Since Q2 was broken up by the early June, these reports cover only the five-week period between May 28 and June 30th. I’ve included the total Q2 numbers to give a relative number for a reporting period. Much more below the fold.
Total raised is taken from total receipts, which includes contributions, in-kind, and loans.
Candidate: Q2b Raised (Total Q2 Raised) | Cash on Hand | # of Individual Donors
Fairfax Districts:
HD 34
Margi Vanderhye (i): $70K ($131K) | $123K | 206
Barbara Comstock: $44K ($115K) | $167K | 131
Vanderhye finally kicks her fundraising into high gear, outraising Comstock for the first time. Still, $11K of her cash came in-kind from the Dem Caucus, which is one of the reasons why Comstock enjoys a hefty cash on hand advantage. Over the length of Q2, their numbers match up similarly.
HD 35
Mark Keam: $28K ($90K) | $30K | 133
Jim Hyland: $10K ($24K) | $14K | 43
These numbers bridge the June 9th primary, so Keam’s numbers reflect more than just the general election. Still, for a candidate that raised over $100K in a three-month period, these numbers are remarkably tepid (not that it made a difference in his overwhelming primary victory). Still, Hyland continues to run into difficulty not only raising money but holding onto it as well, sinking another $6500 into a consultant he previously paid $25K last reporting period.
HD 36
Ken Plum (i): $45K ($83K)| $76K | 167
Mark Whited: $7K ($9K)| $8K | 2
Ken Plum continues to raise money as if he wasn’t going up against a challenger who self-loaned his campaign $6K of his $7K intake.
HD 37
David Bulova (i): $10K ($19K) | $34K | 21
HD 38
Kaye Kory: $6K ($39K) | $8K | 29
Danny Smith: $6K ($15K) | $5K | 4
Kory ended spending a fair amount of money to defeat incumbent Del. Bob Hull in the June primary, leaving her with only $8K in the bank at the end of the period. Still, she can take it easy through November; the bulk of Smith’s haul has come from self-loans.
HD 39
Vivian Watts (i): $25K ($30K) | $39K | 132
Joe Bury: $2K ($7K) | $1K | 4
Watts finally catches stride with an improved fundraising period, increasing her cash on hand to a safe mount. Bury’s low amount reflects his chances in this race, as even half of his meager fundraising came from a self-loan.
HD 40
Tim Hugo (i): $33K ($79K) | $59K | 79
Sue Conrad: $0 ($0) | $0 | 0
When they said that Sue Conrad wasn’t an active candidate, they weren’t kidding; her report had more zeroes than Jim Gilmore strategists meeting. Meanwhile, Hugo raises money at a respectable clip and has now amassed a decent-sized warchest. Time will tell if he decides to throw his weight around in some of these Fairfax races.
HD 41
Dave Marsden (i): $22K ($59K) | $38K | 89
Kerry Bolognese: $12K ($23K) | $19K | 51
Dave Marsden keeps up the pace with his fundraising, bringing in just shy of $60K during the three-month period. Bolognese’s haul was aided by $2K in a loan he gave to the campaign as he sits with about half the cash on hand as the incumbent.
HD 42
Dave Albo (i): $128K ($168K) | $165K | 155
Greg Werkheiser: $30K ($89K)| $59K | 79
Here’s the Dave Albo we all know and love: Albo raises more than 4 times the amount of his opponent (nearly double over the course of three months), which is even more impressive when you factor in the fact that a large amount of Werkheiser’s numbers are in-kind additions from the Dem Caucus, including $5K this go round. As a result, Albo has nearly three times as much on hand. What I found most impressive? All of Albo’s contributions were $7500 or lower.
HD 43
Mark Sickles (i): $26K ($55K) | $77K | 61
Tim Nank: $22K ($23K) | $20K | 55
Tim Nank put together a very healthy five weeks that actually puts him above half of the races on this list. I’ve heard that several in the party were high on Nank’s ability to turn this into a competitive race and now we see why. Still, Sickles is raising money at a rate that reflects how competitive this race could be, and Nank will have to overcome a challenging cash-on-hand disadvantage here.
