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
August 04, 2010 01:57 AM UTC

Romanoff still takes no PAC money

  • 48 Comments
  • by: wade norris

Update:

apparently Politico has removed the earlier statement about the PAC money –

http://www.politico.com/news/s…

There is a tizzy over a statement about to the potential of the Romanoff campaign accepting DSCC money and accusing him of backing off his no PAC claim.

but this is the statement from Andrew Romanoff

I am not taking PAC money now, and I will not take any PAC money in the general election.

The DSCC is now supporting my opponent, supplementing the $1.3 million he has taken from PACs with independent expenditures of its own.

After I win the primary, I will ask the DSCC to honor my pledge by excluding PAC dollars from any contributions or expenditures it makes on my behalf.

And this is possible, despite what Colorado Pols says  – from the original story itself in the Politico (which Colorado Pols could have easily included if it wasn’t so slanted)

While the DSCC has agreed to forgo contributions from lobbyists or political action committees to fund events at which President Barck Obama is the headliner, it accepts those funds in all other instances.

http://www.politico.com/news/s…

So not only is it possible to fund a candidate from the DSCC without PAC money, just as has been done with Barack Obama.

An email from the campaign:

We must be doing something right.

Now we’re under attack not only from my Democratic opponent, but also from the National Republican Senatorial Committee (NRSC).  The attacks may not have been coordinated, but they use the same script.  “Andrew Romanoff is a dishonest, career politician,” says the Bennet campaign.  “Andrew Romanoff is a hypocrite, plain and simple,” says the NRSC.

The source of this slander?  The opposition said I couldn’t win if I didn’t accept contributions from political action committees (PACs) and then accused me of planning to do so in the general election.

Both statements are false.  I don’t take any PAC money now, I have not done so at any point in this campaign, and I will not do so in the general election.  I don’t know how to make my stand any clearer.

To set this matter to rest, I took one further step today. I vowed to ask the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee (DSCC) to exclude any PAC dollars from contributions or expenditures it makes on my behalf.   (The DSCC is supporting my opponent, supplementing the $1.3 million he has taken from PACs with independent expenditures of its own.)

I wish my opponent had been willing to discuss these issues in the open, instead of ducking nine debates and hiding behind surrogates.  I’m slated for another debate — without him — tomorrow.

Coloradans deserve better.  They deserve a senator who will answer their questions, as often and as frankly as possible.  Let me fulfill that pledge right now.  If you would like to talk with me at any time (though preferably before midnight!), please call me at 303-***-****.  That’s my home phone number.  It seems only fair; after all, you get enough calls from candidates like me!

Update:

looking back over the frontpaged items by Colorado Pols there are 6 anti – Romaonff diaries just since Sunday.

There’s your proof that this site has an agenda in attacking Romanoff.

Tweet
Share

Comments

48 thoughts on “Romanoff still takes no PAC money”

  1. Also- is AR2.0 also going to ask the DSCC to only use money from individual Coloradoans or is outsider money now ok too?

    And the DSCC has already said it is improbable they could do it  – so waht does AR2.0 intend to do with that?

    1. DSCC has already said it is improbable they could do it

      no, they actually do it all the time for President Obama.

      Didn’t you bother to read before you posted?


      While the DSCC has agreed to forgo contributions from lobbyists or political action committees to fund events at which President Barck Obama is the headliner, it accepts those funds in all other instances.

      3. What you’re saying DSCC will do is truly a meaningless gesture. It’s just semantics.

        If the DSCC solicits funds for Obama events, and uses those funds only to host Obama events, that’s one thing. But the only way that’s comparable is if the DSCC solicits funds for AR, and those are the only funds he gets. I don’t see that helping him.  

      1. Well Vista doesn’t suck as much as Windows 7, but I don’t care cause I run XP on MAC OS.

        By everything AR2.0 >2.1 has said, I full yexpect if he doesn’t win the primary next week, he’ll put a poll in the filed next winter and next summer he’ll announce he’s challenging for the House.  If he’s downtown- DeGette.  

