skip to main |
skip to sidebar
New but not at all surprising, Americans for Prosperity-Kansas gave Sen. Tim Huelskamp's record this past session in the Senate as 100% perfect. Huelskamp was one of only seven Senators to receive a perfect score from AFP. Until the Kansas Taxpayers Network merged with AFP-Kansas, Huelskamp also had the highest lifetime rating of any sitting State Senator as well.
Clearly when it comes to advocating for the taxpayer, Sen. Huelskamp has the record to back up the rhetoric.
"It's always an honor to be recognized by AFP as one of the conservative leaders in the state senate," Huelskamp said. "As a state senator, I have always been willing to take up the cause of fighting for lower taxes and limited government, and that is something I will continue as Congressman for the Big First."
Jim Barnett didn't even come close to scoring 100% in the key limited government test. As of 2007, Barnett had a lifetime taxpayer rating of 44.7% from the Kansas Taxpayer's Network. That's lower than Democrat David Haley.
Barnett's voting record and thus his numbers, have improved as his aspirations for higher office has been made more clear."Conservatives would be hard-pressed to find a stronger and more consistent voice in the Kansas Senate than Sen. Tim Huelskamp," Derrick Sontag, the state director for AFP-Kansas, said. "We want to thank Tim for his hard work on behalf of limited government, lower taxes and less wasteful spending."
Congratulations Senator! It's certainly no surprise to anyone familiar with Kansas politics, but we thank you for your efforts just the same.
A Happy Anniversary is due to Rob Wasinger today.
November 4, 2008 was the first day Rob Wasinger voted in the first district of Kansas! If Rob had been just a little bit quicker coming back to Kansas to run for office, he could have voted in the Republican primary as well. So next year will not only be Rob's first time voting in a Kansas Republican primary, but it'll be his first time on the ballot too!
During Rob's first year, he's managed to go two full reporting cycles without a single itemized contribution from the first district, the area he wants to represent in Congress. Since then, Wasinger has only been able to gain 33 contributors. That's in comparison to 209 for Tim Huelskamp. This of course is all the more puzzling since the Wasinger for Congress campaign continues to send out emails claiming over 100 first district supporters. Are these supporters in name only?
Either way, congratulations to Rob Wasinger for making it one full year of voting in Kansas. I'm sure lifelong voters in Kansas will look favorably on the only voting record you have!
Last week's Hutchinson News article nicely defined where the first district race is to this point with first, second and third tier candidates. Now, I don't believe a campaign can be judged solely on fundraising as there are a lot of factors that play into a successful campaign. (And you know I really mean that since my guy is pretty much mopping the floor in that area.) But I do think in an off election year (yes, this is an off election year, despite what you've heard in the news), fundraising is the only tangible measurement of a candidates potential success.
As the Hutch News article points out, the race is quickly becoming a two man battle between moderate backed Jim Barnett and conservative Tim Huelskamp. This shouldn't be much of a surprise to anyone since they are the only two in the race with a voting record to back up their rhetoric (or lack thereof in Barnett's case), and the local connections needed to compete. What has been surprising is the failure of the second and third tier candidates.
Tracey Mann looked somewhat promising as a new moderate contender. This is looking less and less likely with Jim Barnett in the picture, backed by Morris, Vratil and Schmidt. I think originally Tim Barker was the mods guy, but with him out and Barnett in, there just isn't much room for Mann campaign. It also appears this past quarter that his fundraising is beginning to suffer after tapping out his family connections. Further, I'm sure endorsing Jim Slattery over Pat Roberts will certainly be noted by the Barnett campaign if the situation should warrant it.
Rob Wasinger continues to sputter in first district support. After two consecutive quarterly reports without a single itemized contribution from the first district, (a stretch that has to be unprecedented, although I know of no way to verify this), his October finance report showed he actually took in less in first district and Kansas contributions than last quarter. Only 5.9% of his total contributions have come from the district he wants to represent.
As What's Right With Kansas pointed out, Dennis Moore seems to be having local support problems, relying heavily on D.C. PAC contributions and receiving less and less individual contributions from everyday Kansans. Wasinger doesn't seem able to shake this problem either. I wholeheartedly agree with RWKS that voters seem to be following the DC insider money and voting with their pocketbook. And of course, a $2,500 contribution from John McCain's PAC certainly doesn't help the conservative cred, so it looks as though this will keep the first district in a two man race.
