Where Does Tom Vilsack’s Money Come From?

Tom Vilsack raised 1.1 million dollars in the last quarter of 2006 (and spent nearly $750,000 of it). Where did the money come from? Iowa Progress examined his campaign finance report and has the answers.

Vilsack received donations from five members of the state legislature. House Speaker Pro Tem Polly Bukta contributed $500 as did State Senators Mike Connolly,Tom Rielly and Roger Stewart. State Senate President Jack Kibbie donated $1050. Vilsack also received a $2100 contribution from his Lieutenant Governor and former IDP Chair, Sally Pedersen. Retired Iowa politicians also gave to Vilsack. David Osterberg, a former state representative and Democratic nominee for U.S. Senate in 1998, donated $250, Patrick Deluhery, a former state senator and 2002 Democratic nominee for state auditor contributed $1050, Paul Johnson, the 2004 Democratic nominee for U.S. House donated $2100 and Bill Gannon, former Democratic Minority Leader in the IA House and unsuccessful candidate for the Democratic nomination for Governor in 1970, donated $500. In addition, Dave Neil, former President of UAW’s State CAP, gave $2100 to Vilsack.

Vilsack also received money from national players in Democratic politics. Vernon Jordan contributed $2000. James Johnson, former Chair of Fannie Mae and Walter Mondale’s campaign manager donated $2100 as did Lou Susman, one of John Kerry’s top fundraisers in 2004. Gary Hirschberg, another major Democratic donor who is the CEO of Stoneyfield Farms yogurt company and a possible Democratic candidate for Senate from New Hampshire, gave $2100 as well. The campaign also received $2100 from the second richest man in the world, Warren Buffett. In addition, Vilsack also received a $250 donation from Kyle DeBeer, executive director of the Wyoming Democratic Party, which means Vilsack is sure to have an advantage in Wyoming’s primary.

Finally, Vilsack cleaned up among the Des Moines’s elite. Jerry Crawford, former State Chair for John Kerry, contributed $2100 as did former IDP chair Gordon Fischer. Vilsack also received $2100 contributions from other wealthy Des Moines residents like John Pappajohn and Dwayne McAnnich. However, Vilsack was most successful raising money from the Knapp family. In the last quarter, Tom Vilsack raised $18,900 from people with the last name Knapp.

The question is where will the rest of Vilsack’s money come from? Judging by his fundraising report, he raised all of his easy dollars in the last quarter. Now his dilemma is how he will raise enough money to remain viable for the next year. After all, it doesn’t matter if you’re rock solid if you’re flat broke.

Add comment February 1st, 2007

Not Everyone In Mt. Pleasant Supports Tom Vilsack

Although Tom Vilsack may have been the Mayor of Mt. Pleasant, Iowa (population 8,751), he doesn’t have the support of the entire town. Not because he did something wrong as Mayor, as State Senator or even as Governor but because Barack Obama’s political director is also from Mt. Pleasant. When Obama hired former Senate Caucus Director Emily Parcell as political director, he hired another Mount Pleasantonian. This means that one small Iowa town will be very much in the thick of things during the caucus. Although Henry County may only be the 40th most important county in terms of delegates, it certainly seems to be more important when it comes to who makes the decisions on Presidential campaigns.

Add comment January 27th, 2007

Poor Tom Vilsack

On the same day that Hillary Clinton is having her rally in Des Moines, Tom Vilsack is having one of his community gatherings in Fort Dodge. The difference in attendance between a major rally organized by a team of advance people and a community gathering in Fort Dodge will be staggering, to say the least. Although the events are not comparable at all, the fact that they are held on the same day will be enough for plenty of people to make comparisions. But none of those comparisions will be flattering to Vilsack. In fact, I’d bet that David Yepsen is already drooling over the possibilities to mock Vilsack that this provides. It’s not fair to Vilsack but that doesn’t matter. It’s just going to be too tempting a cheap shot for many people to avoid.

Add comment January 26th, 2007

Obama, Hillary and….?

In the aftermath of Hillary Clinton’s announcement that she’s running for President, there has been another avalanche of articles on the competition to be the Democratic nominee in 2008. However, they all seem to think that there are only two candidates running, Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton. Every other candidate is almost totally neglected. There are obvious reasons to do this, Obama and Clinton are the two most well known candidates and it’s always easier to boil things down to two options but the problem is that it’s a year out. Already just about every different branch of the media, from a major newspaper to a major blog to the BBC is making this a two-horse race. One can imagine that John Edwards must be completely exasperated. First, in 2004, (as detailed in this subscription only New Republic article) he and his inner circle believe that Howard Dean’s scream kept him from getting any media attention for his strong second place finish in Iowa. Now, the media is ignoring him because he doesn’t fit the plotline of the Hillary vs. Obama competition. But Edwards comes off relatively lightly compared to Tom Vilsack who will be very surprised to discover that his wife is a newspaper columnist named Ann according to this article in The Observer. And as for Chris Dodd, Joe Biden and Bill Richardson (who is declaring his candidacy this morning on ABC’s This Week), the only way they can get any media attention right now is if they audition for American Idol. One hopes that this attempt to artificially narrow the field will not last long once the initial burst of attention for Clinton and Obama is past. Caucusgoers and primary voters deserve as many choices as possible and narrowing the field nearly a year before the first caucus is in no one’s interest.

