Fundraising numbers for Virginia’s 43rd District paint a stark picture between Democrat Delegate Mark Sickles and Republican challenger Tim Nank.
.
Sickles, a registered lobbyist, is banking on contributions from special interests to fund his re-election campaign for the House of Delegates. More than 84% of Sickles’ funding and 71% of his contributions since Jan. 1 have come from PACs, labor unions and corporations, according to campaign finance data of itemized gifts more than $100. Just 9% of those donations are from Sickles’ district.
.
The contrast with Republican opponent Nank couldn’t be more severe. Nearly 88% of Nank’s funding and 93% of Nank’s contributions are from individuals — a sign of his growing grassroots support. (Full disclosure: I’m a volunteer for Nank’s campaign.)
.
Nank came out ahead in the most recent fundraising report, beating Sickles in both contributions and money raised in September. Nank had a total of 92 contributions compared to Sickles’ 71. Nank raised $25,520 for the month, nearly $3,000 more than Sickles’ $22,658. It’s the second straight reporting period Nank beat the incumbent.
.
“Most of the donors to my campaign are friends and family, and the interesting thing is that more than half are Democrats,” Nank said in a statement. “They know me personally and the issues that I’m focused on for the 43rd District. The vast majority of donors have given small contributions.”
.
Just 33 of Nank’s 345 donations are more than $500; however, he does have three large gifts of more than $7,000 from individuals.
.
Sickles, by contrast, has 93 donations of more than $500. That’s one reason he holds a commanding lead in cash on hand — $79,072 to Nank’s $39,877. That advantage can also be attributed to the lobbyist’s haul of special-interest money. Based on my analysis of publicly available campaign finance data, donors to Sickles’ campaign included:
.
• Labor unions such as the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers ($2,500), United Food and Commercial Workers International Union ($2,500), and AFL-CIO ($1,000).
.
• PACs such as the Virginia Dental PAC ($4,000), Virginia Bankers Association PAC ($2,500), and Virginia Hospital PAC ($1,500).
.
• Corporations such as Verizon ($2,000), Bank of America ($1,000), Capital One ($500), Citigroup ($500), and Kraft Foods ($500).
.
Sickles’ campaign manager Anthony Kusich attributed the fundraising to the incumbent’s record. “Mark is well respected and viewed as a pro-business moderate who listens to all sides,” he said. “Virginia businesses generally make campaign contributions to incumbents they expect to win.”
.
Those who closely follow Richmond politics might recall that Sickles voted to keep open the loophole allowing state elected officials to attend political fundraising events during the regular General Assembly. One such event, the annual Jefferson-Jackson Day dinner, is a major fundraiser for Democrats.
![[Post to Twitter]](http://www.tooconservative.com/wp-content/plugins/tweet-this/icons/tt-twitter.png){kind=icon}
Oct 18th by Rob Bluey
Holy shit, Rob Bluey is blogging here now? WTF did you guys do to rate such class?
[...] Rob Bluey writes about the candidates for Virginia’s 43rd District over at Too Conservative. [...]
What is the percentage of candidates that doesn’t accept money from “special interests”? The portion that isn’t favored to win and gets turned down on asks? That’s what I thought.
R: at the Kenbridge “townhall” event last summer, Perriello said he had time to read ALL the bills because he didn’t go to the lobbyist parties because he didn’t accept their money in the first place. I have not studied this claim, so i don’t know.
I’m pretty sure that he received contributions from defense industry per his background. It’s been a while since I’ve looked at the numbers. The general rule of thumb is that a PAC that supports both sides with money will say no to giving to a candidate who isn’t favored to win. If it’s an open seat, the candidate has a harder time making the pitch, as corpos. and PACs want to see results before they “invest”. The only candidates that I know that renounce PAC/special interest contributions are ones that are having a hard time with fundraising and aren’t going to be losing any worse as they make a pitch for their opposition to such contributions. I won’t name any names but you can find them by website. Compare their message to their financial reports and viola! It happens on both sides. It’s basically a rule of political fundraising.
I’d guess that the Congressman had time to do it for other reasons, too. He’s very geared toward that being a life interest, with our without holding a public office. I may be reading him wrong but he’s always struck me as a “policy wonk” — and I say that nicely because I just might be one, too. Notwithstanding, the claim of not accepting special interest money isn’t a game-changing issue for most average voters. Not accepting money from *specific* interests, however, is a somewhat different story.
Viewed as a battleground state in the turning of the tide….unions are pouring their coffers into Virginia races in an ATTEMPT to hold the wall.
It will fail, because Americans from all walks have seen exactly what a government with no checks and balances will do to them.
I’m happy to see Nank doing as well as he is doing.
.
That being said, I don’t see any issues with where Sickles is raising his money. Those union dollars don’t seem exorbitant (they aren’t the $500,000 from SEIU Deeds is getting) nor does the fact that he voted to allow legislators to fundraise during the session. I don’t see anything wrong with that, and the prohibition causes more problems than it solves. But by not going out and actively seeking contributions for voters, he’s missing a very important opportunity to interact with his constituents. That’s a bad sign, and Nank should exploit it.
Bald Guy, I couldn’t agree more, the period from Jan 2001 to Jan 1007 when Republicans had both sides of Congress plus the White House was pretty bad. Only that small period of time when the Dems had the Senate after Jeffords switched sides was it a little better.
When will 1007 occur?? But in response, anytime after 1994 (Contract with America) was a bad turn with many Republicans. If they take it all back again, I’m going to insist that they stop acting like Democrats this time.