Nobody has yet explained why Duckworth has found herself in such a cash crunch, but today’s Tribune endorsement ought to help raise a few bucks.
Duckworth is not nearly as polished a campaigner as her opponent, Republican state Sen. Peter Roskam, who has spent 16 years in the General Assembly. There is something refreshing about that.
Roskam likes to call Duckworth a “liberal,” but he’s been known to use the term loosely. He labeled Republican U.S. Rep. Judy Biggert a “liberal” when he ran against her in 1998. (Biggert, then a state representative, beat him.)
Roskam rarely breaks from the party line, but one case in which he did still nags. In 1995 Roskam and his partner in a personal-injury law firm, former state Rep. Al Salvi, set up a special political committee and solicited more than $70,000 in donations from trial lawyers–half of it coming within 48 hours of a crucial vote on a Republican-sponsored tort reform bill. Roskam and Salvi told lawyers they asked for contributions that they wouldn’t support tort reform.
In the end, Roskam gave in to pressure from Republican leaders and voted for the reform bill–and Salvi and Roskam gave back much of the money they had solicited from the lawyers.
That’s an interesting concept for Springfield–a money-back guarantee on campaign cash solicited for a vote. But the incident smacked of the kind of special-interest politics that needs to be rousted from Washington.
The Sun-Times has more on the cash crunch and her new TV ad.
Just days after filing a report showing her Democratic congressional campaign short of funds, Duckworth plans to begin airing television commercials today featuring U.S. Sen. Barack Obama singing her praises and dubbing her Republican opponent’s ad less than totally honest.
In addition, the campaign will send out a separate version of the commercial in an e-mail to potential donors, volunteers and bloggers with a fund-raising appeal from the Democratic senator tacked on at the end. […]
She reported just $206,381 in her campaign fund on Sept. 30, while Roskam had $1,500,950. […]
The latest Duckworth spot features Obama criticizing Roskam for airing “misleading” television ads that equate Duckworth’s position on illegal immigration with providing amnesty and Social Security benefits to illegal immigrants.
“Tammy and I both support [GOP U.S. Sen.] John McCain’s plan, which does not include amnesty or benefits for illegal immigrants,” Obama says in the ad.
The national Dems began running their TV ad yesterday that blasts Roskam as a book banner.
The Tuesday ad against Roskam features a woman billed as “Mary Kay Doyle, retired teacher,†chastising Roskam for favoring book bans.
“He supported banning classic books, even a book with writings by Martin Luther King, Laura Ingalls Wilder and Dr. Seuss. I just think Peter Roskam is out of step with people here,†the woman said.
The assertion is a reference to three different state legislative plans Sen. Roskam supported in Springfield: one to ban a textbook series from Arlington Heights schools, another to ban books that talk about suicide and a third to allow local juries to determine whether a book is obscene.
Roskam spokesman Jason Roe called the ad a “phony attack,†saying Roskam “was trying to allow parents a voice in knowing that their children don’t get access to ‘suicide-for-dummies’ and pornography.â€
The assertion is a reference to three different state legislative plans Sen. Roskam supported in Springfield: one to ban a textbook series from Arlington Heights schools
Roskum’s Senate district is nowhere near Arlington Heights. Maybe he should’ve butted out.
And I don’t remember any Dr. Seuss books about porn, let alone suicide. (Then again, maybe Cat in the Hat is an obscure reference for something “down there”.)
It is amnesty, you can put a wig on a pig, but it is still a pig. Call it what you will, amnesty is amnesty is amnesty. Who cares if Bush supports it, McCain supports it or Kennedy supports it. It is amnesty, point blank. How can a party that can’t even figure out the definition of “is” or “sex” or “perjury” know what “amnesty” means?
Roskam and Salvi asked for political donations in exchange for a vote favorable to trial lawyer
interests and against tort reform? When they had to change tack, they gave the money back? Selling votes for political contributions, in other words?