5 comments January 21st, 2007

Who Has The Power In The Iowa Caucuses?

The Iowa Caucuses aren’t democratic. In fact, they are so undemocratic, they make the Electoral College seem like a triumph for those who believe in “one man, one vote.” Caucusgoers aren’t voting for Obama, or Hillary or John Edwards. They vote for delegates to a county convention who then go on to vote for delegates to the State Convention who then go on to vote for delegates to the National Convention. Delegates are apportioned to each county and each precinct within the county by the combined number votes cast for the President and the Governor in the two previous General Elections. So, for example if more people in County X voted for the combination of John Kerry and Chet Culver in 2004 and 2006 than voted for the combination of Al Gore and Tom Vilsack in 2000 and 2002, County X will get more representation than it did in the 2004 caucuses. If less people voted for the top of the ticket, County X will get less representation. There are 3000 delegates at the State Convention and each county gets an appropriate share and the results for the caucuses are computed by factoring approximately what percent of the delegates a candidate will get at the State Convention. (Here are the 2004 results for an example)

So what has changed since 2004? Well of the big five counties in Iowa (Polk, Linn, Scott, Black Hawk and Johnson), all but Polk have gained delegates. In fact,  Johnson has shown the largest net gain of any county, going from 141 to 164 delegates. Linn also made a big leap from 228 to 242 delegates. Scott jumped from 161 to 170 and Black Hawk creeped up from 136 to 140. In contrast, Polk had a small dip of two delegates but still makes up nearly 15% of the total number of delegates with 428. The biggest leap in terms of perecentage was made by Jefferson County which is going from 13 to 18 delegates while the biggest fall in percentage was Ida County, which goes from 7 to a paltry 5 delegates. For us in Poweshiek County, we gained an extra delegate to go to 21. Statewide totals (which are rough because they haven’t been rounded) for 2008 are below the fold and the totals for 2004 can be found here.

4 comments January 18th, 2007

Hillary Clinton’s Challenge in Iowa

In the latest must-read political story of the week, Adam Nagourney chronicled Hillary Clinton’s plans for her run for President. However, in the New Hampshire heavy article, one paragraph stood out,

“Mrs. Clinton has less experience with presidential politics in Iowa than in New Hampshire because in 1992, when her husband ran the first time, Senator Tom Harkin of Iowa was also seeking the presidential nomination, so other candidates steered clear of the race”

This misses one of the big challenges that Hillary faces. Rogue polls aside, she has next to no traction among Iowa caucusgoers. Vilsack has been Governor for eight years, Edwards still has a formidable base of support left from 2004 and Obama is not only seen as a political rockstar but, as a Senator from Illinois gets local television coverage in much of Eastern Iowa as well. In contrast, Bill Clinton never had to campaign in the Iowa Caucuses and Hillary has no hometown advantage in Iowa.

Hillary will have none of these advantages and right now is clearly running fourth in Iowa. Although she may have a lot of money, media is secondary to field in caucuses and among Democratic activists, all the candidates have high name ID. It’s still early and as Chase pointed out recently, the Iowa Caucuses are still wide open. But, Hillary is clearly starting behind the eight ball and it would not be a surprise if she doesn’t compete in the caucuses at all and tries to build up New Hampshire and South Carolina as firewalls.

3 comments January 3rd, 2007

Vilsack’s Adoption

Big news for Tom Vilsack: he now has the chance to learn more about the circumstances of his birth (he was given up for adoption) and may be able to find out who his real mother was. The article has an interesting line: “But Vilsack acknowledged this week that the unexpected letter — and the realities of a modern-day presidential campaign — may cause him to reconsider [forgoing knowledge about his past].” Does finding his real mother help him or hurt him? If she turns out to be a rotten lady with shady dealings (no offense Governor), it could cast a bad light on him. On the other hand, there is a huge potential for positive publicity as Vilsack explores his past and the woman who gave him life; the whole thing just oozes the kind of cheesiness America loves. All this aside, I’m not trying to denigrate what I’m sure is a very tough and personal experience for Vilsack. But as the Register notes, when you’re running for president, the game of politics is never put on pause.

