1000th donation via ActBlue

by Ned Lamont, Tue Feb 28, 2006 at 03:45:49 AM EST

Last night at 9:52 PM EST, a little over two weeks from when we started receiving donations, and before we even officially announced my candidacy, the Lamont for Senate campaign received its thousandth donation online via ActBlue.

These are small donations, averaging less than $100 each by people who care deeply about having a vibrant democracy in our own country and who believe that voters in Connecticut deserve a choice in who will be their Senator in Washington.

Professors and students, mail carriers and writers, housewives, truck-drivers, meterologists, and people from all walks of life have come together to particpate in American democracy. Much of this initial support has been driven by the Netroots. This support symbolizes the type of grassroots participation that it will take to win on August 8th.

Thank you for the early boost and we look forward to your continued participation in our campaign to replace George Bush's favorite Democrat.

Thanks,
Ned

Tags: Joe Lieberman, Ned Lamont (all tags)

Comments

49 Comments

Sort by

permalink

Re: 1000th donation via ActBlue

Woohoo!!! Excellent news. Thank you for taking the lead and jumping in the race Ned.

Don't let them Hackett you. I wrote Dodd yesterday telling him not to meddle.

Keep up your excellent fight!

by LindainCincinnati 2006-02-28 05:43AM | 0 recs

permalink

Alright, I'll Bite

Do you still believe that you cannot spend more than $514,000 of [your] own money without providing a potential windfall for Lieberman, despite the fact that the campaign finance regulations seem to indicate otherwise?

If you can legally self-finance $4-5M for this primary, why is it appropriate for you to ask young people to dig into their tight pockets when you can more easily reach into your own?

by Adam B 2006-02-28 06:47AM | 0 recs

permalink

Re: Alright, I'll Bite

Again Adam, maybe because he's concerned about his retirement with your favorite "Dem" Senator leading the capitulation brigade on Social Security destruction?

Or maybe he's concerned about bankruptcy, with your favorite "Dem" Senator leading the capitulation brigade on the Bankruptcy Bill?

Just sayin.

by ElitistJohn 2006-02-28 07:51AM | 0 recs

permalink

Good Grief!

And I always thought Adam was being critical of Ned for having the money to self-finance.

Now, if Ned isn't paying for the whole run himself, he's a bad guy?

Adam's criticism is absurd. Why should young people have a small monetary stake in the Lamont campaign he asks? Shouldn't Ned's campaign get all its funds from rich people, a la Lieberman? It would be funny if it weren't so sad.
---------------------------------------- -------
Adam, give it a rest. We all know you are a Lieberman guy. Why not make some positive arguments for Joe?

by trueblue 2006-02-28 08:10AM | 0 recs

permalink

Re: Alright, I'll Bite

Asking for donations is not ONLY about raising money. You know that. It's about getting people invested in your campaign. If you've given money, you take a more substantial interest in something.

I highly suggest reading Robert Cialdini's book "Influence," which touches on this subject (albeit not in the poltical context).

by DavidNYC 2006-02-28 08:14AM | 0 recs

permalink

Re: Alright, I'll Bite

I would imagine a decision on this hasn't been made on this yet, since there seems to be some legal disagreement.

by Matt Stoller 2006-02-28 08:25AM | 0 recs

permalink

Re: 1000th donation via ActBlue

The operative word is "seem".

by Phoenix Woman 2006-02-28 06:59AM | 0 recs

permalink

Re: 1000th donation via ActBlue

Arrgh -- I was replying to Adam B there. Clicked the wrong link!

by Phoenix Woman 2006-02-28 07:02AM | 0 recs

permalink

Re: 1000th donation via ActBlue

I qualified it with "seem" because I'm only 95% sure on this one, but both the regs and the FEC explanations of the regs indicate that the millionaire's amendment "also takes into account fundraising by the campaigns. . . . A candidate with a significant fundraising advantage over a self-financed opponent might not receive an increased contribution limit. In this way, the regulations avoid giving increased contribution limits to candidates whose campaigns have a significant fundraising advantage over their opponents."

by Adam B 2006-02-28 07:08AM | 0 recs

permalink

Re: 1000th donation via ActBlue

AbamB,

Could you please site the case law that brings you to this conclusion.

We all know that case law is what decides what the written law means and someones interpretation of the law,even an esteemed lawyer like yourself,means very little as it's only an opinion.

Any Lawyer worth his salt would never state any opinion on a law he was "only 95% sure on".

Isn't that so?

by ctkeith 2006-02-28 08:51AM | 0 recs

permalink

Re: 1000th donation via ActBlue

I've cited the applicable regs. There's more in the advisory opinions, but I'm not doing anyone else's work for free.

by Adam B 2006-02-28 09:33AM | 0 recs

permalink

Re: 1000th donation via ActBlue

So then Swan very well could have gotten another Lawyers opinion that differed with yours and been referring to that when he spoke in the Hatford Courant Article,couldn't he?