Why isn’t this illegal? Why weren’t they indicted? Why weren’t the contributors indicted? And back then, were there any restrictions on personal use of campaign funds?
Or was giving $$ to the campaign fund the equivalent of giving the politician a wad of cash?
I don’t like Duckworth. She seems to me to be an overly liberal carpetbagger dancing to the tune
of Rahm Emmanuel, who is really just another Chicago Machine politician in modern clothes.
But the Roskam/Salvi story is appalling.
I don’t live in the District, but if I did, I guess I’d have to sit out the vote on this seat.
Cassandra, I guess it is called lobbying? I really don’t understand it. But it looks like you and Duckworth have something in common, you can’t vote for Dusckworth either.
Wumpus: I am sure in the interest of fairness you were equally critical of Roskam when he ran for Congress the first time outside of his district. He came so close to beating “liberal” Judy Biggert.
Well, of course Judy Biggert is very “Mark Kirk” like in her voting record. Is that liberal to you?
It is to me, and I’d love to see her get a real primary opponent.
amnesty and benefits
Well, I am rather confident that the amnesty scam that Bush (let’s put the blame where it lies) tried to push has been seen for what it is. Prince O trying to mince words won’t fool too many people. But he is skating rather close to “not being truthful” when he talks about benefits.
An “earned path to citizenship” certainly WOULD make them eligible for all sorts of benefits. Now, they wouldn’t be illegal anymore, so I guess that is how he is trying to bend that.
But to say he is not being misleading, is, well, somewhat misleading in itself!
Isn’t the cash thing pretty easily explained? I mean, the RSCC has been Roskam’s attack dog for months now, spending their money while he saves his. The DSCC has done the opposite with Duckworth; she’s been running her own ads and now they’re stepping in with the heavy artillery to see her through the finish. Whichever order you spend it in, the money all adds up and counts the same.
Ooh, lets see how culture wars do! If Pete strikes back hard, this could help him. I dont’ think Political Correctness ever does well at the ballot box. Let’s make it an issue also.
I’ve wondered about Duckworth being in a cash crunch too.
Here are some possible explanations.
1. She’s a weak fundraiser?
2. The fundraising formula put together by Rahm’s people assumed that a bunch of grassroots money would eventually come pouring in. This didn’t happen.
#2 leads to the follow-up question, why didn’t the grassroots money happen?
Possible explanations:
a. Bridges were burned with the Cegelis team.
b. Everybody assumes Rahm was going to do all the fundraising, so donors gave to other campaigns.
c. Other campaigns generated more excitement and sucked the money to the campaigns with more buzz. Related to this is that the Duckworth campaign didn’t acquire the staff or invest the resources into creating buzz about Duckworth.
They (Duckworth) made a decision that they would spend a great deal of money when they did several week ago. They had as much money as Roskam but spent it earlier. They are counting on the DCCC to pick them up (which to 2.3 mil they are) for most of the rest of time. They should have enough money for at least one more decent buy to close out the campaign though.
Republicans trying to stoke fears about immigrants are a disgrace.
The following are much bigger issues facing the country:
1. Iraq occupation
2. health care
3. Bush wanting to attack Iran
4. Bush’s assault on Constitutional rights
5. Bush debt and deficits
6. government corruption, almost entirely Republican corruption at the federal level
Show me a DuPage Republican voter who thinks Jose the illegal busboy is undercutting his wages and I’ll show you a racist idiot who doesn’t know boo about public policy.
Being short on cash = not good
Appearing with Obama = priceless
BTW, it’s telling that Carl doesn’t think immigration is an important issue, regardless of what side of the fence (sorry, couldn’t help it) you are on. And please Carl, let the Shaw brothers play the race card, you’re better than that.
She spent her money on ads earlier than Roskam. I disagree with spending so much on broadcast ads (the ads get too diluted and $ are wasted on too many people who don’t live in a given district, especially in a major market like Chicago).