P.S. — Wondering if America has ever elected someone who was adopted, I did a quick Google search. The closest I found was this site which said three presidents — George Washington, Andrew Jackson, and Ronald Reagan — had adopted children of their own, but there is no mention of any president having been adopted himself. Therefore, 2008 could be a bigger year than previously thought: the potential for the first female, black, or adopted American to be elected president of the United States.

3 comments December 24th, 2006

Obama and Edwards Tied in Iowa

From Taegan Goddard:

A new Research 2000 poll in Iowa shows John Edwards and Sen. Barack Obama tied among likely Democratic caucus voters with 22% each. Iowa Gov. Tom Vilsack trails with 12%, followed by Sen. Hillary Clinton at just 10%.

No other candidate broke 10%.  Top three Republicans are John McCain (27%), Rudy Giuliani (26%), and Mitt Romney (9%).  I think this just reinforces my post from yesterday, “Why the Iowa Caucuses are Still Wide Open.”

2 comments December 21st, 2006

Why The Iowa Caucuses Are Still Wide Open

There has been a lot of talk over the past few weeks about who is going to win Iowa in 2008. I’ve been resisting the temptation to join, because it’s pretty unlikely that the picture we see now will look anything like the picture we see a year from now.

Think of how much has changed from four months ago: Warner, who has since dropped out and now might be un-dropping out, was attracting a lot of Iowa support. Obama, whose candidacy I have been predicting for a year, was written off as too green and inexperienced to run in 2008. Bayh looked like he had too much money not to play in at least the first four primary states. John Kerry was not a favorite, but he was in as good a position as any of the candidates. And John Edwards was probably getting the most buzz around here. (Incidentally, Hillary’s position as the elephant in the room everyone either loves or loves to hate has remained relatively consistent this whole time.)

Since then, Warner and Bayh dropped out, and a lot of people started talking about what that might mean, often concluding that it was because the caucuses were close to being decided — already. (Kyle’s post here is actually what provoked me to write this.) Here are five reasons why it’s still wide open:

1. The caucuses are an expectations game above all else. Given two candidates with equal money, talent, charisma, etc., the candidate who is favored more heavily is actually in a weaker position right now than the candidate nobody is talking about. To “win” the caucuses, you have to beat expectations, not just the other candidates, and the job gets harder and harder as expectations get higher and higher.
2. Nobody knows what to expect from Tom Vilsack. Before he announced, I didn’t know very many people who took his candidacy seriously. But his campaign has assembled an excellent staff, and he keeps on impressing me. He isn’t expected to do all that well nationally (his strategy is clearly to paint himself as the underdog of the race), but nobody really knows how well he’ll end up doing in Iowa. (Drew has some thoughts on how well he has to do to stay in, but even he’ll admit that it’s guesswork at this point.) Again, though, I think it’s clear a fair number of candidates have to play in Iowa (particularly Edwards and probably Obama), and, if Vilsack can even hold his own against them, he isn’t out of the picture.
3. The majority of the field hasn’t even declared yet. Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton, John Edwards, and John Kerry are all staying above the fray by not making themselves candidates yet. As soon as they do, expect a lot of rhetoric to change. Even if attacking Obama will hurt the attacker more than it will hurt Obama, somebody will start doing it as soon as he declares in hopes of shaking the tree a little bit. Expect a wave of attack dog pundits and surrogates as soon as Obama and Clinton declare. We don’t know how that will turn out.
4. Nobody is talking about John Edwards right now. Even though Edwards is a fundraising force with name recognition, a strong biography, charisma that rivals Obama’s, and a reputable staff, he has avoided high expectations. Polling in Iowa has consistently put him on top, and it looks like he’s going to declare pretty soon, so it isn’t clear how he will end up.
5. In the end, staff quality and political strategy make a much bigger difference in the caucuses than buzz and media coverage. John Kerry was not a frontrunner in November of 2003; he was closer to a longshot. But his staff put together a better field program than Dean’s staff, and he ended up winning. (And because Dean was the frontrunner before losing, it pretty much knocked him out.) Field work is huge in Iowa, and we probably won’t know who has the best field program until the caucuses are over.

Of course, keep checking here for more news and analysis as the field of candidates continues to narrow.

13 comments December 20th, 2006

Bayh Peaces Out

Hotline has it confirmed that Evan Bayh, a frequenter of our fine state this past year, will release a statement tomorrow quitting the presidential race.

This comes even after he made some pretty aggressive staffing moves over the past few weeks. He had staffers working field in Iowa during the 2006 campaign, and he has been snatching people up since then to fill key roles. From what we know, he had quite a few positions filled.

I certainly didn’t expect a candidate with $10 million in the bank to drop out just like that. Think it was Obama, as some have speculated? Or Vilsack? Or what?

Add comment December 15th, 2006