« Nope, didn't have legs; and the search for better | Main | On special interests and special interests... »

August 05, 2006

Senate races and money

So I've been whiling away time I should have spent mowing the yard poking around in the Illinois Board Elections database, mostly looking at state Senate candidates.

Sixty-five people sought their party's nomination for one or another of the 39 Senate seats open this year. Of the 65, 11 spent at least $100,000 in the Jan.1-June 30 period that encompassed the March primary. The Q-C's own Mike Jacobs was No. 8 on the Big Spender's list, with $142,178 in outlays during the period.

In three instances, the Big Spenders faced each other in the primary.

-- In the District 48 Republican primary, Randy Hultgren spent $232,191 to top Richard Furstenau, who spent $144,639. (Vote was 14,867-9,823)

-- In the District 12 Democrat primary, Martin Sandoval spent $214,811 to beat Eduardo Garza, who spent $122,444. (Vote was 8,056-6,071)

-- In the District 33 Dem primary, Dan Kotowski spent $197,195 to fend off James J. Morici Jr., who spent a whopping $373,092. (Vote was 8,453-4,778, which means Morici spent $78.08 for each vote.)

Two of the races were particularly one-sided as far as money goes.

In District 1, Antonio Munoz spent $126,610, while steam-rollering Oscar Torres, who spent but $5,990. With his 21-1 spending advantage, Munoz swamped Torres, 10,657-3,058, or 77%-23%.

In our own District 36, Jacobs spent $142,178, while Paul Rumler spent just $7,965 -- about an 18-1 advantage for Jacobs. His margin of victory was 8,341-6,528, or 56%-44%. Put another way, Jacobs spent $17.04 per vote, while Rumler spent $1.22.

----------------------------------

Among all 65 Senate candidates, Jacobs was far and away No. 1 in the category of un-itemized expenditures. Of the $142,178 he spent, $17,848, or 12.3 percent was un-itemized.

In comparison, the biggest spender, Morici, had outlays of $373,092, of which only $1,234, or .03 percent, was un-itemized.

(Disclosure law requires itemized disclosure of all people and vendors who receive more than an aggragate $150.)

Among itemized expenditures, Jacobs largest disbursement was to campaign manager Pat O'Brien, $27,376. Other staff/labor payments went to Casey Jacobs, $2,809; Hannah Radosezich, $2,776; and Janet Oltman, $1,400.

Other expenditures include $14,250.00 to Cooper & Secrest Associates, of Alexandria, Va., for polling.

T.C. Marketing of Blue Island got $12,206 for mailing/marketing; Brecker Press of Chicago got $14,696 for printing/mailing; Review Printing of Rock Island got $5,070 for printing tickets and yard signs.

There is also $14,925 going to various restaurants and clubs for "campaign food" and parties.

Here's the link to the full report.

Posted by jcb at August 5, 2006 09:47 PM

Comments

Assuming Jacobs spent the maximum ($149.99) on his un-itemized expeditures, he would have to have made 119 of them during that period! How could that be possible? Is it more likely that Jacobs needs a new accountant? It really makes you wonder where all that money went.

Local party leaders should take notice of Paul Rumler's showing. Imagine if he would have had more money. He should be proud.

Posted by: Anonymous at August 6, 2006 09:49 AM

John,

It's fascinating what the numbers can tell us. Thanks for doing the math.

One could certainly be excused for thinking something is rather fishy about Jacobs' accounting.

It seems hard to swallow that he supposedly spent just a few dollars less than the maximum reportable amount over 119 times.

But of course, we can expect blind fury from his camp that anyone dare question his report or what he spent his money on, as we've seen in the past.

It was clear the attitude which prevailed was that what he spent his money on was no one's business. A curious attitude for a public servant.

Posted by: TID at August 6, 2006 11:21 AM

Paul Rumler, Mike Darrow and Dennis Ahern all presented themselves well in the last election cycle or cycles if you will, as far are legitimacy of candidacy- based on issues, public apperances and presentation, and for potential to do the job for the Wetern Illinois region, in their respective bids for the Illinois Senate, and House. Mike Darrow was the only one of the three to really pull in the money, though, it was largely family money. The Democratic Party would do well to invite those young men more into the fold, as the State Reps each are aging, and you never know what could happen in the contested race in the 36th. All three, I could easily support. Hope John G and Mike M. pay attention to the under 40 year old crowd.

