Huelskamp wins

The AP has called the first district race for Tim Huelskamp early this morning. With nearly all precincts reporting Huelskamp had gained 35% of the vote compared to second place finisher Jim Barnett at 25%. Nearly 10,000 votes distanced Huelskamp from Barnett, according to the Secretary of State's website as of 12:39am Wednesday morning.

Considering the polls in this race we're literally tied up in a three way race just two days ago, this is a landslide victory for Huelskamp.

The campaign has been hard fought. Some conservatives we're afraid that some of the vote may have been split at the last few days between Huelskamp and Wasinger, but it looks as if the Huelskamp campaign had quite a few tricks up their sleeve to come out nearly 10,000 votes on top in a race that some thought would be separated by just a few hundred votes.

The race was also plagued with rumors the last few days, some true, others not. It's still up in the air if the last minute money drop by two of the candidates in the race actually hurt them more than it helped.

The winner of the primary is considered a lock for the general election. Alan Jilka of Salina is the only Democrat running and is plagued by his own problems, most recently his settlement of a sexual harassment lawsuit by a former Salina city employee.

Former Barnett running mate Susan Wagle endorses Huelskamp on election eve

Susan Wagle, Jim Barnett's running mate during the 2006 gubernatorial campaign, endorsed Tim Huelskamp for Congress today.

"If Republicans in the First District want to be a part of the National revolution against Obama and his liberal policies, I ask them to join me in supporting Senator Tim Huelskamp for Congress. They should reject the last minute deceitful attacks that have been flooding the First District and distort the Huelskamp record. They should send Kansas State Senator Tim Huelskamp, a strong conservative, to Congress. I am confident Senator Huelskamp will dedicate his energy and his political expertise to taking back our Country."

Barnett's choice of Wagle was one of the primary reasons he was able to win a crowded GOP field. Barnett didn't have the conservative credentials needed to win the primary, so his choice of Wagle, and her stamp of approval, was instrumental in his win. Much like McCain's loss would have been much worse without Sarah Palin, Jim Barnett doesn't win a primary with Susan Wagle. But now the tables have turned on a candidate that has yet to break out of his polling numbers from over five months ago.

On election eve I'm feeling optimistic for the Huelskamp campaign. He's now riding a significant endorsement, just one more on top of so many he's received so far. Barnett's last minute attack on Mann and Huelskamp seems to have backfired to a certain extent. The fact that Barnett has been unable to pick up any additional support over a five month period doesn't bode well for his chances where 6-10% of voters are still making up their minds.

The fact is there were more undecided voters polled in February than those who supported Jim Barnett. And in the last poll virtually the same number of people support Jim Barnett while nearly a third of voters have made up their minds, and clearly haven't decided to vote for Barnett.

Tracey Mann has billed himself a conservative but was clearly splitting some of the moderate vote with Barnett. His ill received remarks over Obama's birth certificate cause him to drop several points in the polls, most obviously because those moderate voters are now having second thoughts about their guy. That leaves undecided voters with several names to pick from, and even if they split between Mann and Huelskamp, Huelskamp comes out on top.

In addition, while Rob Wasinger has had ads up for a little over a week now they seem to have been too little too late. The number of undecided voters splitting to Wasinger over the other candidates are not significant. Further hurting Wasinger is the simple fact that his ads just aren't that good. The patronizing tone that he's taken isn't going over well, and running as the "outside" candidate but then promoting his "experience" is a contradiction anyone can get.

In what seems to be a bit of irony, with Barnett stagnant and Mann falling, it seems Huelskamp has become the default "go to" candidate. And any vote that he loses to a Wasinger, Boldra or Cobb is simply helping him and not Barnett or Mann. Either way, I think Huelskamp comes out a winner.

It will certainly be a close election and even tonight, things could change, but Huelskamp has the edge and position to pull out a win.

New poll shows Huelskamp on the rise

It's almost as if Channel 12 read my mind from yesterday's posting of Jim Barnett's dismal poll numbers. A new poll released today by KWCH Channel 12 in Wichita and conducted by SurveyUSA shows Sen. Tim Huelskamp as the only major candidate that continues to gain in the polls while the other two continue to slump.

You can see a great graphic of SurveyUSA polls since February at Wichita Liberty.

