Warren and Brown both raised about $2.5 million from Massachusetts donors last quarter [updated]

The fundraising numbers from January through March continue to trickle in.  Scott Brown has announced that he raised $3.4 million last quarter, and says that about 71% of that amount is from in-state, which according to my handy calculator is a little over $2.4 million. [UPDATE: This may be incorrect - subsequent reports say that the 71% figure refers to number of donors, not number of dollars.  As far as I know, Brown has not released in-state dollar figures.]  Earlier this week, we heard from Team Warren that they had pulled in $2.5 million from Massachusetts, but they haven’t yet released the total take.

Bottom line: both Brown and Warren have plenty of support in Massachusetts.  That’s reflected in these fundraising numbers – impressive on both sides – as well as in the poll numbers.  We’ll know soon whether Warren out-raised Brown from out of state – my guess is that she did, and probably by a lot.  Team Brown will try to make a lot out of that, but don’t listen to them.  For one thing, the vast majority – about 70% – of the funds that put Brown into office (i.e., those raised in January, 2010) were from out of state.  For another, money is fungible, and Warren needs a lot to beat Brown.  The Brownies are squawking because they’re worried.


10 Comments . Leave a comment below.
  1. Just FYI, the Globe piece on this says that 71% of Brown’s donors are from MA, not that 71% of his donations are from here. Not sure which version is correct, but they could be very different numbers.

  2. Florida $unShine?

    From the Globe: About 71 percent of Brown’s first-quarter donors are from Massachusetts, his campaign said.
    David’s post says 71% of the (dollar) amount is from in-state.
    Whichever it is, I wonder how much money came from the sugar magnate and others he visited in Florida. Was the guy a bundler? Did the money go to a PAC? (Spending Cuts Over Total Taxation PAC) Is he allowed to fund-raise for that?
    Just thinking that no one has really reported on that.

    • Interesting -

      it seems to be unclear from the reporting whether the 71% figure refers to number of donors, or number of dollars. I had assumed based on the Herald story that it was dollars, but the Globe story says donors. So now I’m not sure.

      • Sketchy Scott Brown continues to obscure

        Scott Brown is skillfully manipulating information. If you read the press reports carefully, they all say that it’s 71% of donors, not 71% of the dollars.

        Scott Brown is hiding a fact: Elizabeth Warren raised more money that he raised inside of Massachusetts. More dollars AND more donors.

        • 100% of the VOTERS ...

          Hopefully, 100% of the voters in this election will be from Massachusetts.

          I’m not sure I care very much where the money comes from, I’m perfectly happy to have supporters across the nation (and world) send money to elect Elizabeth Warren.

          One thing to remember is that Massachusetts voters are different from voters in Mississippi, Wisconsin, California, and elsewhere. Things that resonate in “the heartland” don’t necessarily do anything here, and some things many of us care about here are meaningless out there. We saw Team Brown totally botch his handling of the Blunt amendment, I suspect because they forgot Mr. Brown is from Massachusetts.

          Speaking of Massachusetts money, though, I do think this is a really good time to make it known — publicly and in no uncertain terms — that no Democratic candidate, especially those associated with Mr. Menino, who publicly supports Scott Brown will ever receive a nickel of Massachusetts Democratic Party funds. Ever.

          No city counselors, no state representatives, nobody on any of those special committees — NOBODY. Our party needs to make Mayor Menino the Benedict Arnold of the Massachusetts Democratic Party. Starting now.

          I expect Scott Brown to act like a Republican and pander to national GOP interests. I expect Mr. Menino to act like a Democrat.

          • Ditto.

            There’s not much of an issue here.

            Where’s the line between a significant and insignificant percentage when it comes to campaign contribution geography? How about dollar amounts?

            Up until this last quarter, Open Secrets reports that 42% of contributions to Elizabeth Warren came from in state, 59% from out of state. Contributions to Scott Brown were exactly opposite. In 2010, 60% of contributions to Scott Brown came from out of state.

            Percentages don’t vote, people do. And money pays for advertising, regardless of its source. In Brown took in almost twice as much money as Warren from out of state people. Does that mean anything? Hard to tell.

            It’s definitely significant that Warren received a little more that $287,000 from the financial sector and Brown has received $4 million!

      • What's better?

        Should we be more impressed that a candidate has more in-state supporters, or that they get more money from their in-state supporters?

        Anyhow, the important distinction about giving money to candidates is whether they vote on legislation that affects you, or whether they vote on legislation that does not affect you. A Senator or Congressman votes on legislation that affects everyone in the country, so everyone has a right to influence that election. It crosses an ethical line, however, when people try to influence state elections or city elections when they do not live in that state or city.

  3. Warren is cover story in this week's The Nation


    • Get out a press release

      Great article – the Warren Campaign needs to press-release this to the Springfield Republican – Masslive.com – since they ran a story when the National Review did an unflattering piece on her a week or two ago.

  4. Elizabeth's numbers

    Actually, it comes out that Elizabeth raised twice what Brown raised in the last 3 months.

« Blue Mass Group Front Page

Add Your Comments

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Sat 29 Apr 11:31 AM