You've done quite a disservice to your profession by claiming to be an expert on the law and having no rulings,opinions from the FEC or case law to back you up.

One might even consider reporting you to the Penn. Bar.

by ctkeith 2006-02-28 10:10AM | 0 recs

permalink

Re: 1000th donation via ActBlue

When the statute and the regulation are both clear, you don't need caselaw. Indeed, caselaw is just a historical record of what a past judge did; it does not control what a future judge will do. And these are relatively new regs -- 2003, IIRC.

One might consider you to be an asshole for threatening me.

by Adam B 2006-02-28 10:13AM | 0 recs

permalink

Aw, what a Maroon!*

If you are an attorney, you should get a refund from your law school.

See Starie Decisis. The principle that a question once considered by a court and answered must elicit the same response each time the same issue is brought before the courts.

One might consider you to be an Maroon!

*Hommage à Bugs, the great political theorist!

by quaker 2006-02-28 03:43PM | 0 recs

permalink

Re: Aw, what a Maroon!*

And what I've told you is that this is a new statute that's never been tested by a court on this issue, but the regulation -- 11 CFR 400.31(d) -- cannot be interpreted any other way.

Also, learn to spell stare decisis before you employ the term.

by Adam B 2006-02-28 05:25PM | 0 recs

permalink

Re: 1000th donation via ActBlue

Adam,

I am going gladly going to report you.

We don't need you giving your opinions. Jeez. Do our legwork, and maybe hire a few people. I don't care what it costs. Spare no expense.

What kind of expertise do you have in anything to do with regulatory type stuff, anyway? We don't want to hear informed opinions, ok?

I hate you.

by DanielUA 2006-02-28 04:09PM | 0 recs

permalink

And what is Ned Lamont's net worth?

Do you know? No? Neither do I.

There are a handful of Senators who self-finance (Jon Corzine and Herb Kohl come to mind) but the vast majority of them don't, for just as obvious reasons.

by Scarce 2006-02-28 07:02AM | 0 recs

permalink

Re:

Senator Lieberman does not, of course, although another millionaire.

by Scarce 2006-02-28 07:05AM | 0 recs

permalink

Re: And what is Ned Lamont's net worth?

All I know is that he's constantly referred to as "Greenwich millionaire Ned Lamont", and that much of the early hype was about his ability to self-finance this race and not take funds away from our races against Republicans.

by Adam B 2006-02-28 07:09AM | 0 recs

permalink

I don't recall Ned Lamont ever saying that

Perhaps you can cite a source.

I have read and heard him say he'll finance a significant portion of his own money, especially early as "seed money", to get his campaign off the ground.

by Scarce 2006-02-28 07:22AM | 0 recs

permalink

Re: And what is Ned Lamont's net worth?

Blast him. And he's also taking away funds from HIV research, curing the Heartbreak of Psoriasis, the Cat Fanciers Fund, etc...

Money is not always transferable.

by ElitistJohn 2006-02-28 07:53AM | 0 recs

permalink

Lamont is a battle against Republicans...

Sure, Joe might not officially be one, but we all know he is doing the devil's work these days, and that is why Republicans absolutely adore Lieberman.

So trust me, when I give my money to Lamont, it is all about defeating the Neo-Cons in power.

And Adam, since when do you get to tell grassroots Dems how their money should be spent? Should I have saved the $1,000's I spent on Dean and Kerry for your beloved Hillary? gag.

by trueblue 2006-02-28 08:14AM | 0 recs

permalink

Re: And what is Ned Lamont's net worth?

not take funds away from our races against Republicans.

Money in politics is not perfectly fungible. You have no way of knowing if a donation to Lamont would have otherwise gone to McCaskill if Lamong weren't running. Without at least some kind of evidence to suggest that this is happening, I think this talking point needs to be ditched.

But even if there's some merit to it, I'm a lot MORE concerned about Hillary Clinton taking away money from our races against Republicans. Right now, she has no opponent and there is literally ZERO chance that someone will emerge who can crack 40% of the vote against her. Yet she rakes in the cash like there's no tomorrow.

If anyone is taking Democratic money away from challengers to Republicans, it's Hillary Clinton.

by DavidNYC 2006-02-28 08:19AM | 0 recs

permalink

Re: And what is Ned Lamont's net worth?

Agreed completely. Poltical donations are not a zero-sum game. Especially for a primary election in August.

Also, even if Lamont is planning on self-financing a large part of his campaign (and I have no clue whether he is or isn't), I like the fact that he's jumping with both feet into the netroots, and that includes fundraising. If you give $25 to a candidate, you suddenly feel like you have a stake in the race.

