President (To Win Colorado) See Full Big Line

(D) Kamala Harris

(R) Donald Trump

80%

20%

CO-01 (Denver) See Full Big Line

(D) Diana DeGette*

(R) V. Archuleta

98%

2%

CO-02 (Boulder-ish) See Full Big Line

(D) Joe Neguse*

(R) Marshall Dawson

95%

5%

CO-03 (West & Southern CO) See Full Big Line

(D) Adam Frisch

(R) Jeff Hurd

50%

50%

CO-04 (Northeast-ish Colorado) See Full Big Line

(R) Lauren Boebert

(D) Trisha Calvarese

90%

10%

CO-05 (Colorado Springs) See Full Big Line

(R) Jeff Crank

(D) River Gassen

80%

20%

CO-06 (Aurora) See Full Big Line

(D) Jason Crow*

(R) John Fabbricatore

90%

10%

CO-07 (Jefferson County) See Full Big Line

(D) B. Pettersen

(R) Sergei Matveyuk

90%

10%

CO-08 (Northern Colo.) See Full Big Line

(D) Yadira Caraveo

(R) Gabe Evans

70%↑

30%

State Senate Majority See Full Big Line

DEMOCRATS

REPUBLICANS

80%

20%

State House Majority See Full Big Line

DEMOCRATS

REPUBLICANS

95%

5%

Generic selectors
Exact matches only
Search in title
Search in content
Post Type Selectors
October 03, 2006 10:03 PM UTC

If You Had One Big Donation to Make...

  • 57 Comments
  • by: Colorado Pols

A reader directed us to an interesting post at MYDD, where Chris Bowers postulates on what he would do if he had one single $1 million donation to give to a candidate.

We thought we’d pose the same argument to you, but with a different twist since this is Colorado-only. Obviously using $1 million wouldn’t make sense here, because you would change virtually every race with a donation of that size. So…

Q: If you could make ONE donation to a candidate in Colorado, and that donation would be sizable enough that it would be a significant percentage of money to that campaign, to whom would you write the check?

Take a look at the MYDD post to see his rationale so you get the idea.

Tweet
Share

Comments

57 thoughts on “If You Had One Big Donation to Make…”

  1. Because Ken doesn’t take special interest PAC money he needs the money.  Also CO will be a swing state in 2008 and we need to make sure that CO doesn’t become the new FL & OH!!!

  2. This is the one important race in Colorado right now where a financial shot in the arm has a very good chance of putting a challenger over the top.  With the ability to respond on air to any attack by the Pink Lady and to put out some well-produced spots with her own jabs, Angie can win this thing.  Not only would an Paccione win take a right-wing extremist out of Congress, one who is clearly out of step with not just mainstream America but also with the conservatives her district, but it would put a thoughtful, progressive fighter in Washington who can help put this country back on track.

    Yes, I know this sounds like a Paccione campaign posting, but I have nothing to do with that camp other than sending them a small check.

    1. Angie would get my $million also.  She has shown that she is viable in her district and could likely hold the seat in 2 years.  Building a base in that district for a Democrat could make her a statewide candidate at some point in the future as well.

      2. Angie was a single young woman with alot of debt.  Going to Stanford and living in Palo Alto isn’t cheap.  Also Womens professional sports, especially in it’s early years paid squat. Did angie have her parents wealth to fall back on?  I doubt it, they lived in the South Bronx. Angie did go through a rough patch, but has paid back every cent of her student loans.

        Why don’t you tell all those hard working folks in Weld county which leads the nation in foreclosures they spend money like it’s going out of style.

        If the finacial problems of a young woman on her own, is all you got against Angie, what do you say about Musgrave and her selling out to the oil companies to give them immunity from liability for poluting our drinking water with cancer causing MTBE?

        They get a $29 billion gift while we taxpayers get stuck with the bill.

      3. Angie was a single young woman with alot of debt.  Going to Stanford and living in Palo Alto isn’t cheap.  Also Womens professional sports, especially in it’s early years paid squat. Did angie have her parents wealth to fall back on?  I doubt it, they lived in the South Bronx. Angie did go through a rough patch, but has paid back every cent of her student loans.

