Independent expenditures (IEs) have been a staple of competitive races in Indiana for some time, but the 2010 elections have a real quantitative and qualitative difference. And while, for some races, outside expenditures have decreased, the source of those funds has dramatically shifted.
9th District
Let's start by looking at the always-competitive 9th District.
In 2006, this race turned into one of the most expensive in the country as Baron Hill tried to reclaim the Congressional seat from Mike Sodrel - nearly $6.5 million in outside funds was spent here in southern Indiana. But almost all of that money came from the two major parties' congressional committees - in fact, FEC data shows that 97.77% of all independent expenditures in IN-9 during the 2006 election came from the NRCC or the DCCC.
I found about $5,000 (or 0.08% of the total) spent in this race by a 501(c)(4) organization that does not have to disclose its donors - in this case, the Defenders of Wildlife Action Fund.
A exact comparison to the 2008 cycle is harder to come by, but it looks like somewhere between 88%-95% of outside spending came from the congressional committees. Total IEs were around $1.6 million.
So far in 2010 - using numbers up to and including October 13 - independent expenditures have totaled just under $1.4 million. The NRCC & DCCC have combined for just under 57% of all outside IEs in the 9th District. Groups that don't disclose their donors - including 527s, 501(c)(4), and 501(c)(6) groups - have spent more than $400,000, and every penny of that has gone to oppose Baron Hill.
To recap: the amount of money coming from outside groups other than the major congressional committees has increased from around 2% in 2006 to more than 40% in 2010. The amount coming from groups that don't disclose their donors has increased from $5,000 in 2006 to more than $400,000 in 2010.
8th District
Next door, in the 8th District, the numbers look a little different.
In 2006, independent expenditures totaled over $4.2 million, as then-Sheriff Brad Ellsworth defeated GOP incumbent John Hostettler. More than $4 million of that total came from the NRCC and the DCCC, or about 95.6% of the total. In addition to a small amount from the Defenders of Wildlife Action Fund, the National Right To Life PAC, AFSCME, SEIU, and Move On PAC contributed to the race.
The PACs and nonprofits spent less than $6300 on behalf of Ellsworth, while the conservative PAC spent about $21,000 on behalf of Hostettler.
In 2008, this race was significantly quieter, attracting less than $3600 in total IEs as Ellsworth cruised to an easy re-election against Republican Greg Goode.
In 2010, with Ellsworth choosing to run for Senate, the open seat has attracted more than $550,000, all of it on behalf of GOP candidate Larry Bucshon. Less than 1/3 of that money has come from the NRCC, and the DCCC has chosen to remain on the sidelines in this campaign. That means that more than 67% of the outside money being spent on this race has come from PACs or nonprofits. As I wrote in the initial entry in this series, more than $355,000 - or just over 64% of total IEs in this race - has come from the PO box of Americans for Job Security.
To recap, non-party independent expenditures in Indiana's 8th District have increased from 4% in 2006 to more than 67% in 2010.
2nd District
Up in the 2nd District, Indiana's most expensive Congressional race has attracted several national groups.
In 2006, IEs totaled almost $1.7 million as challenger Joe Donnelly defeated incumbent GOP Chris Chocola. More than $1.3 million came from the DCCC and NRCC, making up more than 76% of total independent expenditures. This race also attracted funds from a variety of other groups, including:
Defenders of Wildlife Action Fund
Move On
AFSCME
SEIU
National Right to Life
National Rifle Association
Safari Club International
Club for Growth
Associated General Contractors of America
Move On's PAC was the biggest non-party spender in the race, spending more than $246,000, or less than 15% of total IEs.
In 2008, this race attracted little outside money, as IEs were just over $11,000 and Donnelly cruised to re-election over Republican Luke Puckett. (I'll be honest - I had to look this one up, as I couldn't even remember who the GOP candidate was in '08.)
In 2010, this race has attracted more than $1.7 million in independent expenditures, with the party committees making up about $672,000, or less than 39% of the total. In contrast, the 60 Plus Association - whose fundraising pieces brag that they can raise unlimited sums of money and don't disclose their donors - has spent more than $393,000 on this race so far, or almost 23% of all IEs. That's one group spending the same relative amount to what all the groups listed above spent in 2006.
To recap, non-party independent expenditures in Indiana's 2nd District have increased from about 23% in 2006 to more than 61% in 2010.
Senate
It's hard to find a good historical context for Indiana's open Senate seat. But this year's numbers are revealing on their own.