Huelskamp continues to build support. Most notable to is the endorsement by Club for Growth, one of the nation's premiere fiscal conservative organizations. Interestingly, Club for Growth has been a major force in New York's 23rd congressional district's special election, supporting the Conservative Party's nominee over the liberal GOP nominee. More on the similarities between NY-23 and KS-01 later.
Now, there's certainly still time for another candidate to get into the race, although by this time any Republican who announces is just looking for a meal ticket. With the mod squad behind Barnett, I'm sure the other mods in the race will be spoken with and quietly asked to exit stage left. There will be more than two names on the ballot come August, but for all intensive purposes, this has become a two man race.
Other than not knowing it's Senator Tim Huelskamp and not Representative, give this Kiowa County Signal reporter a gold star for being willing to ask the right questions.
An article published Monday in the Hutchinson News highlights Sen. Tim Huelskamp's success in fundraising this quarter.
When quarterly campaign finance reports appeared last week on the U.S. Federal Election Commission's Web site, state Sen. Tim Huelskamp, Fowler, led the pack in the six-candidate Republican race in the 1st District's August 2010 primary.
Also noted is the difficult environment candidates find themselves in trying to raise funds with several major congressional races occurring across the state.
Complicating fundraising for the six Republicans jockeying to succeed U.S. Rep. Jerry Moran, R-Hays, is Moran's own race for the U.S. Senate. He and U.S. Rep. Todd Tiahrt, R-Goddard, are locked in a contest and also seeking funds from Kansas Republicans. Sen. Sam Brownback, R-Kan., is running for governor in 2010, and he's competing for donations, too, as well as other Republicans running for statewide offices.
And of course the Barnett campaign notes that they just can't seem to get that finance report right.By the weekend, representatives for state Sen. Jim Barnett, Emporia, were pointing out that a glitch in the electronic filing had created the wrong impression about Barnett's fundraising efforts.
You know, it's funny you would mention that and yet ignore the horde of "undisclosed" employers and occupations you listed after getting your hand slapped by the FEC for doing the exact same thing last quarter. Or was that an FEC "glitch" too?
Really, how hard is it to get that information? How much longer is Jim Barnett going to break the law?
I personally have no interest in a Congressman wanna be who thinks he's above the law.
In the big first district there's little reason to discuss the Democratic candidate because, well, let's be honest, whoever it is doesn't have a snowball's chance in hell of winning. But I did run across an interesting story in the Salina Journal that outlines a federal lawsuit against the only Democrat running in the big first so far, Alan Jilka, that I thought should be mentioned.
The lawsuit alleges that Jilka fired the former director of the Salina Housing Authority because she refused Jilka's sexual advances. Also named in the suit are the Housing Authority, the city of Salina and board members of the Housing Authority.
I don't know if there is any substance to this suit at all. It's odd that most everyone who's getting sued acted as if they didn't have a clue they might be drug into court, especially since there were also complaints filed with the Kansas Human Rights Commission and the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. And I'll certainly be the first to say there are plenty of frivolous lawsuits out there.
But I do remember a certain Attorney General who Democrats actively recruited to run in the last statewide AG race. And I remember his opponent bringing up a very old sexual harassment lawsuit. And I remember that opponent getting pummeled for even mentioning it. And, of course, I remember little more than a year going by before the entire state learned what a creep the AG was.
So I guess I'm not sure what to think other than wondering if the Democrats have found themselves another Paul Morrison. Will Kansas Democrats rabidly defend Jilka after spending weeks on the blogs calling Republicans rapists?
I don't know, but it'll be interesting to watch.
What is happening in the Barnett campaign? Is he using so much brain power to keep track of which position he's flipped to that he's forgotten how to file a campaign finance report?I know I said that the campaign might have problems providing the information requested by the Federal Elections Commission, but I honestly thought that even if they didn't have the information that they would get it by the October 15 deadline to avoid a possible FEC audit.
I apparently was wrong.
Jim Barnett filed an amended campaign finance report for July but still failed to supply specific information requested by the FEC. Some occupation information is listed but employer data is still largely absent from the report. But instead of "requested" appearing where an employer should be, "undisclosed" appears instead.