The poll shows that Tim Huelskamp continues to build momentum while Barnett polls at just one point higher than he was in February. That has to be disheartening to the Barnett campaign as he just poured in a quarter of a million dollars of his own money to try and buy a congressional seat.

Tracey Mann fell back several points, undoubtedly because of his recent stumble regarding Pres. Obama's citizenship status. I've sat back on that a little bit, mostly because it's left me somewhat confused how a candidate that just two years ago gave to liberal Democrat Jim Slattery at the same time the country was sweeping Obama to the Presidency would now question his citizenship status. This simply didn't jive with the Tracey Mann that liberal Democrats in the blogosphere were cheerleading.

But I've now come to the conclusion that he's just not familiar with being a conservative and, quite frankly, just went too far in how he thought a conservative would answer.

With a week until election day, Huelskamp has positioned himself nicely to bolt to the finish line a winner!

Jim Barnett: Does the ad match the record?

With just over a week until election day, more and more voters are beginning to pay attention to the candidates in the first district and compare their rhetoric to their past actions. So I thought it was prudent to do a small recap of the major candidates as they stand today, and point out some lesser known facts about them. Let's start with Jim Barnett.

As I noted last week, Jim Barnett has a habit of going which ever way the political winds happen to be blowing. This chart is an excellent illustration of Barnett's political career and how his votes have changed depending on the type of office he's seeking.

It's also a lesser known fact that as a member and President of the Emporia school board in the 1990's, Jim Barnett voted to join the original Schools for Fair Funding lawsuit that eventually cost the taxpayers a billion dollars and helped put our state in its current financial troubles.

Barnett has asked to be excused for this vote, but the fact is when someone doesn't have a moral, or at least some kind of philosophical compass, it's easy to be pulled into this kind of special interest scheme. Barnett talks a good talk on the campaign trail this year, but what about in two or four years when the political winds have changed? What other kind of scheme will he join in Washington at our expense?

Barnett's tone has gone south with his latest ad, telling the voters Tim Huelskamp has gone negative when he hasn't. I'll address that later, but first let's take a look though at his first ad and see how it ads up to his record.

Here's the highlights:

• "Conservative" Count = 4. The word "Conservative" was plastered on your screen for 14 seconds of the 30 second spot. I guess the thought is if you repeat a lie often enough it'll stick.
  
• Throwing money at a problem doesn't make sense to you Jim? What about when you voted to sue the state for more money, did it make sense to you then?
• Jim cut spending to balance the state budget? Last time I checked the state just passed the largest sales tax increase in state history to fund new spending. And back in 2002 when Jim was new on the political scene in Topeka, he voted for what was then the largest tax increase in state history to fund more state spending. That's when he scored a dismal 8.3% with the Kansas Taxpayers Network.
• Barnett proposed the largest tax cut in state history? Well, isn't that interesting considering just four years prior he voted for the largest tax increase in state history. Who says you can't please all of the people all of the time? I'm sure the fact he proposed this cut when running as a conservative for governor has no connection what-so-ever.
  
• NRA "A" Rating Jim? What about during your first senate term when you opposed conceal and carry? What about the NRA's endorsement of Tim Huelskamp? Nothing like telling half truths, huh?

It's interesting to note how stagnant Barnett's poll numbers have been. The first public poll February 23rd had Barnett at 23%. Since then he's gained a whopping 2% to make it to 25%. Now with his political future hanging in the balance, Barnett has dumped a quarter of a million dollars into the race in an attempt to buy a vote, any vote, that he's been unable to secure so far.

It's also interesting to note Barnett's political consultant, Jeff Roe with Axiom Strategies, is also the consultant for Wink Hartman in the fourth district. Hartman's campaign also seems to be in a freefall, with him polling at numbers below what he had in February. This is also in spite of him dumping more than a million dollars of his own money into the race. It seems no matter how much Roe may spend, he just can't get any traction for his guys. I can't speak to the fourth, but in the first it's likely due to Barnett's poor performance in the Governor's race and his back and forth stances on the issues.

Later we'll take a look at Barnett's latest ad and also Tracey. He's a Mann with a Plan, but does it match his Johnson County tan?

Huelskamp "in the driver's seat" with almost $400K

The Huelskamp campaign is "in the driver's seat" when it comes to cash on hand, according to the campaign and recently released FEC campaign finance reports.

