As the polls continue to show a tightening race, I wanted to make sure you saw the breaking news from Politico that the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee is now preparing to invest a significant amount of money in Maine and they are trying to bury this big news late on a Friday. As Politico reports:
- The committee has purchased $410,000 in Maine airtime between Oct. 2 and Oct. 12, a significant investment in a relatively inexpensive state.
If you are reporting on the DSCC’s impending ad campaign in Maine, please consider the following statement from the National Republican Senatorial Committee (NRSC):
“It’s remarkable to see national Democrats now spending money in a state where they refuse to even endorse their own nominee. Now that they are spending almost a half-million dollars in Maine, the DSCC should make clear who they are supporting – the Democratic nominee or the candidate that the State Democratic Party Chairman said today cannot be trusted.”
- Rob Jesmer, Executive Director
National Republican Senatorial Committee
As a reminder, this is the same state that Democratic Senator Chuck Schumer had this to say about in May:
- “There’s only one state where the strong likelihood is there’s a pick-up,” Schumer said. “That’s Maine and that’s ours.”
But Schumer’s comments – which both he and the DSCC refused to expand on – raised eyebrows because of the remarkable situation in which the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee has refused to even acknowledge the existence of their duly-elected female nominee, State Senator Cynthia Dill.
Despite continuously touting the 2012 election cycle as the “Year Of The Woman” in press releases, press conferences, and barn-storming fundraising tours across the country, the Chair of the DSCC Senator Patty Murray has remarkably refused to even acknowledge her own female Democratic nominee in Maine, State Senator Cynthia Dill.
This was confirmed by State Senator Dill who said in an interview earlier this year – at the same time Murray was touting her “Year Of The Woman” narrative – that she couldn’t even get a phone called returned by Senator Murray. And even in an interview with MSNBC the morning after the Maine primary in June, Murray couldn’t bring herself to utter State Senator Dill’s name, let alone say whether the DSCC would back their duly elected nominee.
This remarkable hypocrisy even led Dill to pen a public letter to Senator Murray asking why “Beltway Democrats” have been refusing to back her “grassroots campaign for working-class Mainers.”
- “The silence from Washington is deafening, has taken voters’ focus from the issues that families care about, and does nothing to address the concerns of the people of Maine,” Dill said. “This is Washington politics and drama once again getting in the way of progress for ordinary Americans, as Beltway insiders broker deals, hedge bets and pick winners and losers. It’s the same old song and dance, and Maine voters are tired of it.”
Dill also made news this week when she called on both Republican Charlie Summers and “Independent” Angus King to publicly release ten years of tax returns – something which Summers readily agreed to but which Angus King has not, apparently because he’s been busy raising money out-of-state.
The DSCC’s newfound interest in this race also comes the same day that the Chairman of the Maine Democratic Party Ben Grant publicly broke with national Democrats and slammed King in an op-ed in the state’s biggest newspaper, the Portland Press-Herald. Chairman Grant wrote in part:
- Voters are mostly concerned with the jobs picture and health care costs. These are the facts. But Angus King is not running a campaign about those issues. That, more than anything else, is why he has fallen in the polls….Cynthia Dill shares those values, and she is our candidate. If Angus King wants more Democratic support, it’s not we who need to change.
As Politico reports this afternoon – “The Maine Democratic chairman questions whether King can be trusted” -
- [A]t minimum it is a different message than the no-explicit-endorsement one coming from national Democrats about their own candidate, in a race where Republicans and outside groups are making a major play on behalf of Republican Charlie Summers.
DSCC’s Latest Ad Clear Violation of Any Good Faith, Bipartisan Work
(Las Vegas, NV) – A new ad out from the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee (DSCC) and Shelley Berkley is the perfect example of everything that is wrong in Washington. The ad uses footage from a bipartisan meeting of the Nevada delegation to attack Dean Heller in the race against Shelley Berkley, further proof that Shelley Berkley and the Democrats are willing to turn every possible angle for a political advantage.