Posted by: passthetorch at August 6, 2006 12:17 PM

I think that it is great to have someone that does such a great job raising funds and spending it. Sen Jacobs gave our organization a very nice donation. Some would say that it is fishy, I call it very nice.

Posted by: A friend of Jacobs at August 6, 2006 01:02 PM

TID, It is not his legislative money that we are talking about here. The money that we are talking about here is his money that he brought in from private donors. I think that you need to find somnething better to do with your time. No one cares but you and John, Jacobs known enemys. It figures that you would complain about his fund raising. Rumor has it Jacobs will be spending more money to get more money soon. Get ready to complain again.

Get a hobby.

Posted by: Ned Flanders at August 6, 2006 03:54 PM

Individual donors? Where??? A vast majority of his dollars are from PAC's. The PAC's that sicken me are the ones that in the long run pass costs on to the citizens. People like SBC Ameritech and Mid American energy. Maybe Mike should be a little more careful when spending money that originated in his constituents hands.

Posted by: Anonymous at August 6, 2006 06:26 PM

Ned, where did you get the idea that I thought this was "legislative" money?

Seriously. I'm curious. Where did you get the idea that I thought that's what we were discussing? I've re-read my comment and it refers to Jacobs spending "his" money. It's clear that this is about the expenditure of campaign funds.

Again, where did you get the idea I was confusing campaign expenditures with "legislative" money?

When you have to invent something out of thin air in order to have something to knock someone for, it's usually not a good sign.

Posted by: TID at August 7, 2006 01:49 AM

Ned, you better keep hoping nobody cares.

Kinda whistling past the graveyard, aren't you?

It's not about simply spending money, it's how and to whom and in what amounts, as well as the glaring fact that Jacobs has an enormous amount of cash spent with no acccounting for it.

Keep telling yourself no one cares. And click your heels together three times just in case.

Posted by: Chief Wiggums at August 7, 2006 03:22 AM

Don't forget Pat O'Brien as an upcoming future political leader and candidate. He almost toppled the Republican stranglehold on Moline government politics last year and has wide appeal in RI and other parts of the QC area as a common sense candidate! I can think of an aging State Rep who may be ready for retirement soon in Rock Island....

Posted by: maybesomeday at August 7, 2006 07:23 AM

TID, I am sorry for thinking you meant his legislative money. This is the money that you have a right to complain about. The money that I now see that you are questioning is the money that he has raised from private donors that they give to him to spend as he sees fit to get himself elected. I guess this is the reason that I was confused by your outburst of anger toward Senator Jacobs.

Posted by: Ned Flanders at August 7, 2006 10:09 AM

Chief Wiggums, We will see how much people care about Jacobs spending his hard earned cash. Jacobs has another round of fund raisers coming and though insiders don't expect Jacobs to do as well when he has opposition with a rep for bar fights, most believe that he will do very well. This is the true test as to whether people care how he spends his hard earned money.

Posted by: Ned Flanders at August 7, 2006 10:16 AM

That's the second time I've seen that (retiring Rep) inferred, is VerShoore considering retirement? I know that Boland isn't going anywhere. Is there truth to this, or is this just another Jacobs jab at forcing Boland into retirement.

Pat O'Brien should be ashamed to have been a part of Jacobs' campaign, first the smearing phone calls, and now shady finances.

Posted by: Anonymous at August 7, 2006 10:50 AM

DOPE,

Ned is saying that Senator Mike Jacobs' money is his money, an not taxpayer or State money. As a result, Senator Mike Jacobs is free to raise and spend it within the limits of the law. In fact, Mike is in the process of raising and spending more money in the upcoming General Election. That's what campaigns do.

Doper, do you have a single fact to back up your wild assertion, or are you just jealous?

Envy is such a negative emotion.

Posted by: KatetNelson at August 7, 2006 11:09 AM

I think I know where one of Mike Jacobs less than $150 purchases went to. How about a bulk purchase of industrial strength hand cleaner to get ALL OF THE GREASE from his palms.

Let's look at his paid campaign staff also. Money going to Casey Jacobs, Janet Oltman, and Hannah Radosezich. Mike, if you pay someone a salary, then you owe the government taxes.

I got a good laugh out of the $200 he paid the local boy scouts for working at his fundraising event. That sure is cheap labor, but I suppose better than hiring illegal immigrants.

How about those political smear phone calls against Paul Rumler in the primary. We can all see payments made to the Roosevelt Group ($3908.06) based in Chicago and Emedia C Inc (1009.46) based in California for political calling.

