Unfortunately, the horrendous design of the News and Tribune website makes it impossible to find all this information in one place, so I’ve gathered links to their reporting below. They did run a decent piece on the Democratic candidates for the 3 at-large spots on the Clark County Council, which emphasized the experience of the candidates.

All but two of the candidates have served on the Clark County Council previously and one of those candidates is a former Clarksville Town Council member. The field also includes two incumbents. ["Clark County Council hopefuls crowd field" -- Braden Lammers, May 3, 2012]

The two who are not current or former Clark County Council members are Charles King and Brenda Ross.

I was impressed by the quotes from Susan Popp, who offered some of the few real proposals in her statements.

She added that she is not interested in micromanaging individual departments, but the county should look at the departments collectively to see if it could save money by centralizing purchasing, by making sure the county is not duplicating services and by offering more equitable spending between the individual offices. To further improve the financial condition of the county, Popp said she would consider fee increases to the services individual offices provide rather than increasing taxes.

She added that the council needs to be more accessible to the public and to other county entities, possibly having joint meetings with the commissioners instead of setting policy through individual meetings.

To be more accessible to the public, Popp said the council should meet in different areas of the county.

“We should meet up in Henryville, we should meet in New Washington, we should meet in these other places in order to be present, because we’re a county council, not a Jeff[ersonville] council,” she said. “I want to make this council much more accessible.”

Charles King also mentioned “better interaction between the council, the Clark County Commissioners and the other county offices. He said he would like to see those entities schedule meetings together and would like to see mandatory training sessions for officials entering into county government.”

Sadly, most of the other candidates stuck to generic platitudes and nonspecific “waste” they’d like to cut.

In the few months that I’ve lived in this part of Southern Indiana, what I’ve seen of the local political scene has not impressed me. Now I’ll admit, I’ve been unable to attend any of the local Democratic party meetings, mostly due to poor health. But my offers to volunteer for the local Democrats were shrugged off, and — even as a newly-registered voter — I haven’t received a single piece of political mail. So my impressions are definitely those of an outsider. But there seems to be so much basic disfunction — lack of communication between government units and petty score-settling — that I just don’t know where to start.

Downtown Jeffersonville is an amazing place, with so much potential — and so many empty storefronts. And I haven’t seen anything in the way of efforts to promote or help new businesses start up downtown. To the contrary, the local Chamber seems to be fully in favor of a plan that would make it harder to get to downtown. And while it’s great news that Amazon will be opening a distribution center here, it’s important to remember that these low-wage jobs are not going to be a substitute for real local businesses and the jobs they create.

There seems to be very little in the way of openness or transparency in local government, and the local government websites are in desperate need of a complete overhaul. Frankly, among the candidates running this cycle, I don’t see any who are contemplating the types of transformation that Clark County and Jeffersonville need to create a responsive, open, and inclusive government for the 21st century.

Here’s a round-up of the candidates’ brief Q&A sessions with the local paper, and links to their sites, if they have any. Unfortunately, I haven’t found any other good local sources of info — if there’s anything out there that’s not “Clark County Chatter”, please let me know.

Democratic Council Candidates

• David Abbott
  • News & Tribune Q&A
• Charles King
  • News & Tribune Q&A
• Susan Popp
  • News & Tribune Q&A
  • Candidate Website
• Brenda Ross
  • News & Tribune Q&A
• Perry Smith (incumbent)
  • News & Tribune Q&A
• Kevin Vissing (incumbent)
  • News & Tribune Q&A
  • Candidate Website

Doug Masson summed up Pence’s career a few months back:

According to GovTrack, Rep. Mike Pence just celebrated his 11th year in Congress, in which time he has sponsored 63 bills and been successful in getting exactly none of them passed; and only gotten three of them out of committee. This is an incredible record of futility. One might conclude that big talk and controversial, unworkable legislation hold much more interest for Rep. Pence than the actual drudgery of governance.

I was a little unfair in my opening paragraph. Mike Pence has been quite effective at getting himself on TV during his time in DC.

But when it comes to what Mike Pence actually wants to do as Governor — well, you’ll just have to elect him to find out.

As Tom LoBianco noted last July, a lack of specifics is actually Pence’s first campaign promise:

But one of his first campaign promises, made the day before he kicked off his campaign last month, was that he won’t talk policy until after the May 2012 Republican primary which he’s widely expected to win. [1]

Another AP story from November, also penned by LoBianco, elaborated on that theme:

Pence contributors may have the best idea right now of the agenda he would push as governor. Pence has been sparing on policy details on the campaign trail thus far, but he has told supporters at high-dollar fundraisers in Washington he will “stake his election” on “right-to-work” legislation. [2]

Pence has continued stringing reporters — and Hoosier voters — along, even after his potential primary opponent was disqualified for the ballot.

