« MDE EXCLUSIVE: FRANKEN’S MIDWEST VALUES PAC FINED $7,200 BY FEC; FINE KEPT QUIET BY TEAM FRANKEN | Home | REMINDER: MDE AND MN PUBLIUS BI-PARTISAN HAPPY HOUR TOMORROW »
PAULSEN RAISES MORE THAN $600,000 FOR SECOND QUARTER; $1.1 MILLION COH
By Michael B. Brodkorb | July 8, 2008
Paulsen for Congress just sent out a press release about their second quarter fundraising numbers. Paulsen’s campaign raised over $600,000 and has cash on hand of $1.1 million.
###
Eden Prairie – Erik Paulsen’s campaign will report raising more than $600,000 in the second quarter when it files with the Federal Elections Commission (FEC) later this week. This same report will show his cash on hand as $1.1 million.
“It’s clear from our success, people want a Congressman who will fix a broken Congress and get things done,†Paulsen said.
###
This is a reminder that I am a part-time research consultant to Erik Paulsen for Congress. Minnesota Democrats Exposed is my personal blog and it is not created, endorsed, sponsored, or authorized by any political party, candidate, or candidate’s committee.
Topics: Uncategorized | 54 Comments »
54 Responses to “PAULSEN RAISES MORE THAN $600,000 FOR SECOND QUARTER; $1.1 MILLION COH”
Comments
You must be logged in to post a comment.
July 8th, 2008 at 1:57 pm
But what about ol’ smokescreen!
(Sorry, too much Tommy….)
July 8th, 2008 at 1:59 pm
Well, even though this: “…people want a Congressman who will fix a broken Congress and get things done,†Paulsen said. is complete BS, $600k w/$1.1 COH is significant.
And I say this: “…people want a Congressman who will fix a broken Congress and get things done,†Paulsen said. is complete BS, because if Ramstad couldn’t fix the problems Newt’s Contract On America created, just how is Paulsen?
Here’s a hint: he can’t, so he won’t be elected.
If he can’t tell the truth while running, why would anyone expect he’d tell the truth if elected?
July 8th, 2008 at 2:16 pm
“Here’s a hint: he can’t, so he won’t be elected.”
Hahahahahahaha
And there you have it folks; concise, informed political commentary from a fat, ignorant, liar and fraud surfing the internet all day from his mom’s basement.
“The Loserpundit”!
AHahahahahahahaaaaa
July 8th, 2008 at 2:47 pm
Tommy Johnson = NON FACTOR!!
Tommy get a life.
putz
July 8th, 2008 at 2:55 pm
What are Madia’s numbers?
July 8th, 2008 at 3:42 pm
I see the headline that “Obama rejects charges of flip flopping” today.
I suspect that within a month, we’ll see a headline that reads: “Obama embraces flip flops on myriad of issues”
July 8th, 2008 at 4:00 pm
Paulsen is proving himself to be an incredibly formidable force!!! Madia will certainly have big numbers as well, but will likely continue to lag behind Paulsen in COH overall:)
Good Job Erik!
July 8th, 2008 at 4:04 pm
I’m guessing Madia will have Sarvi type numbers.
July 8th, 2008 at 5:08 pm
Go Paulsen! Not only endorsed by Ramstad, but more conservative than Ramstad.
A good two-fer!
July 8th, 2008 at 5:10 pm
I don’t really see how anyone except for people inside the campaign could make anything resembling an educated guess.
That said, I highly doubt he’s going to have Sarvi numbers, but, I wouldn’t exactly be shocked if he doesn’t come in shy, if not well shy of Paulsen. Madia was still in the midst of an endorsement battle at the beginning of the quarter whereas Paulsen was sitting back collecting traditional republican PAC money with no need to really be spending anything.
I’m also guessing Madia’s campaign may have found it more difficult raising cash shying away from PAC money since individual contributors may find Q2 to be a bit early to be dumping money into a general election campaign.
That of course isn’t to take anything away from Paulsen. It was a good quarter for him and he’s shown that he can tap into the traditional GOP money bags. But, I think the real test comes when people start polling the race and how the money flows in response to both those polls and people beginning to feel like the general is finally on the horizon.
It’s also worth pointing out that this discussion may not amount to much. Paulsen certainly didn’t blow the doors off the fundraising train. Madia is almost certainly going to be within striking distance whatever he does, and, he ran his endorsement race wildly less funded than Bonoff.
I guess we’ll see when he announces.