What kind of research does Tina Summers deserve for a payment in the amount of $2,000.

If Mike Jacobs is this wasteful with his own campaign money, imagine how WASTEFUL HE IS WITH OUR TAXPAYERS DOLLARS!!!

Posted by: Financial Analyst at August 7, 2006 12:17 PM

Hey, where is the Mighty Mike? Let him present himself to answer questions from us proles, and not just use his mouthpieces like Kaet/Kate and Ned to answer.

Don't take the cowardly way out Mike---confront your constituents!

Posted by: paladin at August 7, 2006 01:30 PM

The smearing phone calls came as an "in-kind" contribution from Personal Pac. The dollar figure was staggering, I believe upwards of 30K per round of calls.

Jacobs won't debate an opponent (the dope already tried to organize that), why would he confront his constituents?

Posted by: Anonymous at August 7, 2006 02:46 PM

I called Senator Mike Jacobs office number today and talked to him. He told me he couldn't talk from his office so he would go to his car and talk to me. I thought that I was getting the run around, but he called me back in about 10 minuets. He went on to explain that it is state election laws, which he read me the law that $150 or less they don't have to report. He was very open, polite, and knowledgeable about this and many other topics that we talked about. He went on to tell me that he gave donations to numerous democratic candidates and to democratic organizations throughout his district. He made me aware that he has also given money to my nephew’s school, Earl Hansen for them to get grass in their playground. I did not realize that he had done so much work for the Democratic Party and other charitable organizations. I did not vote for Mr. Jacobs in the primary because of your site and the appointment thing. After talking to Mr. Jacobs I will vote for him and work to get my family and friends to vote for him.

Thanks to the person that recommended calling and talking to Mr. Jacobs. It was the right thing to do.

Posted by: Seeking The Truth at August 7, 2006 07:41 PM

You've got to be kidding me right, come on "Seeking the Truth". I've read that same prose time and time again from Mike and his flunkies.

Posted by: Anonymous at August 7, 2006 08:28 PM

Lets get this straight. These phone calls were because Rumler was trying to sit the fence on the abortion issue and didn't send in questions pertaining to this issue. Rumler was sent registered mail three times from this organization. If you decide to duck the tough questions these groups right or wrong believe that you are against them.

This is not the first time this group has done work here. They ran a very simular campaign against Denny Ahearn when he ran against Mike Boland.

Lets try and get the facts striaght Anonymous at August 7, 2006 02:46 PM (James Beals)

Posted by: The truth about smears at August 7, 2006 08:32 PM

I only post under my legal name.

I am pro-life, my opponent is pro-choice.

This is one of many issues we disagree on.

Sincerely,
James M. Beals, State Senate Candidate, 36th District

Posted by: James Beals at August 7, 2006 09:26 PM

Anonymous at August 7, 2006 08:28 PM, Maybe you should see what Paladin wrote on Money Matters post. His experience calling Senator Jacobs was not to different from mine except for he is a hard fought republican.

You need to get over yourself.

Posted by: Seeking The Truth at August 7, 2006 10:08 PM

Senator Jacobs told me that he didn't believe that he had the highest unreported expenditures. I wanted to find out for myself.
After doing a little research of my own I found that Jacobs did report 12.3 percent as un-itemized as reported by jcb.
What he didn't tell you was that Emil Jones (D)also reported 12.5% as unreported.
Jaqueline Collins (D) 20%.
Maggie Crotty (D) 23.3%.

Don't assume that it is only Democrats.
Kirk Dillard (R) 15%.
Charles Fitzgerald (R) 29.9%.
John Jones (R) 18.5%.
Todd Seiben (R) 5.4%

And last but not least.

James Beals (R) 58.7% un-itemized expenditures.

I did not run thru the whole list but you get the picture. This is common place among pols from both sides.

Look who's smearing now.

Posted by: Seeking The Truth at August 7, 2006 11:01 PM

Seeking The Truth -- Good try, but no cigar. The senator's $17,848 in un-itemized spending was far and away the biggest number. Only two others -- Mattie Hunter ($10,444) and Terry Link ($10,144) -- had more than $10,000.

Percentages don't mean much when applied to the numbers turned in by Beals and some of the others you mention -- his 58% amounts to $1,691.

Posted by: jcb at August 7, 2006 11:59 PM

Ned,
"outburst of anger"??

What a vivid imagination you have.

You might consider writing children's fiction.

Posted by: TID at August 8, 2006 03:36 AM

Ms. Nelson.

Thanks for you opinions, but it's not based on anything you read from me.

Somehow you think I feel that Jacobs isn't free to spend his campaign loot in any way he wishes.

That's simply untrue and I've never said anything remotely like that.

I do, however, feel that it's worth examining where and how he spent his money.

Are you suggesting the public doesn't have any right to either know that information or question it in any way?

Posted by: TID at August 8, 2006 03:44 AM

Ned, Ned, Ned...

Now you've gone from pointing out that the money in question is campaign money raised from donors to characterizing it as "hard earned", not once, but twice?

WTF?

"Hard earned"???!!

If you or I or anyone else could do the amount of work Jacobs did to make $92 grand in six months, I think there'd be a stampede!

Yeah, I'm sure he worked to raise the $1/4 million his campaign had to work with. Not all of it just fell in his lap (though a lot did) Making appearances, making phone calls, and getting multi-thousand dollar checks. Meeting money guys in swanky restaurants and bars and pocketing more checks. And doing nothing at all to get $75 grand from his father, if I recall... that's the hard work you're talking about?

That's about as hard as. say, a single mom does in the average week.

But "Hard Earned"? Pu-leeze. That's an insult to anyone who's ever had to work for a living.

I'm afraid that characterization would be a stretch for anyone but yourself and perhaps Sen. Jacobs.

Posted by: Chief Wiggums at August 8, 2006 04:01 AM

Personal Pac has every right to make the phone calls and send out its message via a mail campaign, or any other means. If Rumler had returned his survey, we would have known where he stands on the issue. As far as Ahern, he is Pro-Life and was endorsed as such, so he was fair game.

Posted by: itspolitics at August 8, 2006 06:07 AM

Next it will be Mike Jacobs fault that neither his primary or general election opponent had the skill to raise money.

Wig, if you think it is easy why don't you push yourself away from the computer and go out and do it. As Rumler just learned and Beals is about to --- losing is embarassing.

Posted by: KateNelson at August 8, 2006 08:58 AM

Here you go again jcb, the numbers only work when you use them the way that you want to use them.

James Beals (R) 58.7% un-itemized expenditures.

Here are some more numbers for you.

James beals un-itemized expenditures was nearly 10% of the Senators un-itemized expenditures.
His income was only 2% of the Senators.

If you believe that the law is bad or somehow spooky then Beals un-itemized expenditures are a much bigger issue than Jacobs.

This practice of un-itemized expenditures is the law as you point out. What exactly are you trying to say. I wish you would get to it rather than let out things in whisper campaigns. It is the law it is what is asked of by the state board of elections. All of these other folks on the list including Beals had no primary challenge. When they do the will have bigger numbers.


Look who's smearing now.

Posted by: Seeking The Truth at August 8, 2006 10:34 AM

Chief, If you think it is easy to raise funds then I suggest that you call Senator Jacobs and go to work for him.
You guys could bring in tons of money together.
From the looks of it other Senators throughout the State could use your help also as well as most losers of political campaigns. I know that Beals will find it hard to bring in money at the rate of Jacobs even without you helping the Senator with the ease that you bring in money.

Posted by: Ned Flanders at August 8, 2006 10:42 AM

I hope the media gets a lot of great photos of Mike Jacobs cheesy smile as it turns to a frown when James Beals is announced as our new State Senator on November 7.

Posted by: Anonymous at August 8, 2006 12:13 PM

How can people confuse "hard work" with the ability to raise larges sums of campaign cash?

Admittedly, it does take some effort, but as anyone with a couple brain cells to rub together knows, it's more about connections and what you can be counted on to support.

Jacobs fell backwards into an already established donor base. So I find it a bit weird that some suggest that the amount of money he raised is somehow directly linked to the amount of work he did in raising it.

Of course it's going to be harder for Rumler or Beals or anyone else without Jacobs donor base developed by his father over decades of wheeling and dealing to raise funds.

They're trying to do "cold calls" so to speak, both trying to find donors out of thin air and get them to contribute.

Jacobs on the other hand, likely only had to make some phone calls from a list someone put in front of him. He already knew who his friends were, so to speak.

It's much like, say, taking over a car dealership from your Dad who'd run it successfully for decades as opposed from starting a new car lot from scratch.

Which requires more "work"??

Posted by: TID at August 8, 2006 02:27 PM

Mr. Beals you say you are pro life. does this mean in the case of incest or rape also.

Posted by: Jack Edwards at August 8, 2006 02:50 PM

Seeking the truth, I see that basic math confuses you. What jcb was saying is that with small numbers like beals has, percentages are a much less reliable means of telling the story. Not to mention if you look a little further into the logic of the comparison you could probably infer as to why the percentages are so different. Beals is dealing with a small amount of money, so logic would tell us that the amounts he spends are smaller. I want to quote the original post of this thread to infer my point.

(Disclosure law requires itemized disclosure of all people and vendors who receive more than an aggragate $150.)

So if beals is dealing with a small amount of money statistically it will be less likely he cross the $150 threshold. Therefore he can classify more of his money in the unitemized section.

Numbers are always open to interpretation. So when you question the intentions of the post, I think it would be best classified as getting information out and letting us all interpret things our own way.

Posted by: Robbie at August 8, 2006 02:51 PM

If Beals jaw still isn't wired shut, he will be frowning on election night!

Posted by: MaryAnn146@yahoo.com at August 8, 2006 04:21 PM

Robbie, I appreciate you trying to clear things up for jcb, however he knows what he is trying to infer.
I think your point is because Jacobs has more money he should spend it in bigger numbers. He did do that and he also spent it in smaller numbers. Actuually he can spend it anyway that he wants because it is his. As Beals can spend his as he sees fit. What is your point.

Posted by: Seeking The Truth at August 8, 2006 05:02 PM

TID, It is true that Mike Jacobs had a head start, but he has taken the ball and ran. There are examples of car dealerships that went under new management and ones that grew and prospered even when people wanted them to fail. It would be easy to put up a sign on a web site and say give me money and watch the money roll in. I am sure that you are bringing in large dollars. Why don't you disclose how much money that you have brought in through donation and how you spent it. That would be fun.

Posted by: Anonymous at August 8, 2006 05:07 PM

Speaking of raising money, I'm curious how much financial support James Beals is getting from fellow West Point alums. Service academy grads and particularly classmates from the same year are extremely loyal. There were no individual contributions listed in his latest filing. Doesn't mean that there weren't smaller contributions, but I'd be very surprised if his classmates didn't chip in for the effort.

Posted by: Huck Finn at August 9, 2006 10:21 AM

Seeking the truth - my point was that you were the one trying to skew numbers. You keep questioning the reason of others posting, but I don't see any in yours. The original post of this thread was jcb looking at numbers and wondering if there was a reason why there was so much un itemized money in certain cases.

Instead of looking at the point, you decided to try and mess with the statistics. I then tried to clarify that the numbers you were using were more statistical anomoly than anything indicative of the point. Maybe my view is skewed by not being familiar with either of the candidates (I dont actually live in the QC, I live in Galesburg so this race doesn't effect me) but I was looking only at the merit of the argument.

I felt like jcb had a decent point. The explanation for it, well many have gone into that. Is the explanation valid? I certainly don't know, but it seems to me that should be the issue, not that you can pull random numbers out of all this.

Posted by: Robbie at August 9, 2006 11:39 AM

As many places as Beals has worked, you'd think he'd be able to get a lot of individual donations.

Posted by: Anonymous at August 9, 2006 11:46 AM

Better yet, as asked before, will Beals use his lawsuit money for his campaign? Who will have to cough up the 50 grand? Hollars Bar (dram shop) or Brays? Or both?

Posted by: Anonymous at August 9, 2006 12:22 PM

Robbie,
The issue is that the report followed the law to the letter. The reason that I showed that Mr. Beals the Republican challenger has un-reported expenses of 10% of what Jacobs has and only has brought in 2% of his total raised which is 58% unreported vs reported is to show that liars figure and figures lie. When someone has iffy figures then you can figure that there is a lie in there someplace.

Don't believe the hype.

Posted by: Seeking the truth at August 9, 2006 06:11 PM

Anon 5:07 above

It's a shame you don't have the mental capacity to actually think, or you'd realize that your carping and feeble attempt to take shots at me make no sense at all.

First of all, you try to take my analogy of the car lot and talk about how some one might be handed a car lot and keep it from going under "even when people wanted them to fail".

First of all, I doubt anyone would wish failure on anyone running a car lot, unless they were spending all their time trying to run you out of business yourself.

Secondly, you wonder how much money I make on my blog. I make so much that I've had to start moving a lot of it into off-shore numbered accounts. I'm fabulously well-to-do. I'm ceaselessly amazed at how generous my readers are.

But seriously, I have NO obligation to disclose what I make from the blog. Can you figure out why?

Apparently not. Here's a clue. I am NOT AN ELECTED OFFICIAL OR CANDIDATE FOR OFFICE.

Your strange attitude that a politician's campaign money is just like his personal earned income, as if the public has no right to examine it, comment on it, or question it, reflects a rather surprising ignorance of exactly what a politician is.

It would seem from your view of things that you consider being a State Senator as a lucrative job where you "earn" contributions and get to play around with the dough any way you see fit without consequence or judgement.

And it's clear that you seem to equate the ability for a politician to get handed a lot of money with someone who earns a lot of money.

This reveals a rather twisted idea that confuses reality with the idea that Jacobs has somehow "earned" hundreds of thousands of dollars and that aside from spending some of it in campaigns, the donations should be used to live like a sultan if he feels like it.

I'm sure that's the way things work, but most people aren't so arrogant that they're right out front in acknowledging that they consider being an elected official as a way to live like you "earn" hundreds of thousands a year.

Sure, politicians likely make many times that for select donors and other groups by their actions and legislating breaks, grants, etc. and it likely comes back.

So, I guess you "earn" those fat donations by how well you serve the big money interests who can give the fat checks?

I guess that's something to brag about in Springfield or something, but somehow I don't know that it's that appealing to constituents who get by without unlimited cash on hand.

Most people don't have people they can go to and say, "Listen, I really could use $30 grand", and have a good chance of getting it, free and clear, interest free, with the only repayment being that you have to do something which repays them 50 times over, but not from your pocket, from the pockets of the taxpayers who voted you into office to represent them, or consumers.

So thanks for asking, but I'm not required by law to publically account for my income and expenditures as all elected officials and candidates for office are.

I find it kind of weird that you apparently don't get it.

Posted by: TID at August 10, 2006 09:52 AM

Eelected officals and candidates for office are NOT REQUIRED BY LAW to account for expenditures that fall below a six month aggregate of $150.00. Read the law. Soak it in.

I find it wierd that everyone left your blog, but you think it necessary to come to Beylder's blog and act like you are King of the Internet. Get over yourself BBC, I mean TID.

Posted by: InspectorGeneral at August 10, 2006 10:57 PM

Hey JCB (and TID),

When it became well publicized that Jacobs had to massively outspend Rumler to win the primary, I did a little research. Now, this may come as a shock to the Jacobs camp, as they continually pretend that Mike won in a "landslide", but if my research is correct, the Rumler-Jacobs race was the closest primary in Illinois. That will be a tough pill for some of these goons to swallow, but I believe it's true. So what does $200,000+ get you? The narrowest victory in the state. That's saying something considering that Rumler only had around $5K to work with.

Too bad our Senators are chosen by wallet size and not merit.

Posted by: Anonymous at August 11, 2006 01:11 PM

Seeking - I certainly see your point of view. But looking at it from a pure statistical standpoint (that was my major in college I cant help myself) it seemed the jcb was comparing were pretty straightforward. I realize that as far as the election is concerned, Beals info is important, but statistically his information qualifies as an outlier, a data chunk that falls so far out of the data set that it isn't really relevant. The reason I say this is because jcb was mentioning candidates who all had hundreds of thousands of dollars raised. And it is statistically irresponsible to really compare percentages of beals money because of the drastic difference in amounts.

I will provide a baseball anology. Every year they have a champion on home runs, rbi's, and batting average (among other things) For home runs and rbi's the flat out best total is the one that wins. But for batting average there has to be a minimum # of at-bats to qualify for the title. Thats because if they didn't do that some rookie would be 1-1 and end up with a batting average of 1.000%

In that comparison home runs and rbi's are plain numbers such as money raised, whereas batting average is a percentage, jus tlike the 58% you quote. My point again being, that you need some kind of level measuring stick when invoking averages and percentages.

Posted by: Robbie at August 11, 2006 01:30 PM

Hey James, if that is you...
I got a question, how's the jaw?

You get your butt kicked by mouthing off to anyone else lately?

Posted by: Craig at August 12, 2006 01:25 AM

Robbie, I could say the same thing about whether these other people have a different style than our Senator. There are so many variables that are in play here such as if they are from a big city of Chicago or the surrounding suburbs.
The point is 100% of Jacobs and the others that jcb mentioned are within the guidelines of the State Board of Elections criteria. This whole thing is much ado about nothing.

