Dold's War Chest Nears $1 Million
Congressman raised $376,534 for the quarter that ended Sept. 30.
Photos
Rep. Robert Dold (R-Kenilworth) has nearly $1 million in the bank to finance his reelection campaign as of Sept. 30, according to a report filed Thursday with the Federal Election Commission (FEC).
Dold raised $367,665 for the quarter that ended Sept. 30, according to the FEC. He has collected $1,276,067.86 since he was elected less than a year ago.
None of Dold’s potential Democratic opponents—Deerfield management consultant Brad Schneider,Waukegan community organizer Ilya Sheyman or Mundelein attorney Vivek Bavda—have filed their reports yet. They are due Oct. 15
Sheyman told Patch earlier this month he had raised more than $140,000 from over 4,800 donors as of Sept. 30. For the entire campaign he has collected more than $250,000. Schneider’s donors gave him $321,085 for the quarter ending June 30.
More than half of Dold’s haul ($182,166) came from organizations or political action committees including fellow members of Congress. He also garnered $170,185 from individuals, most from the 10th Congressional District.
Rep. Jan Schakowsky (D-Evanston) has not yet reported her fundraising totals. She does not have a Republican opponent.
Check Patch Monday for a complete report on Schakowsky, Dold, Schneider, Sheyman and Bavda.
John Noyes
12:18 pm on Friday, October 14, 2011
By the way, anyone who voted for Dold should note that though he adamantly stated that he was Pro-Choice while campaigning, even going so far as to criticize Dan Seals for stating he was anti-abortion, he has voted consistently to restrict women's rights while in office. The bill that passed the House this week with his Yes vote would allow a woman to die at the hospital instead of providing a life saving abortion. Pretty stunning and a huge disappointment for Illinois voters.
Clark Kent
6:04 am on Sunday, October 16, 2011
"Pretty stunning and a huge disappointment for Illinois voters."
More noise from you again.
Disappointment? He is a breath of fresh air in the leftwing loony bin in DC.
Be glad he isn't pushing to cut funding for mental health programs...you'd really be in trouble.
Sam Shapiro
11:49 pm on Monday, October 17, 2011
This issue is being wildly distorted. Should a hospital that objects to abortion on moral and religious grounds be forced to perform the procedure by the Federal Government? In my opinion the hospital should have the right to choose. If, in fact the life of the mother is in danger the doctors at the hospital are required by law to stabilize the patient. Dold is pro-choice and voted correctly on this issue.
Ken Robertson
8:53 am on Wednesday, October 19, 2011
Sam - the whole point behind the bill in the House (which will never get past the Senate or presidential veto anyway) is to placate social conservatives and make Democrats "oppose" preventing the use of federal funds for abortion (even though such use is already prohibited) - that's the "wild distortion". Regardless of the complete waste of the House's time, if you watched the floor debate, you would have clearly seen the motivation. Republicans have continued, across the country, to strangle the efficient delivery of women's health services (via laws cutting off funds to organizations with even a remote connection to abortion services, regardless of the fact that tax dollars are not used for abortions), disproportionately affecting lower-income areas. While Republicans blast "Obamacare" as government intrusion, they have no qualms about passing Draconian laws that insert government directly into a procedure between a woman and her doctor, simply because someone has a moral opposition to it. This is a slippery slope - we're heading in a direction where you could make the argument that if an individual gets a tax credit (i.e. is "subsidized" for some activity), then they must prove that none of those funds were used for a legal but "morally objectionable" activity. This is the basis of cutting off Planned Parenthood - they receive tax dollars to supply mammograms, but some clinics (not all) also provide abortions, therefore taxpayers are funding abortions.
John Noyes
12:19 pm on Friday, October 14, 2011
And has nothing to do with creating jobs......
Ricky W Kracker a.k.a. Diggy Swagga
2:58 pm on Friday, October 14, 2011
No one commented on how handsome he is!
IMHO
6:13 am on Saturday, October 15, 2011
What has he done for US lately?
Dold Cockroach
1:26 pm on Saturday, October 15, 2011
If Dold needed me to dial 911 for him because he was having a heart attack I would first call Ms Cleo for a few hours to see what my future looked like. This man is EVIL!
Clark Kent
6:00 am on Sunday, October 16, 2011
"I would first call Ms Cleo for a few hours to see what my future looked like."
Not saving a man's life is EVIL. Didn't your teacher tell you that last week in your kindergarten class? You're just the type to work on the Obama death panels.
Even on a good day, your future would be bleak.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=srNdTnOnLFk
Bryce Robertson
7:35 pm on Monday, October 17, 2011
Not at all saying I agree with "Cockroach's" comment above, but it's evil not to save a man's life... but let's allow an expectant mother to die without an abortion? See John's comment above, and the bill here: http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bill.xpd?bill=h112-358. Putting it simply, we just made it OK to let a woman in need of a life-saving abortion die if it'll save a couple of bucks. No response needed... just something to ponder.
Sully
2:36 pm on Wednesday, October 19, 2011
If a hospital accepts federal funding, it should treat all. if a medical professional cannot treat all patients equally, go to a private hospital. If one is so unwilling to follow the hippocratic oath, than perhaps medicine is not the proper field to go in. I understand ethics, but protecting a woman's life is pretty high up there on the ethics scale I would think.
Sully
3:54 pm on Wednesday, October 19, 2011
I don't believe abortion in order to save a woman's life is "abortion on demand" and I'm really not sure a large majority of Americans are against a woman's right to choose.
Ken Robertson
4:15 pm on Wednesday, October 19, 2011
Richard - it's your facts that are incorrect, not Sully's. Try here:http://www.pollingreport.com/abortion.htm. While you are correct that the majority of Americans would say it is "morally wrong", consistently 75%+ believe that abortion should NOT be banned. You'll see surveys from the last 10 years showing consistently that more Americans support abortion on demand vs totally banning abortion.
And by the way, get yourself a copy of the Constitution. You might find that it's pretty clear on who gets to decide how Federal funds are spent (hint: it's NOT taxpayers/citizens)
Sully
7:35 pm on Wednesday, October 19, 2011
Conservatives also think corporations are people and money is speech.
So if you agree that more people believe abortion should not be banned, Rich, how do you reconcile that with your statement that "taxpayers/citizens should have a say in how the Federal funds are spent"?
The phrase "abortion on demand" is inappropriate. That makes it sound like an assembly line. A majority of women have to make an agonizing decision and don't do so lightly.
Richard Schulte
8:03 pm on Wednesday, October 19, 2011
As noted above, the majority of Americans believe that abortion is morally wrong. Given that, it would seem that the majority believe that supporting abortion with taxpayers funds would also be morally wrong. Should government force taxpayers who believe that abortion is morally wrong to pay for abortions?
Again, why should health care providers who believe that abortion is morally wrong be forced to be involved in this procedure? Simply because abortion is legal in the United States doesn't mean that everyone in the country has to be involved, particularly where religions beliefs are involved.
There is a difference between the legality of the procedure and the funding of the procedure. The procedure can be legal, but not funded by government.