“Dean Heller attended a meeting with the entire Nevada delegation in a good faith effort to talk about an extremely important issue for Nevada. Little could he expect that a meeting focused on work done for his constituents would turn into a political weapon just three years later. How can anything ever get done in Washington if long-term politicians like Shelley Berkley are willing to manipulate even positive work for Nevada in order to further her political ambitions?” said Chandler Smith, Heller for Senate spokeswoman.
The footage, which can be viewed by clicking here, was posted on Senator Harry Reid’s official Youtube site on January 14, 2009. The topic of the press availability was the work that the entire Nevada delegation accomplished on Yucca Mountain.
Three years later, footage appeared in a DSCC ad attacking Dean Heller. The ad was a transparent attempt to distract from Shelley Berkley’s long record bailing out special interests and raising taxes on the middle class.
Attack ad ignores Berkley’s Wall Street fundraising and vote for Bailout
(Las Vegas, NV) – A new ad from the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee is yet another misleading attack ad designed to distract from the fact that Shelley Berkley’s long record of bailouts, high taxes and over-regulations are squeezing American businesses and crushing the middle class. The ad is further proof of Shelley Berkley’s hypocrisy on economic issues.
“There is only one candidate in the race who voted for the most expensive handout to Wall Street that our country has ever seen, and that is Shelley Berkley. In fact, Dean Heller was the only member of the Nevada delegation to stand up to the big banks and oppose it. Not only has Shelley Berkley voted to raise taxes on small businesses, chosen to cut $1 trillion from Medicare and to force jobs overseas, Shelley Berkley has raised more money from Wall Street than she has from Reno,” said Chandler Smith, Heller for Senate spokeswoman.
- Interestingly, the footage being used at the beginning of the ad was cut from a meeting with the entire Nevada delegation – a meeting that took place in Majority Leader Harry Reid’s office.
Shelley Berkley’s long record protecting Wall Street special interests:
- Fact: Dean Heller voted against sending $700 billion in taxpayers’ dollars to bailout Wall Street. He was the only member of the Nevada delegation to vote against it. (Lisa Mascaro, “Heller only Nevada legislator to vote against $700 billion bailout; Says more oversight needed on bill,” Las Vegas Sun, October 8, 2008)
- Fact: Shelley Berkley voted for the Wall Street bailout. (Lisa Mascaro, “Heller only Nevada legislator to vote against $700 billion bailout; Says more oversight needed on bill,” Las Vegas Sun, October 8, 2008)
- Fact: the New York Times reported that the Berkley-backed bailout “is a windfall to banks:” The New York Times reported that there is a “growing gulf between public expectations for how the $700 billion should be used and the decisions being made by many of the institutions that have taken part. The program does not dictate what banks should do with the money. The loose requirements in the original plan have contributed to confusion over what the Treasury intended…” (Mike McIntire, “Bailout Is a Windfall to Banks, if Not to Borrowers,” New York Times, January 17, 2009)
- Fact: Shelley Berkley has received more funds from Wall Street in this cycle than Dean Heller. (www.opensecrets.org)
- Fact: Dean Heller voted against Dodd-Frank bill, legislation masked as “Wall Street reform.” This bill would institutionalize bailouts, harm job growth, and create new taxes by intrusive and unaccountable government agencies and offices. (Paul Sperry, “Dodd-Frank Rules Will Crush Employment,” Investor’s Business Daily, December 13, 2011)
- Fact: Dean Heller has zero dollars invested in stocks. Shelley Berkley’s 2010 Personal Financial Disclosure form shows Shelley Berkley and her husband have over $1,000,000 invested in the stock market. (www.opensecrets.org, accessed 5/29/2012)
Shelley Berkley’s long record of high-regulations has forced jobs overseas, for example:
- Fact: Shelley Berkley voted multiple times against the Keystone pipeline. Her opposition forced potential American jobs to China:
“Canadian government officials, meanwhile, have boosted support for westward-flowing pipelines in order to diversify toward Asian markets. That effort accelerated after the White House earlier this year rejected a big pipeline-expansion project, TransCanada Corp.’s Keystone XL, which would have sent more Alberta crude south of the border. … Mr. Harper and other Canadian officials have said they want to open up new markets for Canada’s resources in China and Asia, instead of relying on the U.S. as its biggest buyer.” (Edward Welsch, “With $5 Billion Pipeline Project, Canada Looks to Bypass U.S. For Asia,” The Wall Street Journal, 4/12/12)
(H.R. 1938, CQ Vote #650); (H.R. 3630, CQ Vote #923); (H.R. 3408, CQ Vote #71); (H.R. 4348, Roll Call Vote #170)
Shelley Berkley has targeted Nevada’s middle class and small business for tax hikes.