Roskam relied on NRCC money early. Duckworth put up her own money first.
Now Roskam is spending his in addition to the RNCC money. The DCCC had already committed a few weeks back to split over a million between Bean and Duckworth. With Bean doing so well that money may go more toward Duckworth, and maybe even Seals since he’s surging too.
As “Reality Check” noted, the dollars are there between candidate and national organization, it’s just that Roskam and Duckworth used the money in reverse order. Hence Duckworth “appears” out of money. Between her recent donation requests and the upcoming big ticket event with the Big Dawg, she’ll have plenty more down the stretch.
PS: The ads up now may already be paid for (ie, the current ads are why the dollars seem low in the filing).
It’s not like she’s spending this money months out for high-priced rent or something inane where it’s not doing much good. She ought to end up with $0 in the bank by Election Day.
Maybe her money goes to gas to make that long drive from the 8th to the sixth (exagerrating). Perhaps Roskam can link himself to Obama as well. I mean, Duckworth is becomming a pretty good endorsement thief. First McCain, then Dole.
If your fears of an escalating poverty rate and falling wages are keeping you up at night, perhaps you should turn your attention away from the ‘immigration crisis’ and towards the issues that are ACTUALLY affecting Illinois voters: minimum wage and taxes. An increase in Illinois’ minimum wage to $7.50 and an ousting of a Republican government responsible for 5 million more Americans falling below the poverty line (in the face of generous tax breaks for the top 1%) is precisely what the Democratic party represents to middle-America and those voters who sympathize with hard-working Americans without stock options.
And with respect to tax dollars being spent on the children of illegal immigrants, many of whom are themselves AMERICAN citizens because they were born in the ‘land of the free,’ it is important to note that these immigrants are paying over $8 billion annually in Social Security taxes, a benefit reserved for legal citizens.
The eleciton might be interesting, but the choice is easy:
- NW burbs - Wednesday, Oct 18, 06 @ 9:26 am:
The assertion is a reference to three different state legislative plans Sen. Roskam supported in Springfield: one to ban a textbook series from Arlington Heights schools
Roskum’s Senate district is nowhere near Arlington Heights. Maybe he should’ve butted out.
And I don’t remember any Dr. Seuss books about porn, let alone suicide. (Then again, maybe Cat in the Hat is an obscure reference for something “down there”.)
- NW burbs - Wednesday, Oct 18, 06 @ 9:27 am:
PS: Told ya the Trib would be po’ed that Roskam lied about their article in his lying ad about the Major.
- Curt - Wednesday, Oct 18, 06 @ 9:29 am:
Obama is just as good, if not better, than cash. This race is over for Peter.
- Ravenswood Right Winger - Wednesday, Oct 18, 06 @ 9:40 am:
If Roskam loses, Ryan McLaughlin should never be allowed to run a campaign again. Who is this guy?
- Wumpus - Wednesday, Oct 18, 06 @ 9:45 am:
It is amnesty, you can put a wig on a pig, but it is still a pig. Call it what you will, amnesty is amnesty is amnesty. Who cares if Bush supports it, McCain supports it or Kennedy supports it. It is amnesty, point blank. How can a party that can’t even figure out the definition of “is” or “sex” or “perjury” know what “amnesty” means?
- Cassandra - Wednesday, Oct 18, 06 @ 9:51 am:
So, let me get this straight.
Roskam and Salvi asked for political donations in exchange for a vote favorable to trial lawyer
interests and against tort reform? When they had to change tack, they gave the money back? Selling votes for political contributions, in other words?
Why isn’t this illegal? Why weren’t they indicted? Why weren’t the contributors indicted? And back then, were there any restrictions on personal use of campaign funds?
Or was giving $$ to the campaign fund the equivalent of giving the politician a wad of cash?
I don’t like Duckworth. She seems to me to be an overly liberal carpetbagger dancing to the tune
of Rahm Emmanuel, who is really just another Chicago Machine politician in modern clothes.
