Press concludes - Doug Lamborn did not sell out voters for $250.00.

5 thoughts on “Press concludes – Doug Lamborn did not sell out voters for $250.00.”

1. At this rate it won’t be long before the Crank camp spin machine loses all their credibility.  When Crank puts out stuff like this that even the media identifies as untrue, it only shows how desperate he is becoming.  

   We should expect more of the same in the future since Crank’s game plan is defacing the opposition, not promotion of his achievements since he has none that hold water for a congressional candidate.

   Log in to Reply

2. I hadn’t heard of this before. Were people honestly claiming that Lamborn gave an earmark in exchange for a $250 donation?

   That’s, what, 10% of a individual’s donation limit? In exchange for an earmark? You gotta be kidding me.

   Besides, I read in the gazette that this earmark was also sponsored by Udall and Salazar. Were they in on the cut too? Did the three of them split the $250, or did each one get their own donation?

   You’ve go to be kidding me.

   Log in to Reply

3. 
   Doug Lamborn put together an $800,000 earmark for a company in Colorado who’s owners gave him a sizable donation.
   
   GOPpundit
   

   I think most people would hardly call a $250.00 contribution “sizable”.

   In  politics, I believe “sizable” has a much larger threshold.

   I know your point is on his wording, but he does make a good point.

   If you bar any assistance for a business from any Congressman or Senator who ever accepted any reportable amount from any person who is a stockholder, or CFO, CEO, etc., that is a nightmare.  First how would a candidate know? Those officers and stockholders change sometimes more than annually. The record keeping and compliance would be impossible. And to what purpose.

   Our campaign finance laws get crazier the more we try to “fix” them. This “sizeable” contribution won’t even one tiny ad in the Gazette. Yet to be elected at this level, a candidate must raise $150,000 to $250,000.

   I know this makes great fodder for you anti-Lamborn folks, but Jeff Cranks proposal is bad law, and this story is not about a scandal.

   Mark Udall and Ken Salazar pushed this earmark for this company.  Who in the company ever gave any amount to them???  

   You aren’t even curious because your focus is just “get Lamborn”.

   ——————————————————————————–

   by: NEWSMAN @ Mon Jan 07, 2008 at 10:48:29 AM MST
   
   [ Reply ]

   ——————————————————————————–
   

   Log in to Reply

4. Lamborn opponent looks to restrict the funding practice

   By ED SEALOVER
   
   THE GAZETTE
   
   January 7, 2008 –

   
   There is nothing illegal about a member of Congress helping to get federal money for a campaign donor. But some in Congress favor tightening the law on earmarks, the monetary awards for specific companies or projects that are inserted quietly into budget bills.

   One of those is Jeff Crank, the 2006 Republican primary runner-up who is running against Lamborn, a fellow GOP member, again this year. If elected, Crank said, he would introduce a bill to ban members of Congress from taking money from people for whom they acquired earmark funding.

   “Could it be an oversight that any member of Congress could take that money and get an earmark? Certainly,” said Crank, former administrative director for Lamborn’s predecessor, Rep. Joel Hefley. “But that’s why you shouldn’t even do it – because you don’t want the appearance that your vote’s being bought. And I don’t want to guess what Doug’s intentions are.”

   Lamborn denied that the campaign donation had anything to do with his helping Sturman, saying the military is interested in the technology her company is developing.

   “I don’t make that connection because there is no such connection in reality,” he said. “I’m not for sale, and for anyone to think that is just plain wrong.”

   Lamborn said he is also concerned with keeping jobs in the 5th Congressional District, and that an earmark like this can help.

   http://www.gazette.com/article…
   

   Log in to Reply

5. The Jeff Crank campaign or at least it’s supporters seam very petty.
   
   These guys keep talking about sleazy campaigning in 2006 by third parties who supported Lamborn , all the while whispering about their opponent. Typical

   Log in to Reply