Does this mean the FEC will audit the Barnett campaign to ensure they have made a good faith effort to obtain the missing information? Remember, the FEC notified the campaign that, "if the information is not provided, you must make one follow-up, stand alone effort to obtain this information, regardless of whether the contribution(s) was solicited or not. This effort must occur no later than 30 days after receipt of the contribution."
Of course, the story wouldn't be complete without noting that Barnett filed an October report with the exact same errors. Multiple donors have either "undisclosed" for employers information or "requested" for both occupation and employer info. And if an occupation is identified, the Barnett campaign has apparently decided that's good enough to list as an employer as well. Don't you know you can be a "physician" and be employed by "physician?"
Again, so many of these just don't make sense. David Wysong is listed as a $500 donor but has "requested" in both fields. Really, the Barnett campaign can't figure out what state Senator David Wysong does and who he works for? Is the public supposed to buy that?
The Barnett campaign's blatant disregard for public disclosure laws is mind-boggling. The FEC should launch an immediate investigation.
Huelskamp was the run away winner in the total contributions race with over $181,000 raised in the third quarter. Barnett reported $105,000, although exactly where that cash came from nobody has a clue. Rob Wasinger raised $106,000 mostly from, surprise surprise, the east coast. Tracey Mann and Monte Shadwick brought up the rear with $60,000 and $26,000 respectively.
Huelskamp was also the winner in cash on hand at the end of the third quarter with $379,000 left. Next was Barnett at $300,000, even though he once again messed up his summary report. Tracey Mann, still holding on to a lot of family cash was at $198,000. Rob Wasinger was at $194,000 and finally Shadwick clocked in at $18,000.
One final observation; my favorite contributor.
That would be former Kansas Republican Party National Committeeman, and liberal Republican's favorite son, Steve Cloud. He was a $1,000 donor to the conservative Barnett campaign.
Oh yea, he's an "Executive" and is employed by "Requested." That's the large firm that seems to employ many of Barnett's donors in Kansas.
Looks like the pay isn't too shabby at "Requested." I think I'll apply.
Sen. Tim Huelskamp posted significant fundraising numbers for the third quarter. In an email from the campaign Huelskamp reported receiving over $181,000 in contributions in the third quarter alone. Huelskamp showed just under $400,000 in cash on hand, putting him the drivers seat for the 2010 primary election.
Results from other candidates haven't been posted yet and no announcements from the campaigns have been made. Some of the questions to be answered later tonight are:
- Will Jim Barnett correct his July quarterly report? The FEC reprimand cites an October 15 deadline.
- Will Barnett lend himself substantial cash once again?
- Will Rob Wasinger post any significant numbers? Will he once again falter in first district contributions?
According to the candidate himself, “How much money you can raise is not an indication of what kind of campaign you will run, or what kind of Congressman you will be, but it is a measurement of how hard the candidate is working. These numbers show we’re taking this race seriously."
Jim Barnett received three serious citations from the Federal Elections Commission regarding his July 2009 campaign finance report.
The letter, dated September 9, shows that just a "preliminary review" of his report turned up multiple errors. The letter continues, "Failure to adequately respond by the response date noted above (October 15) could result in an audit or enforcement action."
As noted before (here and here), Barnett failed to list a single occupation or employer for his donors. This is a serious oversight and it's hard to understand how a seasoned politician like Barnett allowed this to happen.
The FEC outlined three separate steps the campaign must take to obtain the missing occupation and employer information. Several of these may be a problem for the Barnett campaign should the FEC decide to audit their records.
According to the letter, Barnett must, "include a clear and conspicuous request for the contributor information and must inform the contributor of the requirements of federal law for the reporting of such information," in the original solicitation for funds. I have no idea if the Barnett campaign has been doing this, but I would imagine they haven't otherwise the information would have been included on the original report.
The FEC continues that, "if the information is not provided, you must make one follow-up, stand alone effort to obtain this information, regardless of whether the contribution(s) was solicited or not. This effort must occur no later than 30 days after receipt of the contribution."
This may be a problem for the Barnett campaign. Clearly we're several months out from any contributions that would have been included in a July 2009 finance report.
The FEC also notes Barnett's failure to provide all information regarding LLC and partnership business contributions. There's not even a "requested" in the occupation/employer fields for these donors.