For the general election, outside IEs have remained fairly low in this race - only about $341,000. But more than 73% of that amount - $250,000 - came from the US Chamber of Commerce to oppose Brad Ellsworth. And, so far, not a single dollar has been spent by the national campaign committees for the major parties. The state Republicans have put up just over $12,500 - or 3.68% of total IEs - on behalf of Dan Coats. So, non-party independent expenditures in this year's Indiana Senate race make up more than 96% of the outside money spent on this race.
Summary
It's clear that the amount of essentially untraceable money flowing into Indiana elections has drastically increased over the past 4 years. And, as an article in yesterday's USA Today pointed out, it's not like media time is very expensive in most Indiana races. In the 9th District, for example, a 30-second TV spot costs about $300. That means that the $80,000 the New Prosperity Foundation just spent on TV ads against Baron Hill could run their ad 266 times. That's more than 2 hours of negative advertising that anonymous donors are inflicting on Southern Indiana.
In short, this outside money is here. We don't know where it's coming from. And it will have an impact on our elections.
For the last few months, Secretary of State (and current Congressional candidate) Todd Rokita has been on a campaign against the Indiana State Teachers Association. He's repeatedly insinuated, while offering no evidence, that the ISTA has commingled political funds with their operating accounts.
But earlier this month, he started using his position as Secretary of State to threaten his political opponents not to accept money from IPACE, the ISTA's political arm.
Indiana Secretary of State Todd Rokita has accused the Indiana State Teachers Association of putting politics over its members by making political contributions to campaigns while he says it owes school districts across the state $23 million.
The state's largest union, however, argues the money comes straight from its members and has nothing to do with the money ISTA owes to school districts.
Rokita sued the teachers' union in December to recoup what he says is the $23 million ISTA owes Indiana school districts from its now-defunct health insurance program. In the suit, now in federal court, Rokita also seeks to freeze ISTA's assets and wants an independent audit of the union's accounts to determine exactly how much it owes to 21 districts that earned the health credits.
While under fiscal duress, ISTA discontinued its health insurance program last year, but it still owes school districts that stockpiled credits for paying more into the union's trust than they spent in insurance claims.
No ISTA dues dollars are ever used - or have ever been used - for direct contributions to political candidates or political campaigns. As secretary of state, Rokita should know that. He should also know that those voluntary political contributions must be used only for their intended purpose - to support pro-public education candidates.
Instead of political posturing in the media just weeks before the next election, Rokita would serve his current office and the state better by getting his facts straight before attacking the state's largest association of professional educators and public school employees, and in the process those individuals' rights to contribute to campaigns of their choice.
In his letter, dated Oct. 1, Rokita warned candidates that if he prevails in court, his securities division staff will pursue any money the candidates received from the ISTA's political action committee.
"The Securities Division will aggressively trace and attempt to recover all funds associated with ISTA in its transfers and expenditures of resources for whatever purposes," states the letter, which went to more than 200 candidates or their campaign organizations. Rokita asks the candidates to either return the money to ISTA now or set it aside in a separate account until the lawsuit concludes.
Now, I'm willing to admit that it's a little tone-deaf for IPACE to be spending heavily on political campaigns while ISTA doesn't have its financial house in order. But I'm not aware of any legal requirement, especially in the post-Citizens United environment, to be modest while spending money on political campaigns. It's no secret that IPACE gives primarily to Democrats. But despite his continual protests, which consistently get his name in the news, Rokita has offered no evidence that ISTA has commingled its operating funds with its political funds.
Democrats looked set to press their advantage after Dan Coats' calamitous debate performance -- specifically after it was revealed that Coats' revisionist history of his transition from the Senate to K Street was heavy on the revision, light on the history.
During a televised debate Monday night among the three Senate candidates, Coats said he rebuffed attempts to recruit him while he was still in office and that he didn't discuss the job offer until a month after leaving office.
"I took a month off after I left because I didn't want to think about what was next. It was then that they approached me," Coats said during the debate after Democrat Brad Ellsworth said Coats "actually negotiated his deal with the lobbying firm Verner Liipfert ... while he was in Congress."
Coats responded that it was during the month after he left office that representatives of the firm approached him.
Coats campaign spokesman Kevin Kellems responded in an e-mail Tuesday that Congress adjourned on Oct. 21, 1998, and that Coats' office did not announce his job with Verner Liipfert until Dec. 3.
