Zinga misses campaign finance report deadline
The Andrea Zinga campaign missed Sunday's legal deadline to file their campaign finance report with the Federal Election Commission.
As of this writing (Mon. 7:30 p.m. CST) no report is shown on Zinga's FEC page
**Update** Zinga's report was filed Tuesday the 17th. I can't find what time it was filed as yet, though the report was posted at around 4:30p.m. our time, just minutes ago.
Zinga reports raising $73,160.00 during the period, entirely from individual donors. Not one dime from PACs, Republican Committees, or the candidate herself.
With debts and obligations plus cash already on hand, the campaign reports $126,126.89 cash on hand as of September 30th.
Rebecca O'Halloran of the Galesburg Register-Mail reports:
Only one candidate in the 17th district congressional election filed a mandatory campaign finance report Sunday with the Federal Election Commission.
By mid-morning today Hare's opponent, Republican Andrea Zinga, still had not filed her numbers. According to the FEC, congressional candidates who spend or raise more than $50,000 during an election cycle must file their reports electronically.
Charlie Johnston, Zinga's campaign manager, said he had a problem with the filing software over the weekend and couldn't contact anyone at the FEC for assistance.
"It's not something where we tried to avoid reporting," Johnston said. Johnston said the problem is being taken care of the the numbers will be submitted this afternoon.
Phil Hare has $322,960.24 left in his campaign fund with just weeks left before the Nov. 7 election.
According to his filing, Hare has spent a total of $254,799 - of that, $244,746 was spent between July 1 and Sept. 30.
The Hare campaign has raised $342,084 during the July to September quarter, giving the campaign a total of $577,884 in contributions.
A spokesman for the Democrat said the campaign is pleased with the numbers, considering Hare was officially chosen in June to replace retiring U.S. Rep. Lane Evans.
"Phil has what he believes to be a winning strategy and we're going to stick to the campaign plan that will get us a win," Jon Samuels said. "The progress he's been able to make is pretty remarkable."
The campaign fund, along with additional contributions leading up to the election, will help fund TV and direct mail ads, Samuels said.
posted by The Inside Dope @ 10/16/2006
14 comments
14 Comments:
8:36PM and no report, I thought it was going up by this afternoon Charlie...
I think there are two options here.
1. She is scrambling for money, she is going to document it as if it was given to her before 9-30-06 so she at least comes close to the 322,000 Hare has cash on hand.
2. She has a horrible staff, that could not figure out computer software, I'm sure they'll be great at constituent services.
9:36 and still no report.
From what I have seen you can send your report by e-mail or fax. I am not sure what the software problem might be, especially something that would take over 24 hours to correct. I think Craig is right.
12AM October 17...
One day late, way to lie Charlie
Inside baseball. Move along folks. Nothing to see here. The hypocracy of Hare talking (in the Dispatch article) about following the law with FEC reports kills me. He was the one ....along with Jonny G... that caused Evans to get the FEC fine for illegal fundraising.
3:20 a.m. 10-17-06... no report yet
This is a snapshot of her entire campaign.
She get's the weakest link of all the Democrats and still she shows no signs of life, no momentum.
Big deal. If I remember, Hare was late with a filing early on. What a non-story.
I may be naïve, but I don’t think there is anything under-handed about this, just incompetent. She’s a perfect R, this entire administration has been incompetent.
Hare's guy says in the QC Times that they collected 50% of their donations from individuals. I just checked the updated Open Secreats website .......try 35%. And alot of Hare's donation that are individual are not even in the district. What gives?
The choice is Hare - bought and paid for by special interests (as stated above) and Zinga who cannot get a report in on time (and has little to report!).
Some choice...
While it may be true that only 35% of the money came from individuals, individuals "max out" at $2100, While PACs max out at $5000. So it is possible that those 50% of individuals who gave, comprise only 35% of the money.
I can't help but note that the term "special interests" has become one of those loaded code words without any real meaning that are thrown around far too often.
What exactly IS a "special interest"? It seems to me that it depends on what that interest group is. Is it gambling interests, the Bank/Credit card lobby, the Insurance lobby? Big Oil? Cigarette Lobby? Pay-day loan lobby? Utility lobby? The enormous pharmaceutical lobby? Or the ubiquitous giant health care conglomorate lobby?
Or is it Union PACS, consumer protection PACs, PACs that fight against unfair utility rates? Environmental groups?
While it's sometimes impossible to tell a PACs agenda from it's name, it nevertheless is very important to know WHICH PACs a candidate is getting money from.
They're not all necessarily anti-consumer, anti-environment, or anti-middle class (though many are.)
"special interests", like "partisanship", has been turned into a negative term somehow, when they're both utterly neutral and normal, acceptible parts of politics and government.
The point is we need more citizen legislators that take their cues from the district, not people who say they have worked hard for the district for 22 years and can only find 113 local people since he was given the nomination to donate to his campaign. Hare thumps the populism theme on the stump but I can't help but point out the disconnect. Populist don't take 65% of there money from outside the district no matter whose interest they represent.
Very nice 'anonymous 11:01'.
Come on TID, 'special interest' is anyone outside of the district or (and moreso) a PAC or group with a specific agenda (usually that does not fit the best interest of but a fraction of the district).
Of course, there will be some of these - that, unfortunately, is politics today. However, when so few people from inside the district support the candidate, who really does that candidate represent?
Not a criticism, but look at Evans...very few people inside the district ever gave him money and his work inside the district (outside of constituent services, at which his office excelled) was poor at best.
Post a Comment
<< Home