HD 44
Scott Surovell: $82K ($82K) | $82K | 267
Jay McConville: $22K ($74K) | $46K | 120
As has been reported elsewhere, Surovell comes out of the gate strong with over $80K in just six days between when Kris Amundson retired and the end of the period, mostly from fellow trial lawyers and local politicians, on his way to building a strong cash on hand advantage over McConville. Overlooked, however, is the fact that most of McConville’s $74K take over the last three months was raised while he was still facing an incumbent.
HD 53
Jim Scott (i): $4K ($54K) | $55K | 10
Chris Merola: $3K ($6K) | $4K | 35
After flexing his muscles the first two months of Q2, Jim Scott goes back to taking it easy while still managing to outraise his opponent. Merola, however, has a decent amount of individual donors for his low haul, with all but three of his contributions coming in at $125 or less.
Fairfax/Alexandria/Arlington Districts:
HD 45
Dave Englin (i): $10K ($23K) | $44K | 80
Vicki Vasques: $5K ($5K) | $2K | 0
Englin continues to fundraise at a steady clip and from a large amount of donors. His opponent, a new entrant into the race, has only received funds in the form of a self-loan to the campaign.
HD 46
Charniele Herring (i): N/A
Sasha Gong: N/A
For the life of me, I can’t figure out what’s going on here. Am I just blind? Sasha Gong’s mid-July report isn’t on VPAP or SBE yet, and it doesn’t appear that Herring has had a report published since the first quarter! What am I missing?
HD 47
Patrick Hope: $3K ($15K) | $6K | 33
Eric Brescia: $10K ($10K) | $10K | 28
If it weren’t for the incredibly Democratic lean of this district, this would be a very interesting result. Brescia has managed to raise a recent haul, more than the Democratic nominee, to build a cash on hand advantage from almost as many donors (despite the fact that $7K was from one source, former 8th District candidate Amit Singh).
HD 48
Bob Brink (i): $18K ($21K) | $23K | 56
Aaron Ringell: $4K ($7K) | $4K | 34
Brink kicks his fundraising into high-gear (relative to Arlington standards), bringing six times the amount he did the previous two months.
HD 49
Adam Ebbin (i): $5K ($26K) | $19K | 28
Fairfax/Loudoun Districts:
HD 32
Dave Poisson (i): $30K ($96K) | $94K | 74
Tag Greason: $23K ($35K) | $27K | 114
Greason’s fundraising picks up from the first two months of the quarter and is only a little behind the incumbent. However, Poisson’s tremendous haul from the first half propels him to a strong cash on hand advantage.
HD 33
Joe May: $18K ($32K) | $33K | 48
HD 67
Chuck Caputo (i): $66K ($104K) | $116K | 186
Jim LeMunyon: $35K ($59K) | $50K | 79
Caputo continues to raise funds in impressive clips, bringing him over the century mark for the three-month period and building a more than 2:1 cash on hand advantage, though LeMunyon’s totals are far from anything that could be considered “weak”. That $16K of Caputo’s totals were in-kind is negated by the fact that so were $12K of LeMunyon’s.
HD 84
Tom Rust (i): $56K ($126K) | $119K | 101
Stevens Miller: $34K ($78K) | $42K | 106
Miller’s total continue to be more imaginative than actual: $16K of his take was in-kind from the Dem Caucus (just like more than half of his total from the first two months), which is why despite deceptively high numbers, his cash on hand remains uncompetitive. Tom Rust continues for the third reporting period in a row with very solid numbers. It appears that Tom Rust and the Democratic Caucus are taking this race seriously, while Stevens Miller is not.
PWC/Stafford Districts
HD 13
Bob Marshall (i): $20K ($39K) | $67K | 64
John Bell: $12K ($46K) | $53K | 43
Bell’s red-hot numbers cool down this period, allowing Marshall to continue his cash on hand advantage.