"Hoosiers don't require slickness in their officials, so in the heat of a live debate, Indiana voters understand when something isn't communicated clearly," Kellems wrote. He did not explain what Coats meant about "taking a month off."
The problem? Published reports from the time completely contradict Coats' story.
Now, let's be clear -- for most congressional candidates, their life pre-candidacy is vague and easy to shrug off. You can be flexible with the facts and get away with it easily.
Dan Coats' issue? He seems convinced that he can do this, despite the fact that he served in Congress for 18 years. He's not some anonymous neophyte -- the guy has a record.
Sure, Hoosiers may not require "slickness" from their politicians. But they do require honesty. And honesty seems to be in short supply over in Coats country.
I forgot to post something on this yesterday when the news broke, but the Hamilton County prosecutor's office has finally taken action on the allegations surrounding embattled Secretary of State candidate Charlie White. Via the Star, the latest:
The Hamilton County prosecutor's office is counting on two special prosecutors -- one a Republican and one a Democrat -- to investigate allegations of voter fraud against Republican secretary of state candidate Charlie White.
Some say the move will ensure the investigation is based on justice, not politics, but others say it could cause problems if the two can't come to a consensus.
The Hamilton County prosecutor's office hopes appointing the two prosecutors will take the politics out of what started as a partisan complaint.
[...]
The investigation likely won't wrap up before the Nov. 2 election, but if White wins and is later convicted of a felony charge of voter fraud, he could lose the job.
Just as in the case of Fort Wayne mayoral candidate Matt Kelty, Hoosiers will have to decide whether it is worth voting for someone who may not even be eligible to serve once he takes office.
Yesterday, I wrote about the various outside groups - at least 3 of which are "headquartered" out of PO boxes at retail shops around the country - who are spending money by the thousands in an effort to influence elections here in Indiana.
These groups are targeting a few specific races here in Indiana, and - unsurprisingly - are spending their money on the handful of competitive races for national office.
Let's start with my home Congressional district, Indiana's 9th. It's one of only two races in Indiana where outside money has topped the $1 million dollar mark so far this cycle, according to the Sunlight Foundation's excellent tracking tools. As the Fort Wayne Journal Gazette's Sylvia Smith reported last week, the outside spending has gone overwhelmingly in one direction. When she wrote her piece, the trend was clear:
Money is also pouring into the race between Rep. Baron Hill, D-9th, and Republican Todd Young in the southeastern corner of the state. Groups trying to defeat Hill have spent $447,863; a union defending him has spent $161,921.
The biggest spender in the 9th has been the National Republican Congressional Committee, pumping in more than $437,000 to oppose Baron Hill. But the New Prosperity Foundation just followed their $50,000 ad buy last week with another $80,000 in TV advertising opposing Hill. That Chicago-based group has purchased more airtime in the past week than the Young campaign has spent on TV & radio advertising since the start of his campaign ($117,578).
The Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee have spent just over $311,000, most of it in a $207,000 media buy today, to oppose GOP "Young Gun" candidate, Todd Young. They are the only outside group opposing Young, although a union did buy about $162,000 of ad time in support of Rep. Hill's re-election campaign in September of 2009.
The most expensive race in the state, though, is up north in Indiana's 2nd District. Incumbent Blue Dog Democrat Joe Donnelly has been caught in a pricey campaign with state Representative Jackie Walorski. Here are the numbers:
Supporting Donnelly
$ 390,048.33
22.80%
Opposing Donnelly
$ 928,478.56
54.28%
Electioneering (vs Donnelly)
$ 134,500.00
7.86%
Supporting Walorski
$ 3,164.67
0.19%
Opposing Walorski
$ 254,426.94
14.87%
Totals
$ 1,710,618.50
100.00%
The NRCC has spent more than $400,000 opposing Joe Donnelly, a total nearly matched by the 60 Plus Association's $393,000. The 60 Plus Association, a group I omitted from my post yesterday, is a conservative organization funded by the nation's largest pharmaceutical firms. In addition, the New Prosperity Foundation has kicked in $130,000, and the anti-abortion group Susan B. Anthony List has spent another $134,500 to try and unseat Donnelly.
On the other side, Donnelly has gotten a boost from more than $300,000 - most spent in the last week - by the National Association of Realtors. The DCCC has spent just over $254,000 in the 2nd District this cycle, most of which was represented by a $156,000 ad buy today. Donnelly's numbers are somewhat inflated by a union ad buy in support of him last November.
