Huelskamp reports over $180K for third quarter

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."

FEC nails Barnett for "requested" occupations

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.

Club for Growth backs Huelskamp

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 Politics

The 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 Spectator

Kudos 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...