But the Roskam/Salvi story is appalling.
I don’t live in the District, but if I did, I guess I’d have to sit out the vote on this seat.
- Wumpus - Wednesday, Oct 18, 06 @ 10:25 am:
Cassandra, I guess it is called lobbying? I really don’t understand it. But it looks like you and Duckworth have something in common, you can’t vote for Dusckworth either.
- HANKSTER - Wednesday, Oct 18, 06 @ 11:05 am:
Wumpus: I am sure in the interest of fairness you were equally critical of Roskam when he ran for Congress the first time outside of his district. He came so close to beating “liberal” Judy Biggert.
- Anonymous - Wednesday, Oct 18, 06 @ 11:15 am:
Obama is the same guy sticking up for alexi. His hands are moving so fast in this ad i thought I was watching a helicopter.
- Pat Collins - Wednesday, Oct 18, 06 @ 11:59 am:
Well, of course Judy Biggert is very “Mark Kirk” like in her voting record. Is that liberal to you?
It is to me, and I’d love to see her get a real primary opponent.
amnesty and benefits
Well, I am rather confident that the amnesty scam that Bush (let’s put the blame where it lies) tried to push has been seen for what it is. Prince O trying to mince words won’t fool too many people. But he is skating rather close to “not being truthful” when he talks about benefits.
An “earned path to citizenship” certainly WOULD make them eligible for all sorts of benefits. Now, they wouldn’t be illegal anymore, so I guess that is how he is trying to bend that.
But to say he is not being misleading, is, well, somewhat misleading in itself!
- Reality Check - Wednesday, Oct 18, 06 @ 11:59 am:
Isn’t the cash thing pretty easily explained? I mean, the RSCC has been Roskam’s attack dog for months now, spending their money while he saves his. The DSCC has done the opposite with Duckworth; she’s been running her own ads and now they’re stepping in with the heavy artillery to see her through the finish. Whichever order you spend it in, the money all adds up and counts the same.
- Pat Collins - Wednesday, Oct 18, 06 @ 12:02 pm:
book banning
Ooh, lets see how culture wars do! If Pete strikes back hard, this could help him. I dont’ think Political Correctness ever does well at the ballot box. Let’s make it an issue also.
- Carl Nyberg - Wednesday, Oct 18, 06 @ 12:13 pm:
I’ve wondered about Duckworth being in a cash crunch too.
Here are some possible explanations.
1. She’s a weak fundraiser?
2. The fundraising formula put together by Rahm’s people assumed that a bunch of grassroots money would eventually come pouring in. This didn’t happen.
#2 leads to the follow-up question, why didn’t the grassroots money happen?
Possible explanations:
a. Bridges were burned with the Cegelis team.
b. Everybody assumes Rahm was going to do all the fundraising, so donors gave to other campaigns.
c. Other campaigns generated more excitement and sucked the money to the campaigns with more buzz. Related to this is that the Duckworth campaign didn’t acquire the staff or invest the resources into creating buzz about Duckworth.
- HANKSTER - Wednesday, Oct 18, 06 @ 12:18 pm:
They (Duckworth) made a decision that they would spend a great deal of money when they did several week ago. They had as much money as Roskam but spent it earlier. They are counting on the DCCC to pick them up (which to 2.3 mil they are) for most of the rest of time. They should have enough money for at least one more decent buy to close out the campaign though.
- Carl Nyberg - Wednesday, Oct 18, 06 @ 12:19 pm:
Republicans trying to stoke fears about immigrants are a disgrace.
The following are much bigger issues facing the country:
1. Iraq occupation
2. health care
3. Bush wanting to attack Iran
4. Bush’s assault on Constitutional rights
5. Bush debt and deficits
6. government corruption, almost entirely Republican corruption at the federal level
Show me a DuPage Republican voter who thinks Jose the illegal busboy is undercutting his wages and I’ll show you a racist idiot who doesn’t know boo about public policy.
