Primary campaign reports are starting to trickle in - first up, Stan Adelstein versus Elli Schwiesow

I just rolled into town, and am in the process of quickly unpacking before I head into work. But before I get cracking, I wanted to note that the post-primary reports are starting to come into the Secretary of State's office, prompting lots of discussion and analysis.

First off on the list - one of the reports from one half of THE primary race of the year - Stan Adelstein's report.

Good gosh. Who puts $99,500 of their own money into a state legislative race? This was followed up by $1175 of PAC money, and $3169 of personal donations of $250 or less.

What did all of this money go towards?

That's a lot of consulting, although I suspect there's some mailing costs that were handled by the consultant and reimbursed.

Compare that to Elli Schwiesow, who reported $54,034 in donations ($31,334 non PAC which came in amounts of $250 or less). Where did Elli's money go?

That $8,600 consulting bill would seem to have associated costs broken out from it. But clearly, much less was spent overall when you look at the bottom line:

Very interesting. He put in $99,500 - She $5,844. He raised around $4500, she raised $54k. Elli clearly had a lot of people involved in her election who donated money AND time. She spent only around half as much and managed to take the race.

The lesson to be learned from this election is that in the end - eventually, it's PEOPLE at the grassroots who count in the process .


Anonymous said…
Looking at Schwiesow's campaign finance report(s) I didn't conclude as PP did that hers was a grassroots campaign. A $50,000+ state legislative campaign that includes $8,600 for consultants and $7,100 in salaries is not a grassroots effort by any stretch of the imagination.

The vast majority of South Dakota legislators are elected for less than Ms. Schwiessow spent on consultants alone in the primary.

The fact that Ms. Schwiesow raised more from individuals than Mr. Adelstein doesn't mean anything either. Mr. Adelstein obviously didn't spend much time raising money because he has plenty of his own, and routinely gives away more to other candidates than what Ms. Schwiesow raised.
Anonymous said…
Didn’t Ellie raise about $10K from a pornographer? I understand why we wouldn’t read a post on that. Kinda ruins the whole ‘values’ argument.
mjb said…
Anon, if that's hamilton you're talking about, I believe the verdict on his civil (not criminal) suit was overturned because of misconduct on the part of the opposing counsel (who happens to be a D)

That and if you play with fire, expect to get burned.

You need to watch out for a couple of "D" candidates when you're casting stones at the Republican donor on this issue.
Anonymous said…
Stan would have lost the race if he had raise three times that amount.
The people of South Dakota wised up to him and did not vote him into office. When will the dems figure that out.
He is not wanted by the majority so my message to him is "go away".
Anonymous said…
You post a simple comment regarding some campaign financing statistics and the nuts come running out to find something horribly wrong with it.
Can these people find anything that isn't a conspiracy or a "stolen election" or a victimazation of themselves. My god they are bitter and unhappy and worst of all they are very little people.
I never use that word lightly, it is a terrible thing to say about someone. To be small is to never have achieved anything. It is given to people who are somewhat less educated and somewhat less willing to see the world as it really is rather than how they want it to be. Imagine living a life like that anon. 1:09
and 2:23
Anonymous said…
Anon 4:43, if there is a small person posting comments here it is you.

I Anon 1:09 posted an observation in terms respectable to both Schwiesow and Adelstein, not derogatory in any way. I said nothing about conspiracy, victimization or stolen elections.

You on the other hand attacked me personally in a derogatory way and simply attributed things to me that I did not say. Your falsehoods and gratuitous nastiness are an example of the worst that this fine blog has to offer.
Anonymous said…
Hamilton's case was not thrown out becaus he was not a beastiality pornography lover, but rather because of a legal technicallity.The fact still remains that he continually subjected his employees to the degrading filth that he enjoys. Nobody has countered the fact that his disgusting habit of purchasing and viewing the vilest form of human perversity in existed didn't happen. And Ellie accepted his money? Family values indeed.
Anonymous said…
What exactly did Hamilton purchase. Anonymous seems to have more intimate knowledge of this than others. Is he, or she, merely going by newspaper reports? Relying strictly upon Mr. Duffy? Please enlighten us.
ED said…

"In his order signed Tuesday granting the request by Hamilton's lawyers for a new trial, Battey said he had allowed a key memo into evidence during the trial that should have been excluded because of attorney-client privilege. As secondary basis for his order, Battey said improper conduct by the plaintiff's lawyers, when added to the impact of the memo, had the cumulative effect of denying the defendants a fair trial.

Hamilton declined comment late Tuesday afternoon about Battey's ruling, as did plaintiff lawyer Patrick Duffy."

Good old duffy, the angriest nut West River, also known as "Big Daddy's Back"
Anonymous said…
Pat Duffy is BigDaddy'sBack?!? Holy schit! Is that for real?
Repub 1 said…
Get a grip! That post was the fact that in South Dakota monied candidates are forcing up the prices of elections for all thier colleages and counterparts.

We need smarter more effective marketing.
Aaron Lorenzen said…
This proves that Elli has people supporting her.

Also, this is breaking news, it wont hit the shelves till tomorrow but the RC Weekly news front page article reads as follows: "Stan Adelstien Considering Runnign as a Democrat" Thats right boys and girls the old snake in the grass finally might admit something that he is a liberal. He would only do this if Tom Katus witdraws and Tom Katus said he would withdraw if a poll which is being conducted as we speak proives that Adelstien would receive more support than Katus would....

This would be a blow to the mainstreamers if their sugar daddy switchs, also I think it would be political suicide.

Isn't politics and life great!!
Anonymous said…
Patrick Duffy is Big Daddy's Back? Guess I haven't had the "honor" of knowing him and probably never will, except for his nasty comments on Mt. Blogmore. Speaking as the recipient of some of his barbed comments, he isn't as clever as he thinks he is. That he was involved apparently in misconduct really isn't a surprise based on his online persona.
nonnie said…
And here I thought Patrick Duffy was in Dallas!
Anonymous said…
Having received many multi-page glossy, color mailings from Stan, heard his many radio ads, seen his polished TV advertising and his flashing electronic billboards, I find it difficult to believe that "only" $100,000 was spent on his campaign. There must be several pages missing. My guesstimate is $250,000 plus.
Anonymous said…
As long as we are outing bloggers, Charlie House is Jerry Murphy Jr.
Anonymous said…
Who the heck is Jerry Murphy?? I guess that is an insider thing, which I am not.
I do know who Duffy is, and if it is true about his identity on the Rapid City Journal blog, well that explains a lot of things. I wonder whether his rants about the Hamilton case on the blog had something to do with the "improper conduct". By the way, the Rapid City Journal bloggers and overseers love his nauseating postings and think he is clever.

Popular posts from this blog

Why should we be surprised?

That didn't take long