  3. And when the DSCC tells the rather presumptuous Romanoff that he doesn’t get to choose from where they raise money and they aren’t going to institute a whole separate accounting system to accommodate a promise a candidate made on their behalf, what will he do?

        1. can’t read


          While the DSCC has agreed to forgo contributions from lobbyists or political action committees to fund events at which President Barck Obama is the headliner, it accepts those funds in all other instances.

          if it is done there, why not for others?

          1. Take, Give

            Take, Give

            They describe DIFFERENT things.  One is accepting money, one is distributing money.  Taking money for certain events from certain people is not so difficult.

            Being an entity that gathers much of its money from PACs (top industry contributing to DSCC–FIRE, Finance, Insurance, Real Estate) the issue is GIVING that money to candidates, hands outstretch likes AR 2.0.

            From one pot, that money comes.  PAC and others intermingled.  

            Wade…seriously, I’m worried for you man.  

          2. There’s a difference between raising and spending.

            While the DSCC has agreed to forgo contributions from lobbyists or political action committees to fund events at which President Barck Obama is the headliner, it accepts those funds in all other instances.

  4. The don’t use PAC or lobbyist money to fund EVENTS for Obama.

    A PAC or a lobbyist couldn’t underwrite a specific Obama event — that’s not the same thing as separating PAC money from an entire account when you are writing checks.  

    Think about it for a minute, biases aside. How could you separate PAC money out of one big account? The only way to do it would be if the DSCC had two separate bank accounts, where one was for PAC money and one was for individual contributions.  

    1. The DSCC is honoring Obama’s pledge not to raise lobbyist/PAC money at the events he headlines. In other words, he refuses to raise lobbyist money for the DSCC.

      They make no promises about how the commingled funds are spent.

    2. too bad the truth is out there.

      Not only is it possible, it is part of the DSCC’s new reform passed in the 2007 reform act.

      DCCC spokeswoman Jennifer Crider pointed out that her committee’s refusal of PAC and lobbyist cash isn’t just for one day – it’s for any fundraising effort in which Obama is involved, including potential direct mail and email solicitations.

      “Our fundraising is fully transparent,” she said, asserting that congressional Democrats proved their commitment to cleaning up politics by pushing through recent ethics reforms, including the 2007 Honest Leadership and Open Government Act, which required disclosure of contributions bundled by lobbyists. That provision was championed by Rep. Chris Van Hollen, the DCCC chairman, and then Illinois-Sen. Obama, who during the campaign cited it as among his top legislative accomplishments.

      Obama also used his refusal of lobbyist and PAC cash during the campaign to assert he wasn’t beholden to the special interests he derided as controlling Washington.

      http://www.politico.com/news/s…

      1. He doesn’t know the difference between an individual contribution collected by a lobbyist and given to a candidate and a corporate PAC.

        2. At the White House’s behest, the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee and the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee last week agreed to forego contributions from lobbyists or political action committees at a June fundraiser in order to land Obama as the keynote speaker.

          that’s a PAC TW.

          2. Individual fundraising events involving the President and his cabinet can’t raise money from PAC’s and Federal lobbyists. That doesn’t mean the money raised from those events doesn’t go into the same bank account as an event that does include checks from PAC’s and lobbyists.

            Try to keep up. We’re not talking trigonometry here.  

      2. To Take:

        To appropriate for one’s own or another’s use or benefit

        To Give:

        To bestow, especially officially; confer

        http://www.thefreedictionary.com

        From the Politico article you linked to:

        At the White House’s behest, the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee and the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee last week agreed to forego contributions from lobbyists or political action committees at a June fundraiser in order to land Obama as the keynote speaker. But while Obama required both his presidential campaign and the Democratic National Committee to forego lobbyist and PAC cash year-round, the DCCC and DSCC have only agreed to the Obama rules for fundraising efforts involving the president, and will continue accepting the funds the rest of the time.