The NRCC has spent just over $181,000 on media and surveys opposing state Representative Trent Van Haaften, while the Americans for Job Security has spent more than $355,000 out of their PO box headquarters trying to influence "Indianans" in the race. The DCCC announced today that is was cancelling an ad buy in the 8th District.
In the Indiana Senate race between Representative Brad Ellsworth and former Senator-turned-lobbyist Dan Coats, the numbers are not huge, but staggeringly unilateral:
Supporting Ellsworth
$ 90,494.00
21.09%
Opposing Ellsworth
$ 53,673.00
12.51%
Electioneering (vs Ellsworth)
$ 271,524.00
63.27%
Supporting Coats
$ 13,452.06
3.13%
Opposing Coats
$ -
0.00%
Totals
$ 429,143.06
100.00%
More than 76% of all the outside money spent in this race has been in support of Washington, DCNorth Carolina mega-lobbyist Dan Coats, but that number doesn't tell the whole truth. If you omit the $90,000 that a union spent supporting Ellsworth last November - when he was still a House candidate - it's entirely a one-sided matchup.
The biggest spender in this race, by far, is the US Chamber of Commerce, who devoted $250,000 to ads opposing Brad Ellsworth. That media buy represents 74% of the total outside expenditures in this race since both candidates were decided.
I'll wrap up with a look at some of the other Indiana races and how these numbers look in the context of previous races tomorrow.
The reviews from last night's debate between Brad Ellsworth and Dan Coats are rolling in, and I appear to not be alone in my sense that Ellsworth emerged victorious. Here's an offering:
Ultimately, a Senate debate on a Monday evening isn't likely to be a game-changer. But in a race that many seem ready to call, Ellsworth put Coats on the defensive repeatedly, forcing him into awkward answers about his lobbying career.
He did what he needed to do.
That was most obvious a few minutes after the debate when Coats walked out to take questions from the media and launched into a long and rambling complaint about the structure of the debate and the choice of questions.
He seemed frustrated, as if he'd just lost a debate and knew it.
Democrat Brad Ellsworth repeatedly criticized Republican Dan Coats' background as a lobbyist while Coats tried to tie Ellsworth to the political agenda of the Obama administration during Indiana's first U.S. Senate debate Monday night.
Ellsworth accused Coats of helping companies ship Hoosier jobs overseas, taking millions in special interest money for his campaign and negotiating his first lobbyist job while still representing Indiana in the Senate.
"I don't think he's going to cast a vote in the Senate without a conflict of interest," Ellsworth said.
After the debate, Ellsworth said the debate format doesn't allow enough time to talk in depth about future plans.
Coats lamented that there were not enough opportunities to discuss how the United States can boost a still-faltering economy.
But during the debate, Coats used the entire 90 seconds he was given to answer a question about the economy instead to respond to Ellsworth's criticism of Coats' lobbying work.
Coats said he expected the attacks from Ellsworth - "it's been a constant drumbeat" - but spent the entire time allotted for one question about jobs addressing his lobbying record instead. Coats was cut off for time limitations during several questions and said later he wished he had more time to address the economy, national security and other top concerns of voters.
Tonight marks the first debate between Brad Ellsworth and Dan Coats, and I'll do my best to have blow-by-blow play-by-play commentary as the night unfolds.
My quick take: expect some fireworks. Neither side has shied away from throwing punches thus far in the campaign, and for Ellsworth, it's either now or never in terms of shaking up the narrative that this race is a done deal.
October surprise, anyone? Tonight could be the night. You can find the full list of radio and television affiliates carrying the debate in this morning's pre-debate post, but for those of you wanting to stay near the computer and comment yourself, you can find a stream the debate here.
Initial Thoughts: Ellsworth was consistently more on-message, more concise, and more willing to engage both the question asked and Dan Coats. Ellsworth didn't shy away from a fight, but he also brought things back to his own positions more often than not.
Coats, for his part, looked visibly shaken when trying to address Ellsworth's attacks. He ran over on time in almost every circumstance, and seemed to have a hard time drawing his thoughts together. A weak performance, all things considered.
I think any objective observer would say Ellsworth won the debate. The real work will probably go on afterward -- if the stories tomorrow morning discuss the bombs we saw tonight (Coats loves Social Security privatization and raising the retirement age, for instance), we could have some serious movement in the polls over the next few weeks.
