Who to give too?

Instead of giving a little bit to a few candidates, I pick one every election cycle to give all of my donations too. It doesn’t have to do with who I agree with the most, as I have never given money to Tammy Baldwin. Instead of giving money to someone who is going to trounce their opponent I like to give it to someone where it might make a difference.

For example, I gave all of my donations to Dr. Kagen, while I like Congressman Kagen, at the time I felt(and rightly so) that the worst thing we could do at the time was reward Jon Gards incompetence. The last election cycle I gave all of my donations to Marge Krupp, hoping to get rid of Paul Ryan. This year I am stuck. I am not sure where my money will be most needed. Any suggestions and why?


Related Articles

21 thoughts on “Who to give too?

  1. Janis Ringhand in the 80th AD.

    Erpenbach in the 27th SSD.

    There are some really close Leg races over by you, too.

  2. Janis Ringhand in the 80th AD.

    Erpenbach in the 27th SSD.

    There are some really close Lege races over by you, too.

  3. I would suggest Tom Michalski in the 21st AD. He is working really hard and can win if he has a well funded mail program.

  4. I agree with Fred on that….but if you’re still thinking about a candidate, what about Julie Lassa (D) the one vying for Obey’s seat who’s retiring?

  5. Please Jim Sullivan; Leah Vukmir has no appreication for the unique needs/concerns of an inner-ring suburb like West Allis.

    Per her website she’s busy hobknobing with the Elm Grove Women’s Club, “future” constituents Margaret Farrow and Alberta Darling, speaking at out-of-district tea parties, posing for pictures with Phyllis “The National Nag” Schlafly and touting parental rights for rapists.

    Anywhere but West Allis!

  6. It starts at the top with Feingold and Barrett. Both should win if we step up, and both are in the biggest positions.

    Below, go with Dana Schultz in the 87th (?) Assembly District, which she has a great chance of winning and would be a Dem pickup. Go with Jim Sullivan in the 5th Senate (Vukmir is a Sykesist nut and I graduated HS in Tosa), and Kind and Lassa for Congress.

  7. I think you should do your patriotic duty and send it in to the feds to help reduce the deficit/debt.

    Will you ultimately tell us what you decide to do?

  8. If we get the right candidates in we wont need so many worthy charities!

    I have it narrowed down to




    I will do some research and then report who I finally pick!

    I wont be giving to the Barrett/Feingold/Baldwin. They will be playing with so much money that mine wouldnt even be enough to sneeze at. They would blow mine on one simple brown bag lunch day! I prefer a lower tier race, where my money and support can have more effect!!

    1. We won’t need so many charities because when you elect liberals they use government to do what private charities could and should do? Or do you think if you elect a few more libs they will solve so many problems those charitiies won’t need to exist?

      1. I found the comment on charities interesting as well. I don’t think there’s much arguing liberals want the government doing many of the things conservatives would rather have charities do & vice versa.

        In my experience, at least in service areas where charities exist, they are incredibly more effective at delivering the most help to those who need it. Minus the government wringer (especially the feds where interest along due sucks out a chunk) where red-tape, bureaucracy, corruption & waste a much higher percentage of every dollar a charity receives ends up where it does the most good.

        1. I find it interesting also as I get in debates with a republican friend of mine also. She continually says the church and charities have to tackle things like hunger and poverty not the government. I say its fine to have charities to accent them but those things fall under “the commons” and need to be addressed on the government level. The reason that poverty is so high is because we have such high unemployment and the wages of people who actually have jobs have been decreasing. No church or charity group can address that!

          1. I say its fine to have charities to accent them but those things fall under “the commons” and need to be addressed on the government level.

            They don’t need to you want them to. As long as people in need are being helped, that is. I fully accept that charities aren’t available to fill every need and where their not, the government should do so.

            But try this for a second, think about it this way…

            You said, as if we elect the right people we won’t need charities. Implying the government solving the problem is better than charity.

            Let me ask you this: Why is it that a solution that is forced (if you don’t pay your taxes you go to jail (or end up running the treasury)) is better than a solution that is voluntary?

            1. What I meant by “electing the right people” is that instead of keeping status quo, if we elected people who did the irght thing and brought back jobs instead of kowtowed to the Multi nationals we would be less reliant on charities.

              In terms of forced V voluntary, because we need rules. Would you advocate for voluntarily not robbing banks? or should we make it mandatory with consequences if you do.
              In terms of taxes, as Oliver Wendel Holmes said “Taxes are the price we pay for a civilized society.”

              1. In terms of forced V voluntary, because we need rules. Would you advocate for voluntarily not robbing banks? or should we make it mandatory with consequences if you do.

                WTF kind of analogy is that? Really, the best you can do come up with is robbing banks? I’m talking about people voluntarily contributing to charities to help others and you make up some crap analogy about bank robbery? I often have to go back & re-read my posts because after I see your responses, I often think I must’ve typed in a foreign language that you didn’t understand.

                Let me restate my point explicitly:

                When charities provide a solution to a problem, it is better than a government solution because it uses funds collected voluntarily whereas the government obtained theirs via threat of force.

                1. Sorry Locke, I misinterpreted what you were saying. I think it depends on the issue. Locally say soup kitchens, etc..

                  it is probably best to do a local charity because you have people who actually want to help and have a passion to be there. The problem is what if there are not enough local donations to meet the demand?

                  I think on a grander scale, its probably more important to have the government involved. For things like Cancer research, we need to the govts involvement because it is a problem that is too big for local people to give. Now granted we have some great cancer charities but without the governments involvement we could not reach the advances we have reached.

  9. No I am saying if we stop all of the BS and get people working again, we wont be so desperate for many of these charities!

  10. Ok as promised.

    * I decided not to send it to the federal government to decrease the federal deficit. I figured since the republicans are largely to blame for it, they can send their money for that.

    * I ruled out Lassa because I am not sure she is getting her name out enough, and we know that despite his incompetence, the national republican money coming in to duffy is immense.

    I could not decide, so I gave a donation to Erpenbach and Sullivan.

    – when I read this on the Kirt Schlict website I knew he had a very limited understanding of the issues and so decided Erpenbach needed the help.

    “Protect individuals rights to make decisions about their health care. Jon Erpenbach thinks he knows best when it comes to decisions about YOUR health care. He doesn’t want Wisconsinites to have a chance to vote on an amendment to our constitution establishing the right of an individual to make their own health care decisions.”

    – then I went to Leah Vukmirs site and she said the same thing(hmmmmmm)

    “Putting people in charge of their health care decisions while reducing costly mandates and regulations will help to expand access and protect the quality of health care in our state.”

    Also Leah Vukmir refused my friend request on FB.

    So there are my choices for the 2010 elections!

Comments are closed.