Obviously there's much more to online outreach than fundraising. And no one wants to be treated like an ATM. But that certainly doesn't appear to be Lamont's approach to the netroots at all.

by tparty 2006-02-28 08:37AM | 0 recs

permalink

Hells yeah.

That "Begala v. Carville" thing last week was the biggest pile of nonsense I've seen in a while. I like HRC, but this is greedy.

That said, anyone who'd spend for Lamont but wouldn't help Claire McKaskill in the same amount needs to get his head examined.

by Adam B 2006-02-28 09:37AM | 0 recs

permalink

Re: 1000th donation via ActBlue

Well, since Mr. Lamont posted here, I'd expect him (or a staff member) to be able to respond for themselves. Let's cut out the middleman.

by Adam B 2006-02-28 07:42AM | 0 recs

permalink

Re: 1000th donation via ActBlue

Well, to quote Calvin Coolidge "You Lose".

I hope Ned doesn't respond because here's the deal:

If you want him to take a major chunk out of his life, fight one of the strongest fundraisers in the game, and then to represent your interests if he wins, then you have to support him financially.

If you don't want him to, then don't send him a dime and STFU when Joe votes for Cloture or hits back at the Democratic Party on Press the Meat.

by quaker 2006-02-28 07:53AM | 0 recs

permalink

Re: 1000th donation via ActBlue

Ah, you of course mean in the same weay Holy Joe has come on to refute compaints about him, correct?

by ElitistJohn 2006-02-28 07:54AM | 0 recs

permalink

Re: 1000th donation via ActBlue

I haven't seen Joe Lieberman show up on a website and ask anyone for a dime.

Them's the rules -- you can't just post press releases on blogs -- you actually have to interact with the rabble.

by Adam B 2006-02-28 08:02AM | 0 recs

permalink

Re: 1000th donation via ActBlue

You mean the way Joe does?

Ah...I see now. If you make any gesture you are a bad person. If you just have a "fuck you, you're beneath my attention" attitude you are noble and true. Understood. Good to know.

by ElitistJohn 2006-02-28 08:09AM | 0 recs

permalink

Rules?

What rules? Roberts Rules of Order?

This is getting silly. Ned Lamont is not playing fair because:

--He has a lot of money but still asks for others support.

--He asks for support on the Internet.

by Scarce 2006-02-28 08:17AM | 0 recs

permalink

Re: Rules?

All I'm saying is that it's rude for any candidate to show up, ask for money, and not respond to comments later. I've made this point consistently about other campaigns as well.

by Adam B 2006-02-28 09:38AM | 0 recs

permalink

Seriously?

You expect a reponse for each comment and query?

My expectations are different. I do expect a candidate to spell out exactly what he stands for and why he or she is running. Lamont has done that quite well so far and one expects he'll only get better at it as his announcement makes his campaign official.

Ciro Rodriguez has had similar success employing this direct method, posting five diaries in the last month at DailyKos and now out fundraising his opponent Henry Cuellar.

by Scarce 2006-02-28 10:05AM | 0 recs

permalink

Re: Rules?

I hate that rule. I think that a meaningful discussion can continue with or without the original poster.

It seems to me that this diary is a thank you note. Don't get me wrong. I understand that candidates that are asking for continued support are looking for new support as well.

But still. I appreciate the fact that he took the time to post a thank you.

Good luck Ned!

by misscee 2006-02-28 10:27AM | 0 recs

permalink

Re: Rules?

Who the hell are you to decide that there are some rules, Adam?

And that Mr. Lamont needs to abide by such rules?

Especially when he's posting a thank you on this blog for people's support?

So lets get down to tacks here. Whether he needs the money or not, it's not really about the money, Adam, it's about the support being demonstrated. How much money has ActBlue raised, 100k or so? That ain't gonna get it done, and everybody knows it. But it tells Joe the Shiv (ooh, that sounds kinda bad, doesn't it?) that we are sick of his crap, his pandering, his bush ass kissing, his holier than thou posturing, all for the same god the bushies worship, Mammnon.

Issues, like Choice, which side is he on that? Privacy, pretty much not for that one either if he can't support Choice. Insurance companies, well, I think we know his preferences there, and they aren't the ones I share.

So eff Joe, the back stabbing hypocrit he's become since the days of Freedom Riding. Randy Cunningham used to be a great war hero too, and look what he's become.

Prick.

by DuckmanGR 2006-02-28 11:02AM | 0 recs

permalink

Re: 1000th donation via ActBlue

Well, maybe, just maybe, he's got bigger fish to fry. Maybe, just maybe, he had $4,127,334 cash on hand as of 12-31-05, and has had a few Republicans put together at least one fundraiser for him since then.