        Why don’t you tell all those hard working folks in Weld county which leads the nation in foreclosures they spend money like it’s going out of style.

        If the finacial problems of a young woman on her own, is all you got against Angie, what do you say about Musgrave and her selling out to the oil companies to give them immunity from liability for poluting our drinking water with cancer causing MTBE?

        They get a $29 billion gift while we taxpayers get stuck with the bill.

  3. Ken Gordon’s campaign is important, but so is Angie’s, and Jay’s, and Bill Winter’s…  So hard to choose.

    I’d have to go with Ken’s campaign, assuming he’d take a check that large.  Fallback to Angie if Ken tells me to keep it.

  4. “If I had a million dollars, I’d buy you a fur coat, but not a real fur coat that’s cruel.”

    I’d give it to little fella to come back and follow Beauprez around.  Just out of sheer comedy, I would like to see Holtzman follow Beauprez around for the remaining month of the campaign, calling him out at every point Bob goes Both Ways on the issues.

    1. I concur Go Blue.  Never had I laughed so hard as with the little fella around ( the RV, the Rogue City, police reports, etc.) His ability to create a lose-lose for the Republican Party will be forever appreciated.  He probably dosen’t need the million though – I think Seymour’s got his back.

  6. I would give a $1 Million to Bob Caskey.  But he will win easily without it.  He has the registration advantage and he has Trailhead to point out Bernie’s mistakes.

    Caskey’s win will go down in history as the most lopsided on money spent vs results.  Bernie will easily outspend him 10 to 1.  But Bob will win in a landslide.

    1. Bernie’s going to win…Sybil.

      I’d give it to Ken Gordon as well. He actually has the cajones to make sure the election process is fair, transparent, and competent. He’s kind of grumpy personally, but as a politician, he has my vote.

      1. I happen to agree with Ruthie/Sybil.  Caskey is in a 2-1 district, and the paper said Caskey was a nice guy.  The Dems haven’t been hard-hitting enough.  If the race continues along the same vein, I think Caskey can quietly squeak by.

  7. Because politicians cater to the big contributors and 527s, I don’t feel like contributing to anyone.

    There are no outstanding candidates in Colorado other than Mike Coffman, and he’s going to win this year without my money. I have contributed to him in previous election years.

    I gave to Owens in 1998 and 2002 and got stiffed as a small business owner. No, I never tried to talk with him, because he is a cold, remote guy, and I figured he was in the pockets of the insurers. So why bother?

    We gave to Bush in 2000 and 2004, and what did we get but a guy who refuses to win in Iraq for fear of making France mad.

    And I’ve given to state legislators, but I always get the feeling they’re bought out by the big money contributors, so they won’t listen to me on the issues where I have expertise.

    You go to hearings in the Capitol, and the legislators treat you like scum. They are oh so busy, and so committed, that the hearings are just for show, not to learn anything. The real work is done by lobbyists backed by bucks, and they have the politicians’ ears. Individuals don’t count.

    So it makes no sense for individuals to give to political campaigns. No politician is worth it or will live up to promises made to attract contributions and win campaigns. If politicians were more loyal to their constituents, they would deserve some loyalty in return.

    So, if I were inclined to give big bucks to a candiate again, I’d take a hike in our beautiful mountains, reconsider and buy a book, or something.

    I make my contributions by blogging and posting on message boards about issues and for and against politicians. I’m more interested in supporting honest politicians than in contributing money to someone who claims to support my positions on various issues.

    To answer your question, if I were to make a major contribution this year, it would be to Jay in CD-5 in hopes he’d defeat the Repulsive Republican Radical. I wouldn’t contribute to Angie, because I think she’s incompetent and has an integrity problem.

    1. i agree the voice of the individual has been tragically ignored. even when someone more fully comprehends an issue than the legislator or lobbyist, politicians find it easier to ignore individuals than truly listen.

      i shall spend my million on starting an INTEREST GROUP. it is the lazy man’s way out, but it would arguably (and sadly) yield better results.

    2. “So it makes no sense for individuals to give to political campaigns. No politician is worth it or will live up to promises made to attract contributions and win campaigns. If politicians were more loyal to their constituents, they would deserve some loyalty in return.