With just a few weeks left until the primary, Huelskamp reported nearly $400,000 in cash on hand, over 80% more than second place finisher Jim Barnett and more than twice as much as Tracey Mann and Rob Wasinger.

What this means is clear; Huelskamp is able to write his own story for the remaining days of a the campaign. A recent KWCH/Survey USA poll showed a statistical tie among the top three candidates, but the advantage clearly lies with the Huelskamp campaign now that the cash on hand picture is clear.

“This cash on hand total puts Tim Huelskamp in a commanding position to win this race over the last 18 days,” said Huelskamp spokesman David Ray. “Cash to spend on voter contact is the number that matters in these final days, and Huelskamp is running away with it.”

Further bolstering his position is a rock solid record to run to, not from.

More on that later...

Huelskamp on top again in fundraising, cash on hand

UPDATED BELOW

Sen. Tim Huelskamp topped the field in fundraising in the first district once again, new FEC reports show.

With almost $129,000 in contributions in the first quarter of 2010, Huelskamp ended with over half a million dollars in the bank. Of his nearly $130K raised, nearly $20K was from unitemized contributions.

Jim Barnett was second at $107,000 raised but with almost $100,000 spent, he was only able to bank $382,000 at the end of the quarter. The bigger surprise here is that I only saw one "Requested" in his contributors employment information. That's be good and bad for the Barnett campaign. Good in that they have apparently figured out that you have to ask folks giving to your campaign lawfully required information. Bad in that they've now demonstrated they can competently file a campaign finance report and so now the public is left wondering what happened during all of the previous quarters.

Barnett's large expenditures include one for over $16,000 to Axiom Strategies (a la Jeff Roe) and $23,000 to Wilson Research in Oklahoma for, "Campaign Research and Strategies." Well, I guess Barnett never promised to be the economic engine of the Big First.

Speaking of which, no report yet from the Wasinger campaign.

Tracey Mann tanked, and that's putting it lightly. With just over $65,000 raised and almost $45,000 spent, he ended the quarter with just over $261,000 in the bank. Shadwick came in a very distant fourth (so far) at $22,800 raised, $18,600 spent and $23,400 in the bank. Sue Boldra almost raised $15,000 and has $17,200 cash on hand.

All in all, looks like a great quarter for the Huelskamp campaign. I'll update later with more information about interesting contributors and expenditures, and I'll let you know how the Wasinger campaign made out when they get around to filing.

UPDATE:

Wasinger looks like he just filed, and not too many surprises here. $111K in contributions, $102K in expenditures means only $213K in the bank. Lots of Virginia, lots of Massachusetts, lots of out of state contributors. And despite assurances that his campaign would be the economic powerhouse the Big First, he seems to be quite enthralled with spending large sums on media in Virginia. So Wasinger squeaks into a second place in contributions raised, but fourth in cash on hand.

Huelskamp comes up big in fundraising

On the back of gaining donations from every county in the big First District, Tim Huelskamp announced today that he had outraised all other candidates and had more than $100K in cash on hand than his nearest challenger.

Huelskamp reported raising over $136,000 during the fourth quarter. That was followed by $123,000 by Jim Barnett and barely over $100,000 by Rob Wasinger. Tracey Mann raised nearly $72,000 with Monte Shadwick and Sue Boldra both raising less than $20,000.

So far no other candidate has had the ability to gain contributions from every county in the district. It's really easy to talk a talk. Send out some emails, roll into town and spend 15 minutes for a quick photo op.

It's an entirely different game to get a contribution when there. The fact is so far the people of the first district have been voting; voting with their hard earned money. And clearly the winner of those votes has been Tim Huelskamp.

And while Huelskamp continues to shine in funds raised, he's also leading the pack in cash on hand. Huelskamp is way out front with nearly half a million on hand, followed distantly by Barnett with $374,000 on hand. Of course that includes a $100,000 loan Barnett made to himself.

Barnett has once again turned in a year end report with spotty information. "Requested" and "undisclosed" appear less than in previous reports, but are still there. When will Jim Barnett hire competent staff that can track down basic, required FEC information? When will Jim Barnett finally show some respect for the people of Kansas and their right to know?

Recent filings suggest not anytime soon. Barnett choose to wait until two days before a filing deadline to fix employer and occupation information in his third quarter report. That's of course more than two months after filing an amendment to show they had more cash on hand than reported earlier. It looks like when it might make him look bad, they can act quickly. When it comes to the public's right to know... well... that can take a back seat to getting elected, right Jim???

