Federal Government
Political Payoff Tally
September 15, 2016 
We have always been bothered by the euphemism “campaign contribution.”
Contributions are for charities. We prefer POLITICAL PAYOFF. A friend–political insider at that– used to say, “They claim there is no quid pro quo, but there is no reason for the pro quo without the quid.”
Here is the latest political payoff tally from Randy Stapilus at Ridenbaugh.com with updated figures for the Crapo-Sturgill senate race from Betsy Russell at the Spokesman-Review.
U.S. Senator Mike Crapo (R), Idaho Falls.
Crapo: raised $2.8 million; spent $1.5 milion; on hand $5.1 million.
U.S. Senate candidate Stephen Sturgill(D), Twin Falls.
Sturgill: on hand $427,514
U.S. House Raul Labrador(R), Eagle.
Labrador: on hand $356,51.
U.S. House candidate James Piotrowski(D), Boise.
PiostrowkiL on hand $50,025.
U.S. House Representative Mike Simpson, Blackfoot.
Simpson: $210,750 on hand.
U.S. House candidate Jennifer Martinez (D). No funds indicated.
To insure more advertising-free Boise Guardian news, please consider financial support.
Comments & Discussion
Comments are closed for this post.
Sep 15, 2016, 3:54 pm
I’m more exercised about the money flowing to Bieter who has $80,000+ Cash left over from his election haul. Or the kabillions that flow to the pay to play Clinton crime family foundation.
Sep 15, 2016, 4:36 pm
Crapo does pretty well for a 24-year veteran of Congress who claims he is not a Washington insider.
Sep 15, 2016, 9:48 pm
Mr Crapo proves it PAYS to go to Washington and drink a bit
Sep 16, 2016, 8:32 am
How do you get the people to pay attention? Time to vote the drunk out!
Sep 19, 2016, 3:00 pm
Donations are the fuel a candidate receives to keep navigating or beginning to navigate the halls of power. They are a fig leaf of democracy, in that anyone can privately support their candidate of “choice.” But donations are the perfect mechanism for allowing the ultra powerful to possess the halls of power and they have already erected a Deep State (in the Boston Globe’s own words) that is chaired by unelected gatekeepers of the Establishment. The serious donors are ensuring that no candidate removes these gatekeepers or appoints a rebel that will undo their rule.
This is why I actually approve of non-donor elections that disconnect the candidates from these massive funds. Candidates should feel free to operate on their own convictions and those of the voters. That would be more democratic.
Sep 20, 2016, 6:24 am
It would be interesting, Yossarian, to have donations go to a blind trust. The candidate would get a balance, but no info in individual donors. I am betting few big donors would contribute if their names were not known to the campaign.
EDITOR NOTE–“No reason for the quid without the pro quo.”