Skip to comments.Giuliani Reports Skyscraping Early Money Total for White House Bid
Posted on 04/19/2007 1:50:48 PM PDT by areafiftyone
Former New York City Mayor Rudolph Giuliani has led the long list of 2008 Republican presidential contenders in early preference polls and his perceived position as the front-runner, at least for now, was not contradicted by his recent campaign finance report, which shows he has already built a sizable treasury.
Giulianis campaign reported total first-quarter receipts of $16.6 million, which included a $1.85 million transfer from the presidential exploratory committee he established last November.
With total receipts of $18 million for his campaign to date, Giuliani leads all but three of the current crop of White House hopefuls Democratic Sens. Hillary Rodham Clinton of New York and Barack Obama of Illinois, and Republican Mitt Romney, the former Massachusetts governor in overall campaign receipts.
Giuliani ended the quarter with $11.9 million left to spend. All but about $1.1 million of Giulianis funds were raised for the nominating campaign, with the rest for possible use in the general election should he win the nomination.
Giulianis report includes numerous donations that highlight his ties to New York, the nations most populous city, which Giuliani headed as mayor from 1993 through 2001.
As an example, Giuliani received contributions from about 30 employees of Lehman Brothers, the large financial services firm that is headquartered in New York.
Giuliani is a longtime fan of baseballs New York Yankees, who happened to win four World Series titles during his eight years as mayor. Several team executives, including principal owner George Steinbrenner, gave to Giulianis presidential campaign.
This profile of Giulianis report is the latest in a CQPolitics.com series that is analyzing the first-quarter campaign finance filings of all 19 Democratic and Republican candidates.
Former New York City Mayor Rudolph Giuliani
Receipts, Jan. 1 to March 31: $16.6 million
Receipts to date: $18 million
Expenditures, Jan. 1 to March 31: $5.7 million
Expenditures to date: $6.1 million
Cash-on-hand, March 31: $11.9 million
Debts, March 31: $89,000
Notable individual donors (who are allowed to contribute $2,300 to a candidate for a primary campaign and $2,300 for a general election campaign)
John F. Antioco, chairman and chief executive officer of Blockbuster: $2,300
Richard D. Beckman, president of Conde Nast Media Group: $2,300
Brian Cashman, general manager of the New York Yankees baseball team: $2,300
Miguel Estrada, a partner at the firm Gibson, Dunn and Crutcher and an unsuccessful nominee for a federal judgeship in 2003: $2,300
Alan D. Feld, a senior executive partner at the firm Akin Gump: $2,300
John Grant, professional staff member for the Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee: $250
Keith Hernandez, sports broadcaster and a former professional baseball player for the St. Louis Cardinals, New York Mets and Cleveland Indians: $1,000
Michael D. Hess, a founding partner and senior managing director of Giuliani Partners LLC and Giulianis former corporation counsel during his mayoral tenure: $4,600
John OHurley, actor: $4,600
Susan Molinari, chairman and chief executive officer of The Washington Group and a former House member from New York (1990-97): $1,900 (Molinari also gave Giulianis campaign $2,100 in late 2006, bringing her contributions to $4,000)
Theodore B. Olson, partner at Gibson, Dunn and Crutcher and a former U.S. solicitor general: $2,500 (Olson also gave Giulianis campaign $2,100 in late 2006, bringing his contributions to the maximum of $4,600)
Adam Sandler, actor: $2,100
Charles R. Schwab, chairman and chief executive officer of Charles Schwab Co.: $2,300
Ben Stein, an author and actor who served as an aide to presidents Richard M. Nixon and Gerald Ford: $750
George Steinbrenner, principal owner of the New York Yankees: $4,600
Chad Sweet, chief of staff at the U.S. Department of Homeland Security: $4,600
James S. Turley, chairman and chief executive officer of Ernst & Young: $2,100
Candidate committees and political action committees (PACs)
One of Giulianis strongest supporters in Congress is California Republican Rep. David Dreier, who donated $2,300 through his House campaign committee and another $5,000 through another political committee, American Success PAC.
