Norton raises over $505,000 in 16 days

Not that this reveals anything new, but...

Consider the implications of a system in which only those who raise the most money are viable:

...such a showing may well encourage others to withdraw, thus clearing the field.

It tends to indicate that only the wealthy, or those supported by the wealthy or well off, are able to be competitive. Sure, we can theorize about much larger numbers of donors each contributing a much smaller amount. But how often does that alone make a candidate viable in real world politics?

---

by: richardmyers @ Thu Oct 08, 2009 at 06:49:49 AM CDT

That's exactly what we have now.

At all levels of politics.

"Kevin and I will keep them out somehow -- even if we have to redefine what the peer-review literature is!"  

---

by: Laughing Boy @ Thu Oct 08, 2009 at 10:02:56 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

It's the other way around

Only those candidates who are viable are able to raise significant money.

Donors don't give money to people just because they figured out how to fill out paperwork to become a candidate for office, nor should they. Donors give money to candidates they think can win, first and foremost. Nobody is going to give Cleve Tidwell two rusty nickels for his U.S. Senate account because HE CAN'T WIN.

Does money play too important a role in politics? Of course it does. But you can't decry the injustice of strong candidates raising a lot of money while weak candidates don't.    

---

by: Colorado Pols @ Thu Oct 08, 2009 at 10:24:27 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

Fair point,

But the end game is whoever raises the most money almost always wins.

I wish we'd cap races.  It's such an unGodly waste of money.

"Kevin and I will keep them out somehow -- even if we have to redefine what the peer-review literature is!"  

---

by: Laughing Boy @ Thu Oct 08, 2009 at 10:29:39 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

Caps and public funding

Are certainly worthy of discussion, and we don't disagree that there is too much money spent on campaigns (but not enough on advertising at Colorado Pols, of course). But even if we had a cap, there would still be some candidates who could raise the money and others who couldn't.

We just get tired of complaints that if a certain candidate can raise money they must be tied to money interests, and that they shut out the "little guy." But if the "little guy" was worth a shit as a candidate and had real community support, "he" would be able to raise money, too.  

---

by: Colorado Pols @ Thu Oct 08, 2009 at 12:20:01 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Agreed.

I think we should get rid of the money interests by disbanding all unions.

:)

"Kevin and I will keep them out somehow -- even if we have to redefine what the peer-review literature is!"  

---

by: Laughing Boy @ Thu Oct 08, 2009 at 14:01:53 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Fine idea

if we also abolish the C-corp and the S-corp and return America to a nation of small proprietors. That'll even the field a bit.

---

by: RedGreen @ Thu Oct 08, 2009 at 14:09:59 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

I own an S-Corp

...just saying

"[McInnis] already appeals to those of us who have half a brain..."  ChenWui

---

by: ClubTwitty @ Thu Oct 08, 2009 at 14:14:30 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

That settles it, then.

Just the unions.

"Kevin and I will keep them out somehow -- even if we have to redefine what the peer-review literature is!"  

---

by: Laughing Boy @ Thu Oct 08, 2009 at 14:19:45 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Thanks.

I curry special favor.  Not really, I merely organized that way since the option was available and counsel and accountants suggested such.

Personally, corporations are a fiction, they shouldn't have the rights of 'personhood' and the 'corporate veil' should be pierced.  Right now corporations have the rights of 'individuals' and none of the accountability.

Of course my shareholders are me and my girlfriend, also the board of directors and I am the staff (with some occasional support).  


"[McInnis] already appeals to those of us who have half a brain..."  ChenWui

---

by: ClubTwitty @ Thu Oct 08, 2009 at 14:58:22 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

If SCOTUS decides to allow corporate monies to flow into campaigns

directly, then most certainly unions also should get that right.  

I support public funding, and believe that corporate money should be kept out of politics.  Scalia's mom and pop barbershop arguments are so disingenuous I wonder how that man can look himself in the mirror.  

"[McInnis] already appeals to those of us who have half a brain..."  ChenWui

---

by: ClubTwitty @ Thu Oct 08, 2009 at 15:01:02 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

how that man can look himself in the mirror

He can look, but I'm not sure he can see a reflection.

