House Democratic PAC has another $5 million month
October 20th, 2012
11:36 AM ET
2 years ago

House Democratic PAC has another $5 million month

(CNN) - The House Majority PAC, an independent group backing House Democratic candidates, announced Saturday it raised $5.9 million in September, marking it's second consecutive month with a haul over $5 million.

The group did not say how much cash it had in the bank at the end of the month, nor how much it spent in September. The group ended August with $8.3 million in reserves, according to Federal Election Commission records.

– Follow the Ticker on Twitter: @PoliticalTicker

– Check out the CNN Electoral Map and Calculator and game out your own strategy for November.

Its ads have backed Democrats in a number of states, including California, Colorado, Florida, Illinois, Indiana, Michigan, New York, Ohio, and Tennessee, among others. It has partnered with the Service Employees International Union and the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees to fund some of the spots.

Crossroads, a major Republican group advertising in House and Senate races, has yet to put out September numbers. The FEC filing deadline is Saturday at midnight.

Also on the CNN Political Ticker

– Ryan zeroes in on energy jobs in Pennsylvania

– Poll: Races in Florida, Ohio remains tight after second debate

– Early voting opens in seven states, D.C.

– Sparring over economy in weekly addresses


Filed under: Fundraising • House
soundoff (11 Responses)
  1. Rick McDaniel

    The Democrats are so dishonest, when they talk about the rich. They totally cater to the wealthy interests in this country, also, as thta is how they get their billions to BUY their elections!

    October 20, 2012 11:51 am at 11:51 am |
  2. ScottS

    Rick – All politicians cater to the rich! Until we as voters outlaw super-PAC's and stop allowing unlimited donations by individuals, it will continue to be this way. I don't think it's a democrat or republican thing.

    October 20, 2012 12:10 pm at 12:10 pm |
  3. Howard

    Do the House Democrats get their donations through untraceable on-line donors too ... like Obama does ???

    October 20, 2012 12:29 pm at 12:29 pm |
  4. Harlon Katz

    Look who the democrats are aligning with, the SEIU and the AFSCME, and realize they have the taxpayers in their sights. Vote for democrats if you want to put the country in the same position as California, Illinois...and Greece.

    October 20, 2012 01:34 pm at 1:34 pm |
  5. GI Joe

    All Romney has done for 18 months is lie. And flip-flop.

    I've watched him and double-checked him. No way should R/R get anywhere near the whitehouse. But Wall Street likes them, and Corporations are pouring all their money into their campaigns hoping for the major tax cuts R/R will give them.

    October 20, 2012 01:36 pm at 1:36 pm |
  6. Wondering Wanda

    RICK
    The democrates have not tried to buy the election and you know it–stop being petty–and if you can not state facts why not shut-up–research before speaking-up

    October 20, 2012 01:48 pm at 1:48 pm |
  7. teen against obama

    All the money in the wold won't help the democrats now.

    October 20, 2012 01:59 pm at 1:59 pm |
  8. EdwardTr

    The 25,000 might work for very low cost of living areas and the very poor but it will drastically raise taxes for middle class particularly for families making between 100 and 200 thousand dollars. The NET deduction limit will only be 15,000 and NOT 25,000 because Romney expands Obama's proposal to tax the health insurance premium benefit will raise people's TAXABLE income by about 10,000. Most families making over 100,000 now will use up this 15,000 limit fast. Your state income tax deduction, real-estate deduction; state sales tax deduction; mortgage deduction; personal exemption deduction for you, your spouse and your kids. We payed $20,000 between the state income tax(6%) and real-estate tax (2.75% of the house value) plus several thousand more in sales tax (8%). Thats 25,000 right there, no chance to claim mortgage health insurance, personal exemptions additional sales tax on cars, etc and the 20% tax rate cut does not even come close. This article does not take into consideration the $10,000 increase in your taxable income due to the addition of insurance premiums your employer pays as your income. So now the $17,000 the author mentions becomes $7,000 and all of the middle class and as well as parts of working class get hit. Mitt will not increase your tax rate but he will INCREASE your taxes.

    October 20, 2012 02:00 pm at 2:00 pm |
  9. mb

    Rick,
    How honest is flip flop Romney. He lies with every word coming out of his mouth, then the word is to try to cover up for the last lie he just told.

    October 20, 2012 02:58 pm at 2:58 pm |
  10. GI Joe

    There were 17 attacks on embassies/consulates during Bush II, 15 during Clinton, 4 during Bush I, 11 during Reagan. Plus the attack on the Marine Barracks in 1983 under Reagan that killed more than 200 and injured 60 others.

    This happens. It's terrible, but it happens. Not sure who made the point first, but embassies/consulates have to be secure, yes, but also be open enough to be approachable. It's located in a foreign land, with some aspects of security out of our control. There are going to be incidents. You investigate them, you don't jump the gun and make it into political theater. You learn from them and you work to improve conditions and reduce the risk for a next time.

    I'd rather have a president who's winding down wars, keeping us out of new ones and showing a balanced, reasoned approach than another chicken hawk who will make things worse.

    Also worth mentioning is the fact that the Republican House (in the last 18 months) has cut funding for Embassy security around the world by $549 Billion Dollars.

    Chew on those facts awhile. Romney is politicizing this dreadful incident, and I believe it makes him a horrible person.

    October 20, 2012 03:32 pm at 3:32 pm |
  11. Josylad

    The story of the 2012 US presidential elections is akin to the story of a great mother with 2 kids. This mother took great care of her kids and made huge sacrifices for them. Every 4 years, the 2 kids 'campaign' for the privilege to host and care for mother for the next 4years – with the extended family voting

    The first son R had the mother for 8 years and during that period she aged, became sic
    k due to lack of proper care and R's disposition to be cater to his elite friends rather than spend time with mother. D – the other son campaigned that if he gets the chance to host and care for mother, he will take better care of her – build her a grandma chalet, buy her a chauffeur driven car, get her the best doctor to care for her, make sure she sees the world and have a great life. D campaigned and made these promises over a 2 year period because he loved his mother and aspired to give her the best.

    A few days before the election, mother went into a cardiac arrest induced coma. D won the election and got her in this terrible state. Of course, D spent his all his time, energy, resources and emotions to save mother's life; while R – still smarting from an election loss refused to help D care for mother despite the fact that mama was in a coma. After 2 years mama came out of a coma and with the help of rehab got stronger gradually over the next 2 years

    As the next election approached, R began to slam D. R argued that mother doesn't have a new house and car yet, has not seen the world and was not better than what she was 10 years ago. R said D broke his promises. R conveniently forgot he handed over a comatose mother and never helped to care for her. R loves to quote stats on mother's blood pressure, bank balance and other indicators of health and well being without referencing the state in which mother was handed over to D – almost dead

    R is Republican Romney, D is the Democratic Obama and Mother is the United States. The question is : Does D deserve credit for getting mother back on her feet, even if she is not in her best condition yet? Does R have a right to attack D when he was responsible for mother's coma and never helped to care for her when she was in a coma? Does R deserve to have mother back when he didn't help and when he intends to feed her the same food and introduce her to the lifestyle that got her sick in the first instance? R complained that D squandered the family savings and incurred debt to save her life, when he was using the savings to entertain his elite friend and live the good life.

    You decide. Who should have mother for the next four years?

    October 20, 2012 03:54 pm at 3:54 pm |