Pennsylvania Republican Rep. Charlie Dent, who represents the 15th District in and around Allentown and Bethlehem, donated $2,300 through his political committee, Dedicated to Establishing National Teamwork PAC, which forms an acronym of the congressmans last name.
Among his political supporters at a more grassroots level is West Virginia state Sen. Vic Sprouse, whose campaign committee gave Giulianis campaign a $1,000 contribution.
Giulianis campaign reported spending $897,000 on payroll to 82 individuals. Other expenses included $225,000 on postage including a payment of $167,000 to the Austin, Texas-based firm Olsen & Shuvalov. Giulianis campaign also spent more than $116,000 on catering.
Giuliani, in his extremely brief statement about the SC decision, implies that the Partial Birth Abortion ban is constitutional - and that's why he agrees with the decision. He does not say that he agrees with the ban itself. He doesn't say why he disagrees with the ban, and it isn't because it is unconstitutional, but because he actually supports partial birth abortion along with every other form of abortion on demand. He has said that he supports partial birth abortion as recently as 2000 as my last post points out in detail.
If he's slightly altered the wording of his support for abortion, it is simply because his focus-grouped, carefully packaged by political consultant, campaignspeak he's using to fool Republicans into voting for him demands it. He hasn't changed his position on anything - and he said he never would - he's just changed the way he markets his odius liberal views.
Dang, and I just donated more than usual. Live and learn! I am still going to support Rudy Giuliani so if you want to cancel me, go for it. I don’t really care to be a part of a forum that is as dictatorial as this one has become. I am a pro-life, 2nd amendment conservative Republican who is proud to support my candidate but will vote for my party’s nominee, even if I can’t stand him. You can tout conservatism all day long, but the Republican party is the ONLY party who can put those conservative values into action. So, I don’t understand why some here say this is a “conservative” forum not a REPUBLICAN forum. My mistake in thinking any conservative Republican would be welcome here.
These Rudy fistfights are a waste of time. We need to be fine-tuning conservative, individual right positions and attracting fence sitters to our side.
One of the biggest changes in our population has been the big increase in home ownership. Every anti-Kelo state proposition passed by big numbers this past election.
By relating to these people and showing them that the rats are opposed to private property, we stand a good chance to attract these new homeowners to the small govrenment side.
We need to be discussing ideas and strategies in areas such as this, rather than punching each other in the nose.
Which is why I said “the area” in a mischeivous way.
No sane "conservative" Republican would support a pro-abortionist, pro-gun grabbing, pro-gay marriage, pro-gay military, pro-big government, pro-authoritarian, pro-partial birth abortion, pro-illegal alien, draft-dodging serial adulterer liberal northeast lawyer like Rudy Giuliani.
"They say you don't tug on Superman's cape
You don't spit into the wind
You don't pull the mask off an 'ole Lone Ranger
And you don't mess around with Jim"
Ya'd think some people would take the hint..FGS.
“No sane “conservative” Republican would support a pro-abortionist, pro-gun grabbing, pro-gay marriage, pro-gay military, pro-big government, pro-authoritarian, pro-partial birth abortion, pro-illegal alien, draft-dodging serial adulterer liberal northeast lawyer like Rudy Giuliani.”
That was all inclusive allright!!
B U M P
Someone should tell the “true conservatives” here. :)
You mean more conservative Republicans who don’t agree with you on every single issue PING. When all of us are gone, I hope there will be enough of you to sustain this forum.
The conservatives in the party are ready and willing to accept a compromise, moderate Republican candidate like Fred Thompson for the sake of the coalition. It is the extreme liberals in the party (the pro-abortionists, etc) who are absolutely refusing to budge and are insisting that their far liberal candidate be supported. If the conservatives in the party were being as unreasonable as the liberals, we'd all be insisting on Duncan Hunter or Tom Tancredo. But the polls show that we're ready to jump on the Thompson train. How come the social liberals in the party refuse to come our way even a little bit. Stop denigrating the "true conservatives" when it is the "true liberals" who are going to lose this next election with their refusal to see reason.