Now, want to know the sad part? It took me only a few pages before I found "undisclosed" on his amended third quarter report. And who didn't disclose the name of their employer? Uh, an ophthalmologist in Emporia. You know, a doctor that Barnett has worked with for years. It's so ridiculous it's unbelievable.

And that's the amended report.

So, I'm sure you'll be hearing about another request for information from the FEC. I personally wonder when the FEC will stop asking the Barnett campaign to please obey the law and start slapping on some fines. They're clearly asking for it.

Then again, this thumbing his nose at the law doesn't seem to be helping. Huelskamp is still the front runner in funds raised, cash on hand, and clearly with the wallets of First District voters.

And then there were two...

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.

Huelskamp leads fundraising race; Barnett changes "requested" to "undisclosed"

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.

Huckabee coming to Kansas for Huelskamp

Sen. Tim Huelskamp reported nearly $80,000 in contributions this quarter. That's a rather healthy amount, but no where close to the amounts raised by Mann and Barnett. He has around $235,000 on hand, which still competes with any candidate in the race. The number isn't shocking and is rather expected, right in line with his last report.

The number of unitemized contributions continues to be quite impressive at over $25,000. Those are folks that he can continue to tap again and again for contributions. Most itemized contributions came from Kansas, although I didn't look at it that closely. The amount of money he's been able to raise from the first district is just simply amazing. I'm shocked there's that much out there.

The big news is former Presidential candidate Mike Huckabee coming to Kansas to headline a fundraiser for Huelskamp at Hutchinson. You can see some coverage here, here and here. Huckabee overwhelmingly won the Kansas Presidential caucus and will be a big name event for Huelskamp. That's in addition to endorsements from two former Kansas gubernatorial candidates. More on that later.

Still nothing from Wasinger. I'll put up the pie charts later this week along with some cash on hand and other analysis from this quarter and totals to date.

Mann reports in, still nothing from Huelskamp, Wasinger

Tracey Mann clocked in today with a notable $157,000 in individual contributions. That doesn't include nearly $14,000 of in-kind donations. It did look as though there were a lot of family names listed, but that is negligible. It looks as though the Johnson County transplant had a very good quarter raising more in individual contributions than former GOP candidate Jim Barnett.

And to follow up on Barnett as noted last night, every donor has "requested" list for an employer and occupation. I'm still curious what the FEC is going to think of that. I have no idea if there are any repercussions to filling a report without required information, but it is pretty clear that the Barnett campaign had plenty of time to compile the info. In fact, they still have time to file their quarterly report. Huelskamp and Wasinger still haven't filed theirs, so why the Barnett campaign would choose to file early and potentially run aground with the FEC with their very first report is a bit interesting.

More tomorrow.

Barnett loans himself $100K, Boldra down and out

A quick check of the FEC website shows Jim Barnett has loaned himself $100,000. This was an expected move on his part, with more to come almost a certainty. No results yet from Huelskamp, Mann or Wasinger.

Boldra reported just under $2,000 raised, with just over $6,000 on hand. Looks like Bolrda will remain a minor candidate.

Barnett also took in a handsome amount of contributions, just under $150,000. And I see a lot of Kansas addresses. However, I also see he's listed "requested" for occupation for every single contribution. That's not going to fly with the FEC and it makes no sense at all why he's done it, especially since some of them wouldn't be hard to figure out. State Rep. Don Hill for example donated. Why list "requested" for his occupation? It's not like it's a big secret.

That's all for tonight. More tomorrow or Thursday as more reports come online.

Wasinger MIA with conservative press

Mr. Conservative Rob Wasinger was missing in action in tonight's article in Kansas Liberty about the first district endorsement race. Kansas Liberty summarized the endorsement race in light of former Congressman Jim Ryun's endorsement of Sen. Tim Huelskamp today.

Liberty also interviewed Tracey Mann and the newest candidate, Monte Shadwick. Say what you will about the Salina guys, but at least they have the decency to speak to the press. Barnett, Bolrda and Wasinger apparently don't believe the public has a right to know what they think.