- As recently as July, Shelley Berkley voted to raise taxes on job creators and small businesses, which could cost Nevada 6,000 jobs. (H.R. 8, House Roll Call Vote #545)
- On April 17, 2012 Congresswoman Berkley voted against the Small Business Tax Cut Act. The bill would give a 20% tax cut that will help 22 million hard-working small businesses retain and create more jobs. The legislation would ultimately provide $46 billion in tax relief to small businesses and could affect as many as 45,000 small businesses in Nevada with between 1-500 employees.
Shelley Berkley has chosen to keep Medicare on a path towards bankruptcy, and even voted to cut $1 trillion from the program.
- Cut 1: $193 billion – H.R. 3162; Vote #787, Aug. 1, 2007; “Estimated Effect on Direct Spending and Revenues of H.R. 3162, the Children’s Health and Medicare Protection Act, for the Rules Committee,” Congressional Budget Office, Aug. 1, 2007
- Cut 2: $716 billion – ObamaCare; Vote #165, H.R. 3590; Vote #167, H.R. 4872, March 21, 2010; Letter to the Honorable John Boehner, Congressional Budget Office, July 24, 2012
- Cut 3: $123 billion – Budget Control Act; Vote #690, S 365, Aug. 1, 2011; “Estimated Impact of Automatic Budget Enforcement Procedures Specified in the Budget Control Act,” Congressional Budget Office, Sept. 12, 2011
Reporting an internal poll conducted by a democrat polling firm and released by a political party as news is the worst type of journalistic activism… unfortunately it’s been par for the course for Politico since its inception.
DSCC poll: Berkley slightly leads Heller in Nevada
An internal poll commissioned by the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee’s independent expenditure shows the Nevada Senate race as a squeaker, with Democratic challenger Rep. Shelley Berkley edging out incumbent Republican Sen. Dean Heller.
The survey, conducted by the Garin Hart polling firm and obtained by POLITICO, shows Berkley at 44 percent and Heller at 42 percent in the survey of 613 voters. The survey sample matches the voter registration in the state, officials said.
The survey also showed President Barack Obama leading Mitt Romney by 5 points, 49 percent to 44 percent.
The DSCC is obviously in desperation mode trying to do all it can to show embattled Congresswomen Shelley Berkley in a favorable light!
Here’s the Poll:
To: The Fourth Estate
From: Brian Walsh, NRSC Communications Director
RE: Your Background Guide to Today’s DSCC Pen-And-Pad
As some of you prepare to head over to 122 Maryland Ave NE this morning to hear the latest chest-beating and breathless spin from our friends at the DSCC, we wanted to offer a few background thoughts for your consideration.
First off, let me save you the trouble of even making the trip this morning. Take an early nap, go for a run or watch last night’s Olympics on your DVR – spoiler alert, we won the gold in women’s gymnastics – because we can already tell you exactly what’s in the talking points typed up by Senator Schumer’s office.
So here we go….are you ready? What you will hear from Senator Murray this morning….[list type="arrow"] [li]
- First, [insert ANY Republican candidate’s name here] is an extreme Tea Party conservative who wants to kill Medicare and take away seniors’ Social Security checks and give them to their millionaire and billionaire and oil company friends;
- Second, “bloody” Republican primaries across the country are “bloodying up” these extreme Republican candidates who, when they’re not trying to kill Medicare, are spending millions of dollars attacking each other which will help Democrats in November;
- Third, Democratic incumbents across the country have built tremendous fundraising advantages and their outsized financial resources will help them to win in November;
- And lastly fourth and fifth, because of successful recruiting and strong candidates, Democrats have expanded the playing field and made it virtually impossible to win back the Senate. Similarly, weak Republican candidates have allowed Democrats to capitalize on their missteps which will also prevent Republicans from winning back the Senate.