---

by: RedGreen @ Thu Oct 08, 2009 at 15:23:13 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Weathly Special Interests

We are in sad shape if we think that Norton and for that matter Bennet are raising money because they are popular or will represent the people. It means one thing Norton and Bennet are bought and paid for by special interests.  

Remember Obama was also a long shot but the people got him elected.  

---

by: Sharon Hanson @ Thu Oct 08, 2009 at 07:36:25 AM CDT

Hate to tell you but

the whole system is bought and paid for by special interests.

If Romanoff wants that seat, and this far that's the only reason I hear that he is running, then he needs to raise some cash.  Both governorship and senate are going to be way costly when all is said and done.

(Me, I support public financing for candidates that demonstrate enough small donor, individual support).

"[McInnis] already appeals to those of us who have half a brain..."  ChenWui

---

by: ClubTwitty @ Thu Oct 08, 2009 at 08:15:40 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

"The people got him elected . . . "

That's nothing but a truism, and it does not mean what you suggest, unless you are suggesting President Obama is not popular or that he does not represent the people.

Obama raised more money than any other candidate for any office--ever.  He raised $745 million, which had a great deal to do with his primary and general election victories.  

Discipline without purpose is tyranny.

---

by: Automaticftp @ Thu Oct 08, 2009 at 09:30:17 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

Wow, you must HATE Obama, then

because he raised more money for his presidential campaign than any candidate in history.

I guess when Bennet raises money it's because he's bought and paid for by special interests. When Romanoff raises money, it's because he is a blessed and righteous man who in his spare time walks on water when he isn't serving the public as the "people's choice."

Spew. Rinse. Repeat. Keep saying it long enough and some poor dumb fuck might just think you know what you are talking about, Sharon.

Got it. Thanks Sharon.

"The only way you could be worse is if you were Wade Norris." Ralphie

---

by: Middle of the Road @ Thu Oct 08, 2009 at 09:35:31 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

Nor did AR become Speaker

solely on the support of small GR donations...

Nor, if elected Sen., would he decline the 'special interest' money that is a disease in the nation's capital and the statehouse.   Sadly, it's how the game is played.  AR would (and will during the general should he make it that far) have his hand out to the corporate donors too.  To pretend otherwise is just pollyannish.

 

"[McInnis] already appeals to those of us who have half a brain..."  ChenWui

---

by: ClubTwitty @ Thu Oct 08, 2009 at 09:35:52 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

As I recall

Speaker Romanoff today can bear that title because some very wealthy people went to bat for Democratic candidates and against the John Andrews religious right and got us a new Democratic majority in the legislature.

Ditto for Marilyn Musgrave, who now has a an "ex" in front of her title, because very wealthy people invested in her defeat.

Money is how messages are delivered, staff is hired, events are built, etc. If Andrew Romanoff didn't understand that truism, his campaign wouldn't have been touting his (underwhelming) numbers yesterday. So your sanctimony today just doesn't impress.

Welcome to the big leagues, Sharon.  

"It is hard enough to remember my opinions, without also remembering my reasons for them!" - Nietzsche  

---

by: twas brillig @ Thu Oct 08, 2009 at 11:35:27 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

But aren't

we grading them on a sliding scale, even though they're running for the same office? Won't the voters do the same?

---

by: RedGreen @ Thu Oct 08, 2009 at 11:41:50 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

Gill, Stryker, Polis et al

Who remembers them? Wasn't the Democratic majority created by St. Andrew raising his staff over the Red Sea?

"I'll take incompetence over a business model incentivised to kill me any day." -- DtR(H)

---

by: redstateblues @ Thu Oct 08, 2009 at 12:02:58 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

more like....

...Darth Romanoff overseeing the CODA Death Star.....

TABOR4LIFE

---

by: Muhammad Ali Hasan @ Thu Oct 08, 2009 at 12:14:41 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Holy Mixed Metaphor Batman

St Andrew?  Parting the Red Sea?    