July 8th, 2008 at 5:24 pm
“shying away from PAC money”
Excuse me?
http://www.usinpac.com/ia_ashwin.asp#Quote
July 8th, 2008 at 5:43 pm
My bad, I should have said “corporate PAC money”
Based on Q1 numbers, the difference between the candidates was fairly stark:
$146,500 for Paulsen
$21,750 for Madia
I suspect that gap will be significant since Madia had indicated he was not going to seek corporate PAC dollars.
All of Madia’s PAC money (at least based on is Q1 numbers) came from the likes of VoteVets, USINPAC, or DNC party PACs etc., as compared to say, the Hotel and Lodging industry, mutual funds, construction firms, energy firms, oil companies, insurance companies, and banks that largely make up Paulsen’s PAC money.
I think the difference is noteworthy.
July 8th, 2008 at 7:49 pm
nice disclaimer,
the BS just keeps oozing out….
July 8th, 2008 at 8:15 pm
So according to Plymouth Dem……….it’s not a PAC if they agree with his point of view:)…………Nice!!! I say Madia comes in with $400,000……..and yes that includes PAC money Plymouth Dem:)
July 8th, 2008 at 8:47 pm
USINPAC has such non-corporate goals as
Opening US markets to Indian IT companies.
Eliminating the cap on H-1B Visas.
Indian nuclear proliferation.
You’re right, it’s not a corporate PAC, it’s a foreign government PAC
July 8th, 2008 at 9:33 pm
“So according to Plymouth Dem……….it’s not a PAC if they agree with his point of view:)”
Clearly I don’t think that since it’s clear that corporations agree with Paulsen’s views. It’s not a corporate PAC if it’s not a CORPORATION.
Nor have I taken a position on whether corporate PAC money is necessarily bad. I’ve only said that it almost certainly will result in Paulsen out-raising Madia. When you are willing to take money from anyone, you naturally will have more money flow to you than if you decide you don’t want to accept money from certain groups–especially when those groups are Big Oil, Insurance companies, and Financial institutions.
It is, however. distinct to take money from political party PACs vs. corporate PACs. As for USINPAC, your xenophobic response aside, it’s not exactly shocking he would take money from them considering he himself is Indian American.
July 8th, 2008 at 9:50 pm
Plymouth Dem,
Madia was in an endorsement battle for two weeks of the quarter while campaigning full-time. Paulsen was working at the capitol for two months of the quarter in addition to his job at Target, campaigning and having four kids. There is no excuse for Madia to have a poor quarter with the amount of energy on the Dem side. A poor quarter means one of two things: either the party isn’t lined up behind him or his campaign has been run poorly.
July 8th, 2008 at 9:51 pm
What is shocking is that a guy who claims to be pro-union and for the working man is willing to take money from a group with the goals that I’ve stated.
Xenophobic? What in my post is xenophobic?
July 8th, 2008 at 10:06 pm
“it’s not exactly shocking he would take money from them considering he himself is Indian American.”
… that goodness he isn’t Iranian then. If so, PlymouthDem would support the urge to support elimination of security protocols for travelers from Iran and to support Iranian nuclear proliferation.
MON has a great point. How can a guy who says he’s “for workers” allow himself to be bought by a group who wishes to further outsource American jobs.
July 8th, 2008 at 10:20 pm
The post is xenophobic in that it clearly shows a unwarranted fear of foreign influence and immigration. Case in point, that it supports Indian proliferation.
That point aside, I’m struggling to see how opening US markets to indian IT professionals is a threat to unions–IT workers are hardly heavily unionized, those that are within CWA whose industries aren’t heavily theatened by software geeks in India writing code.
I also don’t see how H-1B visas are anti-union. These aren’t particularly heavily unionized positions.
Now, that said, to the extent USINPAC differs with unions, fine, Madia has to live with it. The guy is Indian-American, it’s not shocking he’s going to support some Indian-American issues. You know what you are getting.
But, if you are going to complain about that contradiction, Paulsen needs to live with how his support by Big Oil, Big Banks, and Big Insurance may not align with the interests of consumers. You don’t get it both ways. I’d be more comfortable explaining away USINPac o VoteVets than I would trying to explain away why I’m taking money from Exxon/Mobile.
July 8th, 2008 at 10:21 pm
I love the statement that he isn’t taking money from “corporate PAC’s” but is going to take money from the DNC and DCCC, which take money from corporate PAC’s and unions.
