The Lite Gov Race’s Numbers

Casey Cagle raised $132,937.37 this period for a total raised of $1,416,481.33. He spent $177,410.18 this period for a total of $535,253.86. His cash on hand is $881,227.47.

Ralph Reed raised $269,461.30 this period for a total of $1,663,306.33. He spent $216,803.52 this period, which was his total expenditure for the election cycle. He has cash on hand of $1,446,502.81.

Let’s be honest. No one save the Cagle folks thought the cash on hand and fundraising of these guys would be as close at it is. The conventional wisdom at the start of the race was that Ralph would be smoking Casey. That isn’t the case.

On the Democratic side, Jim Martin raised $157,098.27 this period for a total of $744,705.35. He spent $131,300.51 this period and overall spent $275,407.81. He has total cash on hand of $469,297.54.

Greg Hecht raised $238,174.44 this period with $1,065,032.58 raised total. He spent $124,365.20 this period and has overall spent $275,167.32. He has cash on hand of $789,865.26.

For comparison, Mark Taylor raised $6.63 this period and has raised a total of $1,357,084.36 this election cycle for his Lite Gov race. Most of that money has been redirected, returned, or otherwise spent and he has left in his Lt. Gov war chest $23,198.80. I bet his contribution was bank interest.

13 comments

  1. thebreeze says:

    ONE DAY VS. 3 MONTHES …. PRETTY GOOD CASEY! THE WRITING IS ON THE WALL…… CAGLE 06

  2. GabrielSterling says:

    I do have one question on Cagle’s and Reed’s numbers. What is the dollar amount in each of their COH that is for the General? I mean it shows up on the COH but they can’t spend it until after the Primary so it really isn’t there for use in this Primary Cycle.

  3. The Busdriver says:

    Only 270k for Ralph. Man, Ralph must have had a bad week at the tables.

    Debbie, as most of us on this board have become quite familiar with all the weapons in your grammatical arsenal, I’ve taken the liberty of providing all the operative phrases you’ll need when crafting your forthcoming response.

    -“Casey Cagle is weak”
    -“Everyone knows when Christian conservatives turn out to vote that the Republican candidate wins”
    -“Ralph wins hands down. Deal with it.”
    -“Sadie Fields is a pillar of integrity
    -“I’m a woman. If you can’t deal with that, too bad.”
    -Make repeated (and pointless) references to Roy Barnes
    -“national connections”
    -Use Hannity as a verb
    -Cut and paste in two old Reed for Lt. Gov press releases

    There. That should do it.

  4. The Busdriver says:

    Only 270k for Ralph. Man, Ralph must have had a bad week at the tables.

    Debbie, as most of us on this board have become quite familiar with all the weapons in your grammatical arsenal, I’ve taken the liberty of providing all the operative phrases you’ll need when crafting your forthcoming response.

    -“Casey Cagle is weak”
    -“Everyone knows when Christian conservatives turn out to vote that the Republican candidate wins.”
    -“Ralph wins hands down. Deal with it.”
    -“Sadie Fields is a pillar of integrity
    -“I’m a woman. If you can’t deal with that, too bad.”
    -Make repeated (and pointless) references to Roy Barnes
    -“national connections”
    -Use Hannity as a verb
    -Cut and paste in two old Reed for Lt. Gov press releases

    There. That should do it.

  5. debbie0040 says:

    With all the negative publicity about Ralph, I am suprised it is not closer. The point is there is still a big difference in Cagle’s amount and Ralph’s. Approximately 600,000. It would be interesting to see what amount for both candidates on the all their disclosures is available for the primary, general election, etc. Also if they accepted money for a runoff and there is none, do they need to return it and the same for the general?

    I also question this from the AJC: Cagle received $103,510 in 24 hours, for a total of $132,937 during the period. If he only had one day , 3-31 , to raise money then was the rest of the money raised in this period illegally raised and would he have to return it? I am just asking questions . Did the AJC get it wrong?

    Also, even though Cagle has raised less than Reed, he has spent almost twice as much as Reed. In order to win, Cagle needs to spend more because he does not have statewide name recognition and Reed does have statewide name recognition among GOP voters. Reed also has a big advantage in grassroots volunteers so hence he does not have to spend his money for paid staff. Reed can use the bulk of his money for a blitz of ads on the airwaves before the election.

  6. thebreeze says:

    Debbie,you seem to be the only one carrying Reed’s water, does that not make you wonder……

  7. I went to a seminar hosted by the ethics committee a couple of weeks ago and the question of money earmarked for different elections did come up. If a campaign has filed a COOSA card and has accepted money for run-offs that do not occur, that money cannot be used and must be returned.

  8. Bill Simon says:

    Debbie, the Session did not start on January 1, so there was time in-between the start of 2006 and the time the Session started to raise money that would not be “illegally” raised.

    I think the Session started around January 10.

  9. debbie0040 says:

    Bill, thanks for the clarification. That is what I wanted to know. Thanks to your answer Political State. I personally don’t think candidates should be allowed to raise money until it is that election cycle. IE:Now they should only be allowed to raise money for the primary and nothing more.

  10. If the maximum contributions stay the same, it doesn’t really seem to matter. You end up only able to raise 2000primary/general and 1000 – runoff no matter what. But it probably would be cleaner if they were only raising funds for the next cycle.

  11. True Conservative says:

    So Ralph night not be able to use all of the out of state money and the money from big corporations like Home Depot that between the CEO/founders/Company/wifes gave 50,000.

Comments are closed.