« Mowen's money | Main | Evans warchest grows »

January 30, 2006

The Jacobs money report -- and Rumler's

Sen. Mike Jacobs' year-end financial report is now on file at the Illinois State Board of elections.

Shows he had $177,688.69 on hand June 30, took in $76,119 and spent $74,619.70 to end the year with $179,187.99 on hand. Union and corporate PACs both being generous with the senator.

Paul Rumler, who's opposing Jacobs for the D nomination, hadn't filed by late Monday, at least not electronically.

The Rumler report is now on file. The race is a total mismatch financially. Rumler took in $4,085 and spent $2,184, leaving him $1,960.

Money-wise, it's $179,000 vs. $2,000. Will money decide it?

Posted by jcb at January 30, 2006 10:07 PM


Ah, yes, casinos, corporations, PACs and unions generously providing the magical grease to lubricate the wheels of American politics.

Meanwhile in Iowa, the king of Kum & Go (an unfortunate choice of names for a business) breaks with Jim Nussle, the man who would be gov, because the Republican congressman doesn't support video gambling in convenience stores.

It's enough to make a Republican look fondly on Karl Marx.

Posted by: Michael Romkey at January 31, 2006 07:46 AM

Found an interesting article about one of Mikey's largest contributors Rod Aycox.


Posted by: Al at January 31, 2006 05:25 PM

Nothing like setting the bar low.

Posted by: Michael Romkey at January 31, 2006 08:47 PM

I thought the Republicans were the steak and wine crowd. From the expense report, it looks like the Democrats have moved uptown from the East Moline Legion to the Blue Ribbon Steakhouse in Moline. Wonder where the Republicans hang out entertaining the faithful?

Posted by: greg at January 31, 2006 10:12 PM

Jacobs donor list looks like a balance sheet for political favors. Pretty sad day and age in politics.

Posted by: Disgusted at February 1, 2006 08:18 AM

If you look at the Report in August you see several big Johnys and Blue ribbon steakhouse reciepts. If you look at the Amount comming in you can see lots of contributions from Individuals and PAC groups. I think that they call these events fundraisers. Until we want Socialized Politics, or the rich only representation, we will all have to give to the organization of choice or to our canidate of choice. Sen. Mike Jacobs has raised money at a very respectable rate. On the Order of his Chicago peers.
Great accomplishment Sen. Mike Jacobs!!

Posted by: LBJ at February 1, 2006 04:49 PM

Hey, I noticed that you left Boland off of your Campaign money list. What gives! He has general election as does Evans. Is there a reason for this.

Posted by: Anonymous at February 1, 2006 05:48 PM

No reason except that I've been on the road for a couple of days, and used the five minutes I did have for blogging to grab the Jacobs/Rumler/Evans stuff, in which there's probably greater interest.

Will get up reports from the Boland race soon.

Posted by: jcb at February 1, 2006 08:15 PM

I thought that Rumler comming from big campaigns would be a better canidate. This is embarresing.

Posted by: Anonymous at February 2, 2006 03:01 PM

Your spelling gives you away Mike. The only embarrassing thing in this race is that you are actually our representation to the State. Yikes.

Posted by: Jeebus at February 3, 2006 08:07 AM

Anyone notice that in Jacobs' report under itemized expenditures, there an item listing that he paid a Tina Somner $2000.00 for 'research'? A google search on her name shows that, amazingly, there's a girl with that very name who is an accomplished masseuse working at Two Rivers Massage in downtown Moline.

There's nothing about research on the web page about her talents. Must have inadvertantly left that out.


Posted by: Enquiring Mind at February 4, 2006 05:30 AM

I am a woman that finds this kind of smear on this poor woman to be apprehensible. I find it interesting that men can't believe in this day and age that a woman isn't capable of doing research. Get your mind out of the gutter. John, You should have never let this onto your sight in this form. First she is not a girl but a woman. And to think that a woman isn't capable of doing a this job and questioning this Womans integrity is a an inditement on you John.
Sexual harassment is insinuated with the reference about her talents. This is an act of desperation from the Rumler camp and I for one will let every woman I know that you and the Rumler camp must be drummed out like the dark aged men that you are.