- Old Quack - Wednesday, Oct 18, 06 @ 12:55 pm:
weak fundraiser…she raised 950K this quarter. she’s doubled up roskam two times in a row.
and isn’t the barack on broadcast? she must have more money than that filing…
- MasterC - Wednesday, Oct 18, 06 @ 1:14 pm:
Being short on cash = not good
Appearing with Obama = priceless
BTW, it’s telling that Carl doesn’t think immigration is an important issue, regardless of what side of the fence (sorry, couldn’t help it) you are on. And please Carl, let the Shaw brothers play the race card, you’re better than that.
- NW burbs - Wednesday, Oct 18, 06 @ 1:40 pm:
Carl,
She spent her money on ads earlier than Roskam. I disagree with spending so much on broadcast ads (the ads get too diluted and $ are wasted on too many people who don’t live in a given district, especially in a major market like Chicago).
Roskam relied on NRCC money early. Duckworth put up her own money first.
Now Roskam is spending his in addition to the RNCC money. The DCCC had already committed a few weeks back to split over a million between Bean and Duckworth. With Bean doing so well that money may go more toward Duckworth, and maybe even Seals since he’s surging too.
As “Reality Check” noted, the dollars are there between candidate and national organization, it’s just that Roskam and Duckworth used the money in reverse order. Hence Duckworth “appears” out of money. Between her recent donation requests and the upcoming big ticket event with the Big Dawg, she’ll have plenty more down the stretch.
PS: The ads up now may already be paid for (ie, the current ads are why the dollars seem low in the filing).
It’s not like she’s spending this money months out for high-priced rent or something inane where it’s not doing much good. She ought to end up with $0 in the bank by Election Day.
- HANKSTER - Wednesday, Oct 18, 06 @ 1:50 pm:
she also will get a few hundred thousdand when Clinton comes in to town next week.
- Wumpus aka Cowboy - Wednesday, Oct 18, 06 @ 1:58 pm:
Maybe her money goes to gas to make that long drive from the 8th to the sixth (exagerrating). Perhaps Roskam can link himself to Obama as well. I mean, Duckworth is becomming a pretty good endorsement thief. First McCain, then Dole.
- Garp - Wednesday, Oct 18, 06 @ 2:22 pm:
She does not have to spend another dime and the repubs will still get buried.
- True Blue Voter - Wednesday, Oct 18, 06 @ 2:25 pm:
Obama endorsement. Daily Herald endorsement. Tribune endorsement. Should help fundraising for Duckworth, not to mention votes.
- Pat Collins - Wednesday, Oct 18, 06 @ 2:28 pm:
Disgraceful Repub
Well, the econ. columinist for Newsweek thinks that immigration is driving down wages, and increasing poverty in this country.
And, for sure those voters can see their school tax dollars being spent on kids of immigrants. Most studies show the LOCAL impact is negative.
It will be an interesting election, for sure.
- tranchin - Monday, Oct 23, 06 @ 5:28 pm:
Mr. Collins ~
If your fears of an escalating poverty rate and falling wages are keeping you up at night, perhaps you should turn your attention away from the ‘immigration crisis’ and towards the issues that are ACTUALLY affecting Illinois voters: minimum wage and taxes. An increase in Illinois’ minimum wage to $7.50 and an ousting of a Republican government responsible for 5 million more Americans falling below the poverty line (in the face of generous tax breaks for the top 1%) is precisely what the Democratic party represents to middle-America and those voters who sympathize with hard-working Americans without stock options.
And with respect to tax dollars being spent on the children of illegal immigrants, many of whom are themselves AMERICAN citizens because they were born in the ‘land of the free,’ it is important to note that these immigrants are paying over $8 billion annually in Social Security taxes, a benefit reserved for legal citizens.
The eleciton might be interesting, but the choice is easy:
VOTE FOR DUCKWORTH!