Pence spokesman Matt Lloyd declined Wednesday to say whether specific proposals would be laid out soon, but Pence hinted in his press statement that a jobs plan is forthcoming.

That was from another piece by LoBianco, writing on March 14. As of March 17, Kevin Allen reported in the South Bend Tribune that Pence was “finalizing” his plans.

As we approach the end of April, there’s still no plans from the Pence campaign.

The only hint Pence has offered is that he wants to lower the income tax rate for individuals and businesses. Last summer, his campaign floated a proposal to slash the rate for businesses to 3%:

The congressman told The Associated Press on Wednesday that he wants the state’s individual and corporate tax rates reduced to 3 percent. The state’s individual tax rate is now 3.4 percent and the corporate rate is 8.5 percent. He also said he would like to repeal Indiana’s estate tax.

All told, the cuts would likely carry a $1 billion price tag for the state. [3]

Since August, he’s offered no further details. As Eric Bradner wrote in his column in the Evansville Courier & Press, it’s going to be hard to find anything left to cut after Mitch Daniels’ austerity-inspired budgeting.

When Pence says he would like to flatten Indiana’s individual and corporate income tax rates, or eliminate property taxes on businesses’ equipment, or find some other way to lower taxes, they ought to insist on learning what services those cuts will cost them.

(To be fair, Bradner also points out that Democratic nominee John Gregg has been short on details for his plans, too.)

The only other “policy idea” that Mike Pence has enunciated is… doing whatever it is that Mitch Daniels has done.

U.S. Rep. Mike Pence, who is running for governor, said Friday that if he’s elected, he would concentrate on making the most of government reforms passed during Gov. Mitch Daniels’ two terms. [4]

So why is it taking Mike Pence so long to come up with ideas?

Late last summer, Pence hired Chris Atkins as his policy director. Atkins is a longtime Daniels aide, having served as Daniels’ general counsel and policy director for Indiana’s state Office of Management & Budget. Atkins also worked at the right-wing Tax Foundation, a group known for making up numbers. But before that, Atkins worked for the secretive, controversial right-wing legislation factory, ALEC.

That’s right — Pence’s right-hand man for policy was a “director of tax and fiscal policy” for the group that ghostwrites legislation for sheltering asbestos companies, privatizing prisons, eliminating public schools, and pushing “Stand Your Ground” laws. And Pence’s campaign brags about it on their website.

Well, it seems like we know where Mike Pence’s ideas will be coming from.

Sources

[1]
“Pence’s policy silence could be smart politics.” The Associated Press State & Local Wire. July 24, 2011 Sunday 3:09 PM GMT .

[2]
“Pence uses DC profile to collect big donations.” The Associated Press State & Local Wire. November 18, 2011 Friday 8:11 PM GMT .

[3]
“APNewsBreak: Pence eyes Indiana income tax cuts.” The Associated Press State & Local Wire. August 3, 2011 Wednesday 9:46 PM GMT .

[4]
Caylor, Bob. “BRIEF: Pence says he would follow through on Daniels’ changes in state government.” The News-Sentinel (Fort Wayne, Indiana). March 3, 2012 Saturday .

DCCC Chairman Steve Israel today announced 14 more races have qualified for the highly competitive Red to Blue program as the latest wave in the DCCC’s ‘Drive for 25’ campaign to win the House. These candidates have earned a spot on Red to Blue by surpassing aggressive fundraising, organization and infrastructure goals. These candidates also demonstrate they are problem solvers who will represent the American people’s priorities and protect the middle class.

Indiana’s 8th District was previously labeled as an “Emerging Race” by the DCCC, indicating a race that may become competitive.

Meanwhile, Republican Speaker John Boehner made headlines by admitting that the GOP’s majority in the House may be in jeopardy in the fall.

“But there’s a 1-in-3 chance that we could lose,” Boehner told [Fox News'] Bill Hemmer.

This may just be the standard “don’t forget to come out and vote” message for the base, but Boehner’s comments were widely reported and Democrats were quick to seize on the statement. If nothing else, it’s a distraction from the constant gamesmanship and spin going on over which party will control the Senate in the fall.

Crooks joins IN-2 candidate Brendan Mullen on the Red to Blue list. In 2006, Joe Donnelly was able to defeat Chris Chocola in the 2nd District with the help of the DCCC and the Red to Blue program.

Red to Blue is not without its critics. The DCCC has used the program to support conservative, Blue Dog Democrats and push liberal candidates out of races. I was unable to find any hard numbers on the overall record of the program, but Red to Blue is no guarantee of success. Case in point: the program backed Trent Van Haaften in Indiana’s 8th District in 2010. Then, there’s the declining share of campaign expenditures that the party committees as PACs and other outside groups increase their spending.