I expect this kind of stuff from Barnett and Boldra. After all, they are the farthest left of the six candidates. Barnett in particular now needs to focus on hiding his record from the public to have a better chance at election. But Wasinger's decision to avoid a reporter, especially one that is actually fair and factual, is down right inexcusable.

Even though Tim Huelskamp is the only well rounded conservative in the race with a stellar record to back it up, at least all of the other candidates recognize that they have to appear like a well rounded conservative to get elected. Everyone but Rob Wasinger it would appear.

While everyone else has been trying to convince the public they're the best candidate by treading to the right of where they naturally are, Rob Wasinger storms into town (sorry, storms into the state) and goes distinctly left, hiring Washington D.C. lawyers who do work for stem cell research initiatives in California and raise money for candidates like Rudy Giuliani.

And in light of not getting a single dime out of the first district in campaign contributions, he heads west to find someone, anyone to endorse him. And who does he decide would make a good endorsement? An independent who's only endorsements in the past have been for two Democrats and a liberal Republican.

And now Rob isn't even willing to speak to the press to pretend he's a conservative. It's downright shameful.

As dealine passes, many wonder if Wasinger will get any first district money

Tonight is the final deadline for contributions to first district candidates and we'll know in a few weeks how everyone made out. This will be the first reporting period for Tracey Mann. Mann recently moved from Johnson County to Salina to run for the first district seat. Not much has been heard from the Mann campaign except a few Hutch News articles on his support for Democrat Jim Slattery against stalwart Republican Pat Roberts.

Rob Wasinger will be turning in another interesting report. In the past two cycles Wasinger hasn't been able to itemize a single contribution from the fist district. I haven't been able to find any news articles or data as to how many candidates for federal office have gone two consecutive reporting cycles without even a single contribution from the district they want to represent, but I'd be willing to say three in a row just might be a record.

Wasinger will also be trying to play catch up with Sen. Huelskamp in the overall tally. Even with Wasinger's nearly complete out-of-state financing, he still wasn't able to even be competitive with Huelskamp in overall numbers. In fact, in the last reporting period Huelskamp raised more from the first district alone than Wasinger was able to raise from the rest of the country. That is highly impressive in this economy and in a district that is considered economically depressed in comparison to the rest of the state.

Also keep an eye on Wasinger's expenditures. It was just last February when Wasinger told Roll Call that all of his campaign contributions would be spent in the first district.

"I look at all the money that I've raised, all that money is going to be spent in the district," Wasinger said. "It's my very own contribution to economic growth."

After saying that, Rob went on to file a quarterly report where he spent just over $1,000 out of over $25,000 in expenditures in the first district. That's quite a promise to be breaking. We'll find out in a few weeks if Rob is doing any better on his promise to bring economic growth to the first district.

And then there's Sue Boldra. Her last report was hardly impressive, but she had just jumped into the race. Will her numbers be any better? This one is a make it or break it report for her with six candidates in the race.

Jim Barnett will certainly have some cash on hand. The question is how much of her personal fortune is he willing to invest this time. During the governor's race he pitched in quite a bit of his own cash. There's no indications that he isn't willing to do it one more time.

And finally there's Tim Barker. He's already coughed up $100K of his own money in the last reporting period. Will this one see another cool self contribution?

The next few weeks will be telling. By the way, online contributions given now will be counted toward the next reporting period. However, if you write a check with a June date on it and mail it in right now, I understand it will still be counted toward this just expired reporting period. So be sure and mail out that handsome check to your favorite candidate before time runs out!

Which Barnett will be on the ballot?

With the entry of state Sen. Jim Barnett, the race for the big first just got a bit more interesting. Barnett is a known entity in Kansas politics as he was the GOP nominee for governor in 2006, loosing quite badly to Sebelius.

His '06 run was one of the more remarkable political makeovers in the state, going from a staunch "moderate" to a conservative in just one short voting cycle. And then back again for his Senate re-election in '08 and now back to "conservative" for a Congressional run in '10. John Kerry has nothing on this guy.

Barnett's first political snafu was in 2004 when he couldn't decide if he was for gay marriage or not. It turns out that when he thinks he might not get re-elected, he's against gay marriage. Nice to know he can at least be pressured into doing the right thing.

In '06 he runs as a conservative with state Sen. Susan Wagle only to reject her as Senate President two years later. Not only did he not vote for her, but according to Wichita Liberty he actively encouraged others to vote for Morris et company. So the Senate leadership team that got the state into its current financial mess is the leadership we should be looking at to help us get out? I don't think so. Welcome back liberal Barnett.