      So, if I were inclined to give big bucks to a candiate again, I’d take a hike in our beautiful mountains, reconsider and buy a book, or something.

      I make my contributions by blogging and posting on message boards about issues and for and against politicians. I’m more interested in supporting honest politicians than in contributing money to someone who claims to support my positions on various issues.”

      Too many people see donating to a campaign as “buying access”. I am supporting Anna Lord down in HD 21 because she asks for money to contact voters. The campiagn has watched her respond to endorsement questionaires honestly – saying I can support some of your positions but am unwilling to state I will support everything you ask me to do. The money for that campaign is used to send mailings saying “here is where there is a choice between myself and my opponent.” I have heard her say to voters “Here is where I stand on this issue, if you disagree, I understand that you will support my opponent and that is your choice.”

      Money is the necessary evil because people do not read the papers and the papers devote 25 column inches to a campaign and they are done. Where, besides expensive mailing, is the avenue for getting ideas to voters? The HD 21 Lord campaign has knocked on over 5,000 doors – about 1,700 of those people were home. How do you get a message out when the response at the door is “Democratic candidate – sorry, don’t need to read that to know I like the Republican”?

      The days of two page articles on local campaigns are gone. The days of “equal access” to media are gone. The voters demand that the candidate bring their message to them – how many voters actively seek information on their races? The American people have supported governmental decisions that make paid advertising and mailings the method for presenting yourself to the voter. Ergo, money becomes a necessity for providing data to the voter – if they will read it.

      I think the biggest indicator for me of whether a candidate is “selling themself” is the number fo donors and the average donor size. If a candidate has a very few large donors, what do you think their responsiveness to the little guy will be? It almost looks like they don’t feel addressing the little donor for five dollars “is worth their time”. If that isn;t worth their time, what do you think their connection to the average voter will be?

      Sorry so wordy but this is an issue many honest candidates struggle with – how do I get to the voters without money if they won’t make the effort to find out about me? The reality is that money is the mother’s milk of politics – but watching how a candidate addresses money can be a good indicator of how they will treat the voter.

  8. Bob beauprez, To give an even bigger beat down to Mr. Ritter who has no REAL record of what he may do and beyond that he is going to take our guns. With a 16% rating from the NRA who endorses both republicans and DEM canidates for GOV. this cycle. MR. Ritter you will have to take my gun out of my cold dead hand. Also REF. C is the biggest player in this election, Ritter will not spend that money on restoring old programs but rather to start new ones which is the inhernt problem with REF  C. I am a lower tax republican but would have voted for a rainy day fund, but the money needed to be spent on restoring not creating new big government. Mr. Ritter YOU are going lose , and I cannot wait on election night or the day after to hear all you DEMS on this site cry and bitch that the Republicans cheated or that it was unfair the bottom line you are wrong. This website is wrong in it’s predictions 10-1 give me a break in a state that has a republican advantage the republican is a ten to one favorite come on do not be stupid! Try 3-1 or 4-1 at this point. We will see on election proclaiming BB as our next Gov.

    1. Nov. 8 Regardless of the results I expect to see you here posting. I will be doing the same and I will be tipping my hat to who ever wins although I have my favorites.

      1. This is Colorado not Mass or one of the coasts it is the heartland. everything in my post is correct Ritter has no real record, He will take our guns away and will run from the middle and govern from liberal left. He is trying to pull the sheet over our eyes I for one am not fooled I guess you have been. The fact still remains that This is a Republican state, the DEMs have an uphill battle to begin with so 10-1 is not true. Maybe in the metro area he is up, but the rest of the state you know the plains that denverits seem to forget about will not be voting for ritter, who’s plan for water is a global warming zhar not storage. The farmers cannot afford ritter and the rest of the state cannot either. Maybe you should get informed on who is the real ritter, I think you will find that BB is the best man for the job. 

        1. Like your meds? Beauprez is pulling double digits in both the 3rd and 4th.  And that’s according to everyone who’s gone into the field in the past four weeks…

          Better to stick with the “El Paso and Douglas County turn-out” argument. 

          1. I bet you live in Denver sweet heart.  Musgrave is going to destroy bankrup Angie. Trust me I will see you on the day after the Election Crying…. I know Just trust me (just like we are supposed trust the government right you leftys I know you will agree) Screw that I trust myself not the government go BOB Go Scott tipton GO Musgrave! Long live Freedom Long live the Republican Party. Go Dave Owen A real man of freedom

            1. “I know Just trust me (just like we are supposed trust the government right you leftys I know you will agree) Screw that I trust myself not the government go BOB Go Scott tipton GO Musgrave! Long live Freedom Long live the Republican Party. Go Dave Owen A real man of freedom”

              Don’t trust the government yet trust the government (Musgrave, republicans are in charge and have been for a while)!

              1. We are more safe have less government hand outs and more 2nd amendment right than ever before. I do not even want to think about how much my taxes would or going to for that matter if flip flop Kerry where in charge. I would be paying (in taxes) for so many more free rides than I now. I have one Word of advise for all the welfare people out there get a job. Stop sucking off the tit of the government

                2. Under Bush they are spending more than any previous administration ever – both in total dollars and as % of GNP.

                  As to safer, 9/11 happened on Bush’s watch and with plenty of warning.

                  To put it politely, you seem somewhat divorced from reality.

                3. is what happens when places like the Rocky Flats Lodge get Wi Fi.  Just kindly wipe the Schlitz and drool off the keyboard when you’re done.

            2. I meant to say “Ritter is pulling double digits in the 3rd and 4th”.  Not Beauprez. 

              Jeez, see how you just unnerved me with your rant? And don’t call me “Sweetheart” unless you’re a tall brunette with a deep, sultry voice and at least a college degree.

            1. because I only glanced through his manifesto 10 years ago but I believe the Unabomber knew how to write distinct paragraphs without run-on sentences.

                  1. I kind of suspect that’s just a Democrat having a laugh.  I don’t mean to be condescending if that isn’t the case, but I just have a hard time believing that’s real. 

                    1. and read through his posts. He’s been around for a while, just doesn’t post that frequently. He’s not always this worked up, but the tone’s about the same.

    3. What, he doesn’t have enough fatcat money as it is?

      “Can’t buy me love…”

      (But I agree that the race will likely be closer than the 17-point difference right now. I’m afraid BWB may still squeak this one out with the right attack ads, October surprises, etc.)

  9. Even though I would have given it to Holtzman about three months ago… I’d give it to Beauprez. He may be Both Ways Bob, but at least he is our Republican Both Ways Bob! And we can at least count on him to be a party line kinda guy… Which is more than our Democrat friends can say about Ritter. Then again, Ritter may be Mr. Moderate now, but everyone thought Bill Owens was right of Attila the Hun back in 1998.

    So the $1,000,000 Veto Pen it is.

    1. he could use some of that $Million for a speech therapist to help him pick a real accent.  Is he from Alabama or Colorado?  Can’t tell with his ads when he croaks out “…illegal immigration?  Simple.  It’s illegal”. 

      Only thing simple is well, him….

      1. I love that line. It’s the most inane line in the entire campaign. I would have sworn it was a satire by Democrats if I just heard it out of context.

        Gosh, it’s so darn SIMPLE, Bob! Why haven’t the REPUBLICAN-CONTROLLED House and the REPUBLICAN-CONTROLLED Senate been able to get behind your awesome ability to distill problems to their essence?

        I look forward to the GOP adopting your wonderful philosophy in other contexts. For example:

        “Torture? Simple… it’s torture.”

        The only thing “simple” is Bob’s mind.

  10. The last six months have demonstrated one clear fact to me; we need a fair, experienced, “the buck stops here” Secretary of State who:

    1.  is his own man
    2.  understands the difference between legislating and enforcing rules
    3.  has a proven experience in bucking “party” for what’s right
    4.  knows how to actually run elections

    As republicans, we always knew what a crappy job Davidson was doing, but we couldn’t say so publicly.  Same with Gigi.  But Mike has always been openly critical of the failed system. 