Barnett also failed to list whether his $100K "loan" was from his personal funds or a bank. I'm pretty sure I could answer that one for the FEC, but I think I'll let the Barnett campaign handle it since they seem to have so many other items that need clarification as well.
I'm really shocked that the Barnett campaign didn't go ahead and file an amended report a few days after July 15. It isn't like the FEC isn't going to notice you haven't reported all information as required by law. The fact the campaign waited for a notice from the FEC rather than being proactive about fixing the problem only provides further evidence the campaign is deliberately withholding information.
If Barnett won't comply with simple campaign finance laws, how will he act if elected to Congress and in a position of considerable power? His intentional omission of required information raises serious questions about his trust with the public.
Missing employer and occupation information may seem trivial, but the fact the campaign has yet to report this information, knowing full well what the law requires and having received a serious notice from the FEC, speaks volumes about the attitude of Jim Barnett.
The conscience of the fiscally conservative has entered the first district race in Kansas behind Sen. Tim Huelskamp.
The Club for Growth is well known to be willing to fight for the real fiscal conservative in Republican primaries including former U.S. Rep Pat Toomey who ran against now Democrat Arlen Specter and Stephen Laffey against RINO Lincoln Chafee in Rhode Island.
The Club's involvement in the first district is the most significant endorsement to date for several reasons. First, the Club has shown an aptitude in the past at raising large amounts of money for their chosen candidate. Even though Sen. Huelskamp has been more than competitive in fund raising, the Club's support will put the Huelskamp campaign over the top against self funded Jim Barnett.
Further, the first district is almost the perfect place for the fiscally conservative group to get involved. As each day passes, it looks as though the primary will be the only election, with no Democratic candidate to show any interest. The Club for Growth has shown a keen eye in picking primary winners, or in the case of the Big First, probably the winner.
The Club's endorsement hit the national news sites quickly, (much quicker than I was able to post here), so here is a round up.Townhall.com"Huelskamp has previously received a ton of endorsements from individuals and groups like Kansans for Life, Concerned Women PAC, and the Gun Owners of America Political Victory Fund. The Club for Growth endorsement is, without a doubt, the largest and most significant endorsement a conservative Congressional candidate can receive."
My guess is that this Club for Growth endorsement will finally push national conservatives to fully coalesce around Huelskamp, just as Kansas conservatives already have. You see, while Huelskamp has received overwhelming backing from a diverse collection of conservative groups, ranging from Kansans for Life and the Club for Growth, a few DC conservative 'insiders' have been working against him.
CQ PoliticsThe political action committee for the conservative Club for Growth on Monday endorsed two 2010 House candidates who are each competing against multiple Republicans in open seat races: State Sen. Tim Huelskamp in Kansas' 1st District; and state Rep. Tom Graves in Georgia's 9th District.
RollCall
The political action committee for the anti-tax group Club for Growth on Monday endorsed two fiscally conservative state legislators in a pair of open-seat House races.
State Sen. Tim Huelskamp is one of several prominent Republicans hoping to replace Rep. Jerry Moran (R) in Kansas’ conservative 1st district. Moran is running for Senate this cycle.
"Tim Huelskamp stands out as a champion of limited government and economic freedom,” Club for Growth President Chris Chocola said in a release. “Unlike some of the other Republicans in this race, Tim has compiled an impressive record and demonstrated the leadership skills necessary to fight for free-market policies in Congress."
American SpectatorKudos to the Club for Growth for endorsing conservative leader Tim Huelskamp for Congress in KS-1. The Club for Growth is the most effective organization on the right when it comes to winning GOP primaries. Hence the Club for Growth endorsement is arguably the most important one a conservative candidate can receive. If there was any doubt before, Tim Huelskamp is now the clear front runner in this important race.
The lines have been clearly drawn and Jim Barnett can no longer hide behind a fiscal converative lie. And now with the Club for Growth in the race, the cash will most certainly be there to expose him for the tax and spender he really is.
More on Barnett's previous fiscal ideas and votes later...
This is one of those videos I wish I could take credit for creating, but alas all I can do is pass it along after finding it in my google search.
Jim Barnett's "prescription for prosperity" and his prescribing past in the Kansas Senate seem to be two different things, and I don't think the first district is interested in voting for either one of them. That of course, assumes he'll eventually discover where the district is to try and sell it.