---

by: silverandblue @ Thu Oct 08, 2009 at 12:19:56 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

He's all things to all people

"I'll take incompetence over a business model incentivised to kill me any day." -- DtR(H)

---

by: redstateblues @ Fri Oct 09, 2009 at 11:54:01 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

bare minimum

This is probably the bare minimum that Jane could have raised and still be seen as a formidable opponent, anything less then $500k and the NRSC would probably be scratching their heads wondering if they backed the right horse.  This was the low hanging fruit that Jane picked off.  Next quarter will be abit more telling IMO.   Oh and for the inevitable GOPer who says that it was only 16 days blah blah blah, if you really think that Jane started to line up donations the day of her announcement I have some nice beach front property Im looking to sell.

---

by: MountainDem @ Thu Oct 08, 2009 at 08:03:51 AM CDT

I agree, next quarterly report will tell the tale

Besides that, Ms. Norton has a fundraising committee that looks like the whose who of Colorado Republican politics, so she won't have any excuses if she doesn't raise over $1 million next quarter.  

---

by: Republican 36 @ Thu Oct 08, 2009 at 08:59:31 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

Apples to Pomegranates??

I'm confused (really, correct me if I'm wrong).

Isn't the maximum contribution for Romanoff around $500 and for Norton it's like $2,400?

I'm not saying $200K is great but I feel like it's a little unfair to compare the two.

---

by: LarimerBoy @ Thu Oct 08, 2009 at 09:34:37 AM CDT

Uh, they're both running for the Senate, right?

So, the total they are allowed to raise is also the same.  

"The only way you could be worse is if you were Wade Norris." Ralphie

---

by: Middle of the Road @ Thu Oct 08, 2009 at 09:36:43 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

Right you are....

HA! Wow, I really was confused! Not really sure what I was thinking. Second trip to the coffee guy is needed.

---

by: LarimerBoy @ Thu Oct 08, 2009 at 09:41:56 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

Man, I hear that!

It's snowing and if I don't get some serious caffeine in me soon, I'm going to be napping by 10:00 a.m.

"The only way you could be worse is if you were Wade Norris." Ralphie

---

by: Middle of the Road @ Thu Oct 08, 2009 at 09:52:39 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

Oh

I thought you were just being extremely ironic. You probably could have played that one off!

"It is hard enough to remember my opinions, without also remembering my reasons for them!" - Nietzsche  

---

by: twas brillig @ Thu Oct 08, 2009 at 11:37:32 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

16 and 21?

Where did the post come up with these numbers?  Didn't Norton announce the day before Romanoff?

---

by: Nomadic Politico @ Thu Oct 08, 2009 at 10:25:23 AM CDT

Romanoff created an exploratory

committee before he actually announced which allowed him to raise money before he was officially a candidate.

---

by: dem83 @ Thu Oct 08, 2009 at 13:16:33 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Considering yesterday's discussion of "low-hanging fruit"

Or the lack thereof....

I think Jane Norton has just illustrated an example of a candidate that had it's pre-announcement ducks in a row, and doesn't need it's fellow travelers to deliver pearls of wisdom like, "Well, now Andrew will really be able to hit the phones."  

"It is hard enough to remember my opinions, without also remembering my reasons for them!" - Nietzsche  

---

by: twas brillig @ Thu Oct 08, 2009 at 11:50:11 AM CDT

Great point

---

by: Colorado Pols @ Thu Oct 08, 2009 at 12:20:48 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

To all intents and purposes

Romo was a candidate on Sept. 1, shortly after the initial leak happened. He had literally the entire month to get money lined up. Instead, 75% of his $200,000 was online giving, most tied to the endorsement email blasts. Only $50,000 came in the PO Box.

I know small donor online giving is all the rage, based on the perceptions surrounding Obama's 2008 operation, but a 3:1 online take indicates to me that during September, not a lot of work went into getting donors lined up for the big day.  

"It is hard enough to remember my opinions, without also remembering my reasons for them!" - Nietzsche  

---

by: twas brillig @ Thu Oct 08, 2009 at 12:59:05 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Never mind that he's been floating trial balloons since February

Which were either made of lead or he forgot the helium.

Non impediti ratione cogitationis.

"Some of the people that wanted to engage me in conversation appeared to have been the losers in the 'Are you smarter than Michele Bachmann contest?'." --Rep. Barney Frank

---

by: ThillyWabbit @ Thu Oct 08, 2009 at 14:04:06 PM CDT

[ Parent ]