DEMOCRATS
REPUBLICANS
95%
5%
(D) J. Hickenlooper*
(R) Somebody
80%
20%
(D) M. Dougherty
(D) Alexis King
(D) Brian Mason
40%
40%
30%
(D) Brianna Titone
(R) Kevin Grantham
(D) Jerry DiTullio
60%
30%
20%
(D) Diana DeGette*
(R) Somebody
90%
2%
(D) Joe Neguse*
(R) Somebody
90%
2%
(R) Jeff Hurd*
(D) Somebody
80%
40%
(R) Lauren Boebert*
(D) Somebody
90%
10%
(R) Jeff Crank*
(D) Somebody
80%
20%
(D) Jason Crow*
(R) Somebody
90%
10%
(D) B. Pettersen*
(R) Somebody
90%
10%
(R) Gabe Evans*
(D) Yadira Caraveo
(D) Joe Salazar
50%
40%
40%
DEMOCRATS
REPUBLICANS
80%
20%
DEMOCRATS
REPUBLICANS
95%
5%
(D) J. Hickenlooper*
(R) Somebody
80%
20%
(D) M. Dougherty
(D) Alexis King
(D) Brian Mason
40%
40%
30%
(D) Brianna Titone
(R) Kevin Grantham
(D) Jerry DiTullio
60%
30%
20%
(D) Diana DeGette*
(R) Somebody
90%
2%
(D) Joe Neguse*
(R) Somebody
90%
2%
(R) Jeff Hurd*
(D) Somebody
80%
40%
(R) Lauren Boebert*
(D) Somebody
90%
10%
(R) Jeff Crank*
(D) Somebody
80%
20%
(D) Jason Crow*
(R) Somebody
90%
10%
(D) B. Pettersen*
(R) Somebody
90%
10%
(R) Gabe Evans*
(D) Yadira Caraveo
(D) Joe Salazar
50%
40%
40%
DEMOCRATS
REPUBLICANS
80%
20%
DEMOCRATS
REPUBLICANS
95%
5%
As the Denver Post reports:
One of the Republicans challenging Rep. Doug Lamborn in the primary race for the 5th Congressional District said Tuesday that Lamborn should return campaign contributions from companies linked to spending requests Lamborn made.
The Denver Post reported Sunday that Lamborn sought contacts for five companies that had given him a combined $9,547 in contributions since 2006.
“Doug Lamborn has mastered the art of a shakedown quickly,” said Jeff Crank, one of three Republicans seeking the seat. “Doug Lamborn puts the ‘pro’ into quid pro quo.”
Crank said he would oppose the spending requests, also called earmarks.
Lamborn’s campaign was not available for comment Tuesday evening.
Lamborn has said that all of his requests go through a “rigorous” vetting program.
We noted over the weekend that there are mitigating circumstances (a common situation, Lamborn actually disclosed more than he was required to), but unsurprisingly those didn’t make it into Crank’s “shakedown” sound bite. Whose spin will CD-5 voters remember on August 12?
You must be logged in to post a comment.
BY: SSG_Dan
IN: Colorado Challenges Trump’s (First) Unconstitutional Penstroke
BY: SSG_Dan
IN: Tuesday Open Thread
BY: kwtree
IN: Colorado Challenges Trump’s (First) Unconstitutional Penstroke
BY: spaceman2021
IN: MLK Day 2025 Open Thread
BY: notaskinnycook
IN: Tuesday Open Thread
BY: Pam Bennett
IN: Tuesday Open Thread
BY: Air Slash
IN: Scott Bottoms is Doing What Now?
BY: bullshit!
IN: Colorado Challenges Trump’s (First) Unconstitutional Penstroke
BY: bullshit!
IN: Scott Bottoms is Doing What Now?
BY: JohnNorthofDenver
IN: Colorado Challenges Trump’s (First) Unconstitutional Penstroke
Subscribe to our monthly newsletter to stay in the loop with regular updates!
I say neither. Along with franking, this has to be the biggest non-issue of the day.
Voters I know are talking about gas prices, energy, economy, immigration, war -you know, important things. I don’t know of anyone who is voting on the almighty franking/earmarks issue
Schaffer is making earmarks a centerpiece of his campaign. You don’t think that’s approach is sound?
Hate to say it, but Shaffer’s not doing so hot. These sort of issues always strike me as “inside baseball”. I think the main issue for voters this season is energy (gas) prices. But that’s just me.
Earmarks is 10 times more important than Franking.
But its still No big Problem for Lamborn.
WHY?
Cause theres no there, there.
Lamborn is squeeky clean on the earmarks and campaign contribution issues. He has been on the right side of fiscal dicipline, before it was the issue du jour.
As I argued in this diary, the Post’s (and now Crank’s) contention that Lamborn’s measly take from defense PACs are somehow tied to his earmarks is absurd.
But you do realize, Newsman, that fiscal discipline has been an issue du jour since long before Lamborn won election to Congress, don’t you?
Republicans campaigning against “earmarks” is relatively recent, raised to neutralize scandalous earmarks inserted by embattled Republican lawmakers under investigation for the practice.
Not really.
Not with everyone.
Not with Liberals cira 1929-1999.
Not with most “moderates”
With me, yes.
Reagan, Goldwater, Yes.
With Jeffords, Snow, and other Rockefeller Republicans, NO, Not Really.