Barry Hinckley (Photo by Dave Pepin)
If it’s true that campaign donations determine a candidate’s success then Barry Hinckley might be in some early trouble. The rookie Republican who is challenging progressive Democrat Sheldon Whitehouse for his seat in the Senate seems to be inflating his fundraising prowess a bit.
In a press release earlier this week, Hinckley’s campaign said he “put up another great fundraising quarter” saying he was able to raise “about $275,000.”
Well, not exactly.
Today’s Providence Journal sheds a little additional light on just how much money Hinckley raised. In fact, almost 40 percent of the money he raised this quarter was actually a loan to himself. “Second-quarter campaign-finance reports that show he raised $164,629 and lent his campaign $100,000 during the quarter that ended June 30,” reports Randal Edgar.
He spent more than $155,000 – or, only $9,000 less than he got in actual donations.
By comparison, Hinckley raised $314,000 in the first quarter and didn’t loan himself any money. (Prior to the first quarter, he loaned his campaign $50,000.) That means he took in about half as much in donations this quarter as he did last quarter.
Are even Republican donors abandoning Barry Hinckley? Either way, this isn’t what I’d call a great fundraising quarter.
This guy is going nowhere.
Bob -
I am surprised you are placing so much emphasis on fund raising prowess in terms of measuring a candidate’s viability. At both the state and national levels, we need comprehensive campaign finance reform to take the money grubbing out of politics.
For incumbents, as a society we should not want them spending as much time and energy as they do begging for money – we should want them totally focused on their jobs. We also should not want the potential quid pro quo aspect that arises whenever someone (or something) with lots of money makes a large donation.
Also, in the interest of fair and balanced elections, incumbency should not translate into an immediate and measurable advantage in terms of campaign finances.
Ideally (and I realize the First Amendment gets in the way here) we would have a limited window for fund raising and campaigning. 2 to 4 year campaigns for office (except possibly the presidency) should be prohibited.
Publicly financed campaigns would be required in my idealistic vision of campaign finance. Give all qualified candidates the same pile of money and may the better candidate win.
“I am surprised you are placing so much emphasis on fund raising prowess in terms of measuring a candidate’s viability.”
Bob seems to be paying attention to reality. In the real world, fundraising is a measure of a candidate’s viability.
You make a lot of proposals to change things and then seem surprised that Bob isn’t advocating for what you propose, rather than responding to the actual situation the world finds itself in.
I’m sure Bob has some interesting things to say about how we finance political campaigns in this country, but it seems to me that he had a somewhat different goal in this article.
Barry Hinckley is running for office?