And Master of None: It’s Xenophobic because Plymouth Dem was proven wrong once again and had no more made up facts to spread. It’s like you’ve never met a liberal before!
July 8th, 2008 at 10:23 pm
“Paulsen was working at the capitol for two months of the quarter in addition to his job at Target”
He wasn’t spending campaign money to do either. My statement was mainly directed at COH issues. Madia was in the midst of an endorsement battle that required spending money. It would be fairly shocking if he comes out anywhere near Paulsen’s COH.
If there is a disparity in fund-raising itself, then I think you have to ask why. And, one answer is that he’s not taking a lot of corproate PAC money.
July 8th, 2008 at 10:26 pm
“… that goodness he isn’t Iranian then. If so, PlymouthDem would support the urge to support elimination of security protocols for travelers from Iran and to support Iranian nuclear proliferation. ”
How did we arrive at what _I_ support? I’m saying the guy is Indian-American. Not a shock he MIGHT support some Indian-American issues. If he’s Iranian-American, he might support some Iranian-American issues. You know what you’re getting. If you can’t support someone who’s Indian, or Iranian, or whatever, then that’s your call.
July 8th, 2008 at 10:30 pm
“MON has a great point. How can a guy who says he’s “for workers†allow himself to be bought by a group who wishes to further outsource American jobs.”
If you take this stance, you have to also take the stance that Paulsen has allowed himself to be “bought” by Big Oil, Big Insurance, and Big Financials.
Madia has to live with the fact he took money from an Indian-American lobby group. That at least provides some indication of what support he’s willing to take. Paulsen also has to live with who he takes money from and he needs to defend whether Big Oil’s interests, for example, are aligned with the interests of CD3. If you think they are, then he’s your guy.
The relevance to this discussion, however, I think is limited to how (if he does) Paulsen could end up with more money. Likely answer: he’s willing to take it from more groups.
July 8th, 2008 at 10:35 pm
“unwarranted fear of foreign influence and immigration.”
You’ve got to be kidding me. What I’m showing is Madia’s hypocrisy in his claim to not taking corporate PAC money when he takes money from a PAC that clearly represents the corporate interests of a foreign country.
I would hope a US congressman would support American workers over the workers from his country of origin. Wouldn’t you? To admit that you actually expect the opposite is bizarre.
But go ahead and play the race card, if that’s all you got.
July 8th, 2008 at 10:41 pm
“Case in point, that it supports Indian proliferation.”
LMAO!!!! You gotta read, you dummy. The bullet point said “Indian NUCLEAR proliferation.”
Holy Jeebus, you are one very dumb dem.
July 8th, 2008 at 10:41 pm
“I would hope a US congressman would support American workers over the workers from his country of origin. Wouldn’t you? To admit that you actually expect the opposite is bizarre.”
Why the hell do you vote Republican then? It’s republicans that trumpet the value of out-sourcing. Honestly, I PERSONALLY am more interested in looking out for the value to the U.S. economy whether or not that hurts a particular U.S. worker balanced against a desire for there not to be a race to the bottom in terms of subsidies, labor regulations, and environmental protections. The economy needs more high tech workers, why the hell not let them in? Then again, I’m not running for Congress so who cares what I think.
July 8th, 2008 at 10:45 pm
“Case in point, that it supports Indian proliferation.â€
Yes, because what I was talking about was Indian’s multiplying themselves everywhere. Idiot. Clearly I was talking about an unwarranted claim that USINPAC supports allowing India to ship nuclear crap everywhere.
July 8th, 2008 at 10:48 pm
“It’s republicans that trumpet the value of out-sourcing.”
Name one Republican who ever said that.
“The economy needs more high tech workers, why the hell not let them in?”
Interesting point… particularly since public education is abjectly failing to prepare our kids for these fields.
“who cares what I think”
Also VERY VERY well said.
July 8th, 2008 at 10:49 pm
PD, dumb ass, you used that “indian proliferation” line in your reasoning as to why MON’s comment was xenophobic.
It was very clear you were not talking about nuclear proliferation.
July 8th, 2008 at 10:55 pm
Kyle,
It was xenophobic because it ascribed an irrational and false policy position to a PAC that represents an immigration population for the purpose of flaming fear of that PAC. How about accepting the fact that you just misinterpreted the statement?
July 8th, 2008 at 11:01 pm
“false policy position to a PAC”
Those are their stated goals.
July 8th, 2008 at 11:01 pm
PD, are you this stupid naturally, or do you practice with a squad?
You said (and I quote): “The post is xenophobic in that it clearly shows a unwarranted fear of foreign influence and immigration. Case in point, that it supports Indian proliferation.”
You clearly put “indian proliferation” into the context of immigration, and further never returned to nuclear. If anyone misread (or failed to read) anything, it is you, imbecile. .
Second of all, proliferation doesn’t mean that India would ship nuclear parts. It means that some are concerned, reasonably, about proliferation of nuclear technology to India (and Pakistan, and Iran, etc.) — and USINPAC has very clear mission objectives to advance the proliferation of nuclear technology TO India…
There’s nothing xenophobic about expressing concern about that.
Seriously, why don’t you accept the fact that you’re drooling stupid.
July 8th, 2008 at 11:04 pm
“Name one Republican who ever said that.”
Does the Bush administration count?
“When a good or service is produced more cheaply abroad, it makes more sense to import it than to make or provide it domestically”
“Interesting point… particularly since public education is abjectly failing to prepare our kids for these fields.”
Your point? I’ll agree public schools are not adequately supported to meet the needs of the future. It’s typically democrats that seek to improve that situation and are opposed to issuing unfunded mandates to test the fact that the underfunded schools are failing.
July 8th, 2008 at 11:06 pm
Next, who gives a shit whether IT jobs are unionized? The point made was that taking money from a group that has importing cheap foreign labor as one of its primary objectives is probably not the smartest move for a candidate who portends to gie a shit about American workers.
There’s also nothing xenophobic about that.
Bottom line is — who gives a shit about unions — the issue is jobs and workers. Or do you seriously believe that the only jobs worth an elected official’s time are those jobs that are unionized?
July 8th, 2008 at 11:07 pm
““When a good or service is produced more cheaply abroad, it makes more sense to import it than to make or provide it domestically—
That seems to profess the value of imports, not outsourcing. And seriously, can you find a single economist to dispute that quote?
July 8th, 2008 at 11:10 pm
“USINPAC has very clear mission objectives to advance the proliferation of nuclear technology TO India…”
Hey grammar wiz.. that would be UNITED STATES Nuclear Proliferation, not INDIAN nuclear proliferation.
The irrational concern is people’s belief India would proliferate the technology… that would be the INDIAN nuclear proliferation. USINPAC obviously doesn’t support that, and its fear mongering to import that on that group.
July 8th, 2008 at 11:12 pm
“I’ll agree public schools are not adequately supported to meet the needs of the future.”
They’re adequately supported. They’re inadequately performing, largely because education and learning are not the emphasis of where money and time are spent in public schools.
“It’s typically democrats that seek to improve that situation and are opposed to issuing unfunded mandates to test the fact that the underfunded schools are failing.”
Funny, because nearly all of the unfunded mandates were written by Democrats — including NCLB, which was authored by Ted Kennedy. Throwing more money at it won’t fix education. Democrats oppose every meaningful proposal for improving any situation in public schools.
You’re a joke PD.
July 8th, 2008 at 11:13 pm
In comment 37, PD, you clearly don’t grasp the issue. You lack both the understanding and the intellectual capacity.
Just say uncle.
July 8th, 2008 at 11:19 pm
“That seems to profess the value of imports, not outsourcing. And seriously, can you find a single economist to dispute that quote?”
It’s actually the president’s defense of off-shoring jobs within his 2003 Economic Report of the President. That said, there are plenty of economists that would dispute the value of a race to the bottom in terms of environmental protections, labor rights, and U.S. economic health. Do I think all out-sourcing is bad? No. But, you can’t tell me the GOP is always putting U.S. workers ahead of foreign workers. They don’t.
July 8th, 2008 at 11:20 pm
“That said, there are plenty of economists that would dispute the value of a race to the bottom in terms of environmental protections, labor rights, and U.S. economic health.”
Can you say non sequitor?
July 8th, 2008 at 11:23 pm
Kennedy co-sponsored NCLB. The GOP then promptly refused to fund it.
Investing in schools (money) is precisely what needs to happen. Teacher salaries need to be more attractive to create competition for the jobs, crumbling infrastructures need improvement, investment needs to be made into new curriculum and technology, and funding needs to be increased to actually support schools that are failing in standardized testing.
July 8th, 2008 at 11:27 pm
“Can you say non sequitor?”
