Without passing judgment on the man himself, it is clear that Mike Sodrel's seat remains one of the key legislative objectives of both parties. It was once believed that the Ninth Congressional District of Indiana would be a battleground of unprecedented scale. Now, however, we may be spared some of the outside money that was expected, because so many more seats are in play as Dubya and the GOP reel from the scandals. For us, that means less money, fewer commercials, but still a very competitive race.
Today, we report Sodrel's PAC contributions
From Open Secrets:
MICHAEL E. SODREL (R-IN)
Top Contributors during this election cycle
1 Keep Our Majority PAC $15,000
1 Rely on Your Beliefs $15,000
3 Promoting Republicans You Can Elect $12,500
4 America's Majority Trust $10,000
4 American Dental Assn $10,000
4 Americans for a Republican Majority $10,000
4 Associated Builders & Contractors $10,000
4 AT&T Inc $10,000
4 Every Republican is Crucial PAC $10,000
4 Majority Initiative-Keep Electing Repubs $10,000
4 National Auto Dealers Assn $10,000
4 Siebel Systems $10,000
13 Credit Union National Assn $8,500
14 George Pfau's Sons $8,200
15 MAC Construction $8,000
15 Morgan Foods $8,000
15 Sodrel Truck Lines $8,000
18 Ernst & Young $7,500
19 National Beer Wholesalers Assn $7,000
19 National Multi Housing Council $7,000
19 Natl Star Route Mail Contractors Assn $7,000
The unintentional humor of some of those PAC names is priceless.
I knew there was a reason why beer wholesalers annoy me so much.
ReplyDelete"Without passing judgment on the man himself,..."
ReplyDeleteCome on All4Word, it is boring out here in blogland right now. I almost wish SOLNA would go back to open posting--ALMOST. Tell us what you really feel about our Congressman.
Do you think Sodrel Truck Lines is tres eager to keep Mike in Washington, and out of the local office?
ReplyDeleteMaybe his bus company would like to have him back. Did not see them listed--yet.
ReplyDeleteI have been attempting to think of anything Congressman Sodrel has done since being elected, other than getting involved in the prayer issue at the General Assembly. Any help out there?
According to Wikipedia, the founding staffer of Rely on Your Beliefs is Jim Ellis. Mr. Ellis was one of two political associates indicted along with Tom Delay.
ReplyDeleteI took the pledge to avoid SOLNA, but I'm very curious as to the meaning of your hint, Iamhoosier.
ReplyDeleteDo you mean to imply that the volume of posts has decreased since the requirement to be semi-responsible?
Please elaborate.
A total of 32 comments in the 10 or so days. I grant you a special dispensation to check it out for yourself. Just once though and not for more than 5 minutes.
ReplyDelete"...that so engages Roger's audience of 4 on NAC" posted by EastEnder on the late and lamented Volunteer Hoosier blog.
ReplyDeleteOf the 32 posts, 26 were by 4 posters. 5--citizenspeak, 8--EE, 7--$$$$$, 6--NA pottypolice. This over a dozen days.
Sure is amazing what comes out when the veil is lifted just little bit to require some responsibility.
I'm really glad you did the research, Iamhoosier, because I couldn't find my hip boots.
ReplyDeleteYour boots are next to the wort tank.
ReplyDeleteChicken!
To Sloburn &
ReplyDeleteFeel the Paine
Please be aware that anonymous comments are not permitted here. Please avail yourself of the e-mail address in my profile and let me know who you are; your identity will remain confidential. Both your current inaugural comments will not be deleted, but unless I know who you are, future comments will.
Thanks.
Gosh, I can't decide. Should I feel like the subject of discriminatory behavior or not? Of four "inaugural" and anonymous posts this week at NAC, only mine was deleted under the "rule" on the books. Is there an enforcement problem? Does NAC need a full-time attorney or legal department? Are these other posters friends of the mayor's (oops, I mean blogmaster)? What am I to think? I guess rather than being the rule, I am the exception. Darn, it really felt better being the rule.
ReplyDeleteEasy answer here for SBAvanti63. You've been around using that handle long enough to know (although I concede you might have forgotten) the rules at NA Confidential.
ReplyDeleteFar easier to believe that these new commenters didn't know than to believe YOU didn't know. But that is water under the bridge now. You've credentialed yourself with the senior editor. Why not put the aggrieved attitude away?
God, what a bunch of whining!!
ReplyDeleteOops, wait -- wrong teleprompter.
It has been well over a year since NAC's anonymity policy was devised. In that time, there have been numerous infractions, and more than one response to these on my part.
As I indicated earlier, there are rules, and there are exceptions.
The reason why there are exceptions is because although there is only one shade of anonymity, there are many shades of its application and use.
Once you disclosed your identity as requested, your original words were promptly reposted, as promised.
I recall reading the column (downtown revitalization) you wrote for the Tribune, as well as your subsequent letters to the editor.
You have strong opinions, and you can express them in writing quite nicely, but when you write things like, “Guess that's what I (and the other 799,999 people) get for disagreeing with the 'thinking people,'" you’re just embarrassing yourself for no reason.
You’re obviously already a “thinking person,” which is something to be proud of, and not something to be wielded like a spiked club against the very group to which you belong.
That's not thinking, it's anti-thinking -- and try as you might, you cannot attack thinking and thought as proficiently as people like Dan Coffey do already.
It’s regrettable that we’ve gotten off on the wrong foot, because your participation here is welcomed, in spite of what you seem to have convinced yourself to believe.
And, if you think that you’ve somehow been mistreated because you’ve disagreed with me, look back to the comments section that marked your entrance.
Both Rick and Ceece took strong issue with me, and nothing has changed as a result. We’re all still friends, agreeing to disagree from time to time.
I have reposted the “rules” explanation (it’s probably been about six months since I last placed it on the marquee).
To borrow Lyndon Baines Johnson's immortal analogy, we'd rather have you inside the tent pissing out, rather than the other way around. But that's your choice, not ours.
Thanks, Brandon. I tried to locate Baron's PAC giving (although I didn't think it was unfair to do them each seperately) through Open Secrets, but was unsuccessful.
ReplyDeleteIn fact, I'll suggest to the senior editor that we elevate your posting to the marquee.
With all that is going on at the store, it would probably have been days before I could have dug it out. The screen I used for Sodrel had no links to Hill in this election cycle - only a link for 435 incumbents.