To see my full live-blog of the debate, click on "There's more..." and read on.
(Bumped. Excellent, excellent stuff. - promoted by Thomas)
Over the past several months, a nonprofit organization has pumped hundreds of thousands of dollars into Indiana's 8th District Congressional race.
According to reports filed with the Federal Election Commission, Americans for Job Security has spent more than $355,000 since August for TV ads, radio spots, and direct mail pieces opposing Trent Van Haaften. Here's an example of their work:
Americans for Jobs Security claims to be a nonprofit, and even has a section of its website dedicated to Indiana. But while the logo reads "Hoosiers for Job Security", the copy on the website reads differently:
Have you ever heard anyone who's actually from Indiana refer to residents here as "Indianans?" I sure haven't. But it doesn't surprise me that a group like Americans for Job Security, headquartered at a PO box at a UPS store in Virginia, can't even get their basic astroturfing vocabulary straight.
The ads, with a buy totaling $5 million behind them, are funded by Americans for Job Security and another Republican-allied group, The 60 Plus Association.
Van Haaften's spokesman, Zach Knowling, called Americans for Job Security a "shadowy special interest group with big corporate backing."
"This group is spending big to elect Larry Bucshon, who has pledged in writing to support the same corporate tax loopholes that Whirlpool used to ship 1,100 jobs from Evansville to Mexico this summer," Knowling said.
And Americans for Job Security isn't the only outside group pouring money into the Hoosier state in an effort to influence the 2010 elections.
AUL Action, a DC-based arm of the anti-abortion group Americans United for Life, has spent more than $17,000 on radio ads against Baron Hill. But that's a small expenditure next to the New Prosperity Foundation's $50,000 radio buy in the 9th District. The New Prosperity Foundation is a Chicago-based organization formed by big-dollar fundraisers for former President Bush that is suddenly pushing into more races outside of Illinois.
In August, the anti-abortion Susan B. Anthony List, spent more than $20,000 on its bus tour opposing Baron Hill, Brad Ellsworth, and 2nd District Congressman Joe Donnelly - all pro-life Democrats.
Senator Max Baucus (D-MT), head of the Senate Finance Committee, has asked the IRS to look into whether these groups are abusing their nonprofit status. His letter specifically mentions Americans for Job Security, but his request would also cover other "nonprofits" that seem to have political campaign activity as their sole reason for existence.
The sad part is, these are just a handful of the independent expenditures here in Indiana since August. I haven't included any of the thousands of dollars being spent by the national Republican committees, or looked back to see how much these groups and others spent earlier in the year.
Tomorrow, I'll break down expenditures by candidate and show precisely which Indiana elections are the targets of these outside groups.
For those of you not on one of the seventy-three email lists currently hyping tonight's debate between Dan Coats and Brad Ellsworth, here's your fair warning about tonight's impending showdown. WIBC sets the stage:
Republican Dan Coats, Democrat Brad Ellsworth and Libertarian Rebecca Sink-Burris will square off at IUPUI in the first of three debates in a two-week span. Questions at all three debates will come from voters via email at the Indiana Debate Commission website at IndianaDebateCommission.com.
Charlie Morgan, vice-president of WIBC's parent company Emmis Communications and a debate commission member, says there's been a lack of foreign-policy questions, at least in the early going.
"We as a general public probably are focused on jobs and the economy, and there were lots of questions about that," Morgan says. "Since we've been telling people more broadly about the chance to contribute, (the commission has) been getting quite a few more questions."
All around good guy Mizell Stewart of the Evansville Courier & Press will moderate.
I'll have a live-blog tonight, but don't forget to submit a question or two this morning!
(A full list of the participating television and radio stations can be found below the fold.)
Kudos to Mary Beth Schneider of the Star for her great profile of the Secretary of State race this morning. She doesn't shy away from the current controversy surrounding embattled Republican candidate Charlie White, spilling a good amount of ink on the debacle.
Indiana Democratic Party Chairman Dan Parker called White's gaffe "the gift that keeps on giving."
"You now have Democrats really, really engaged on this because they see the hypocrisy of the Republican Party who has pounded their chest on voter fraud for years," Parker said. "Now they've got their own candidate for the chief elections office trying to game the system."
But Parker acknowledged that it's now up to Osili to make sure voters know about the scandal.
Friday, Osili began to do that by airing a TV ad slamming White on stations in Indianapolis, Evansville, Fort Wayne, Lafayette, South Bend and Terre Haute.
