IBJNews

Club for Growth spends $600,000 on anti-Donnelly ad

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

The anti-tax Club for Growth is spending $600,000 in Indiana on an ad hitting Democrat Joe Donnelly for supporting congressional earmarks.

The club lifted Indiana Republican Richard Mourdock over U.S. Sen. Richard Lugar in May's primary and has bought sporadically in Indiana since then.

Club spokesman Barney Keller said the ad will show Donnelly is "just another liberal" who supported Washington spending. Donnelly has pushed back against that argument throughout the campaign, noting most recently that he voted with Republican Speaker John Boehner 60 percent of the time.

Indiana's Senate battle has grown into the most expensive the state has ever seen.
 

ADVERTISEMENT

  • Voted for Donnelly
    I have been a strong Lugar Republican since his years as Mayor of Indianapolis. Mourdock is no more a real Republican than the Man in the Moon. I voted early and cast my vote for Donnelly. I want a person in Washington who is not owned by the TEA Party.
  • Mourdock is no Dick Lugar
    Donnelly may not be a Republican but he is rated as the 6th or 7th most conservative Democrat in the House of Representatives. I am voting for Donnelly. I still can't believe the hatchet job Mourdock did on Dick Lugar.
    • Truth?
      All of the campaign's are attack ads. They all accuse each other of many wrong doings. So, where is the real truth? When will the ads start telling me about the candidate and not about who he/she is running against? I am left with the conclusion that they, politicians, are ALL liars!

    Post a comment to this story

    COMMENTS POLICY
    We reserve the right to remove any post that we feel is obscene, profane, vulgar, racist, sexually explicit, abusive, or hateful.
     
    You are legally responsible for what you post and your anonymity is not guaranteed.
     
    Posts that insult, defame, threaten, harass or abuse other readers or people mentioned in IBJ editorial content are also subject to removal. Please respect the privacy of individuals and refrain from posting personal information.
     
    No solicitations, spamming or advertisements are allowed. Readers may post links to other informational websites that are relevant to the topic at hand, but please do not link to objectionable material.
     
    We may remove messages that are unrelated to the topic, encourage illegal activity, use all capital letters or are unreadable.
     

    Messages that are flagged by readers as objectionable will be reviewed and may or may not be removed. Please do not flag a post simply because you disagree with it.

    Sponsored by
    ADVERTISEMENT

    facebook - twitter on Facebook & Twitter

    Follow on TwitterFollow IBJ on Facebook:
    Follow on TwitterFollow IBJ's Tweets on these topics:
     
    Subscribe to IBJ
    1. I am not by any means judging whether this is a good or bad project. It's pretty simple, the developers are not showing a hardship or need for this economic incentive. It is a vacant field, the easiest for development, and the developer already has the money to invest $26 million for construction. If they can afford that, they can afford to pay property taxes just like the rest of the residents do. As well, an average of $15/hour is an absolute joke in terms of economic development. Get in high paying jobs and maybe there's a different story. But that's the problem with this ask, it is speculative and users are just not known.

    2. Shouldn't this be a museum

    3. I don't have a problem with higher taxes, since it is obvious that our city is not adequately funded. And Ballard doesn't want to admit it, but he has increased taxes indirectly by 1) selling assets and spending the money, 2) letting now private entities increase user fees which were previously capped, 3) by spending reserves, and 4) by heavy dependence on TIFs. At the end, these are all indirect tax increases since someone will eventually have to pay for them. It's mathematics. You put property tax caps ("tax cut"), but you don't cut expenditures (justifiably so), so you increase taxes indirectly.

    4. Marijuana is the safest natural drug grown. Addiction is never physical. Marijuana health benefits are far more reaching then synthesized drugs. Abbott, Lilly, and the thousands of others create poisons and label them as medication. There is no current manufactured drug on the market that does not pose immediate and long term threat to the human anatomy. Certainly the potency of marijuana has increased by hybrids and growing techniques. However, Alcohol has been proven to destroy more families, relationships, cause more deaths and injuries in addition to the damage done to the body. Many confrontations such as domestic violence and other crimes can be attributed to alcohol. The criminal activities and injustices that surround marijuana exists because it is illegal in much of the world. If legalized throughout the world you would see a dramatic decrease in such activities and a savings to many countries for legal prosecutions, incarceration etc in regards to marijuana. It indeed can create wealth for the government by collecting taxes, creating jobs, etc.... I personally do not partake. I do hope it is legalized throughout the world.

    5. Build the resevoir. If built this will provide jobs and a reason to visit Anderson. The city needs to do something to differentiate itself from other cities in the area. Kudos to people with vision that are backing this project.

    ADVERTISEMENT