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
April 06, 2011 06:38 PM UTC

March Fundraising Update

  • 13 Comments
  • by: Colorado Pols

This is it, folks. The last fundraising numbers we’re going to see before we see the actual, verifiable results from all that fundraising. Fortunately for some candidates and unfortunately for others, things haven’t changed too much since the last time we talked about fundraising in this space. We said then that the lines in the sand had been drawn, and indeed, fundraising numbers have more or less held steady.

Chris Romer

As you’ll recall, Romer announced that he’s raised over $1,000,000 since the start of the campaign, hauling in about $282,000 this month alone. He’s got just about $500,000 on hand. It’s a huge development that you’ve got a candidate with that kind of fundraising in this kind of race. He’s almost raised double what some of his closest competitors have, and he’s easily spent more than a lot of the other candidates have raised. Make no mistake, these numbers all help to ensure that Romer will make it through to the run-off election. If he doesn’t, that will be a game-changing campaign shocker in an otherwise milquetoast race. We know Romer’s on TV and we can assume he’s gearing up for mail. What will really make or break Romer is how hard he and his team are hitting the streets. We have our own doubts about his doorstep manner, but even if he were terrible in walk and knocks, he’s raised enough to give him a huge buffer above the others. Oh yeah, some Democrats recognize his dad for some reason or another. That can’t hurt.

Carol Boigon

Boigon had another good month, raising about $150,000 with $232,000 on hand. As our readers pointed out below, Boigon actually only raised about $50,000, investing another $100,000 of her own money in the campaign. What this says about her fundraising is that she has indeed picked all the low-hanging fruit she can, but she is at least able to self-finance. Funding your own campaign is a bad way to show you can relate to voters and gives the impression of “buying your way into public office,” but it probably won’t hurt that much in this race given the minimal coverage from the media. It worked for Jared Polis, after all,  and we think it may be able to work for Carol if she can prove she’s competitive. Unlike Romer, most analysts don’t seem to think that she’s guaranteed to make it through to the run-off. We agree. But Carol’s fundraising and ability to self finance is good enough that she can target her more direct competitors. What will be difficult for the councilwoman to figure out is how to raise money if she ends up running against Chris and only Chris: she won’t be able to capitalize on that doomed City Council vote, and a lot of her low-hanging fruit has been picked. Regardless, Carol’s got a big enough wallet to have thrown herself $200,000 so far. If she makes it to the run-off, we’re pretty sure she can loan herself even more.

Michael Hancock

Hancock has really solidified his fundraising lately, and it’s already showing. Though he raised just under $140,000 this month, he’s raised more in total than Carol Boigon and now has about $140,000 on hand. We’re surprised. We perceive Boigon as a better fundraiser than Hancock, but he’s certainly got the numbers to prove us wrong. He hasn’t had to invest incredible amounts of his personal funds into the campaign, either. We know he’s spending his money, too: his campaign produced what we think has been the best TV ad in the race thus far and we know he’s preparing himself for a massive field push before ballots start to get returned. His ill-advised vote on pay increases will flesh itself out in the coming days, but Hancock has positioned himself well financially to give it his all…so long as he has managed his burn rate better. In February Hancock spent about as much as he raised, which is a killer when you need every last dollar for TV.

James Mejia

We had almost counted Mejia out of the running last month when he pulled in a paltry $65,000. That’s not the case this month: James raised a hair under $130,000 and has $135,000 on hand. We honestly didn’t think Mejia would be able to compete with the fundraising prowess of Boigon and Hancock, but he’s proven himself a legitimate candidate. He’s in that odd spot where he can’t afford another significant TV buy in addition to a heavy field and mail campaign. Either way, Mejia should still be able to make his case as to why he should make it to the run-off, though he’s still struggling with heavy name ID problems that he doesn’t necessarily have enough money to fix.

Doug Linkhart

We’re convinced Doug Linkhart is the greatest practical jokester in the state. After all, he got himself elected to an at-large city council position but then totally faked not having any political ability when he decided to run for mayor. Good one, Doug! Seriously, though, Linkhart has only raised $145,000 in total, with just $45,000 of that coming in this month. Like Carol Boigon, Doug gave himself a $20,000 loan, which may prove that he dearly wants to be Mayor, but just isn’t capable of running a campaign of this magnitude. It’s a shame, because Linkhart could’ve portrayed himself as the progressive alternative in this race if he had the resources. He hasn’t capitalized well enough on that angle, though, and so has not been able to get on TV or do anything remarkable on the campaign trail. If anything, this might be a lesson on what happens when your advisors move on to bigger and better things: we hear his old campaign manager Lois Court is busy doing things in the State Capitol. Either way, at least he did better than last month.

Theresa Spahn

Who? That’s actually a pretty good question. Spahn raised a mere $15,000 this month and only has $110,000 on hand. That said, Spahn might be taking advantage of all that this Mayoral race has to offer. She’s stayed out of the sights of people like Chris Romer and Carol Boigon while simultaneously raising her own name ID (somewhat) and proving that she’s got at least some support in the city. We can almost guarantee that Spahn will not be Denver’s next Mayor, but she may have positioned herself for future career opportunities. She just has to make sure she doesn’t lose badly — that’s an easy way to piss off future donors.

