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.
posted by TMW @ 3:16 AM
2 Comments:
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)?
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.
Post a Comment
<< Home