Rep. Nancy Boyda, D-Topeka, is having some success keeping out-of-state money out of her re-election race: The Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee has scrapped earlier plans to spend $1.2 million on pro-Boyda ads. “I hope my opponent will join me to demand that these out-of-state groups keep out of Kansas,” Boyda said.
Answered GOP candidate Lynn Jenkins: “It’s free speech. Let anybody come tell their story and let the voters sort it out.” But when the anti-tax Club for Growth funded ads early in her primary campaign against Rep. Jim Ryun, Jenkins had a different take on the issue: In June she criticized Ryun for having “had his Washington, D.C., buddies spend $120,000 distorting my record.”
19 Comments
Boyda is such a fool. She turns down help from her own party and now she thinks her opponent should as well?
Boyda played a fast one here, and the Eagle, and the rest of the local media, bought into it:
Boyda was NOT going to do very well, with the “outside money” anyway. Rather than be embarrased about being “written off” — Boyda instead refused to take the money and the help that she was not going to get, anyway!
Thank you Paul for your expert insights into internal Democratic Party politics. I’ll keep that in mind when you claim that only you can know anything about Republic Party politics.
Ben
Your comment is a little off.
Boyda challenged Jenkins to reject out of state funding or support.
Boyda made it a bi-partisan issue.
Boyda did so for selfish reasons.
Actually I think it would be smart for both of them to reject outside money. Both have established themselves as independents – and I think Jenkins will win in November.
I don’t want to surpress or judge Growth, but to explore them in the coming days. But Nancy Boyda none-the-less. Nancy Boyda The next day was pretty memorable.
Looks like boyda had spoken against ryun’s out of state support that spread lies about her. I don’t know anything about her.
But are the reasons for than and now truly the same?
than=then
Turning down $1.2 million sounds like she’s serious about it to me.
The editor is trying to make Jenkins sound inconsistent.
“Jenkins had a different take on the issue”
No she didn’t. In June she Ryun’s buddies had DISTORTED her record.
She didn’t object to the spending of outside dollars. She objected to the CONTENT of the advertising.
You know, sorta like the editor did here.
Nancy Boyda wasn’t too concerned about where the money came from in her first election. Why all the sudden does she have a conscience issue?
University of Kansas $14,594
Machinists/Aerospace Workers Union $10,000
Operating Engineers Union $10,000
Plumbers/Pipefitters Union $10,000
Intl Brotherhood of Electrical Workers $9,500
AG Edwards & Sons $8,300
United Steelworkers $5,250
American Assn for Justice $5,000
American Federation of Teachers $5,000
American Fedn of St/Cnty/Munic Employees $5,000
AmeriPAC: The Fund for a Greater America $5,000
Communications Workers of America $5,000
International Assn of Fire Fighters $5,000
KidsPAC $5,000
LA PAC $5,000
Laborers Union $5,000
National Leadership PAC $5,000
United Auto Workers $5,000
Stormont-Vail Health Care $4,750
Innovative Consulting Group LLC $4,200
Pines $4,200
PAC contributions $108,000 (15%)
Individual contributions $568,800 (80%)
Candidate self-financing $1,000 (0%)
Other $32,961 (5%)
http://www.opensecrets.org/index.php
“Boyda did so for selfish reasons.”
Of course. Are there ever other reasons? Politicians, like the rest of us, operate out of self-interest. “Principle” is involked when convenient, when it happens to coincide with self-interest, but principle is easily cast aside when self-interest demands it.
This is true at every level, and for every politician, of any stripe (and, if we are honest with ourselves, for most of us, most of the time). I.e., note Obama’s commitment to use public financing as a principle – until he realized that his interests were better served by rejecting public financing.
RARELY is “principle” really principle. As the saying goes, “Where you stand depends on where you sit.” It’s just the way it is.
wait a second now, half of you were whining about the outside money when it was in reference earlier for a democratic candidate, but now its ok?
Come on get your facts straight. They all do it. And Boyda is dumb if she doesn’t.
Half of you were whining:
O.K. Pmama let’s see if you can get your facts right.
Provide the posters name and specific post who was whining and let us all read the facts.
Times up Political Mamma.
You throw crap out there just to see if it will stick, just like the best of them.
American Way — the list of donors to Boyda’s campaign has nothing to do with the point of the post.
The question is — do we want people like the Club for Growth, or Freedom’s Watch or Swiftboaters to influence Kansas campaigns? And your answer probably depends on whether their ads support your candidate or the other. These outside groups by law cannot coordinate their message or funding or anything with the candidate. The ads they run are always negative and regardless of party, generally always distort the record. That’s what negative ads do — they seek out a vote here, a vote there and take it out of context, then blow it up into a crisis.
That’s what happened to Jenkins, and it’s what is happening to Boyda now. It works because we all like to believe the worst about people.
Sorry Grasslandsgal it does relate to the post. Boyda, who campaigned against all the sins of the republican party – has failed to correct any of the items I HEARD her promise to correct (deficit spending, tardiness on passing appropriation acts, and earmarks). By her OWN standards – I should NOT vote for her again.
She wants to come across as holier-than-thou about accepting campaign advertising from outside the state, yet she has ZERO problem taking MONEY from outside the state – and using it for her OWN advertising.
I sorta like FREE SPEECH Grasslands. I also opposed McClame in his sponsorship of campaign finance reform – which limits FREE SPEECH during the last part of the campaign.
I will side with the constitution every time.
“The ads they run are always negative and regardless of party, generally always distort the record. That’s what negative ads do — they seek out a vote here, a vote there and take it out of context, then blow it up into a crisis.”
Are you saying we should limit free speech to only allow misleading and untrue advertising which originates from money inside the state?
I’m saying no. I’m smart enough to decide for myself what to believe. Do not limit the possible viewpoints I may hear or read, because YOU think some are misleading….
It’s for Americans to decide. And Kansans. Not Boyda and the democratic party.
I don’t need government to decide what I hear and don’t hear.
Who was whining? Those who were complaining about the Inga Taylor campaign using out of state money in the recent election. So soon we forget.
I did the search here is your whiners:
http://blogs.kansas.com/weblog/2008/08/open-thread-84-2/
9:06 post