Tweet
Share

Comments

13 thoughts on “March Fundraising Update”

  1. or about the same as Doug Linkhart.  According to the report she loaned her campaign another 100K.  

    I’m not saying personal loans to the campaign don’t spend as well as contributions, but it’s not accurate to say she raised 150K.

    Either she’s not focusing AT ALL on fundraising because she can self-finance, or everyone else saw the same poll that we did here at Pols and doesn’t want to give to a candidate they don’t believe has a chance.

    1. That analysis is spot on.

      But maybe she doesn’t need to focus on fundraising. She’s probably planned to loan herself this money all along depending on how well Romer did. She can focus on other campaign aspects than fundraising calls with that extra knowledge that she can throw herself a few thousand whenever she needs it.

      Self-financing is an easy way to show the voters you’re nothing like them. But when you’re in a pinch, it’s an easy way to get up on TV for a final push while ballots are being sent back.

  2. Thanks for posting this update.  One point of clarification: Boigon’s $150,00 included a $100,000 loan, which means she actually raised $50,000.  She has the money, which is all that counts.  But raising $50,000 doesn’t show a lot of support, so it may be important to note the difference between loaning and raising.  

    And Doug’s $40,000 included a $20,000.  Poor Doug.

    1. We didn’t check aggregate contributions when we were looking at the reports. The Diary has been updated to reflect the self-contributions.

  3. What is not clear from Hancock’s reporting is how much if this money is legitimate.

    Perhaps a bit off-topic, but this story from the Cherry Creey News certainly calls into question how Hancock is putting together his donors.  We’ll see if it gets and legs, but the included memo from the campaign certainly offers a lens into Hancock’s operation.

    http://www.thecherrycreeknews….

    1. None other than Guerin Green.  It’s easy to put together.  Michael was a supporter of the school reform efforts in Montbello, thus he’s being targeted by Guerin and his DeFENSE cronies.  

      1. As with all things in the age of new media,  you need to dig deep to find the truth.  I definitely didn’t connect Green with the Montbello reform effort.  

        That said, as I pointed out in a prior post, if these sorts of shady dealings are Hancock’s M.O., I really hope they come out before ballots drop next week.

        Will $1M raised and the ethics of a third world dictator, Romer’s attack ads will crush Hancock with this sort of thing in the run-off…

        ANYBODY But Romer

        1. that I’m solidly behind, and this type of allegation would bother me as well, if it is true.  It’ll be interesting to see if it gets traction in the next week or so, but given that it’s Guerin, there’s likely something personal behind it.

          Regardless, I’m solidly with you in the ABR camp.  Romer would be awful.

        2. …this is the nature of campaign finance. I wouldn’t be surprised to see something like this in Romer’s or Mejia’s reports. I’m sure there’s one or two individuals in their camps who gave under their name, their wife’s name, their children’s name and probably one or two of their own businesses. Don’t hate the player, hate the game.

          Plus, you see now that this is a blatantly targeted attack by Green. He’s already went out of his way to out a fellow polster over the northeast turnaround, now he’s graduated to quixotic attempts to sink campaigns over non-issues. This is a guy would just haphazardly print lies that would make even the National Inquirer think twice about putting out.  

        3. You aren’t anti-romer, you’re a paid mejia sockpuppet. Everyone knows this. Go make some calls instead. Or better yet, go through James’ report, because I’m sure it has much of the same stuff.

  4. It’s not about contributions from multiple family members, and/or entities.  The allegations that are troubling are, (1) That defunct companies mande the donations, and (2) pay-for-play in terms of land deals for country club memberships.  

    If either is factual at all, the attack ads write themselves.  Whoever gets in against Romer has a tough road in the run-off as it is.  Anything like this makes it easy.

    Clearly, if the only issues you see ‘wrong’ with the CCN  story are the author and the fact that people make contributions from multiple realted sources, you’re the Hancock bag-man who can’t even see the forest through the trees…

    1. This all seems more like seeing a rain drop and screaming that it’s flooding. What I’m saying is that you can take a look at the other candidates financial reports, and you’d probably find the same thing. Have you fact checked the CCN? What does the SoS have to say? Are they truly defunct or are they some other category like derelict.

      If I didn’t know who the “journalist” was, I wouldn’t say a word. But I do, and it automatically makes this whole thing suspect. The man has an agenda, and I won’t be surprised if Romer’s next on the hit list, since he supports the turnaround as well.

      Whoever is feeding Green should look back to last July and see how this strategy worked with Andrew Romanoff. It would be a shame to have another good candidate go down because they tried to plant a story with this shmuck.  

  5. As I’ve commented before, toooooooo much money is being spent.  Romer supporters must not be all that comfortable with his cool millions if they have to focus on ” ghost” companies, etc, to down HANCOCK.  Perhaps, as was suggested by another writer, Mr. Green can investigate the contributors to the other big money campaigns as well.

    I thought the article was pretty good, but the bloggers want to take this somewhere else.  

    Why is the black guy the only one singled out as having “shady” money.  America is America.  Come on people.

    Politics is uglier than it needs to be!!

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

74 readers online now

Newsletter

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