Now it would seem he's back to being conservative, talking about fiscal responsibility, blah blah blah. That's going to be hard to sell to voters with a taxpayer friendliness rating of less than 50% from the former Kansas Taxpayers Network. Why buy Barnett when you can get the real thing with Huelskamp?

Taking a look at the last governor's race, Barnett lost 46 of the 69 counties in the first district in the Republican primary. Canfield and Jennison carried a majority of the first district, and both have already endorsed Tim Huelskamp. It will be interesting to see how Barnett attempts to reshape his image in the big first to try and correct his '06 primary loss. A blog post at townhall.com is an interesting read.

Barnett adds a lot of questions to the already crowded race. What does this mean for "moderates" like Tracey Mann and Tim Barker? Is Barnett the new Morris/Vratil pick? Will Barnett use his considerable personal wealth to try and buy the race?

For me, the most interesting is which Barnett will be running? "Conservative" Jim or "moderate" Barnett?

Barker answers the $22,000 question

FEC reports show that Tim Barker has a bit of a problem keeping track of all that cash that is flowing into his campaign account. On May 8 he had to answer the $22,000 question to the FEC.

It looks as though Barker finally had to report to the FEC for his rather large disbursement that he later took back. The large disbursement was quite a mistake (maybe?) on his part that showed he only had around $2,200 in the bank in his January 09 report. I can't quite figure out what happened other than he probably has an inexperienced treasurer and what should have been a funds transfer ended up as a disbursement. A sign of how things will work in the campaign? Who knows.

The FEC filing is interesting, but it's not as interesting as the amended organization statement filed in February. The FEC, in all its glorious government efficiency, posted the cover letter with instructions to Barker's treasurer on what to do with the amended statement. Looks as though the amended filing was because his treasurer (who's a registered Democrat by the way) changed her last name.

The cover letter, which wasn't included in the original filing, is from a Donna Labayen at Lanthrop and Gage. Lanthrop and Gage, you'll recall, is the law firm where Kansas Senate Vice President (and VP of the mods) John Vratil is partner. Labayen is an assistant to C. David Barrier, an attorney in the Kansas City, Missouri office, although it appears Barker's actual attorney is Amy Blunt. The instructions and amended statement of organization was cc'd to Blunt, a governmental affairs lawyer. Her bio lists work done for former Gov. Matt Blunt of Missouri.

I can't hardly believe the firm of Lanthrop and Gage was chosen by accident. It looks like the mods have picked their candidate, so Mann and Boldra might want to look out. Should we be at all surprised that Vratil helped out a former Democrat who's decided to be a Republican to get elected to office? Hardly.

With his business dealings and change of heart, it looks to be right on target if you ask me.

Homegrown leadership

Quite an interesting letter to the editor in the Hutchinson News today. Titled "Homegrown leadership," the author advocates rejection of Rob Wasinger and Tracey Mann because of their carpetbagging tendencies. Donald Hobson writes:

It is interesting to note that two political opportunists have recently moved their voter registration to Kansas's 1st Congressional District to pursue a U.S. congressional seat.

Rob Wasinger, a Harvard graduate still owning a nearly $900K house in Virginia, moved to Hays in late 2008 and has since retreated to and now resides in Cottonwood Falls. The second hopeful import is Tracey Mann, a Johnson County commercial real estate agent who just established residency in Salina.

Here's the best part:

Kansans, now is not the time to trust the judgment from two men who have moved into the 1st District to launch a political career. From being raised in Plainville to listening to constituents in the Kansas Senate, Congressman Moran understood issues facing western Kansas before he ran for Congress. Now is the time to support a person whose roots run deep into the 1st Congressional District landscape and who will not bow to eastern interests.

When I read it through the first time, I kept trying to figure out who he was going to endorse over Wasinger and Mann. The fact that he doesn't even remotely point to a candidate he prefers is quite telling. Residency problems are interesting to me now, but in over a year when people are finally getting around to deciding who they'll vote for, will it be an issue anymore? For some I thought it'd come up, but I didn't think it'd be enough to make that big of a difference in the overall results. Now with five candidates in the race and more probably on the way, this "you're not one of us" attitude may make more of a difference than I previously thought.

