The Moderate Washingtonian

Outlook on politics and elections in the state of Washington from an overall centrist viewpoint. My views tend to be libertarian in nature, but at the same time are largely nonpartisan.

13 June 2006

May 43rd fundraising

It's that time of month again, as the PDC allows us to peek into juicy candidate finances for the race to succeed Ed Murray in Seattle's 43rd legislative district. In as hotly a contested primary as this is for Democrats, cash advantage will go a long way in who will be best-positioned this September. Below are some tidbits from the PDC forms for May:

Cash Received
Jamie Pedersen [D] - $16,551.48
Lynne Dodson [D] - $15,002.81
Bill Sherman [D] - $12,879.51
Stephanie Pure [D] - $12,284.00
Jim Street [D] - $9,825.00
Dick Kelley [D] - $4,040.00
Linde Knighton [PRO] - $45.00
Hugh Foskett [R] - No information

Cash on Hand
Jamie Pedersen [D] - $71,099.70
Jim Street [D] - $47,686.73
Bill Sherman [D] - $46,437.47 (additional debt of $2,500.00)
Lynne Dodson [D] - $23,499.25
Stephanie Pure [D] - $23,046.39 (additional debt of $0.19)
Dick Kelley [D] - $19,123.42 (additional debt of $3,993.30)
Linde Knighton [PRO] - $150.73
Hugh Foskett [R] - No information

As many suspected, Dick Kelley's self-imposed contribution limits have caused him to fall far behind the other candidates in fundraising. Even with his connections as 43rd District Chair, as big a cash deficit as he's running against opponents like Jamie Pedersen will make things even more difficult for him to win the primary. Lynne Dodson appears to be riding her labor ties to a solid second in monthly receipts, and is spending nearly as much as she's taking in. I would venture to say she has passed Kelley and Street as the main Pedersen foe, though eyes are still on Stephanie Pure's grassroots effort.

5 Comments:

At 11:01 PM, Blogger Willis said...

Two words for you:

Bill

Sherman


Don't discount the guy who's keeping up in fundraising, and hitting more doors than anyone else (at least that's what the grapevine's sayin'). He's also not spending like a drunken sailor (like Dodson - there's no reason for her to be spending as much as she's pulling in this early in the campaign.

Oh, and her yardsigns have too much text, and are laid out weirdly. Who in their right mind needs 5,000 yardsigns for an compact urban district Primary race?

 
At 12:10 AM, Blogger TMW said...

I agree with you on Dodson's spending practices. I think it's paying off but is generally unwise to spend nearly as much as you're taking in so early in the campaign season when only you and I with our junkie brethren are paying attention. I think Sherman's qualifications are among the strongest and his fundraising is good, he's probably in the same area as Stephanie Pure but still a bit outside the strength of Pedersen and Dodson. Whom are you supporting (and/or voting for)?

 
At 10:54 AM, Blogger Willis said...

I don't live in the district - and am not actively supporting anyone right now.

But, I do think that you're underestimating Sherman.

 
At 2:37 PM, Blogger TMW said...

Perhaps. I've tried to make clear in past commentary that the field is so strong that, given different scenarios, any of the six could feasibly win it. I still think that is the case save perhaps for Kelley, whose self-imposed fundraising limits are hurting him.

 
At 7:10 PM, Blogger 3rdpartygal said...

Knighton discovered the hard way that 3rd party candidates can't do the self-imposed limit due to the lack of publicity. How many voters know she was accepting $5 only after friends and family gave $1,000? She gave up in July, allowing 3rd party and independent voters to give up to the $300 limit (mini-reporting). Response has been amazing, with funds arriving from Libertarians, Greens, Indys and Natural Law Party. With the roadblocks to 3rd party/indy campaigns, it is hard to run any campaign.
What roadblocks? see http://www.exordia.net/summit
3rdpartygal

 

Post a Comment

<< Home