Got all that? Heck, we’ve pretty much written the story for you.
But hold on…..there’s one big problem. Well, two of them, at least. Because the reality is that facts and political history render that spin virtually meaningless.
Let’s start from the end of that list and work our way back – Strong Democrats/Weak Republicans = no chance of Republicans winning the Senate.
So then how does the DSCC explain the fact that as of today, they are already spending, or preparing to spend, significant financial resources in at least nine – count that, NINE – Democratic-held Senate seats? And that number could still grow before the end of October when you consider that Linda Lingle is running a formidable campaign in Hawaii, a recent Quinnipiac poll has a three-point race in Connecticut, Tom Smith is putting his war chest to work with great statewide ads in Pennsylvania and State Senator Joe Kyrillos is running a strong campaign in New Jersey where every poll has shown Bob Menendez consistently under the 50% mark.
But I digress – nine seats, so far, just on defense, that they are spending tens of millions of dollars – North Dakota, Nebraska, Missouri, Montana, Virginia, Ohio, Florida, New Mexico, and Wisconsin.
And remember that for months now, the DSCC has relentlessly professed to be unconcerned with races like Ohio, Florida and New Mexico, while scoffing at the Republican campaigns in those states. Yet in just those three states alone, we’ve learned over the last few days that the DSCC is now committing upwards of $10 million just to try and save those three Democratic candidates.
And guess where the DSCC hasn’t yet reserved fall TV time yet? Despite the fact that you’ll again hear them today telling you how they’re going to win there – Arizona and Indiana. As we said more than a year ago, just take your stories from Indiana last cycle and switch out Brad Ellsworth for Joe Donnelly. It will save you a lot of time and energy rewriting them.
Actually, come to think of it the DSCC hasn’t reserved any fall air time in Nebraska either. Does anyone know if Bob Kerrey is aware of that? The majority of the almost $2 million the DSCC has poured into that state so far was in a failed effort to bolster Ben Nelson before he decided to retire last year.
But speaking of states the DSCC hasn’t reserved air time in yet, you might consider asking Senator Murray if she’ll ever finally acknowledge that there is a Democratic Senate nominee in Maine. Hint, she’s the one who generated this headline in the Bangor Daily News last week – Cynthia Dill calls out DC Democrats for not supporting her candidacy.
A word of warning though – if you do ask the DSCC Chair why they’re not supporting their female candidate in Maine be prepared that it could get really awkward because you might remember the headlines from the last time she held a pen-and pad back in December. Here’s another hint – DSCC Chair: 2012 Could Be Historic Year for Women.
Apparently that spin only applies when it’s convenient though – sort of like another DSCC pen-and-pad last year when they unveiled – and then quickly tossed aside – their “6 in 12” campaign slogan, predicting Texas would be a pick-up opportunity for Senate Democrats. Does Senator Murray even know who her Democratic nominee is in Texas?
Again, I digress – back to the Democrat’s defensive spending spree. So what happened? How do they possibly square their spin with the reality that all of us can see today?
And the excuse you’ll hear of course is that they were already facing a difficult map, they were hit with a slew of retirements, yadda, yadda, yadda. Well, wait a second, in 2009 Senate Republicans faced that exact same situation with a tough map and GOP retirements in New Hampshire, Ohio, Missouri, Florida, Kansas, and Kentucky in addition to a party switcher in Pennsylvania. Yet, come the fall of 2010, the NRSC, under Senator Cornyn’s leadership, ultimately never had to spend dime on independent expenditure ads in those first five states, and in the sixth, Rand Paul won by over 11 points. In fact, the vast majority of the NRSC’s money was devoted to offense.
The point is that is not the situation facing the DSCC today.