    If the bomb drops and we give up the Mansion and both Houses (and I fear we might) I’d sleep better knowing the Iron Man is cowering to no one, standing tall and holding back the tide of democrat activism in one of the most important roles facing this state as we go into the Presidential elections and pivotal U.S. Senate race in ’08.

    1. If he’s his own man why does need all that special interest PAC money?  Why is he a co-chair to George Bush’s event tomorrow?  Anh why is his top advisor sitting in with trailhead and there secret meetings with GiGi.  If he was his own man fire Rob Fairbanks and send a strong message to Bush when he sees him tomorrow night.

      1. Fairbanks WROTE the campaign finance laws.  Seems perfectly reasonable he’d be called to ask about interpretation…

        And the President is still his (and our) Commander In Chief.  Perhaps you don’t understand a Call to Duty, but I can assure you Mike does. 

          1. You know, I agree that Mike Coffman is an honorable individual, and I’m glad that my second choice for Secretary of State is, in any case, not a sleazebag.  That said, though, Colorado Decides recently made the Secretary of State debate available on their web site (http://www.kbdi.org/…), and my opinion of Mike Coffman *as a candidate* for Secretary of state is fairly poor.  Mike’s positions seem to include:

            a) The electoral process is not important enough to worry about because we’re in a war on drugs.  (Huh???  I didn’t even understand that one.)

            b) We need all these efforts to absolutely guarantee that there’s no voter fraud, but we’ll magically do it without disenfranchising anyone… but Mike won’t bother explaining how.  (Hint: As is obvious to anyone with a brain, it’s not possible.  The most likely scenario is to remain blind to the fact that people are disenfranchised, and refuse to address it when it’s pointed out.  Mike Coffman even talks about the debacle regarding stronger ID requirements in *support* of requiring more ID for voting.  This is someone not in touch with reality.)

            c) Let’s dance around the problems with Gigi Dennis.  I was under the impression that Mike had come out strongly opposed to Gigi Dennis’ actions.  I guess I was wrong.  He pulled a Beauprez on the worst one, but pretty much supported the others, even to the point of misrepresenting what the rules say.

            I may not have been sure before, but now it’s pretty clear.  Mike Coffman is a partisan; he wants to bring specific goals into the Colorado electoral process, and those goals are to obstruct reforms, to create obstacles to individuals participating in the political process, and to outright create obstacles to prevent Colorado citizens from exercising their right to vote.

    2. He’s the one Republican I might vote for this election.

      Well, to be totally honest, I live in Boulder so I vote for anyone but the Democrat in all the local stuff because we’re a one-party county and I want to encourage the opposition.

  11. That would be money well spent, in my opinion.  Plus,  then the dems would have to drop Angie to focus on Ed, so I’d be helping Musgrave, too.

    1. O’Donnell has already done record breaking fund raising, but you can’t see any tangible results. You’d be better off giving your million to Hastert’s retirement fund.

  12. That just brought a tear to my eye. Somebody needs to stand up for the little guys like Glaxo, Pfizer, Texaco, Chevron, United Power, DuPont, Farmers Insurance, American Family Insurance, Allstate Insurance, Humana Insurance, and General Motors (to name a FEW of Mike’s contributors). Support these Interest’s interests! Vote Coffman. 

  15. Lamborn is such a wingnut. And this is a once in a lifetime chance to take CO-5 Democratic.

    And if it became clear CO-5 was going Democratic, everything but CO-6 should go too.

    But mostly just because it would be such an awesome upset, and it’s doable.

  16. I’d give it to Ken Gordon. Too many Republican Secretaries of State, including our own, have demonstrated that they will do ANYTHING to win elections for Republicans.  They do NOT think running fair elections is their job.  Gordon does and his integrity is beyond question.  Colorado needs him for 2008.

Leave a Comment

Recent Comments


Posts about

Donald Trump
SEE MORE

Posts about

Rep. Lauren Boebert
SEE MORE

Posts about

Rep. Yadira Caraveo
SEE MORE

Posts about

Colorado House
SEE MORE

Posts about

Colorado Senate
SEE MORE

99 readers online now

Newsletter

Subscribe to our monthly newsletter to stay in the loop with regular updates!