        That “isn’t just hypocritical – it defies common sense that you’d think the public would believe this was a principled stand against special-interest influence,” reads a letter to the party campaign committees from Change Congress, a coalition of nonprofit groups founded by Democratic operative Joe Trippi and Stanford Law School professor Lawrence Lessig, an online activist.

      3. You are talking about two entirely different things, Wade. It’s easy to control what money you accept on the front end, which is the disclosure part you are talking about. What is impossible is separating the funds after they have all been put in the same pot.

        We’ll go back to the cookie analogy. It’s easy to say, “Don’t put salt in that batch of cookies you are making.” It’s impossible, once the cookies are made, to say, “Please take the salt out.”

        We’re going to assume you really do understand this and are just trying to spin it favorably for Romanoff, because this isn’t that difficult of a concept.

        1. that users, for their own benefit, can be suspended for being really rally stupid.

          But at lest I understand  Wade’s motivation here.

          Imagine non CoPols insider surfs on in here.

          Sees another new diary demonstrating that AR2.0 is a flip flopping liar.

          And in the all the comments are some confusing and twisty denials.

          Then a new diary saying it’s ok, it’s all good, just a simple misunderstanding cause CoPols supports Bennet

          And that non insider leaves thinking- well, there’s room for disagreement somehow.

          It doesn’t matter to Wade that he’s spinning and obfuscating and …you get the idea.

          I mean even if human climate change is a myth or a fad, we should still seek new forms of energy– see, all good.

          WWAR3.0D?

          1. We encourage people to disagree with us — but with FACTS. We’re not big fans of saying, “You’re wrong, and this piece of incorrect information I have proves that you’re wrong.”

        2. how many bank accounts do you have?

          I have a small business that requires me to have a Merchant account and an Operating account.

          If you are saying the DSCC can’t easily separate individual funds by opening a separate account, then you obviously underestimate the Democratic leadership.

          It’s not that hard to do,

          but since your whole argument rests on that it can’t be done, the Colorado Pols editors are unable to accept that it is both possible and practical for candidates wishing to emulate Obama’s Presidential campaign.

          1. We didn’t say the DSCC couldn’t create separate bank accounts for PAC money and non-PAC money. But what is undeniably true, RIGHT NOW, is that they don’t separate those funds into different accounts. As long as that remains true, there is no way to dole out “non-PAC money.”

            This discussion isn’t about all the theoretical things that the DSCC might be able to do in order to accommodate Romanoff. If the Primary ended today, and Romanoff was the nominee, there is NO WAY the DSCC could provide “PAC-free” money to his campaign.

            1. If they tried would AR2.1 also ask to only receive support from money donated by individual Coloradans- or is that whole outside thing out the window too?

    2. Politico has removed the PAC statement.

      “I am not taking PAC money now, and I will not take any PAC money in the general election. The DSCC is now supporting my opponent, supplementing the $1.3 million he has taken from PACs with independent expenditures of its own. After I win the primary, I will ask the DSCC to honor my pledge by excluding PAC dollars from any contributions or expenditures it makes on my behalf,” Romanoff said in a statement

      Read more: http://www.politico.com/news/s…

      2. Though surging Colorado Senate candidate Andrew Romanoff has sold his own home in order to maintain his pledge to shun political action committee money, his campaign manager Bill Romjue told POLITICO Tuesday that the Democrat would accept funding from the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee (DSCC) in the general election, even though the organization takes money from PACs.

        Romjue argued that the position is not inconsistent with Romanoff’s pledge to swear off all PAC money from corporations and other special interest groups because there’s no direct relationship between the Senate fundraising committee and the PACs…

        …”You can always find an ivory tower person that’s completely pure. We’re not an ivory tower person. Andrew’s going to be funded by individuals, but of course we’ll accept money from the DSCC,” Romjue said.

        Please clarify.  

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

110 readers online now

Newsletter

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