Senate Republicans, not the Democrats, have quietly expanded the landscape of competitive Senate races and the proof is in the DSCC’s own spending.
The second piece of spin you’ll hear today – which many of you have already heard ad nauseum in recent months – is how the Democrats’ cash advantage has bolstered their ability to hold the majority. And look no one discounts the importance of money – all of us would like to have more of it than less. But even a cursory review of the last three election cycles shows that cash-on-hand is a notoriously awful predictor of what might happen in November.
Remarkably, no one knows that better than the Senate Democrats running for re-election this year. At this point in 2006, just in Missouri, Montana, Virginia, and Ohio alone, the Republican incumbents in those four states had a collective cash advantage of over $16 million. All went on to lose in November.
We saw a similar situation in 2008 when Republicans Gordon Smith, Elizabeth Dole, Norm Coleman and John Sununu had a collective cash advantage of over $11 million. All went on to lose in November.
And in 2010, Republican candidates were outraised in New Hampshire, Kentucky and Arkansas, and all went on to win in November.
Put simply, let’s hope Senator Murray and her candidates aren’t putting much stock in their own spin today.
Third, those “bloody” Republican primaries – an old standby talking point for the DSCC. Let’s just remember we’ve heard it all before….
- Democrats insist they have a fighting chance. The GOP primary will be so brutal and divisive, they say, that whoever emerges as the nominee will be weakened. “The Republican primary in the state has become a proxy war between Mitch McConnell’s ethically challenged candidate Jon Bruning and Jim DeMint’s tea partier Don Stenberg, which will provide an opportunity for Democrats to remain competitive,” said Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee spokesman Matt Canter in a statement. (RealClearPolitics, 2/7/2012)
Let’s also not forget that in 2010, Kelly Ayotte barely edged out Ovide Lamontagne in a divisive and late mid-September primary, and yet six weeks later went on to crush Democratic Congressman Paul Hodes by almost 20 points.
Primaries are only a serious issue when/if the candidate nominated is not capable of winning the general election, and there is not a single race where that is the case this cycle. Surely Senator Murray might agree considering the increasingly ugly primary facing the Democrats in Hawaii.
Finally, when it comes to the issue matrix it doesn’t take a policy or political expert to understand the problem facing every Democratic candidate, and particularly the incumbents running for re-election. When this class of Democratic Senators took office in January 2007, the national unemployment rate was 4.6% and the debt stood at $8.6 trillion. And even then every one of them campaigned on a platform of fiscal responsibility, balanced budgets and pro-jobs policies. Witness just a few examples….
[list type="arrow"] [li]
- Tester: “Because I Am Of The Belief That You Take Care Of Your Own Self And You Don’t Pass Your Debts On To Your Kids. We’re Passing An Incredible Debt On To Our Kids . . . That’s Not Right. Let’s Be Fiscally Responsible. Let’s Have A Fiscally Balanced Budget.”
- Brown: “I Stood Up To A President Of My Own Party . . . In Support Of The Balance Budget Amendment, In Restoring Fiscal Sanity To Our Government. I agree with Senator Voinovich that Mike DeWine and others have betrayed conservative principles of limited government.”
- Casey: “I Believe In A Balanced Budget. Government Should Live Within Its Means, Like Any Small Business.”
- Nelson: “[I] Was An Early Advocate Of A Balance Budget.”
Fast forward six years later and that rhetoric is coming back to haunt them this Fall. Under the leadership of these same Democrats, we’ve now had 41 straight months of unemployment above 8 percent and a debt that is now approaching almost $16 trillion. There are over 5.5 million more unemployed Americans today than in January 2007 and remarkably, Senate Democrats have refused to pass – let alone, introduce – a federal budget in over three years.
Yet, instead of learning, listening and recalibrating their agenda after their disastrous 2010 election, Senate Democrats have actually doubled down on it. Just last week Senate Democratic leaders put every Democratic incumbent on the record supporting a massive tax increase on virtually every small business owner in their state. And this is on top of years of votes in support of reckless deficit spending, bigger government, more government regulations and $500 billion in cuts to Medicare.
