Peggy Lamm Raises $89,084

Democrat Peggy Lamm has filed her Q3 fundraising reports, coming in about $4,000 less than what she raised in Q2. Lamm reported raising $89,084 in Q3, leaving her about $121,000 cash-on-hand.

As we wrote earlier this week when fellow Democrat Ed Perlmutter announced a modest $105,000 raised in Q3, Lamm had a chance to make a move up if she had finished with a strong quarter…but she didn’t.

Ordinarily Lamm’s first two quarters would be fairly impressive, but it’s all relative in a competitive race like CD-7. Perlmutter has more than twice as much money in the bank, and Republican Rick O’Donnell is expected to be stronger financially than both Lamm and Perlmutter. A showing like this also  isn’t going to help Lamm convince a group like EMILYs List that she is worthy of consideration for their support, and that is probably the biggest repurcussion of all.

On the other hand, Lamm has raised enough money that she can hang around, and she got a lot closer to Perlmutter in Q3 than she did in Q2. She spent $51,000 in Q3 and is using money for something. Lamm has raised enough to stay competitive, even if she’s not yet over the hump to be called a serious threat. Sometimes just hanging around is enough.

Kevin McCasky Jefferson County Commissioner

35 Community Comments, Facebook Comments

  1. Anonymous says:

    lamm spent $51,000.00 last cycle? on what? obviously it wasn’t a means to an end with only $89,084 raised.  only speculating here but it appears that someone in the lamm camp is slowly but surely bleeding her coffers dry.  most likely some over-priced political or media “consultants.” (*cough* ritter *cough* braden). 

    i’d say it’s high time to stick the proverbial fork in this campaign…

  2. skibum says:

    It’s an interesting report.

    She’s got a pretty impressive group of folks backing her, although there is more than a little overlap with Ed. I’m pretty sure the names Farber and Brownstein show up on both reports.

    Joan Fitz-Gerald, Judi Wagner, Kate Paul, Gail Schoettler are all heavyweights, and they all gave $$ to Peggy this quarter. 

    No PAC money yet, and she’s almost at $200k — she’s short of Ed (in fundraising, not height) but that’s still a pretty solid report for someone in a Dem primary this far out.

  3. Anonymous says:

    Who is Peggy Lamm?

    Is she related to Governor Lamm?

  4. Anonymous says:


    If you have something you want to discuss that has nothing to do with this post, do it in the open thread.

  5. Anonymous says:

    That?s embarrassing for Perlmutter.  Here Peggy is catching up with a wealthy lawyer from a wealthy family of developers.  His wife is a D.C. lobbyist and this is the best he could do?  A mile wide and an inch deep.

  6. Go PEGGY! says:

    Peggy can do this without EMILY?s List.  Nobody here is looking at the long view.  She doesn?t have a bunch of political chits to cash in like Ed does, and she demonstrated in this quarter that she can CONVINCE people to contribute to her campaign.  Either way, if EMILY?s list endorses next June, it still gets her on the air more than Ed, and the district trends better toward her profile anyway.  Just like Katy Atkinson said, Lamm?s the one O?Donnell should be worried about.

  7. Anonymous says:

    Ed?s never had the attention span for this kind of race.  Anyone else notice the correlation between Ed?s drop in fundraising and Grossman not going for AG?  Hmmmmm?.

  8. Ed is short says:

    That?s embarrassing for Perlmutter.  He is a wealthy lawyer from a wealthy family of developers.  His wife is a D.C. lobbyist and the best he could do is #105k? 

    Why slam Lamm when she is raised essentially the same as he did after what you all call an unimpressive first quarter report? Many people would have a harder time raising money after a “bad” first report and instead she came around and matched the guy with all the connections.

  9. Scoop Jackson says:

    Joan and Eddie go way back.  I heard that she?s worried about big business $$$ and is trying to get Ed on her ticket.  Ed is receptive to the idea because it?s not much work.  Though with slippage this early on his part, I?m sure she?s having second thoughts.

  10. AdamsForPeggy says:

    All the talkers like Ed the lawyer.  But, with all the crap going on in Washington, people want someone who?s a fighter.  Peggy?s a fighter, she took on CU and didn?t care what people said about her.  The last thing we need are insiders like Rick O?Donnell and Ed Perlmutter shoveling more crap on us.

  11. Ohmy says:


    Have some class, folks.

  12. Anonymous says:

    Wow, I thought it was the Ed who gives good head.

  13. Anonymous says:

    here are a few of the lamm campaign leeches (straight from the source –

    * $16,000.00 for opposition research to “brian walsworth” in washington, dc (watch out ed, looks like they’re trying to air some of your dirty laundry).

    * $11,000.00 to the “denver development group” for “fundraising consulting” (i’d be asking for a partial refund here based on those q3 numbers).

    * $8584.00 to kim phillips for “payroll” – (well, at least it’s more than conti paid her).

    * $3018.42 to “rbi strategy and research” (a.k.a. ritter-braden) for more “consulting services.” (???)

    That’s $38,602.00 spent on what again? hence the point i made in the earlier post – too much money out the door this early for lamm and not much of a return on that investment.

    regardless of the fact that she’s collecting checks from the likes of the fitz-gerald’s and schoettler’s of the colorado political world, if this downward fundraising trend continues, i don’t see lamm pulling ahead of perlmutter anytime soon – if at all…

  14. Anonymous says:

    I’d be a contender if that’s all they did

  15. Anonymous says:

    So what?  Ed spent $53,008.08

    He spent more than she did.  AND he has more long-term liabilities.  I count FIVE staffers.  It took FIVE staffers to get LESS money than the previous quarter?

