Hi 44° | Lo 20°

Republicans, Democrats report record cash totals in fight for N.H. Senate majority

Both of the Republican and Democratic committees dedicated to winning the New Hampshire Senate majority this fall reported a record amount of cash on hand to the secretary of state’s office yesterday, an indicator that this year’s fight for the Senate could get expensive.

The Republican Senate Majority PAC has raised $185,271 so far this election cycle, with $27,000 being transferred from last cycle’s committee, and has $156,727 cash on hand, its highest total ever. The New Hampshire Senate Democratic Caucus, by comparison, raised $269,000 and has $148,000 cash on hand, its own record total. Online reports dating back to 2002 back up both parties’ statements that these cash-on-hand totals are record breaking. Reports for all political committees were due to the secretary of state’s office yesterday, and the full filings, including who’s donated and where money has been spent, should be available online later this week.

Both parties say the record totals show they’re poised for victory this fall. Republicans hold the majority in the 24-member Senate now with 13 seats. Senate Democrats made significant gains in 2012, taking their membership in the 24-member Senate from five to 11. But they were unable to capture the full wave that swept Democrats into the House majority.

“Even though we’ve only been at this for a short period of time, our leadership team did a fantastic job in raising resources and in producing a strong slate of candidates for the upcoming elections. It’s a good start. Looking forward, I remain as committed and focused as ever in maintaining, protecting and growing our Senate Majority,” Senate President Chuck Morse, a Salem Republican, said in a statement.

Candidates and state parties don’t have to file reports until August, but the Democratic Party said that, as of now, its total fundraising between the committee and the candidates tops $1 million.

“It’s clear that we have the momentum, and we have the strongest candidates. Now, we also have a historic amount of cash on hand. There is no doubt that New Hampshire families across the state are saying ‘enough is enough, it’s time for Democratic leadership in the Senate,’ ” Democratic Party Chairman Ray Buckley said in a statement.

The totals so far show that Democrats are spending at a much faster rate than Republicans. The Republican committee has spent just $28,500 so far compared with the Democrats’ $121,000.

It’s no secret that national campaigns are becoming more and more expensive, particularly in the wake of several U.S. Supreme Court decisions that have weakened campaign finance regulations. But that increased spending is trickling down to statewide and even local campaigns. In statewide races, more money usually translates into a more professional campaign, said Dean Spiliotes, a civic scholar in the School of Arts and Sciences at Southern New Hampshire University and a longtime New Hampshire political observer. Smaller campaigns are also becoming more nationalized, which means outside groups may seek influence in statewide races, too.

Typically, campaigns and committees spend money on things like voter outreach through field operations, such as organizing volunteers to knock on your door and through campaign materials. New technology is also making voter targeting easier, allowing the parties and campaigns to focus outreach efforts on the people who are most likely to respond.

The Democratic Party says several of its candidates are already posting impressive fundraising totals. Sen. David Watters of Dover has already raised $53,000, which is near the high end of what Senate candidates usually raise during an entire cycle. Richard Leonard, who is running against incumbent Republican Sen. Sam Cataldo, has raised $30,000, which is more than the $23,000 he raised during the entire 2012 election cycle.

(Kathleen Ronayne can be reached at 369-3309 or or on Twitter @kronayne.)

Legacy Comments9

"Gone in the wind is the liberals understanding of how government policy and taxes affect the economy..... it is like explaining the magic of electricity to a savage." “Why the Democratic Party is Doomed,” The demise of the nation’s oldest criminal racket……….The Democrats…….. are a party of unions, government workers, retirees, green industries, “entitlement” payees, professors, teachers and social-change activists …….all of whom require government payments in one form or another. We as a state and nation are BROKE - electing another democrat is akin to putting the nose around your own neck

Two of the reason we are broke - Ronald Reagans tax cuts for his rich friends in life and business (his trickle down “opinion”) and the fact that Ronald Reagan is the ONLY President to make illegal aliens legal through the ONLY Amnesty program in history. He only encouraged more illegals to come to the US and now we are stuck again with the same problems from two failed Reagan programs......... So, any comment on the article?

Only a truly uninformed person make the leftist Rhetoric gospel. Those tax cuts for the rich is pure 100% hokum - remember you used that same rhetoric on Bush. Both tax cuts stimulated the country beyond belief - how is that NObama / democrat stimulus working for ya? - Regarding Amnesty - what was the vote in the democrat controlled House and Senate? liberals ....... sheeesh!

Jim, you have a habit of leaving out details when accusing Reps of things. The Reagan Amnesty Bill was gutted by Dems. Kennedy and the Congressmen from CA, the two biggest sanction states were worried about discrimination and between them and lobbyists, 300 amendments were added to make the bill unenforceable in regards to employer rules, and securing the border. Kennedy was a driving force in milking down the bill to make it ineffective. By the time the bill was passed, it was a piece of crap. The lesson here is that any amnesty bill passed will not work. The Reps will water it down, and rules will be watered down. Dems and Reps will in fact bow to their special interests. The realty of immigration issues is that we are too soft. Till that changes, folks will keep streaming in here. Amnesty is looked at as a humane issue and that will prevent any effective bill from ever being passed.

I made a short post saying this amnesty plan was created under Reagan and signed by Reagan (not inherited) , if he did not like it then he should have vetoed it and forced Congress to override him. I agree it was gutted and the enforcement parts were gutted - exactly why he should have vetoed it. What he got was amnesty for all and a bunch of unrelated items. I'll stick with my point that by giving the amnesty back then it just encouraged more to come and this talk now about amnesty is causing this current influx. Last I heard there were 47,000 children at the border (could be 90,000 by years end) and the US is saying they will not deport them unless someone is waiting to pick them up - does anyone believe these children got here by themselves. Return them to their countries and their countries can take them home. I've posted many times about making a firm law about hiring illegals and enforce it. Remove the incentive and the problem will mostly solve itself. I am fine with immigration, but not rewarding those that have already broke the laws.

Reagan could have vetoed it, yeah, but he really believed his original plan would stem the tide. Once it turned to crap, he should have vetoed it. But we do not know why he did not, He did state later he regretted it. You will never get a firm law in regards to employees hiring illegals. As long as you have sanction states like MA and CA who welcome illegals, and Reps fear of being branded mean and discriminating against minorities. We will never get a handle on immigration. Borders should be more secure, and illegals should be dealt with on a level that does not involve emotions. Those kids are here to stay. And till you get a border that will keep illegals out, more will come. If you cannot deport an illegal that has been here for years, there is no way you will see kids deported. Not gonna happen. Our govt is totally incompetent. That is why most of us want it reduced not for it to grow larger.

I think we are proving that even building the million dollar a mile border fence it is not stopping people. A fence is not solving the root cause of the problem, that is the job incentive, free education, free medical....... As far as government size, lack of accountability (latest shown with the VA mess) is a major problem. Get rid of the non-performers and the size will come to a workable size, the problem is both sides are fine with the poor performers. Look at the VA , Congress is ready to say they can remove workers easier BUT only the VA can do this. Congress doesn't make it apply to ALL as they would then piss off 33% of the population. This way they can single out a very small group and claim they are working the problem. There are a lot of good workers but too many poor workers.

I was under the impression Jim that parts of the border fence need to be differently because of the terrain. Meaning that some parts of the border need double fences, more cameras and more men to patrol it. The impression I got was that fence was pretty much useless. Why is it the govt cannot do anything right? Screw up everything. v.s.

Post a Comment

You must be registered to comment on stories. Click here to register.