Also, did you note that last line of resentment for 'easterners?' That attitude certainly exists, and it's going to be tough for someone from Johnson County, little lone from Massachusetts, to overcome that barrier.

Where's Rob? And Sue and Tracey and Tim...

Sen. Huelskamp was able to attend four TEA parties this past Wednesday, an impressive amount considering the size of the first district. Now I'm trying to figure out where the rest of the first district candidates were?

Rob Wasinger wasn't able to attend any events, even in Emporia where I assume he's still living. Why? What's the hold up? You praise those that turned out but couldn't be bothered to show up yourself?

What about the other candidates. Tracey Mann lives in Salina now. Why couldn't he show up? He's the "conservative, but not ideologic" candidate. TEA parties are about fiscal conservatism, the "non-ideologic" part of conservative. Where was he?

What about Sue Boldra? She could sure use a boost. What about Tim Barker? Tim's a businessman and just recently decided to become a Republican. It would seem to me that fiscal restraint would be one of the hallmarks of the party that would bring him over. Where was he?

So, which one plans to show up in Washington and practice fiscal responsibility when none of them seem to be able to show up for little TEA party?

Motive behind Barker loan will dictate its importance

I've finally gotten to take a few minutes to look at Tim Barker's campaign finance reports and there's a few things that I think can be deduced.

First, the timing of the loan seems somewhat important to me. The loan itself is interesting, but the motive behind it I think is more important. Did he loan himself $100,000 because he plans on self-financing his campaign or did he do it to inflate his numbers so that he can continue trying to raise money?

I personally think it's the latter. If he planned to self finance he would have made a large donation to himself in the last reporting period and made a splash. And I'd think it would have been larger than $100K. Also, as I alluded above, the loan is dated 3/31/09, the last day of reporting. That seems to indicate to me that he needed to shore up his numbers for this period.

However, if I'm wrong and he plans to just pay for everything himself, then yea, $100K is a big deal. But it's not enough by itself, it'll take at least nine more of those, if not more. The question then becomes, how much does the guy have? I don't think he has that much. Which brings me back to the motivation behind the loan.

I've only checked a few of Barker's donors, and only the ones without a Pratt address, as I'm going to assume a lot of those are personal contacts not based on political views. However, those I did check either have no prior information or are tied to moderate Republicans or Democrats in some way. A few have given to Kansas Traditional Republican Majority, so somewhere along the line Barker knows a few people. Either that or he's getting his money's worth out of his consulting firm, Dublin Group. Will he be able to convince donors he has a chance now that both Tracey Mann and Sue Boldra are in the race?

Only time and several more finance reports will tell.

BREAKING: Wasinger contributions fall by nearly half, still no contributions from the first district

I've been nearly shocked to my core. FEC reports are slowly trickling in and Rob Wasinger's has finally been posted. It shows only $55,000 in contributions this quarter, which is only about half of what he reported to have raised last quarter.

More shocking, still no contributions from the first district. That makes two reports in a row that Rob has been unable to find a single person in the district he wants to represent to contribute to his campaign.

I've only given his report a cursory glance as well as Barker and Boldra, but here's what I've noted so far that I'll expand on over the next few days:

• The word Virginia appears way too many times in Wasinger's itemized contributions. I'll have a geographical breakdown later.
• Barker only brought in around $23,000 but loaned his campaign $100,000. I guess it pays to be CEO of a bankrupt ethanol plant.
• Boldra reported only $9000, but all but two contributions were from the first district. Somebody send Wasinger a memo that fundraising in western Kansas is possible.
• Wasinger reported spending just over $3,000 for fund raising letters. HSP Direct isn't the name on the expenditure but the address is the exact same. Hmmm...
• Three expenditures from Wasinger's campaign were spent in the first district for a grand total of $1033.64 out of over $25,000 spent. So much for first district "economic development."
• A Google Alert turned up a letter to the editor from Tim Huelskamp to the Hutchinson News clarifying a contribution from "AIG." Turns out it was from an agent who used to sell insurance for AIG, who also happens to live in the first district. I wonder if KSNBC-01 will be printing a retraction to their previous post? I won't hold my breath.
  

As of right now, Huelskamp's report isn't up. Tracey Mann won't have a report as he didn't file until after April 1.

I'll have more over the next few days.