Kerry PAC gives the most to federal candidates

[Mass]

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=10000103&sid=aoCwuhYo4wsI&refer=us
Next time somebody tells you that Kerry does not help anybody but himself, here are the facts.

Hagel, 59, donated 13 percent of the money he raised last year to federal candidates and committees, topping Clinton's 8.3 percent. Only Kerry, 62, the Democrats' presidential nominee in 2004, beat the average among the 25. Kerry's Keeping America's Promise PAC gave away 29 percent of the $2.2 million he raised last year to federal candidates and committees, his filing shows.

``He thinks that it's the most important thing that he can do after the 2004 elections,'' said Jenny Backus, a spokeswoman for Kerry's PAC.

And the numbers: apparently, Hillary is not in the top 10, another sign that she only collects money for her and not to help others.

Lawmaker Total Receipts % Donated
Senator Bill Frist $3,534,933 1.8
Senator John McCain $2,307,969 3.2
Senator John Kerry $2,208,461 29.0
Senator Barack Obama $1,822,792 16.0
Representative Dennis Hastert $1,604,531 32.0
Senator Evan Bayh $1,551,430 4.8
Senator Trent Lott $1,436,502 3.7
Representative Tom Reynolds $1,385,130 21.0
Representative Eric Cantor $1,304,472 50.0
Senator Harry Reid $1,282,780 11.0

[ProSense]

1. Great stuff!

Where is Hillary Clinton?

[wisteria]

2. It doesn't surprise me about Hillary. It is good to see that Kerry

has a sense of party loyalty and he "puts his money where his mouth is". Hillary makes me mad though- how can anyone claim she is a real party leader?:grr:

[karynnj]

4. If money gets tight, I assume that party people will see

the numbers. She may intend to turn this around by in the later part of 2006, giving some of her money away - becoming Lady Bountiful to struggling candidates. Can you give your Senate fund money away before the campaign ends?

[karynnj]

3. Given the specified purpose of the PACs, some of these

people aren't being very honest. I loved the statement of Kerry's spokesman.

Hillary is only giving 8.3% of her PAC's money. I read elsewhere that almost all her appeals have been for her Senate campaign and the leadership PAC has not been anywhere near as active, so it's no surprise that it's not in the top 10. She has other priorities. She is suppose to have about $16 million in her Senate account. She has a no-name opponent, yet I have received at least 6 appeals to give to her Senate campaign.

The most recent a sleazy letter from her husband, appealing for money because Hillary will be the number 1 target in 2006. So, not only is she giving very little of the smaller amount raised for the leadership PAC, but she is raising most of her money for her Senate race (that should be as tough as Kerry's 2002 race was). It appalls me that she is drying up money needed by others in 2006 to amass a prohibitive amount of money for 2008.

[wisteria]

5. It's obvious, she doesn't need all the money she has raised and

continues to raise for her senate run. It's a certainty that she will be reelected. I don't buy the Hillary will be the number one target spiel. The Republicans thought they were going to have a challenger with the woman DA (?) who was asked to drop out recently. They are having a hard time finding challengers at this point. Ask yourself, why would she need all this money for a safe seat? I refuse to give her one cent more-even if she runs for President. I don't care for the way President Clinton and her operate. A suppose they think they can buy Hillary the presidency. Even if she gives some of the Senate campaign funds away after her reelection, it won't make a difference then- the money is needed now for the other campaigns not after them.

[ProSense]

6. So much

negativity on GD right now, but here is a positive sign for NJ.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=2458527&mesg_id=2458527

[ProSense]

7. Interesting!

From Jame Boyce:

Snip...

Money's great. Money helps get you elected. But if you take a glance at the top ten contenders on the Democratic side, there really isn't one for whom money is the core issue. Just look at the top of the pile for proof.

If Hillary had $100 million in the bank, would it silence her critics and the opposition to her that exists within the party? Would it make her a less polarizing figure? Would her Iraq policy be any more palatable? No. In fact, the further ahead she gets in the fundraising race, the more she is seen as the favorite and the more people will continue and in fact step up their search for the anti-Hillary candidate

Snip...

So if cash on hand doesn't matter right now, what does? Winning the House and the Senate back. I want to see CASH GIVEN AWAY FOR THE RIGHT REASONS numbers. The potential 08 candidates need to be spending that money helping candidates like Tim Dunn in North Carolina. Tim's a Fighting Democrat lawyer who has a good shot at winning the Congressional race down there. He has the passion, the intelligence, the time spent in the Marines in Iraq and the desire to win and to serve again. He needs money.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/james-boyce/together-we-can-do-bette_b_15636.html