Posted by: ROAR at February 4, 2006 10:25 AM

It is obvious that Rumler is a Republican plant that has problems with women. Not only from the smear above but from the Rumler's campaign finance report. There is a $500 contribution from a Washington DC based group called AmeriPAC?

A simple Google search that even a woman researcher could find reveals that AmeriPac (AmeriPac.org) lends support to conservative candidates throughout the country. Here is a sample of their work form their web page.

The Hillary Project

Hillary Rodham Clinton? the girl from Illinois, schooled in Massachusetts and Connecticut, a resident of Arkansas who lives in Washington, D.C.? wants to run for Senate from New York.

A brief look at the history of Hillary Clinton will confirm what columnist Camille Paglia said in a recent article in Women?s Quarterly: ?That woman should not be anywhere near our government . . . That woman is an authoritarian who should be kept out of government. She?s a tyrant who thinks she knows what?s best for the people. She?s Orwellian in her attitude toward the rest of humanity.? One should not, and need not, judge her by her husband?s actions? she is a corrupt radical in her own right.

In order to allow the people of New York to make a better-informed decision on whom to support in the upcoming election, AmeriPAC has compiled some facts about the life and times of Ms. Clinton.

The bad tone tword Democrats and Women is appalling. A Republican plant from Washington is all we need here.

Don,t mess with women Mr. Rumler and Mr. Beydler. I am not a girl but a woman.

Posted by: ROAR at February 4, 2006 10:59 AM

Roar away, ROAR, whatever gender you really are.

The point of calling attention to the financial reports is to give people the opportunity to explore and raise questions, as is being done here.

Your question about AmeriPAC is a pretty good one. Seems bizarre that a national outfit with that philosophical bent would be giving money to an unknown guy in a Democratic state senatorial primary.

One oddity here -- the address of the Rumler donor is listed as 499 South Capitol Street SW
Suite 414, Washington, DC 20003, while the address of the AmericPac whose website you visited is listed in its latest FEC filing as PO Box 1682 Bellevue, Washington 98009.

Kind of confusing. Maybe someone in Rumler camp could clear it up.

Posted by: jcb at February 4, 2006 11:40 AM

Dear Roar,

Your rantings are bizarre. No one has said anything negative about Ms. Somner. Rather, the post only questioned whether it is logical for Jacobs to make a $2000 payment to a masseuse for "research" services. You, Roar, are insinuating that the payment is for illicit or illegal services. I had surmised only that either: (i) Jacobs had in fact required frequent massages from the stress of travel to Springfield and had recorded this as research since there is no line item on the D-2 for spa services (if this is the case, then I believe Jacobs may create problems for himself both with the IRS and with the State Board of Elections), or (ii) Jacobs did in fact have Ms. Somner perform research, and if that is the case he should explain the work done to put this issue to bed. The issue is Jacobs, and not Ms. Somner, and your efforts to recast this in such an insidious manner are wrong.

I also find it odd that you take issue with the fact that Rumler received $500 from a PAC. This is a severe case of the pot calling the kettle black. Please peruse the Jacobs filings for the tens of thousands of dollars Jacobs has received from PACs and lobbyists, including those that provide heavy support for Republican candidates and positions. The simple fact is that many organizations and PACs play politics "safely" and support parties on both sides of the aisle.

In any event, it would be very easy for Jacobs to clear all this up and explain the $2000 payment, before the news cameras show up to interview Ms. Somner.

Posted by: king of beers at February 4, 2006 11:55 AM

Are you suggesting that there are two Ameripac's? Interesting.

Posted by: Anonymous at February 4, 2006 12:05 PM

I am a lady and am ready to vote for Mike Jacobs simply because of the smears from the Rumler camp towards women in general - see above.

That corporate glass ceiling is holding me down but not keeping me from getting out to the polls to vote and make it count. Don't forget, We women voted Al Dixon out of office much to his shock and awe.