But yet Patty Murray and Senate Democratic strategists will hold another pen-and-pad this morning and insist that they are in an overwhelming position to hold the Senate majority this November. We wish them luck in selling that spin, but don’t be surprised if the scene inside DSCC headquarters resembles something like this in late October.
The Las Vegas Review-Journal says Embattled Congresswoman Shelley Berkley Should Not Miscalculate Importance of Ethics Probe. Wishful thinking on behalf of Democratic partisans has caused a minority to say the House Ethics Committee’s decision to move forward with a formal investigation of Rep. Shelley Berkley’s ethics won’t affect her race for a seat in the U.S. Senate.
I’m convinced it will.
Oh, it won’t change the vote of anyone who already has decided to vote for her. And it will only emphasize the set-in-stone decisions of those already supporting Republican Sen. Dean Heller. Partisans won’t change their minds.
But those undecided and nonpartisan voters are going to have to decide whether it’s an issue for them and the airwaves will be flooded with Republican ads damning Berkley’s ethics. Heller started his Monday, even before the House announced it was going to investigate further.
Then, starting in August, Republicans are poised to begin a massive media buy that also will dwell on rank-sounding advice Berkley gave in 1996, trying to show a pattern of ethical problems in a then-and-now punch. It won’t be pretty.
Many Nevadans have forgotten, or never knew, that Berkley, as a government affairs adviser, told her then-boss casino owner Sheldon Adelson that it would be smart to give favors to county commissioners, including Erin Kenny, who later admitted her votes were for sale.
Berkley also advised Adelson to give campaign donations to judges because they “tend to help those who helped them.”
When her advice became public in 1998, Berkley had insignificant GOP opposition, and those ethics issues didn’t stop her from winning in a heavily Democratic district.
The NRSC asked Nevada’s Secretary of State to confirm that embattled Congresswoman Shelley Berkley cannot be removed from the ballot, Jon Ralston at the Las Vegas Sun reports that Secretary Miller confirmed that she can’t be replaced. The National Republican Senatorial Committee has asked Secretary of State Ross Miller to confirm that Nevada law mandates Rep. Shelley Berkley must stay on the ballot even if she withdraws because of ethics problems. I see almost no chance that Berkley will get out of the race. But the very fact that the NRSC sent the letter shows just how far the GOP folks will go to keep this story alive from now until November. SOS Ross Miller says NRSC is right. Letter posted at right.
The editorial board at the Las Vegas Review-Journal writes that Berkley is a savvy politician who got caught trying to use her position to enrich her pocketbook. The Berkley spin machine tried to characterize Monday’s development as good news, welcoming a “full and fair investigation” that will “clear” the congresswoman. Apparently, they ran out of lipstick. Truth is, this is a major blow to the Berkley campaign. Nor can this be dismissed as a partisan smear. None of the five Democrats on the 10-member ethics panel dissented. And USA Today reports that the committee’s action is somewhat rare, given that five of the last six cases the independent Office of Congressional Ethics has forwarded to the House panel have ended there without further investigation. … Rep. Berkley insists she did nothing wrong and was only fighting for her Nevada constituents. Fine. But it’s hard to believe someone as savvy as Rep. Berkley could get herself into this mess, particularly as she laid the groundwork for a Senate run.
The Review-Journal writes that yesterday Berkley doubled-down on her job-killing healthcare law.Wednesday’s vote to repeal the new health care overhaul enabled Nevada’s U.S. House members to reaffirm their positions on the controversial law in advance of their fall campaigns. … the House vote teed up political attacks from both sides. Sen. Dean Heller, R-Nev., moved to tie Berkley tighter to the health care law that is unpopular with many Nevadans. “Middle-class Nevadans just can’t afford Shelley Berkley and her lockstep support for President Obama and Nancy Pelosi,” Heller’s campaign spokeswoman Chandler Smith said.
The WFB Gives Berkley Defense Five Pinocchios. The Nevada Democratic Senate candidate accused of steering government funds toward her husband’s dialysis practice has resorted to misleading advertisements to spin information about a newly launched ethics probe.