HD 28
William Howell (i): $69K ($102K) | $203K | 17
It should be noted that the Speaker’s PAC has more than $500K, in addition to his personal campaign account. As a second note, I’ve stopped including Howell (or any other uncontested incumbent) in the list of trendsetters below.
HD 31
Scott Lingamfelter (i): $15K ($28K) | $30K | 66
HD 50
Jackson Miller (i): $44K ($81K) | $90K | 123
Jeanette Rishell: $27K ($61K) | $102K | 186
Rishell’s numbers continue to cool down, though her strong start has resulted in still maintaining a cash on hand advantage over the incumbent. Recent history suggests she’ll need that and a lot more to actually beat Miller this time around.
HD 51
Paul Nichols (i): $129K ($173K)| $161K | 46
Richard Anderson: $12K ($32K) | $36K | 72
No, Nichol’s didn’t average $2800 from each of his donors: he loaned his campaign a cool $100,000. Not much to say other than… wow. A quick note for the Trendsetters section below: I usually include the top three incumbent fundraisers, but it seems sort of silly to include Nichols in this category, which is why I expanded it to four.
HD 52
Rafael Lopez: $16K ($19K) | $14K | 23
Luke Torain: $18K ($38K) | $6K | 78
Given that Torain raised twice as much in the last three months, Lopez’s cash on hand advantage (a product of the June primary Torain won) seems to be fleeting.
The Trendsetters
Most Raised Q2, Incumbents: Paul Nichols ($129K), Dave Albo ($128K), Margi Vanderhye ($70K), Chuck Caputo ($66K)
Most Raised Q2, Challengers: Scott Surovell ($82K), Barbara Comstock ($44K), Jim LeMunyon ($35K)
Most Cash-on-Hand, Incumbents: Dave Albo ($165K), Paul Nichols ($161K), Margi Vanderhye ($131K)
Most Cash-on-Hand, Challengers: Barbara Comstock ($123K), Jeanette Rishell ($102K), Scott Surovell ($82K)
Challengers Who Outraised Incumbents Q2: None
Challengers With More Cash-On-Hand Than Incumbents: Barbara Comstock, Jeanette Rishell
The next reporting period ends at the end of August, to be reported by September 15th.
![[Post to Twitter]](http://www.tooconservative.com/wp-content/plugins/tweet-this/icons/tt-twitter.png){kind=icon}
Jul 21st by VA Blogger
[...] that Too Conservative is back on-line contributor VA Blogger is back at it with a post regarding the fundraising reports for Q2 for the Virginia races. The report puts all the numbers together in a concise package for you [...]
In this environment, the fundraising itself is secondary to the fundraising process. I would rather see our number of donors go up even if the actual dollars raised doesn’t go up at all.
Fundamentally, when you’re asking for someone to donate to your campaign, you’re asking them to invest in you. So even if you get ten or twenty bucks, that’s an investment and that’s a vote. No one is going to contribute to a campaign and then stay home on election day. So I hope that our candidates focus on lower dollar fundraising given the current economic problems – at the very least, you’re building up a good amount of definite votes that you can rely on in November.
Brian, I agree with you that the number of individual donors is important, which is why I post those numbers alongside the cash totals. A great example is Chris Merola in HD-53, who didn’t raise a lot of money but raised it from a lot of different people. He’s an unconventional candidate creating a movement within his own district that, win or lose, champions his message.
However, at the end of the day, we all worship the almighty dollar. Money is visibility and visibility is viability. If you’re not raising money, you’re not winning.
But I’d add to that, VA Blogger, that just because you’re raising tons of cash doesn’t mean you’re winning. Mitt Romney, anyone? How about Terry McAullife’s “lock” on the Democratic Governor’s nomination?
True enough.