Posted by: lady at February 4, 2006 12:18 PM

I am a lady and I am voting for the anti-Jacobs because I am disgusted with the unchecked power of the Politburo.

Posted by: paladin at February 4, 2006 05:14 PM

Mike, you've sunk to a new low suggesting that Rumler somehow insulted women. You will stop at nothing. The smears get more and more bizarre.

Shouldn't you be down sniffing out the Triumph Plant in Missouri? You were the first to take all the credit for it, now you are nowhere to be found. You would be perfect. I know you've got the wiffer for it, you're always nosing around on these blogs when you should be doing your job.

Posted by: New Low at February 4, 2006 06:02 PM

Nice try Mike. AmeriPac is not some anti-female organization.

In fact, the money that Rumler received from AmeriPac should probably be in indicator that Jacobs is in trouble. I searched around for 5 seconds and found that AmeriPac is actually Steny Hoyer's leadership fund. Check it out here:


For those of you that don't know who Steny Hoyer is, he's the Whip. The second highest ranking Democrat in the House.

While Jacobs is getting money from Harrah's, Rumler got money from Steny Hoyer. Hmm. I wonder why Jacobs has to resort to these smears. I guess you tend to act like the crowd that you run with.

Posted by: Stop Jacobs' Smearing at February 4, 2006 06:08 PM

okay, Mike and all the other Jacobs that are currently sitting in front of the local blogs with a large drink in hand - because lets face it anyone sober wouldn't and couldn't come up with what they write - please stop pretending to write from a woman's perpective. "roar and lady" - really?

Posted by: Please! at February 4, 2006 08:48 PM

why does mr. jacobs have to explain about what ms. somner did for him and not have to explain what porter mcniel did for him. is this a double standard for the men of the world to keep us women down. i feel that the rumler campaign has sunken to an all time low in attacking this woman for the sole reason that she is a woman. and for john beydler to let this attack go on for the increased readership of the dispatch/argus and his silly blog is negligent.

Posted by: Anonymous at February 4, 2006 11:09 PM

As to the attempt to twist Sen. Jacobs "Elizabeth Ray moment" into some distorted suggestion that his opponent is anti-women must be some sort of record for sheer brazen buffoonery.

If anything, it should be clear from the many similar attempts made here and elsewhere that Jacobs or his supporters have little to no respect for the basic intelligence of their constituents, male, female, or otherwise.

Posted by: TID at February 4, 2006 11:40 PM

I noticed that Mike has some signs out now. What's the deal with 2 signs per yard? Is that something that Denny taught him? Not just on corners mind you, almost every yard with a Jacobs sign, has two.

Posted by: Senator?? at February 5, 2006 12:41 AM

The reason why, i believe, questions were raised about ms. somner is because of who she works for. and what type of research is she doing? even if it was a male doing the research i know people would have the same questions - mike's "facts" aren't lining up. and we are very aware of what mcneil is doing on his campaign...but why isn't he advising you to stop posting on the blogs?

Posted by: beth at February 5, 2006 03:08 AM

Say what you want but this line right here shows that Rumler camp is trying to smear this poor woman. "There's nothing about research on the web page about her talents. Must have inadvertantly left that out." What talents are you refering to Paul.

Smear Jacobs but not this poor womans reputation.

Posted by: Anonymous at February 5, 2006 11:08 AM

you rumlers must be doing something worse than drinking for you to think it is ok to attack this woman. why don't you say what you think that this woman was doing if not research. if this was a man this would have never been brought up. a pig is a pig is a pig and maybe mr. rumler should be the first hog to be butchered in the new plant since you are for the pig plant as stated on your web site.

Posted by: woman at February 5, 2006 11:19 AM

Why questions about somner and not about porter mcneil? Because mcneil is an experienced political consultant and somner is a massuese. duh.