Maybe he doesn't stop by here for money because the republicans keep the tank topped off for him. If they didn't he might represent us, not them. Yes, if they didn't, you might see him here, or over at myleftnutmeg.com, "interacting" with folks.

But you are right. We don't see him here, do we.

by quaker 2006-02-28 08:25AM | 0 recs

permalink

Such a question

Is more appropriate to an in-person meeting, such as at a Lamont event.

Why don't you go to one and ask him directly.

by Scarce 2006-02-28 07:47AM | 0 recs

permalink

Re: Such a question

I think that Joe has other folks covering the meetings with Ned. Adam's job is to troll the nets. He can't be asked to "Do it all".

by quaker 2006-02-28 07:54AM | 0 recs

permalink

Re: Such a question

Good point.

by Scarce 2006-02-28 08:02AM | 0 recs

permalink

Adam doesn't "support" Joe....

Well, not officially that is. He's just worried that we're not spending our money according to his plan.

Plus all that insider dough that Joe has raised could be buying influence in other races.

by trueblue 2006-02-28 08:18AM | 0 recs

permalink

Re: Adam doesn't "support" Joe....

With the Republicans holding fundraisers for Joe Lieberman, I'm not sure we want Lieberman's money "buying influence in other races" anyway.

by Fran for Dean 2006-02-28 08:39AM | 0 recs

permalink

Again.

I am not employed by, paid by, contracting with or even volunteering for Sen. Lieberman, the DSCC, the DLC or anyone else. My thoughts are my own.

Seriously, yo, if that weren't the case, and you caught me (because all this stuff is of public record), I'd have zero credibility on any political topic ever again.

by Adam B 2006-02-28 09:39AM | 0 recs

permalink

A round of applause

It occurred to me that if not for Lieberman apologists such as Adam and Liebermanlives here and elsewhere there would not be near the amount of discussion about Ned Lamont

So a hearty round of applause for all the Lieberman apologists out there, doing their small bit to raise awareness for Ned Lamont.

by Scarce 2006-02-28 08:35AM | 0 recs

permalink

Re: 1000th donation via ActBlue

So Ned, Lieberman is Bush's favorite Democrat huh?? Wrong again!!!! You and Lieberman will agree about 75-80% of the time in the issues.
I would hardly call that being George's favorite Democrat. Face facts Ned, you have no shot. You are the lamb being led to slaughter by the vast left wing crank cases. Go on and play you little game. I will do everything in my power to make sure that Lieberman is reelected to the Senate for another 6 years.

by liebermanlives 2006-02-28 10:33AM | 0 recs

permalink

Re: 1000th donation via ActBlue

Ok, for all the Lieberman apologists out there, this is getting really old.

THE ISSUE WITH LIEBERMAN IS NOT "THE ISSUES"

The problem we have with Lieberman is that when the Republicans need someone to show they have "bipartisan" support, they know who to turn to. When Fox News needs a Democrat to go on their show so they can show everyone how divided the Democrats are, they know who to turn to. When the Republicans talk about how the Democratic Party is being run by those loony left-wingers on the scary blogs and that ultra-liberal freak Howard Dean, they know who will be right out there with them calling for the Democratic Party to be more "moderate/centrist." THAT is the problem we have with Lieberman.

by Fran for Dean 2006-02-28 10:43AM | 0 recs

permalink

Re: 1000th donation via ActBlue

So then who is George Bush's favorite democrat? Who was the only one at his valentine's day bash? Who was the first person in the entire senate chamber applauding at the SOTU? Who was actually endorsed - enthusiastically - by Sean Hannity? Who takes constant pains to cover Bush whenever he gets criticized about Iraq or GWOT? Who got a nice kiss after the SOTU last year?

Well, let's see: Lieberman, Lieberman, Lieberman, Lieberman, Lieberman, and...uh... Lieberman.

by elihuben 2006-02-28 10:43AM | 0 recs

permalink

Re: 1000th donation via ActBlue

Yeah, I'm sure that Lieberman and I both agree that someone should wait until the light is green and the "WALK" symbol flashes before crossing the street. It's the other 20% that I care about, dude.

by HellofaSandwich 2006-02-28 12:43PM | 0 recs

permalink

Re: 1000th donation via ActBlue

Let me add, thanks Mr. Lamont for taking on this challenge. It's a big task, but, you do good, WE GOT YOUR BACK!! Except for Adam and the Liebertroll.

by DuckmanGR 2006-02-28 11:03AM | 0 recs

permalink

Re: 1000th donation via ActBlue

becuz sum repub1cans no taht joe has valyous and morales taht you seem 2 lack. they canreach a cross party lines why cant u????

...

(Sorry, sometimes it's just fun to pretend to be an idiot.)

by HellofaSandwich 2006-03-01 10:27PM | 0 recs