The ad, which Osili said will run through the election, says White was "forced to step down" from his council seat.
"A grand jury and special prosecutor are being commissioned to investigate him for felony voter fraud," the ad states. "And he expects us to vote for him to be Indiana's next chief elections officer? Sorry, Charlie. Indiana deserves better."
Excellent stuff, and White continues to spin his wheels coming up with a good excuse for his disregard (willing or otherwise) of Indiana election law.
Let's file this Star profile under "strange election year tactics," as Republican State Sen. Tom Wyss opens his doors to the Indianapolis paper for a home and garden profile.
The only problem, as I see it? Those doors are in Indianapolis, a good distance from the Fort Wayne district Wyss represents in the General Assembly.
As a bonus, the house is near Tom's work. He is a senator for Indiana's 15th district in Fort Wayne, so the Indianapolis address is convenient in that it puts him close to the Indiana Statehouse.
Just a quick update for those of you following the confirmation of former Secretary of State Joe Hogsett as he assumes his new role as chief federal prosecutor for southern and central Indiana. Via WRTV:
At his first news conference, Hogsett said among his top priorities is to work with city and state officials on reducing drug, gun and gang crimes.
6News' Rafael Sanchez asked about the status of high-profile investigations involving Indianapolis businessman Tim Durham and Marion County Prosecutor Carl Brizzi.
Durham, who has close personal ties to Brizzi, had his business raided almost a year ago by the FBI and is accused of stealing $200 million from investors in Ohio.
Hogsett said he could not comment about the case.
"This office on a go-forward basis will be committed to both thorough, fair, but timely investigations and where the evidence suggests where people need to be prosecuted, there will be a timely basis, thoroughly and fairly to the full extent of the law," he said.
Kudos to the Post-Tribune editorial board for taking a stand on Republican Secretary of State candidate Charlie White's flaunting of Indiana's election law. They don't mince words with their appraisal of the situation: one way or the other, White doesn't deserve election.
The revelations led Democratic Party Chairman Don Parker to suggest White committed voter fraud, a Class D felony. White's Democratic opponent, Vop Osili, has called for the Hamilton County prosecutor to convene a grand jury and appoint a special prosecutor to investigate White.
Meanwhile, Secretary of State Todd Rokita, another Republican with Washington aspirations, is investigating vote fraud allegations against White. The case seems pretty clear-cut. We encourage Rokita not to stray from his partisan affections and instead do the right thing.
Voters, however, can make the right choice. White should step down or get voted down Nov. 2. He shouldn't be the chief overseer of Indiana voting laws.
Outside of Marion County (and now Lake County), I haven't seen this issue get much play. The ultimate success or failure of Democratic contender Vop Osili will largely hinge on his ability to get the good word out across the rest of the state.
As mentioned here last week the DLCC has been expanding their "Essential Races" targeted list, which now includes three Hoosier Democrats. Here's the skinny:
Indiana House District 46-- Bionca Gambill Status: Democratic Open Seat
Why this Race Matters: HD-56 is a traditionally-conservative district left open by a well-liked Democratic Representative. This district closely resembles those held by several vulnerable Democratic Representatives, so holding this open seat would be a very good sign for other vulnerable districts. The Democratic majority in the Indiana House is currently the only thing preventing the defeat of three Democratic members of congress through gerrymandering.
Indiana House District 51 -- Codie Ross Status: Republican Incumbent
Why this Race Matters: The GOP incumbent in this northeast Indiana district has a history of under-performing on Election Day, and his Democratic challenger this cycle is probably the strongest candidate he's ever faced. Picking up this seat would increase House Democrats' narrow margin for error in the chamber.
Indiana House District 72 -- Shane Gibson Status: Republican Incumbent
Why this Race Matters: Republican Ed Clere won this traditionally Democratic seat by 108 votes in the most shocking Indiana House upset of 2008. Winning it back will provide valuable breathing room for the Democrats' narrow, four-seat majority ahead of redistricting.
Courtesy of our friends over at TPM, it appears the NRCC spent about as much time making their advertisement for Republican candidate Todd Young as ol' Theodore spent making his policy platform.
So confident are Republicans that they can convince Hoosiers to fire Hill that they've let their copy editors take a month-long vacation ahead of recess.
Retiring U.S. Senator Evan Bayh has donated $500,000 to the Indiana Democratic Party. The donation made yesterday is in addition to a $1 million donation made back in March .