“When all of us are gone, I hope there will be enough of you to sustain this forum.”
Rudybots represent a small fraction of FR.
I do not consider myself to be a "Republican" but of course I'd never consider voting for any Democrat again for any office whatsoever.
Just for clarification....It is the Democrat Party that is the pro-war party. The media has simply been revising History again for the scumbags.
Strange - you claim to be those things, but will be upset if someone who espouses those views is elected.
That does not make sense.
Did I say that??? NO!!!! I was thinking of the Rino McCain.
What, in your view, makes McCain a RINO?
McCain voted against tax cuts and has marched in lock step with Kennedy and the Dems (as well as Bush) on amnesty for illegal aliens. I would never support him for the Primary!
Rudy has said he is against amnesty and has outlined his ideas, which include tamper proof ID cards for prospective workers. He is a tax cutter and fiscally conservative in all areas.
Which party do you vote with?
Yes sir! Jim is FINALLY laying down the law for the liberal FReepers among us. If you want to promote and defend liberal candidates, HIT THE ROAD!
Good job, Jim.
Hey Katie-o, you never answered my post to you. I wondered how you could be stunned at the conservative reaction to Rudy here on FR.
You say you are pro life. Are you pro life, but okay with abortion as long as Rudy is okay with abortion?
Which is it? Pro Life or Pro Death?
He is a tax cutter and fiscally conservative in all areas.
Giuliani does not come across as a fiscal conservative "in all areas" to me.
No, I'm pretty darn sure I meant lib trolls, thanks anyway.
"When all of us are gone, I hope there will be enough of you to sustain this forum."
I assure you that there will be. Does that mean that you are leaving? Soon?
That is delusional thinking.
Fact. Rudy has said on many occasions that illegals should be "regularized". That is a code for amnesty. Rudy may have reversed the Dinkins income tax increases, which gave New Yawkers a paltry $200 million tax cut, but he did nothing to change the tax&spend/borrow&spend mindset of NYCITY`s liberal socialist government.
So you can spin, obfuscate and shill for Giuliani, give him all the political cover you can muster. You can deny his life long support for liberal issues and liberal causes. The fact remains Rudy is no conservative, never has been and never will be. His final fiscal record as mayor might impress moderates, centrists and liberals, but for conservatives it was abysmal. The Manhattan Institute gave a critique of that final record as mayor, and it was a devastating testament to his liberalism. It clearly spells out in no uncertain terms Rudy`s final fiscal record of big deficits ($2.0 billion), huge debts ($42 billion), spendthrift policies and out of control hiring practices that made liberal organs like the NEA and AFT overjoyed.
"The scope of government was not reduced at all. ..... money saved on social services has only helped to subsidize big increases in other categories. Today the array of social services sponsored and partially funded by the cityfrom day care to virtually guaranteed housingis as wide as ever."
"In the final analysis, Mayor Giuliani sought to make the city deliver services more efficientlynot to make the city deliver fewer services. ..... the city instead failed to reduce spending."
"Even with the tax cuts of the last several years, New York remains by far the most heavily taxed big city in the country."
Agreed. Giuliani wants to be president. To achieve that goal, he is willing to do what it takes.
Well, gee, maybe I should’ve had somrhing like this posted on our home page for the last several years:
Statement by the founder of Free Republic
I posted the following statement to our front page in response to the criticism I’m receiving lately as to not being fair and balanced and perceived mistreatment of trolls and assorted malcontents. Got news for all, I’m NOT fair and balanced. I’m biased toward God, country, family, liberty and freedom and against liberalism, socialism, anarchism, wackoism, global balonyism and any other form of tyranny. Hope this helps.
Statement by the founder of Free Republic:
In our continuing fight for freedom, for America and our constitution and against totalitarianism, socialism, tyranny, terrorism, etc., Free Republic stands firmly on the side of right, i.e., the conservative side. Believing that the best defense is a strong offense, we (myself and those whom I’m trying to attract to FR) support the strategy of taking the fight to the enemy as opposed to allowing the enemy the luxury of conducting their attacks on us at home on their terms and on their schedule.
Therefore, we wholeheartedly support the Bush Doctrine of pre-emptive strikes on known terrorist states and organizations that are believed to present a clear threat to our freedom or national security. We support our military, our troops and our Commander-in-Chief and we oppose turning control of our government back over to the liberals and socialists who favor appeasement, weakness, and subserviency. We do not believe in surrendering to the terrorists as France, Germany, Russia and Spain have done and as Kerry, Kennedy, Clinton and the Democrats, et al, are proposing.
As a conservative site, Free Republic is pro-God, pro-life, pro-family, pro-Constitution, pro-Bill of Rights, pro-gun, pro-limited government, pro-private property rights, pro-limited taxes, pro-capitalism, pro-national defense, pro-freedom, and-pro America. We oppose all forms of liberalism, socialism, fascism, pacifism, totalitarianism, anarchism, government enforced atheism, abortionism, feminism, homosexualism, racism, wacko environmentalism, judicial activism, etc. We also oppose the United Nations or any other world government body that may attempt to impose its will or rule over our sovereign nation and sovereign people. We believe in defending our borders, our constitution and our national sovereignty.
Free Republic is private property. It is not a government project, nor is it funded by government or taxpayer money. We are not a publicly owned entity nor are we an IRS tax-free non-profit organization. We pay all applicable taxes on our income. We are not connected to or funded by any political party, news agency, or any other entity. We sell no merchandise, product or service, and we offer no subscriptions or paid memberships. We accept no paid advertising or promotions. We are funded solely by donations (non tax deductible gifts) from our readers and participants.
We aggressively defend our God-given and first amendment guaranteed rights to free speech, free press, free religion, and freedom of association, as well as our constitutional right to control the use and content of our own personal private property. Despite the wailing of the liberal trolls and other doom & gloom naysayers, we feel no compelling need to allow them a platform to promote their repugnant and obnoxious propaganda from our forum. Free Republic is not a liberal debating society. We are conservative activists dedicated to defending our rights, defending our constitution, defending our republic and defending our traditional American way of life.
Our God-given liberty and freedoms are not negotiable.
May God bless and protect our men and women in uniform fighting for our freedom and may God continue to bless America.
Funny, I thought I never could vote for McCain, but Rudy has pulled off the impossible - he makes McCain look palatable by comparison.
I don't know anyone who's supporting Rudy who wouldn't vote for Thompson (for example) should he win the primary. Most (but certainly not all) would even happily vote for Hunter or Tancredo.
I'm solidly in Rudy's corner, and I'm looking forward to the day when he wins the primary that I can gloat over those who've been so viscious so early in this primary season. However, if by some stretch of the imagination it turns out to be Thompson or Gingrich, then it's all good. I will happily support either man in the general election, just not in the primary where my money is on another horse.
Seeing you supporting George Bush is like watching Geraldo Rivero complaining about mental patients not being locked up.
And you seem damn excited about it.
Just remember, you might be in the next go round.
Well, I do not for Democrats ever.
My voting status in my State is "unenrolled." I voted for Perot in 1992, and that was the sorriest vote that I ever cast. The 19 percent of us who protested the Bush tax increases by wasting our votes are likely all now properly in line.
Still, because I screwed up and got Clinton in back then, does not give the republicans a license to backslide.
I think that Guliani is a die hard lefty. McCain is a nut job. Romney is a very pragmatic person who got himself a few chips in the game at a great price.
Romney is the right guy to vote for so far in next years election. Perhaps someone better will come along, but we shall see.