Yes, and I actually know what it means unlike you. That there are economists that would say “importing cheapest at all costs is bad” is directly responsive to the statement that we should always import it if we can get its cheaper overseas.
July 8th, 2008 at 11:32 pm
“Teacher salaries need to be more attractive to create competition for the jobs…”
Interesting. The jobs are union scale, so exempt from most forces of the labor market. Also, if they are low, it is because there is a glut of qualified teachers, not a scarcity. If there were fewer, pay would increase… this is observed keenly in the market for math and science teachers… special rules allow those teachers to be paid more.
The city of Minneapolis spends over $15,000 per student per year. This is between $4000 and $6000 more per student per year than the state average. Yet, Minneapolis graduates fewer than half of its students.
The district spends millions on unqualified superintendents and administrators, refuses to close un-used facilities, and refuses to be accountable to the parents, the taxpayers or the needs of students.
How much money is enough?
July 8th, 2008 at 11:36 pm
Re comment 43: You assume far too much.
Nothing about this: “When a good or service is produced more cheaply abroad, it makes more sense to import it than to make or provide it domestically†says “at all costs.
Moreover: “a race to the bottom in terms of environmental protections, labor rights, and U.S. economic health.†is non sequitor to the issue of whether or not importing some goods and services created more cheaply elsewhere has value.
You’re a blooming idiot, PD.
July 8th, 2008 at 11:42 pm
“Also, if they are low, it is because there is a glut of qualified teachers, not a scarcity”
Salaries are low because districts have budgets. If you need X teachers, and your budget is Y, the salaries are set. You can’t complain about quality of teachers and not be willing to compete with the market place to get that quality.
“The city of Minneapolis spends over $15,000 per student per year. This is between $4000 and $6000 more per student per year than the state average. Yet, Minneapolis graduates fewer than half of its students.”
Yes, because Minneapolis has: (1) higher labor costs; (2) higher land/maintenance costs; (3) more diverse socio-economic issues to deal with and (3) needs to spend on things like security that out-state or more rural districts don’t have to. It’s silly to compare the per student costs of an urban school district with those of a rural district and then say “AH HA, look, there’s no correlation between funding and achievement” This is basic statistics.
July 8th, 2008 at 11:46 pm
LOL, you really don’t have a clue do you, PD?
July 8th, 2008 at 11:47 pm
“is non sequitor to the issue of whether or not importing some goods and services created more cheaply elsewhere has value.”
Where does the statement make the *SOME* distinction you import? The problem with the statement is its overbreadth. You asked for an economist that would disagree, I said economists would contest that “cheaper” is sufficient for it to “make sense” to support off-shoring. Your defense actually is my argument.
July 8th, 2008 at 11:51 pm
Eh, maybe you do get it, PD. You get that there is an endless list of excuses for public schools endless ability to fail our children. And there are endless Democrats willing to enable the failure.
What amount of money is enough?
July 8th, 2008 at 11:52 pm
“Where does the statement make the *SOME* distinction you import?”
It doesn’t. It also doesn’t say “at all costs” as you import.
You just make it up as you go along, don’t you?
July 8th, 2008 at 11:55 pm
“What amount of money is enough?”
What do you want me to say, $52.23? I’ve told you what the priorities need to be, fund them. The alternative is the GOP charter schools solution which, as Minnesota is proving, is failing academically.
July 8th, 2008 at 11:59 pm
“It doesn’t. It also doesn’t say “at all costs†as you import.”
This is a ridiculous distinction. By making no exception to the statement it is in fact importing itself “at all costs.” It’s saying if its cheaper overseas, don’t do it here. In response to you, I said there are plenty of people who would make those exceptions. That’s hardly a non sequitor.
July 9th, 2008 at 10:24 am
“The irrational concern is people’s belief India would proliferate the technology…”
India is not a signatory of the UN non-proliferation treaty, so their is no irrational concern. Proliferation does not just mean spreading to other countries, it means increasing their own capacity without over site and outside the rules of the UN treaty.
USINPAC actively lobbied for passage of the US-India Nuclear Cooperation Promotion Act of 2006.
“USINPAC has worked tirelessly since the agreement was announced last July to secure support in both the House and Senate for the civil nuclear agreement.”
How does a nuclear agreement with India serve the interests of Indian-Americans?
July 9th, 2008 at 10:46 am
MON, it’s o.k., idiots like PD justify leaving their heads buried in the sand (and their asses) by accusing others of xenophobia.
S/he is a pathetic lout; no question about it.