Wednesday, October 11, 2006

Out-of district money continues to fuel Nodler campaign


Sen. Gary Nodler's campaign war chest has passed the $120,000 mark, according to the quarterly disclosure form filed Wednesday with the Missouri Ethics Commission.
During the past month, Nodler's campaign has received $16,950 and spent $9,531.83, leaving him with $120,034.17.
No contributors from the three-county (Jasper, Newton, and Dade) area that Nodler represents are listed among those pouring money into his campaign, according to the disclosure form.
He may have received $25 in local money, since that amount is listed as the money Nodler received in contributions below $100, which do not have to be listed individually.
Nodler received at least $2,600 from pharmaceutical interests, $3,900 from banking interests, $1,300 from insurance interests, and $1,625 from health industry interests.
Those contributing the maximum $650 to Nodler were:
Credit Union PAC, Missuori Leadership Fund, AstraZeneca, Blue Cross and Blue Shield, FEAPAC, Blue Cross and Blue Shield of Missouri, Missouri Dental PAC, Kansas City Power & Light, Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturing of America, AGC Missouri PAC, Anheuser-Busch, Anheuser-Busch Employees' Credit Union, Johnson & Johnson Services, AGC of St. Louis PAC, Missouri Bankers Association Ozark Region PAC, Missouri Bankers Association River Heritage Region PAC, Missouri Bankers Association Capitol Region PAC; Missouri Bankers Association Truman Region PAC, Bank of America Missouri PAC, and HCA Missouri Good Government Fund.
The contributions also include three $325 contributions from various entities established by the Missouri Hospital Association, and a $325 contribution from the Missouri State Teachers Association Impact Fund.
The disclosure form's expenditures area indicates nearly all of the money spent by the Nodler campaign went to the campaigns of 13 Republican State Senate candidates, including Sen. Norma Champion, R-Springfield, all of whom received the maximum $650, and to the campaign of state auditor candidate Sandra Thomas, who also received $650.
The campaign reported spending $99 for advertising, and no other money that is directed to the senator's re-election campaign against independent candidate Kim Wright.

6 comments:

Anonymous said...

Randy this post is untrue. Every bank in the 32nd district belongs to the MBA and so the Ozarks region contribution would have to be viewed as in-district. All 3 of our hospitals belong to the MHA so that is in-district. Surely you have heard of the MSTA and are aware that many teachers in fact most in the 32nd district are members and further that MSTA makes no contributions without local direction this is without any doubt in-district. Anheuser-Busch has a distributor right here in Joplin. The credit union PAC also has members here so that is in-district. You would like people to believe that a PAC contribution is the same thing as an out of district contribution....you do know better don't you?

Anonymous said...

It still appears as money in, money out from and to folks far away. I hope voters in district vote Kim in!!

busplunge said...

If I live in district and give Nodler $25, then it is in district.

If I belong to a bank, credit union or teacher association and give money to their pac, and they give money to Nodler, then it is from out of the district and is reported on the ethics form as a PAC contribution.

If the PAC came from in district, that is one thing, but the Bank, hospital adn teacher PAC are almost all in Jefferson City or Columbia.

One other thing pacs do, they have several PACs, like thebanks have one for each region and a state wide PAC. Nodler adn others get PAC money from many PACs from the same place.

Also, did you ever notice how many addresses are the same on the different named PACs?

Randy said...

To the first anonymous comment: It would be easy to find some kind of connection between the local area and any one of the contributors to Sen. Nodler's campaign. AstraZeneca has customers in this area, maybe even a stockholder, too. Same for Johnson & Johnson. Any way you look at, it is out-of-district money, however, I would not be surprised if some politicians have managed to convince themselves that all of their contributions from Jefferson City, St. Louis, Kansas City, and out-of-state, are somehow district donations. It's the same kind of self-delusion that causes politicians to say that accepting gifts from lobbyists does not have any affect on how they vote. They convince themselves of that and we are the ones who end up suffering for it.

Anonymous said...

Randy you still don't seem to understand what a PAC is. A PAC is like a corporation it is made up of its members as a corporation is made up of its share holders. Using your logic, you would say a corporation only exists where its headquarters is. If that were true there would be no Leggett & Platt except in Carthage, of course there is, including most of its employees and manufacturing plants that exist someplace else. They are all part of the whole and as to the comment about finding some connection from each of these donors to the 32nd district, that is exactly right, there is some connection, it is precisely because of that that the attempt to make these appear to be out of district contributions is untrue. You can say till the cow comes home that the PAC mailing address is its location not the locations of its members, but that does not make what you say true.

Anonymous said...

Randy, I am waiting for you to comment on Kim Wright's finance report. First you will undoubtedly point out that she has sent the wrong report. Her report is listed as an 8 day report rather than the correct Oct. 15th report. More to the point less than 22% of her contributions come from individuals within the district. The rest comes from Party committees and clubs or out of district contributors. Most disturbing is the listing of nearly $4000.00 in in-kind contributions not attributed to any source. If the claim is that she received in-kind assistance in amounts less than $100 that total nearly $4000.00 that is simply not believable. Senator Nodler has a much higher percentage of disclosed contributor's from within his district and the percentage of contributions not itemized is only a fraction of the Wright campaigns. The truth is Kim Wright has hidden the source of her support. She is also probably inflating that support by claiming in-kind contributions with no verification or explanation. The Wright campaign report just doesn't pass the smell test for integrity.