When Bayh decided not to run for re-election in February he had $11 million in campaign funds in the bank.
State Democratic Chairman Dan Parker can use the money at his discretion and says it will be spent to assist congressional candidates, Senate candidate Brad Ellsworth, and the candidates for the Indiana General Assembly.
Expect this money to do a lot of good, especially for our state and federal House candidates.
The U.S. Senate has confirm Hoosier Democratic mainstay Joe Hogsett as the U.S. attorney for the Indianapolis-based Southern District Court of Indiana.
The office has been run by an interim U.S. attorney since Bush administration appointee Susan Brooks left in September 2007.
The confirmation was made Wednesday night, said a statement from Brian Weiss, spokesman for U.S. Sen. Evan Bayh, D-Ind. Bayh recommended Hogsett -- his friend and former chief of staff as governor in the mid-1990s -- to President Barack Obama after consulting with U.S. Sen. Richard Lugar, R-Ind.
To call Hogsett's confirmation process "smooth" would be a bit of an understatement -- he garnered praise from both sides of the aisle in a year when most might think it impossible.
The details of the vote aren't readily available, but I'll update as information rolls in.
Writing over at the WatchBlog yesterday, I offered my thoughts on the deluge of criticism that has followed revelations that Charlie White -- Republican candidate for Secretary of State -- is, to put it bluntly, either an idiot or a fraud.
Now, my various conversations with my Republican friends (yes, I have them) over the last few days have boiled down to one simple response: "Charlie White may be a fraud, but he's still going to win."
That, ladies and gents, is a pretty weak position to take, no matter if your state is solid red or bleeding heart blue.
More importantly, each day that ends without a coherent response or full explanation from Team Charlie is a battle that Democratic candidate Vop Osili wins. And if you win enough battles, you're a lot more likely to win the war.
Well, our guy Vop won the battle yesterday, and if today's media coverage is any indication, he's well on his way to winning a few more. Whether we're talking about the Indianapolis Star, the Fort Wayne Journal Gazette, the Associated Press, or my homies over at WRTV, there's a lot of ink being spilled over White's apparently fraudulent behavior.
I'll have updates as the story evolves, but I think Matt Tully perhaps summarized the situation White finds himself in best:
If there were an election for dogcatcher, and it turned out that one of the leading candidates let his own dogs run wild in his neighborhood, you might think twice about casting a vote for him.
That essentially sums up the controversy surrounding Charlie White, the Republican candidate for secretary of state. White, who hopes to be the state's next chief elections officer, now acknowledges he continued to serve on the Fishers Town Council for months after moving out of the district he represented. Along the way, he also voted in a primary in a precinct in which he apparently no longer lived.
Last night, the race to be Indiana's Treasurer heated up as Democratic candidate Pete Buttigieg and geologist-turned-partisan Richard Mourdock clashed at -- of all places -- a Tea Party sponsored event in South Bend.
The Tribune gives us the skinny on the sparks that flew as Buttigieg attempted to give his views on the Chrysler deal:
[Mourdock] interrupted Buttigieg when the Democrat told the audience, "There is a reason that the lawsuit was rejected, and there is a reason that the Supreme Court declined to even give the case a hearing."
"I wasn't gonna let him lie in church," Mourdock said afterward, explaining that a lower court declared the Chrysler bankruptcy should not be considered a legal precedent. "In that sense, there was some victory for us."
Buttigieg said the court made that technical decision "without endorsing anything in his lawsuit - at all. I know he would like to believe that's a vindication. It's just not."
Pete sent out an email this morning, using Mourdock's crazy behavior as an opportunity to challenge his opponent to a debate:
While I accepted his personal apology following the outburst, I still feel that it prevented an opportunity to get all the facts out. Because he could not tolerate my voicing an opinion that is different from his own, the audience members were shortchanged.
That's why we need another opportunity to discuss the facts - calmly and respectfully.
Today, I am publicly challenging Mr. Mourdock to a debate. Let's stand side-by-side, with an impartial moderator, to discuss these critical issues like grownups. Let's talk about the Chrysler lawsuit. Let's talk about where Indiana's money is invested and how it's performing. Let's talk about what each of us will do to help create jobs and improve the economy.
No word yet on Mourdock's response, but this is definitely a debate I want to see.
All logos and trademarks in this site
are property of their respective owner.
The comments are property of their posters, and
all other site content may be used for any purpose
without explicit permission
unless otherwise specified.