Posted by: Anonymous at February 5, 2006 11:55 AM

Got an email from Paul Rumler, about the AmeriPAC confusion. "The $500 in question was a contribution from AmeriPAC, which is Congressman Steny Hoyer's Leadership PAC. As reported in my committee's financial disclosure report, their address is 499 South Capitol St. SW #414, Washington, DC."

Sincerely, Paul Rumler

Posted by: jcb at February 5, 2006 11:22 PM

In response to

Posted by: woman at February 5, 2006 11:19 AM;

Are you kidding me with this. The only thing that has been brought into question is to why $2K would go to a person (just happens to be a woman) claiming to be for research when she is employed as a masseuse. The issue would be the same if the money went to a man! Maybe we should exploit the fact that you have just basically stated that Mr. Rumler should be executed in your above statement. Would that statment have been made if Rumler was a woman?

Posted by: Ned at February 7, 2006 02:00 PM

How about if we elevate this discussion a bit.

When are the candidates for Senate going to debate?

What issues differentiate the two candidates?

This endless mudslinging by both sides is just ... nauseating.

Posted by: anonymous at February 7, 2006 10:40 PM

The guy running Mike Jacobs' campaign, Pat O' Brien, has been working hard these days.

Who is Paul Rumler's campaign manager? Does anyone know?

Who is the campaign manager for Boland and Haring?

Posted by: anonymous at February 7, 2006 10:43 PM

Mike Jacobs campaign manager Pat O'Brien will be a big asset to Mike Jacobs, but will Jacobs listen to O'Brien? O'Brien has actually run for office a few times (and won every time but once). O'Brien is a good debater and, in fact, could stand in very well for Mike if he has to. Pat also comes from the labor background that I come from. He relates well to the laborers at 309 and all labor unions in the QC.
But he also knows how to work with Republicans because he was a Moline City Council member.

Posted by: anonymous at February 7, 2006 11:44 PM

If you haven't noticed by now Rumler doesn't want to debate. Rumler has never asked for a debate and at this late date when the Senate is in session would be irresponsible to ask. You people should let Rumler go out with some dignity instead of running him over with a truck. I feel that you brave individuals should lace up your gloves and challenge Sen. Mike Jacobs for the Senate seat next time. You complainers are pathetic...

Posted by: Anonymous at February 7, 2006 11:46 PM

Nice attempt at spin.

If anyone in this race doesn't want to debate it's Jacobs, and it looks like he's lining up his excuse for the day that one of the papers finally suggests a date for a debate.

Posted by: Yeah, right at February 8, 2006 07:28 AM

What's this crap about how O'Brien is a good debater and could stand in for Jacobs if he had to. More like Mike would want him to debate for him. Why isn't the Jacobs campaign pushing for a debate if they think it would "running over Rumler with a truck." I have had the pleasure of meeting this young man in person and he is quite intelligent. Better break out Big Foot because you might need a monster truck to run him over.

Posted by: Ned at February 8, 2006 09:47 AM

Not spin but the truth. First the rules state that a canidate has to have over 17% to be a viable canidate. Rumler is behind this number. The bigger problem is that only Beydler and the Dope have wanted a debate. Let Paul be Paul and do what he does best.

Posted by: Anonymous at February 8, 2006 12:18 PM

We should all want a better discussion of the issues to replace the name calling on these blogs.
The blog hosts may be well intentioned, but they're blogs have become vehicles for the immature and the irresonsible and the mean spirited.

What about health care? What about schools?
What about child abuse? What about jobs?

That is the debate. That is what should matter.
This nauseating immaturity, not by the blog hosts but by those who are posting comments, is truly tiresome.

Posted by: anonymous at February 8, 2006 10:51 PM

17% of what??? That's a flat out LIE. The type of lie that we've been seeing more and more of from the Jacobs supporters on these blogs.

And Mike, you continue to spell candidate incorrectly. Is your blackberry missing some keys?

Posted by: Anonymous at February 8, 2006 11:57 PM

Donations from campaign funds to a Greek church and a Catholic school? What's that about?

Posted by: cajobe at March 4, 2006 12:00 PM