Tuesday, January 31, 2006

Rauschenberger Burns Twice As Money As He Raises in 2nd Half of 2005

When you spent twice as much as you raise in a campaign, odds are good that you cannot win the contest.

That’s what gubernatorial candidate Steve Rauschenberger did the last half of 2006. His spending exceeded his income by so much that Rauschenberger could not continue on his 2006 quest for the Governor’s Mansion.

And, it’s really worse than it looks, because Ron Gidwitz, the man whose candidacy he joined after dropping back to the lieutenant governor position, provided about 10% of Rauschenberger’s total campaign income—over $40,000.

Gubernatorial and, then, lieutenant governor candidate Steve Rauschenberger managed to raise $415,452 during the last half of 2005. He spent $803,580.34. Approximately 11% of that total went to consultant Dan Proft’s firm Urguhart. Starting with $548,000, he ended the year with $148,000.

While not independently wealthy, Rauschenberger did contribute $25,000 to his campaign. It appears to be his largest contributor, except for Gidwitz’.

For more campaign disclosure stories, including Carpentersville District 300 referendums (and others) being financed by developers and vendors, go to McHenry County Blog.


Skeeter 4:51 PM  

Is he considering taking a job in the Bush Administration? He would fit in very well.

Extreme Wisdom 9:50 PM  


There was an interesting story about political opinions/perceptions of partisans on some blog I read recently.

The upshot was that most people - no matter which side they were on - came down to the view that "my side's poop doesn't stink."

Since this is generally the entire message of virtually every one of your posts, why not just type in "my side's poop doesn't stink" and be done with it. For added emphasis, call us some names.

It seems to sum up the range of your logic and argumentation.

With that out of the way, I recommend Cal's post on his blog re: Builders and Vendors shilling for School Districts.

Big Education (just like big oil & big tobacco) log rolling with builders (Cambridge just got a "yes" vote on their charter plan) and bond dealers... oh yeah, tell me it's for "the children."

It isn't. It's for pension piggery and payroll bloat - all for an entity twice the size of Wal-Mart (and many times more corrupt)

BIG ED - bankrupting a state while stupefying a populace - all on the taxpayer's back.

But hey - their poop is for "the children."

Skeeter 9:15 AM  


How HAS Mr. Bush done on the budget? When you factor out defense and security, how has the budget done?

Instead of tossing out cheap (and not very witty) insults, you may want to look at the facts.

The facts are that with giant government giveaways like his prescription drug plan and his tax breaks for oil companies, Mr. Bush is the biggest spender since FDR.

That's the fact, EW.

Extreme Wisdom 10:13 AM  


No argument as to the level of spending, nor do I wish to defend it. It is my belief that Bush is spending us into oblivion because there are political battles that he feels are more important to win.

I've always disagreed, and thought he had plenty of capital to veto the highway pork, farm pork, and Home Land insecurity pork.

The drug give away contained the important HSA reform, which may prove to have been worth it.

I'd have to see what the details are re: oil companies, but I'd agree that they hardly need any more benefits from the Federal Government.

I apologize if my post seemed insulting. It was not my intent.

To that point, Bush's "poop stinks plenty," just not as bad as the poop of the ponderously stupid Kerry or other more collectivist alternatives.

CTA Bus Status

There was an error in this gadget
There was an error in this gadget

  © Blogger template The Professional Template by Ourblogtemplates.com 2008

Back to TOP