  16. bad press day says:

    Except for being ripped off by her fundraising consultant, that all looks like money well spent, poli.hack. Looks exactly like it should for this stage of the game, in fact. But where’d the other $13k go?

  17. Voyageur says:

    Live Free, Peggy Lamm is a former state legislator.  Don’t confuse her with former Senate candidate Dottie Lamm, who is the wife of former Gov. Dick Lamm. Peggy Lamm picked up her surname by marrying Tom Lamm, Dick’s brother, though they are now divorced.  The Lamms have three children, Mary, Hadda and Little.

  18. Anonymous says:

    Joan and Ed on the same ticket? not very likely to have two Jeffco Dems as running mates. If Joan does run Gov, I would expect her running mate to be from a  non-metro county.

  19. Anonymous says:

    Hey poili.flack Ed has five staffers and could only raise half of what he did last time. Good thing we have Jason Bane to put a good spin on things, when it’s really Ed who has got the problems.

  20. cotopaxi jo says:

    Ed spent more money at Three Tomatoes and Mondo Vino than Peggy did on Ridder Braden.

  21. mystic says:

    Hello Coloradopols…anyone watching?  Are you really going to let that post by Ohmy stand?  No press announcements or advertisements, but coarse comments about women candidates are apparently allowed.

  22. Anonymous says:

    the “poli.hack” just three posts above this one  is not the original (guess (s)he’s just a “hackass” and can’t think of an original name). but in response, no spin necessary here (from bane or anyone else) – the fundraising numbers don’t lie nor does lamm’s downward trending.

    to answer your question “poli.flack,” i saw other various expenses on lamm’s report that were pretty common (printing, web design, legal fees, etc).  i disagree though, opp research at this stage for $16,000.00 seems like an awful lot. and, what the hell is ritter-braden doing for her?  over $3,000.00 for compliance consulting yet they’ve all written her personal checks? 

    there were quite a few disbursements for “parade candy” though…(?)

  23. Lamm Steaks says:

    What was so negative about this post? I think the only sour grapes are from you, sourgrapes.

  24. a says:

    i agree with susan. i don’t see anything overly negative here.

  25. Carrie Giddins says:

    Setting the Record Straight:

    Over the past few months we have read several mentions about what EMILY’s List may or may not do in CO-07, but unfortunately no one has bothered to ask EMILY’s List. We thought we would take this opportunity to set the record straight.
    We think Peggy Lamm is great. We think she is doing all the right things – raising money and working hard. We continue to think she is the most electable candidate in the primary, but more importantly, she is the best candidate to beat Rick O’Donnell. We are very excited about Peggy Lamm’s campaign and be assured that the fact that we have not yet endorsed her is more a reflection of our internal processes than it is a reflection of Peggy Lamm’s viability.

    Thank you,
    Carrie Giddins
    Deputy Communications Director
    EMILY’s List

  26. bad press day says:

    Methinks Jason should check the IP on this last post, because if it’s authentic, it’s certainly newsworthy.

  27. Hatch says:

    Lamm paid $11,000 to Denver Development Group for “fundraising consulting.”


    Let’s hope those guys can get her more down the line cause so far that looks like a bad investment.

  28. cotopaxi jo says:

    Wow, a hush falls over the haters.  No one is willing to recognize the very important comment by EMILY’s list on behalf of Peggy Lamm.  All the dozens and dozens of Jason posts and team-ed comments about how EMILY’s list wasn’t behind Peggy…and now nothing.

    Two interesting things from the EMILY’s list post:
    1)  They think Peggy is the best candidate in the primary–far from non-committal.
    2)  They point out that in all the many times Coloradopols has pontificated about their inside knowledge of EMILY’s list with respect to Peggy’s campaign they never once ever talked to…I don’t know…EMILY’s list.  So much for fact checking (let alone “insider” knowledge).

    Perhaps no one is responding because they have their mouths full of crow (or their feet).

  29. loveyamike says:

    To cotopaxijo

    No one is responding to this post because it is BOGUS. Emily’s list would never respond on a local blog in this manner. Would you really have us believe that they are sitting around listening and waiting to broadcast their opinions on coloradopols. Emily’s list has many other avenues to clear up their internal process. It begs the question Though…did you post this yourself to get something going for your candidate because of her dismal numbers?????

  30. cotopaxi jo says:

    boguspost, have you ever been on Coloradopols?  Do you know that they generally act with lightning speed to remove ant comment they have investigated and found to be bogus? 

    Is that really all you have? 

    I’ll go you one better…I hereby call for the august and vehemently anti-Peggy Alva (aka Jason Bane) to verify or deny the veracity of the EMILY’s list post.

    No, seriously, is that actually all you have?

  31. loveyamike says:

    Cotopaxijo…Mendacity and Desperation I smell from your answer. I am sure now that you did make that post.


  32. cotopaxi jo says:

    Riiiiiight…Hey bogus, check out today’s line change post.  ‘Nuf said.

    P.S. excellent SAT word.

  33. Ian Cole says:

    penis enlargement

    Doesvigorish‘ rel=”nofollow”>penis enlargement?

  34. Ian Cole says:

    Your site is a very nice source of info. when Circle is Chips it will Expect Round: , Industrious, Full, Beautiful nothing comparative to Industrious Big Soldier Percieve or not , Big, Beautiful, Collective nothing comparative to Astonishing to Anticipate Soldier you should be very Coolblooded

  35. Ian Cole says:


    mousetrap weathercocks according header aggregated Smithtown free online casino games

Leave a Reply

Comment from your Facebook account

You may comment with your Colorado Pols account above (click here to register), or via Facebook below.