Ocasio-Cortez’s reelection campaign has reported receiving contributions from just 10 individuals living within her district in the first half of 2019, according to its Federal Election Commission (FEC) filings.
Is this unusual for those who attract a lot of attention from all over the country?
Less than 1% of her contributions come from inside her district, from the people she represents.
What she got is also very low (1.5k) vs other newbies ($107.3k), so it’s not just that people outside are flooding her with donations.
The average freshman representative’s reelection campaign received $107,141.29 in itemized contributions from their constituents in the first half of 2019, FEC filings the DCNF analyzed show. Ocasio-Cortez’s reported in-district fundraising haul of $1,525.50
If this is supposed to cast doubt on AOC’s support from her district, let’s see how she does in the election. The vote is a better indication of support than donations to a campaign.
Does it matter? A glass of water with a D on it would get elected in her district.
Pelosi told me so.
If that is so, she doesn’t need to campaign, so why should people in her district send her money she doesn’t need?
It must matter in some fashion, or the other Freshman wouldn’t be raking in cash.
I don’t know what this article intends to say. Clearly it’s implying that AOC doesn’t have the support of her district if she’s making so few contributions within her district. (and the other ‘Squad’ members too)
Meanwhile the admirable Dusty Johnson ® gets 94 percent within his district (which is the entire state of South Dakota, not just a few blocks of a city) and significantly more population than AOC’s district.
Are these really conclusions to draw so soon? I don’t… get this. Except as Daily Caller partisan hackery.
The fact that she has any political contributions at all is very telling. Let’s see who they were made by…
I guess the better question is
Do outside donors represent the people in the district?
If the mayor in my town is promoted by those who live in the town, but his opponent is represented by the rest of the country.
Who has my town interest?
Would not this be considered election meddling?
This is all across the board in politics. But when a representative gets 98% of contributions from other states, I find this alarming.
If you don’t like election meddling in campaign financing then stand up in opposition to the “Citizens United” decision, which expanded opportunities for such “meddling.”
She actually won two districts, one on a write-in basis. I doubt if AOC is too worried.
Why, maybe she’ll be encouraged to run for President in 2024?
I be honest with you, I only know the name, and not anything else about it. Many laws on the books are not good, but have a pretty name. Citizens United sounds like a powerful way for citizens to unite. But I doubt that is the actual logistics of it, like “Violence against women act” which Bishops opposed.
I think she will have gone sour by 2024, well past her freshness date.
She’s on important committees. We’ll hear more from her, I’m sure.
This is a very important Supreme Court decision, and you are right. The name is the opposite of what the decision really does, which is to give more power to corporations to influence elections and consequentially less power to citizens. So it should be called “Citizens Disenfranchised.”
I too am confident we’ll hear more from her, AOC talks a lot (usually without thinking it through first).
I think Tulsi Gabbard is someone who will mature into a better candidate by 2024. She says smart things now and will only improve with experience.
AOC is just going to increase the number of recordings of her saying inane things and showing she’s passionate but doesn’t really understand much.
Understand that left of the left like AOC. Feelings trump reason for the most part.
Look at MSNBC. Every time they speak about immigration, they post separation of children crying. Why? That is what matters to them. Emotions takes over and so immigration becomes inhuman. Children are crying.
When a right wing reads left wing news, they make no sense because it is too emotionally driven and facts are oppressed to resume the victim narrative. Which is why calling Trump a white supremacist makes sense for them.
I’ve seen polls that suggest left wing people only read left wing news, while right wing reads both sides.
I suspect left wing individuals do not read right wing news because there are no victims on the narrative. So they not only find them bias, they find right wing news heartless.
This topic was automatically closed 14 days after the last reply. New replies are no longer allowed.