(CNN) - Indiana Republican Rep. Mike Pence jumpstarted his gubernatorial effort to succeed Gov. Mitch Daniels by hauling in more than $350,000 in campaign donations a little more than one month after he announced his bid.
According to filings submitted to the Indiana Election Division, 15 individuals and three businesses have given large contributions to the campaign. Pence's online accounting of funds does not include donations under $10,000.
He is required to submit a complete six-month campaign finance report in July.
In the meantime, all donations that qualify as "large contributions" –funds amounting to over $10,000– must be reported to the Indiana Election Division. The state of Indiana does not limit the amount that an individual may contribute to a campaign - a fact that benefits Pence, whose largest reported contribution so far is $100,000. The Indianapolis Star reports that eleven in-state and two out-of state donors include developers, business owners, and financiers.
The six-term congressman decided against a bid for the 2012 GOP nomination for president and instead announced his run for the governorship in early May. Daniels, who also turned down a bid for the presidency, is term-limited. He'll complete his second term as governor in 2012.
The Indiana Governor's seat, up for auction to the highest bidder, $100,000.00 bid so far, who'll offer more???
This idiot thinks we're broke because abortions kept more people from being born and WORKING TO PAY TAXES.
HULLO!!! There aren't enough jobs for the ones already here - IDIOT!!
He should ask Evan Bayh for money. He still has tons of it that wouldn't give to the Democrats. Turncoat Bayh would probably give him all he wants.
Why should parties be allowed to make unlimited or unrestricted contributions to a politician? Technically, you could never accuse or convict a politician of accepting bribes. Any money given to him could be classified as a campaign donation.
I wonder what we are going to do when foreign corporations and nations start donating money to our politicians? No doubt that it already occurs to this day. Just wait until somehow the practice becomes the central issue an a scandal. Which party do you think will point the most fingers blaming the other party for the practice?
"Sniffit, it'll be interesting to know what your position will be if Sunday comes and goes and there's still no Congressional approval. "
Simple: it's a violation if he hasn't pulled them out and a court, likely the SCOTUS, should order him to do it forthwith. Is it a criminal violation or something that justifies impeachment as a "high crime and misdemeanor"? Not so much. The Act contains nothing that creates a criminal offense and it's not uncommon for the court to have to step in to tell the POTUS or Congress where to get off if they're exceeding their powers. Impeachment is supposed to be an extremely EXTREMELY rare procedure used only for the most egregious of offenses...not the go-to political maneuver whenever the opposing party seems to think it has even the remotest argument in support of it. On the other hand, I can see some potential marit to arguments justifying censure, which is a total embarassment for a sitting president...and hey, would still be somethign the GOP can wave around during 2012 without risking looking like a bunch of extremists who try to kick out every Dem president they can with impeachment proceedings, no matter how small or routine the issue.
"You hinted that the President could just stop launching attacks, then wait five minutes, then restart the 60/90-day period over, so is it your position that the President may launch indefinite wars this way so long as no ground troops are involved? "
I was being facetious. I don't think it would actually work like that, but it's an interesting hypothetical question if posed in a legitimate manner. If he were to withdraw everything as required and then wait a week or so and then, based on some material change in the situation in Libya, seek to re-initiate military action under the War Powers Act, well, it would make for soe interesting legal arguments before the SCOTUS. Still, it was fun to tease you guys with that.
3 businesses gave large contributions knowing they will get double their money back with the help of taxpayers.
Indiana is inexplicably conservative. He'll win. Besides, in a state where there are no contribution limits, he can out-spend any opponent unless they, too, have extremely deep pockets. I'm surprised there are no limits, except that the people who are elected benefit from that lack of oversight.
The title pretty much says it all. Surprise!!! How about this one? Money Grubber for Gov.
Pence is just another republican politician owned by big business. Watch out average citizens.
now is the time to outlaw all these campaign donations and their tax write off and make it illegal with severe culpable punishment....o.k, thugs....
I know this is neither here nor there. But he does look like somebody who works for the NRA.
Wasn't it Mike Pence who stood on the floor of Congress and blamed abortion as being one of the, if not the major contributing factor for the high cost of providing medical care? Yup. He said it earlier this year rationalizing why we should be defunding Planned Parenthood.
Another Redumblican crony!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!1