Correction on O'Rourke Piece
I need to make a correction in how I characterized something earlier in the piece I wrote about O'Rourke. He doesn't have to return money because he never received money and can not receive money from a Super PAC. I was corrected in the comment section of that piece, so many thanks to Bob Moore for the catch.
But its STILL bad for O'Rourke because his father-in-law, who maxed out personal contributions to O'Rourke then donated to the Super PAC that is targeting Reyes among other incumbents. That contribution will benefit O'Rourke one way or another, which is probably why his father-in-law donated the money. What other reason would he have to donate if not to benefit O'Rourke.
That is not a critique by the way, just an observation.
At any rate, having Cantor and Sanders both donate to a SuperPAC that is going to target O'Rourke's opponent is a bad thing for O'Rourke in terms of perception.
My bad. I made a mistake in my characterization.
But its STILL bad for O'Rourke because his father-in-law, who maxed out personal contributions to O'Rourke then donated to the Super PAC that is targeting Reyes among other incumbents. That contribution will benefit O'Rourke one way or another, which is probably why his father-in-law donated the money. What other reason would he have to donate if not to benefit O'Rourke.
That is not a critique by the way, just an observation.
At any rate, having Cantor and Sanders both donate to a SuperPAC that is going to target O'Rourke's opponent is a bad thing for O'Rourke in terms of perception.
My bad. I made a mistake in my characterization.
Comments
Post a Comment
We encourage constructive community dialogue, debate, and conversation - but we reserve the right to refuse to publish a comment or delete a comment if we feel like it. Be a respectful adult. Use common sense.