Latest Post | Last 10 Posts | Archives
Previous Post: Patti Blagojevich takes to Fox News to press her husband’s case
Next Post: Fall campaign money match-ups
Posted in:
* Tribune…
Republican Gov. Bruce Rauner spent over four times more than state Rep. Jeanne Ives in the months before his narrow primary victory on March 20.
The first-term governor spent about $17.7 million in the first quarter, according to campaign records filed late Monday. That’s compared with about $4.3 million spent by Ives, who lost by just three percentage points.
And Democrat J.B. Pritzker spent nearly double what Rauner did, reporting $34 million in expenses this year, far more than state Sen. Daniel Biss’ $5.8 million and Kenilworth businessman Chris Kennedy’s $3.9 million.
* Sun-Times…
Republican Gov. Bruce Rauner dished out more than $63 million, and Democratic J.B. Pritzker spent $68 million, from Dec. 2016 until the end of March, according to expenditures filed with the Illinois State Board of Elections.
That’s $176 per vote for Rauner, and $119 for Pritzker.
Adding in the money shelled out by Rauner’s and Pritzker’s primary rivals, and the spending tops $150 million.
It’s more proof that the Illinois governor’s race is already living up to expectations that it will break a record $280 million spent in California’s 2010 gubernatorial race — and candidates have already raised more than those candidates did during that cycle.
posted by Rich Miller
Tuesday, Apr 17, 18 @ 9:52 am
Sorry, comments are closed at this time.
Previous Post: Patti Blagojevich takes to Fox News to press her husband’s case
Next Post: Fall campaign money match-ups
WordPress Mobile Edition available at alexking.org.
powered by WordPress.
It would be far more interesting to look at what the cost per “marginal vote” is. Every candidate is going to have a base of votes no matter what.
It would be interesting for someone (paging Scott Kennedy) to figure out what they spent to move the needle up.
Maybe that logic only applies to the general, though.
Comment by Ok Tuesday, Apr 17, 18 @ 9:55 am
I remember when Democrats were for folks earning less than a billion.
Comment by VanillaMan Tuesday, Apr 17, 18 @ 9:56 am
On January 1, 2017 Bruce Rauner had $51 million in his campaign account and since that time he’s added just less than $25 million more. During that time he spent $37 million of it, has a little over $38 million remaining and all he has to show for it is a very narrow primary win over a candidate he described as “fringe” and a much worse political standing heading into the political fight of his life.
That might be the saddest political paragraph I’ve ever typed.
Comment by The Captain Tuesday, Apr 17, 18 @ 10:07 am
==I remember when Democrats were for folks earning less than a billion.==
That suddenly seems like a long time ago.
Comment by A guy Tuesday, Apr 17, 18 @ 10:09 am
A question for those more knowledgeable than me: how much of JBs spending might be going toward long term infrastructure, i.e. building out field offices and other ground game needs, etc? I’m just curious how accurate it is to portray his spending as primary spending, vs spending on things that will help with the general and beyond?
Comment by Long term Tuesday, Apr 17, 18 @ 10:12 am
For comparison this election will like be more expansive than the 1996 presidential race at 239.9 in spending and maybe as much as 2000 at 343.1. More proof that major systemic overhauls of how campaigns are funded.
Comment by 618Dem Tuesday, Apr 17, 18 @ 10:16 am
JB has the money to pound Rauner and help unions keep more of their money. This is good news. But, some or many purity progressives and others will mindlessly complain about billionaires in politics without considering that if Pritzker was not running, it could have been Rauner alone with his millions, pounding opponents? Then what good would purity do?
Part II is that the two men’s policies are quite different. Who will overlook this while making a false equivalence just because of money?
Comment by Grandson of Man Tuesday, Apr 17, 18 @ 10:22 am
Dems aren’t “for” or “against” millionaires. Just their policies. But keep in mind the camel and the eye of the needle…
Comment by Jibba Tuesday, Apr 17, 18 @ 10:37 am
Rauner has been a lame duck since his Decatur Powerpoint presentation a month into his administration. While he had opportunities to earn the office he holds, he believes that winning meant earning it, which had never been true for any elected official.
The Democrat never needed to be a billionaire, millionaire or wealthy to defeat Rauner. All they needed to do is not be Rauner; competent, inclusive, intelligent and fair. Everyone who was a candidate last month met that standard..
I don’t want a billionaire governor. I don’t want a millionaire governor. I just want a functioning governor. Rauner obviously isn’t it, and Pritzker has never experienced a normal life and is someone so disconnected to reality he pulls toilets out of Gold Coast mansions, for a tax break.
I’m not impressed with him at all.
Comment by VanillaMan Tuesday, Apr 17, 18 @ 10:38 am
The choice in the fall is a failed governor or an untested person who says the right things. That is an easy one. Pritzker may fail like Quinn, may be lying like Blago, or both like Rauner, but at least he has the possibility of succeeding.
Comment by Jibba Tuesday, Apr 17, 18 @ 10:42 am
“Pritzker has never experienced a normal life”
Look at Trump’s hands. Do they look like they ever did a day of manual labor? We wouldn’t know anyone who overlooked Trump’s wealth and voted for him (same with Rauner) but rails against Pritzker’s wealth? Would we?
Comment by Grandson of Man Tuesday, Apr 17, 18 @ 10:43 am
Who’s talking about Trump?
Comment by VanillaMan Tuesday, Apr 17, 18 @ 11:24 am
==Look at Trump’s hands.==
Director Comey, is that you? /s
Comment by A guy Tuesday, Apr 17, 18 @ 11:51 am
Seriously, I am going to laugh so hard when Rauner loses. The more Rauner spends of his own money the harder I will laugh.
Comment by Slapshot Tuesday, Apr 17, 18 @ 12:40 pm
“I remember when Democrats were for folks earning less than a billion.”
Sadly, I can’t say the same about your party.
Speaking of which, have you fellas considered getting your own shambolic house in order?
– MrJM
Comment by @misterjayem Tuesday, Apr 17, 18 @ 1:15 pm
I don’t get the fuss over the removed toilets. He’s not living there. Some sharp attorney or CPA identifies a tax break - a money saving measure - available to him if he makes the house uninhabitable. So he does it. To me, that’s smart. If you want to complain, it should be directed at the Assessor who made the rule that says no toilets = tax break.
Comment by Original Rambler Tuesday, Apr 17, 18 @ 1:30 pm
LOL
I don’t have a party.
I would just like to have seen a non-billionaire rich guy get the Democratic nod.
Comment by VanillaMan Tuesday, Apr 17, 18 @ 1:43 pm
==Sadly, I can’t say the same about your party.==
Yep, Thompson, Edgar, Ryan, and candidates JBT and Jim Ryan, between them all they didn’t add up to Millionaire, let alone Billionaire.
The latest guy? Yep. He was challenged aggressively in a primary. JB, not so much. All those middle class, union workers, blue collars and working poor really connected with him. He’s pretty gifted I guess.
Comment by A guy Tuesday, Apr 17, 18 @ 4:15 pm
We have to remember that what seems to be big money to the average Joe is isn’t even chump change to the mega uber wealthy such as Pritzker.
Comment by Huh? Tuesday, Apr 17, 18 @ 6:54 pm