Romney's worst flaw right now, is that he said enough crap to get himself elected here, and put off the problem of defending himself and his political posturing later, which is now.
Romney has got the inside track on this thing, and anybody who can not see it, is simply fooling themselves.
I still do not think that he is perfect, but who among us is?
Not to interupt your orgasmic glee that people are being banned, but what exactly do you think has been gained here? Do you honestly think that a single vote has been gained for the candidate of your choice here?
If I have to give anyone credit here, it's to Tommy Dale, who early on said that Rudy was too divisive and that he might cause a rift in the party that could cost us the election. I quite simply did not believe him, but now I'm given pause and I'm starting to think that Tommy just might have been right.
I've been a loyal republican since I cast my very first presidential vote for Ronald Reagan's second term. The idea of voting for a Democrat or helping a Democrat achieve office has never even entered my mind.
However, over this Rudy thing, I'm coming to hate some of you here on FR so much, that voting for a candidate you support, each day becomes increasingly more difficult to contemplate. What was once a given, is now up in the air. I can't believe my eyes half the time anymore. A freeper now even gets away with calling a woman a piece of ---- (that was Spiff btw)open in the forum without repurcussion. To be honest, I've had some misgivings about Rudy of late, but if you guys are the alternative, I'd just as soon fall on the sword.
Poor Melas..When all else fails, throw a temper tantrum..LOL.
If Rudy wins the nomination, the factions won't be unified.
Hillary will then beat Rudy when just enough conservatives vote for some lame a$$, Johnny-come-lately third party candidate. Young liberal judges will picked and pre-born babies will continue to be exterminated for years to come.
Hopefully instead, Fred will get the nod.
No my friend, not a tantrum, but an honest assessment of the state of things. I ask again, what's been gained by this increasingly bitter feud? I've actually tried to rise above it, and I think my posting record stands testment to that. See, I did my best to be a gentleman and NOT trash anyone or get personal. I'm sorry you see that as worthy of derision.
Important principles may and must be inflexible.
— Abraham Lincoln
Far better it is to dare mighty things, to win glorious triumphs, even though checkered by failure, than to take rank with those poor spirits, who neither enjoy much nor suffer much, because they live in that grey twilight which knows not victory nor defeat!
— Teddy Roosevelt
God grants liberty only to those who love it, and are always ready to guard and defend it.
— Daniel Webster
I haven’t decided whom to support, but if this forum doesn’t quit jumping around from candidate to candidate in search of the anti-Rudy, it’s going to face some problems.
And if the nominee is Rudy, then what?
This forum becomes a third party site and drives all the Republicans off?
The previous hero of this forum, Duncan Hunter, has less than $300,000 in his campaign account. Thompson has $0.
We need a John Stossel Reality Check.
I will vote for whoever the GOP nominates. But I fully understand Melas’s frustration. The incivility here is sickening.
Because now it's power over principle!
A glance at the actual people elected should show you there are few conservatives who pass muster with a majority of FR as such. Those who do are from isolated districts in a few states. Every conservative Senator lost his re-election. There are no real conservative governors. Bush initially won only because of the Electoral college and the Traitor running against him obtained the second highest vote total in US history.
Only 35% claim to be conservative and, of those, at best a third would be considered conservative at FR.
And Reagan wasn’t electable either.
With Liberal Giuliani as the GOP pick, I hope we get our arses kicked 'till our GOP noses bleed. As goes the Presidency, so goes the party - and I won't remain loyal to the party of abortionist gungrabbing queerbots. I didn't give in to those before Rudy - I ain't going to with him. Those who change their "position" to embrace liberalism just because Giuliani has an "R" behind his name prove to possess very shallow principles. Period.
Far more is at stake than an '08 presidency, indicating to both houses of Congress as to what is acceptable is by far more important to me than one office - even the executive office.
But the shortsighted only see the '08 presidential race as the most important thing. If losing over steadfastly held principle were weighed against sacrificing virtue for a perception of winning, give me the loss - I'll deal with it.