IBJNews

Dems to pour $516K into Indiana Senate battle

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

Senate Democrats will place a $516,000 bet next week that Rep. Joe Donnelly can beat Republican Richard Mourdock in the race for Indiana's open seat.

A party official said Friday the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee is financing a new ad for Donnelly that will run statewide. The official wasn't authorized to speak publicly ahead of the ad's release and requested anonymity.

The battle for Indiana's Senate seat has been tight since the tea party-backed Mourdock defeated Sen. Richard Lugar in May's Republican primary.

Attention on the Indiana race has grown as a handful of forces have changed the seat from a safe bet for a Republican to a heated battle. Republicans need to flip four seats to win control of the Senate, and Democrats have turned the Indiana seat into an unexpected challenge with consistent spending since May.

Conservative super PACs have hit back in recent months. The group Americans for Prosperity announced last month it was spending $700,000 on ads criticizing Donnelly for supporting the federal health care law, while the anti-tax Club for Growth dropped $800,000 earlier this month against Donnelly.

In total, Democrats tracking Indiana ad spending say Mourdock and his allies will have spent $2.9 million on air by the end of next week, while Donnelly and his supporters will have blasted out $3.3 million.

Groups associated with Senate Democrats, including Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid's American Majority super PAC, have been spending heavily in support of Donnelly.

ADVERTISEMENT

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. The $104K to CRC would go toward debts service on $486M of existing debt they already have from other things outside this project. Keystone buys the bonds for 3.8M from CRC, and CRC in turn pays for the parking and site work, and some time later CRC buys them back (with interest) from the projected annual property tax revenue from the entire TIF district (est. $415K / yr. from just this property, plus more from all the other property in the TIF district), which in theory would be about a 10-year term, give-or-take. CRC is basically betting on the future, that property values will increase, driving up the tax revenue to the limit of the annual increase cap on commercial property (I think that's 3%). It should be noted that Keystone can't print money (unlike the Federal Treasury) so commercial property tax can only come from consumers, in this case the apartment renters and consumers of the goods and services offered by the ground floor retailers, and employees in the form of lower non-mandatory compensation items, such as bonuses, benefits, 401K match, etc.

  2. $3B would hurt Lilly's bottom line if there were no insurance or Indemnity Agreement, but there is no way that large an award will be upheld on appeal. What's surprising is that the trial judge refused to reduce it. She must have thought there was evidence of a flagrant, unconscionable coverup and wanted to send a message.

  3. As a self-employed individual, I always saw outrageous price increases every year in a health insurance plan with preexisting condition costs -- something most employed groups never had to worry about. With spouse, I saw ALL Indiana "free market answer" plans' premiums raise 25%-45% each year.

  4. It's not who you chose to build it's how they build it. Architects and engineers decide how and what to use to build. builders just do the work. Architects & engineers still think the tarp over the escalators out at airport will hold for third time when it snows, ice storms.

  5. http://www.abcactionnews.com/news/duke-energy-customers-angry-about-money-for-nothing

ADVERTISEMENT