I don't know statistically however, why Beals' un-itemized 10% of what Jacobs un-itemized is unacceptable to you. These numbers are not that far off. The amount raised is however only 2% of what Jacobs raised. These numbers are quite different.

Posted by: Seeking the Truth at August 12, 2006 12:50 PM

Hey Craig, rather than pollute this blog, why not ask Beals directly your juvenile "questions" like "how's the jaw" and "You get your butt kicked by mouthing off to anyone else lately?"

These sort of "questions" will get you loud hosannahs on partisan blogs like TID, but here, they are just tiresome.

Here's Beals' phone number: 309-764-7990. Be a man and ask Beals directly. Don't be a little boy and engage in rumor, innuendo and smear tactics. Politics ain't beanbag, but it ain't Middle School either.

If I was man enough to call Mike Jacobs directly with my concerns about his many unitemized expenditures, you can surely (or is it Shirley?) garner the fortitude to ask Beals about his jaw.

It's time to put up or shut up.

Posted by: paladin at August 12, 2006 04:31 PM

Seeking the Truth, you are quite hard headed eh? You are just addicted to those silly percentages... Its kinda sad actually. I guess my whole awesome in depth explanation of percentages being unreliable as statistics got lost in translation... Like I have said many times, with small amounts percentages are skewed... I didn't think it was that big of a message to get across.

Posted by: Anonymous at August 12, 2006 09:45 PM

James, how is that website coming?

Posted by: Anonymous at August 13, 2006 02:24 PM

Anon: 2:24

My website is coming along just fine. Thank you for asking. It will be up before Labor Day weekend.

The pages are being staffed for review and input prior to my final decision.

Sincerely,
James M. Beals, State Senate Candidate, 36th District

Posted by: James Beals at August 13, 2006 09:39 PM

Mr. Beals:

I thought those posting on these blogs asking you repeatedly where you stood on the abortion issue were just trying to get your goat, and trip you up. I once saw where you said you were pro-life. That's good, so am I. However today's letter to the editor in the paper, where a lady from Hampton speaks highly of you, and tells all the world to vote for you, she seems to indicate that you support "womens rights". Now, more times then not, when people say they support "womens rights", that is usually political code for a womens right to choose. i.e. choose abortion. Mr. Beals, please let me know where you stand on this issue, because now I am a bit distressed. Are you pro-life, or as Susie from Hampton wrote in today's paper, are you for a womens right to choose? My vote hinges on your answer. However, I do not like what I perceive as your inconsistency on this issue.

Posted by: Pro-Life Voter at August 18, 2006 05:17 PM

James Beals tells a different story to everyone he meets. Sort of like his story about being in the CIA. Now his firmly held pro-life conviction is wavering.

Posted by: KateNelson at August 18, 2006 07:20 PM

Kate, I must have been out of town when Beals said he had been with the CIA.

Have any proof? If so, please share.

Posted by: paladin at August 21, 2006 12:44 PM

I still want to know about the court proceedings for Mr. Beals' lawsuit regarding his broken jaw. As a registered voter I would like to know what businesses he is taking down over this (I heard there are several in the suit now). I believe it's news Mr. Beydler. He is running for political office. I originally heard he was suing the man who hit him. What did Mr. Ed's have to do with all of this that they are listed in the suit now (unless that is a rumor)? Does anyone else know or care?

Posted by: Anonymous at August 21, 2006 03:36 PM

Senator Mike Jacobs held an extremely successful fundraiser last night. Wow. I can't even start to imagine how many people were there. What a wonderful event!

Posted by: Anonymous at August 25, 2006 08:25 AM

I would guess there were over 400 people at Senator Jacobs fundraiser. It was a huge success.

Posted by: Anonymous at August 28, 2006 08:44 AM

It is a shame when people sell-out their values for access to Springfield.

Mr. Beals is a much better choice.

Posted by: Anonymous at September 9, 2006 11:02 AM

400 local voters at a fundraiser and you say that peole are selling out their values for access to Springfield? I don't know what planet you are from. How many people at Beal's fundraiser. 20?

Posted by: Anonymous at September 12, 2006 12:09 PM

Wow thats more people than lives in my hole town!

Posted by: SavannaSmiling at September 14, 2006 02:44 PM