Shelley Berkley released a major ad push to combat the notion that she used her influence in Congress to steer Medicare funds to her husband, Dr. Larry Lehrner, who heads a medical PAC that has donated to Berkley’s campaign.
“How about the truth, [GOP nominee] Dean Heller,” Berkley’s first ad begins, before portraying the ethics complaint that helped spur the House investigation as a politically motivated attack.
“The complaint against Shelley Berkley was filed by the Republican Party,” the announcer continues.
The ad neglects to mention that the House Ethics Committee approved the investigation unanimously.
“The bipartisan House Ethics Committee has voted unanimously to proceed with a full-scale investigation into whether Rep. Shelley Berkley used her position in Congress to benefit her husband’s medical practice,” the Reno Gazette Journal reported on Monday.
The ethics probe has caused alarm for national Democrats hoping to preserve a thin majority in the Senate as they face a number of tossup races. The Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee provided Berkley with $2.3 million to broadcast the ad statewide.
From National Review Online:
Mickey Kaus spotlights the most Orwellian fundraising pitch ever:
Someone from the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee just sent me an email. It struck a jaunty note:
Hey friend — Our team is reviewing supporter records this weekend, and I noticed that you haven’t made an online donation yet. (I pasted your supporter record below):
Supporter record: 7331251
Name: , friend
2012 online support: pending
Suggested support: $5.00
Ensure your voluntary contribution to the party committee is up to date and generous, Komrade, so we may continue to fight for your privacy rights against big corporations!
Note: Sounds like classic Schumer spin… trying to reassure the base that there will be money for these races.
Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-NY), who quarterbacked the Democratic retake of the Senate in 2006, thinks President Obama’s re-election campaign will eventually open the war chest for his party’s Senate and House campaign committees.
On Monday, POLITICO’s John Bresnahan reported that House Democratic Leader Nancy Pelosi and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid were rebuffed when they asked two top Obama advisers for $15 million apiece for the upcoming campaign; White House senior adviser David Plouffe, Obama’s 2008 campaign manager, and Jim Messina, who currently holds that job, reportedly said they would get much less.
“Messina and Plouffe told the two Hill leaders that there would be no cash transfers to the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee and Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee from OFA or the DNC, at least not before Election Day, the sources said,” Bres reported.
From The Hill:
Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee Chairman Patty Murray (D-Wash.) denied rumors she had discussed Maine’s open Senate race with former Maine Gov. Angus King, an independent.
But she did not rule out the possibility that the DSCC could back him in the race.
“I’ve not talked to him,” Murray told The Hill Tuesday afternoon.
When asked if there was any chance the DSCC would back King, Murray did not rule it out. “I’m not going to get into the ‘what if’ games,” she said.
PORTLAND — Former Gov. Angus King, who announced on Monday that he is running as an independent for the U.S. Senate, said today that he does not want to be a spoiler and would consider dropping out of the race this fall if it appeared that he could not win.
“I have no intention of being a spoiler,” King said in an interview with The Portland Press Herald.
King said he would not bankroll his campaign with his own money. He also said he would wait until he gets to Washington before deciding whether he would caucus with Democrats or Republicans, and that his decision would be based on “what’s best for Maine” rather than for any ideological preference.
President Barack Obama has a bleak message for House and Senate Democrats this year when it comes to campaign cash: You’re on your own.
Democratic congressional leaders, including Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid and House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi, have privately sought as much as $30 million combined from Obama for America and the Democratic National Committee — a replay of the financial help they received from Obama in 2008 and 2010.
But that’s not going to happen, top Obama aides Jim Messina and David Plouffe told Reid and Pelosi in back-to-back meetings on Capitol Hill on Thursday, according to sources familiar with the high-level talks. It was a stark admission from a presidential campaign once expected to rake in as much as $1 billion of just how closely it is watching its own bottom line.
Messina and Plouffe told the two Hill leaders that there would be no cash transfers to the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee and Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee from OFA or the DNC, at least not before Election Day, the sources said.