For Hyland, that $6,500 looks like it is for the services of the entire firm and not just a single consultant, which handles mailings, website and fundraising as per their report:
http://www.vpap.org/committees/profile/money_out_details_expenses/1177?vendor_id=167437
Compare that to other campaigns such as Comstock where they have mutiple firms carrying out different services and that seems like a downright bargain:
http://www.vpap.org/committees/profile/money_out_vendors/2632
Sometimes Brian a donation does not equate to an actual vote. For example, many people contribute to candidates across the State in the General Assembly races. I for one in the HD 73rd race donated to Tom Shields (D) who is the challenger because he has knocked on more doors personally than any other candidate in any race this Fall and because many friends in the 73rd have been frustrated by the incumbants lack of engagement with voters. These are traditionally Republican voters. I have no dog in the hunt, don’t live in the 73rd but hate it when incumbants rest on their laurels. Shields in the end will most likely come up short in his bid, but at least he is doing it the right way by getting out there and talking with folks personally about the issues. O’Bannon should heed the warning though, people are talking about his incumbant with some interest. I like a good fight and in the end issues matter, but sometimes a donor does not equate to an actaul vote. In my case a donation sometimes is simply sending a message or a little wake up call to the incumbant.
Great post, VB. Brian and RD make good points that numbers of donors is an important metric, one that probably says a bit more about strength at the polls than sheer dollars. I suspect, for example, that HD 34 is more solid for Vanderhye than some Rs have been wanting to admit and that the substantial margin in number of contributors bespeaks a strong one-term incumbent there, despite rough parity in funds raised.
Actually, NoVA Scout, Comstock has had more individual donors over the length of the campaign.
In Q1, Comstock had 321 donors to Vanderhye’s 157.
In the first half of Q2, Comstock had 166 to Vanderhye’s 191.
All total, Comstock has had 618 individual donors while Vanderhye has had 554.
The fact that Comstock has outraised Vanderhye two reporting periods in a row, has more cash on hand, and has more individual donors “bespeaks” either an incredibly strong challenger or a weak incumbent, or both.
Fair point, VB. I was looking only at the quarter. It will be a contested race to be sure. I do think that Comstock is viewed as a detached outsider by a large number of the constituents and that Vanderhye’s local strength and popularity is underestimated by our side. I live one district over, but many of our social contacts are in that district, as well as my daughter’s school. My impression from casual political chit-chat is that Vanderhye is popular and highly regarded across party lines.
Also keep in mind that Vanderhye could not raise money during the General Assembly, so Comstock did have a leg up in that regard. Still, it is very impressive fundraising numbers, I just wish Merola would raise more in my district, he is a fantastic candidate, hopefully things will pick up soon.
Thanks for compiling the numbers – good info. I’m still trying to figure out how I missed that our politically hard hitting (note: sarcasm) Dulles District Supervisor is running for HD 86 against Tom Rust. Is county supervisor too hard for him, or was it just a quick stepping stone to a bigger gig? As I recall, he was looking for a raise early on…
NLS speculated he might be looking to challange Wolf, which is pretty funny in that he’s already looking to run for something else. Dems might have been better off running Donahue again instead of this loser. Then again, Rust is the man, so it would not have mattered who they ran
Looks like Miller is trying to be on a fast track power trip.
It would nice if he would finish his job as BOS before running for Rust’s job and now speculation is also going for Wolf’s job. He would of never got elected as BOS if he ran against hardly any one else other then Snow. Miller is a major disappointment. He did not even have the guts to vote NO or YES on the Kincora baseball stadium.
The NLS post was odd, even by his standards, for its blithe assumption that Miller would beat Rust. Re challenges to Wolf, I thought that a prominent working assumption in both parties was that Wolf is close to well-earned (in the best sense of that phrase) retirement. In fact, to relate it back to HD 34, I also though Comstock was really looking at the 10th District Congresssional seat as her goal (assuming Wolf does step down) and this would be a stepping stone (if she wins).
[...] have some issues here. Less important is the fact that, as I covered in my fundraising round-up (and VPAP confirms), Vanderhye has $123K in the bank, not $90K. More important are the claims, [...]