Federal Government

Political Payoff Tally

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.

Comments & Discussion

Comments are closed for this post.

  1. Bieter begone
    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.

  2. Crapo does pretty well for a 24-year veteran of Congress who claims he is not a Washington insider.

  3. Mr Crapo proves it PAYS to go to Washington and drink a bit

  4. How do you get the people to pay attention? Time to vote the drunk out!

  5. Yossarian_22
    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.

  6. 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.”

Get the Guardian by email

Enter your email address: