)
So, $19 million from all public unions
So, Joe Six pack has $19 million backing him and the middle class.
How much does Joe six pack have working against him?
2009 the chamber of congress spent $123,000,000 on lobbying
In 2008 the financial banks spent $37,000,000
In 2008 insurance companies spent $46,000,000
In 2008 oil and gas spent $35,000,000
and so on.
(The entire alternative energy sector averages about $140,000 a year.)
$19 million for the middle class, over a quarter Billion at least for industry.
http://www.opensecrets.org/industries/indus.php?ind=F09
Yes, we raised more money than they did. On the other hand, the GOP nomination process is supporting a much smaller circular firing squad that will be shooting for a much shorter time. I don’t think you can compare money that’s going to be spent on blue on blue attacks (or the Campaign Finance Board) to money that they will likely get to use on us.
I think the point is that the money is a testament to the enthusiasm level of the DFL this year, in contrast to the national mood.
True. And Democrats have always been masters at snatching defeat from the jaws of victory. But I think the gist of the original posting was to poke holes in the current Republican meme that Democrats are demoralized and unenthusiastic. The numbers tell a different story.
Thank you
I think the Democrat loss of the Senate special election today will show you something about enthusiasm.
Bakk didn’t loan his campaign any money
Why would Bakk have a now-defunct House campaign when he’s a Senator?
“I think the Democrat loss of the Senate special election today will show you something about enthusiasm.”
Yes Jack, it will show us that a historically conservative Republican district is a conservative Republican district. Revelation!