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.
Notable expenses
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.
I hope that is true. I would welcome Thompson into the race.
I know it sounds rude to say Rudy should be purged. I mean it more in the sense that posts supporting Rudy should be purged, just as posts that support liberal candidates and ideas have always been purged on this forum. If you are having a discussion comparing Thompson and Romney’s views and ideas and someone comes in and starts shilling for Rudy, then you are drawn away from discussing viable candidate’s views. We wouldn’t let anyone that supported Hillary go into a thread and try to distort one of the candidates views in support of liberal Hillary.
Discussion about Rudy and his views are still important, but in the same sense that discussion of Hillary and Obama’s views are important - to expose their liberalism.
I agree with you on that. I don't think that many of Rudy's supporters have set out to be trouble makers, but they are disrupting the forum.
The barrage of attacks on them only cements them in there positions. I believe that with reasoned and civilized debate, many rudybots will come to the same conclusion that I did
When Steve Forbes first announced that he was running for President I bought him hook, line and sinker. Very many people on this forum very rudely pointed out that I didn't really know his true positions and gave me some facts. Another time I made a statement about Margaret Sanger. I was very, very rudely pointed to some facts that I didn't know. I still can't stand some of the posters that pointed me to the facts and I think they are rude and obnoxious, but I see that some of them are normally nice, but my stupid posts just brought out an emotional response. Regardless about how I feel about the posters, I didn't discard the facts they gave me.
Everyone here isn't nice. But most of us here are just passionate about issues and can do a Dr. Jekyll/Mr. Hyde on you in a heartbeat. If you are going against the tide on a conservative forum you are going to get a barrage of attacks. We aren't just calling them poopoo heads, we are giving them facts to reason with them and they are discarding them.
I just looked at his profile and have no clue what you're referring to.
So let's just give up. Great attitude.
And will you cut it out with this nonsense? You people are always the ones who are telling us to push electable Republicans. Hunter is sadly not electable. But now you're complaining that we have found someone who is electable and palatable. What in the hell is so bad about this?!?
Thanks Jim. God bless you.
.
bump
Who put Tabasco in your jock strap? My point is that if this forum can't rally around the eventual Republican nominee, it will be in trouble. What is nonsensical about that?
As of today, this forum is in fairly broad agreement that Fred Thompson would make a good nominee. Trouble is, he isn't running, at least not yet. And if he does run, he might not win the nomination. And then, what will you do?
If this forum is hostile to the supporters of the nominee, if that doesn't happen to be Fred Thompson, how supportive will they be of this forum and how comfortable will they be in posting at all?
Those are fair questions, and just because they make you uncomfortable is not a reason for me not to ask them.
It's not fighting amongst ourselves when we realize that the enemy is behind our lines fighting us as we try to fight the enemy before us. We have to clear the trenches of the enemy, stop their efforts to undermine our fortifications, fill the gaps, and then continue to fight the enemy on the battlefield. You can't do that with the enemy working within our ranks to sabotage our efforts and demoralize our fighters.
I was specifically annoyed at the "why are the Hunter fans abandoning him" line of questioning. I'm sure you were sincere in asking it, but several posters on the new anti-freeping site have been mocking Hunter supporters who have jumped on the Thompson boat after realizing that Hunter is not gaining ground. Since that pretty much sums up my situation, I get a bit offended by it.
My point is that if this forum can't rally around the eventual Republican nominee, it will be in trouble.
I personally think that FR will be fine with a non-Thompson candidate other than Rudy. I think we'll be able to get behind Romney and probably even McCain.
Sorry again for being bitchy last night/this morning. You're one of the posters I enjoy chatting with.
Out of curiosity, what new anti-freeping site are you talking about? I would have thought it was DU, except that they aren’t new. They are very anti-freeper, though; they seem to be obsessed with us.
Okay, apology accepted, and no hard feelings.
If it is McCain, though, we’ll have a different problem. Mass suicide.
I'm not a Rudy supporter. I haven't made my choice yet. But let me get this straight. A person who supports Rudy, or who might support Rudy, is the enemy?
Rudy is definitely the enemy to conservatives, no question. He’s a liberal just like his momma said.
“He only became a Republican after he began to get all these jobs from them. He’s definitely not a conservative Republican. He thinks he is, but he isn’t.”
— Rudy’s mother Helen
Those who support Rudy are the enemy IF they come on this forum to put down conservatives and tell conservatives here that Rudy (a liberal) is the only republican candidate that we should support. Expressing your support for a liberal is fine by me, and apparently it’s fine with Jim, but it isn’t fine to diss conservatives while promoting a liberal on FR. That is contrary to the mission statement and rules of FR. You've been here seven years, surely you know this by now.
I have not given my support to anyone yet. I have not ruled out anyone, although there are some candidates who I don’t think can win the nomination. Fred is not among those - but he hasn’t declared yet.
I won’t diss anyone for supporting any candidate.
The biggest difference is the one which counts most. The Republican Party will defend the nation from its enemies rather than surrender or help them become more dangerous.
Any review of Clinton’s works is sufficienct proof of that. And that is extensively documented by one of our own.
Your suggestion of turning FR into a Right Wing version of DU is a sure fire way to kill the forum. Its tolerance of many viewpoints some even crackpot gives it it uniqueness and power. If you cannot deal with Rudy Guiliani here you certainly will not be able to in the large contest.
Such a distortion is NOT my attitude. My attitude is we must know the lay of the land in order to win. That is all I have done is describe the lay of the land.
In war tactical retreats are necessary in order to ultimately achieve victory. These do not imply any change in the ultimate strategy or goal.
The simple fact is the Treason media has made conservatives toxic to the voter and until that changes they will lose. Rudy can help change that. And provide inroads to urban voters which must be made at some point or the GOP is not going to succeed.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.