Posted on 01/16/2004 5:01:32 PM PST by calcowgirl
WASHINGTON -- Sen. Barbara Boxer had over $5 million cash-on-hand as of Dec. 31, her campaign said Friday, as she raises money for a re-election race that could cost her as much as $20 million.
The Democrat said she raised $1.5 million during the final quarter of 2003 for a total of $8.8 million raised so far in the campaign. Full reports for the quarter are due to federal election officials by Jan. 31.
Boxer's announcement came on the same day that her top Republican competitor in the race, former Secretary of State Bill Jones, picked up a key endorsement -- from Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger.
Competing against Jones in the March 2 Republican primary are former U.S. Treasurer Rosario Marin, former state Assemblyman Howard Kaloogian and former Los Altos Hills Mayor Toni Casey.
Casey announced earlier this month that she had raised over $815,000 as of the end of the last quarter. She has not disclosed her cash-on-hand amount, and none of the other candidates have said how much they've raised.
Kaloogian entered the race just before the Dec. 5 filing deadline and did not file a finance report for the quarter, his consultant said.
Marin was asked about fund raising at a Los Angeles press conference Friday and said that most people estimated that candidates would have to spend $2 million to $3 million in the primary.
Boxer's last campaign, in 1998, cost about $13 million. Aides said she is ahead of where she was at this time in that campaign and plans to spend $15 million to $20 million to gain a third term.
I am wrong. Tom is correct.
Prop 58 is moot if Prop 57 fails.
Given that I also agree with Tom that Prop 58 is the real culprit, not 57.
Last evening when I reviewed Arduin's speech I was startled that she admitted that whether 57 passes or fails, Schwarzenegger will borrow. Just short term rather than long term. I was disappointed.
I'm now of the opinion that the state's best chance to stop the spending is to be forced into a corner by the bond market. This will mean a special tax to be used as a dedicated revenue stream but with that sacrifice will also come some "real" reduction in spending.
Am I reading this wrong, or did you mean 57 is the real culprit?
Ironically, framed properly, arguments against Prop 58 could be far more persuasive than against 57. Prop 57 is simply a number. Prop 58 is a willful and defying action. Defying common sense, 150 years of bipartisan precedence and the obvious cynicism of the electorate.
Agree. Unfortunately, there are no opposition groups stepping up to the plate for either Proposition. Hold on for the Arnie campaign.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.