That said, this is good news for Crooks and all the Hoosiers in the 8th District. Crooks will have to spend a little less time fundraising, and will be able to campaign a little more. And there’s a better chance that Larry Bucshon won’t be representing southwest Indiana next year.

First, the numbers:

Pence’s big-dollar campaign brought in $1.8 million since January 1, on top of the $5 million he raised in 2011. His campaign spent about $571,000 in the first quarter of 2012, for a burn rate of about 32%. The campaign still has nearly $5 million cash on hand, plenty to saturate Indiana with ads redefining the extreme-right-wing Congressman as a regular Hoosier.

Former Democratic state rep John Gregg raised just over $580,000 for the quarter, which adds to the $1.7 million he raised in 2011. The Gregg campaign spent more than $313,000 in the first part of 2012 – presumably on mustache-themed campaign swag – for a burn rate of about 54%. The campaign has just over $1.5 million on hand.

Libertarian candidate Rupert Boneham managed to raise $14,000 since the beginning of the year, and has brought in about $30,000 since the start of the campaign – but his campaign spent more than $13,000, for a burn rate of 93%. His team has only $5,000 on hand, with debts of $4,000.

Besides the big cash lead, Pence’s fundraising is growing in large chunks, as the Star’s Mary Beth Schneider reported:

Candidates must report any contributions of $1,000 or more. Those reports show that since the end of the quarterly reporting period March 31, Pence has taken in at least $163,100. Gregg has taken in about $34,500 in additional funds.

Schneider quotes Andy Downs, director of the Mike Downs Center for Indiana Politics at Indiana University-Purdue University Fort Wayne, as saying that the winner of the race will probably need to spend around $15 million.

Schneider’s story in the Star provides the context for these numbers:

Campaign finance reports filed Monday showed Pence raised $1.8 million from January through March. That tops the more than $1.66 million Daniels raised in the first months of 2004, when he was making his first run for the governor’s office, and falls just short of the record-setting $2 million that Democratic Gov. Joe Kernan raised then.

And it’s less than the $1.83 million Daniels raised in the first months of 2008, when he was running for re-election.

Veteran Hoosier political watcher Brian Howey reported that some Democrats are unhappy with the Gregg campaign, citing some unquoted grumbling from unnamed Democratic sources. But there were a few facts in there, too. In a subscriber-only story that was temporarily available on the Howey Politics website, Howey noted that the SEIU is missing from the list of Gregg’s donors, despite chipping in $800,000 to the ill-fated Jill Long Thompson campaign in 2008. He also mentioned this troubling tidbit:

Sources tell HPI that the Gregg campaign does not have a finance director. [Gregg’s communications director Megan] Jacobs told HPI that “we have a couple of folks on our team” dealing with fundraising.

He goes on to cite more anonymous speculation that the state party is divided, following the on-again, off-again resignation of Indiana Democratic Chairman Dan Parker, and the failed attempt to install Gregg’s preferred candidate as State Chair.

Indiana Democrats gave away the 2008 gubernatorial race without a serious challenge due to intra-party squabbling, even as the tireless organizing of the Obama campaign won the state. The Indiana Democratic Party can’t afford to do the same in 2012.

We fielded 3 strong statewide candidates in 2010, and I’m hoping we can fill the statewide ballot with strong candidates this year – even if some of those candidates won’t be chosen until the state convention.

After all, if there’s anything that should unite Hoosier Democrats, it’s the fact that Mike Pence should never be anywhere near the Governor’s office.

From Politico:

In a letter to Speaker John Boehner and House Majority Leader Eric Cantor, 65 House Republican freshmen — or roughly three-quarters of the class — asked that the House consider a miscellaneous tariff bill jampacked with special provisions to suspend duties on various foreign goods, even though it runs counter to the earmark ban Republicans campaigned on in 2010 and instituted when they took power.

Among the 65 signatories to the letter are Indiana’s frehsman Republicans Todd Young (IN-9), Todd Rokita (IN-4), Larry Bucshon (IN-8), and Marlin Stutzman (IN-3).

The letter, available as a PDF from the House Ways & Means Committee, tries to explain away the sudden change of heart on earmarks:

Unlike spending earmarks, as they are sometimes erroneously
characterized, a duty suspension included in the MTB is available to any U.S. manufacturer including small businesses – importing the covered product because it is not available domestically. Downstream producers, distribution service providers, and consumers benefit as well from the tax reductions.

The GOP’s anti-earmark conference resolution, passed in March 2010, reads:

Resolved, that it is the policy of the Republican Conference that no Member shall request a congressional earmark, limited tax benefit, or limited tariff benefit, as such terms are used in clause 9 of rule XXI of the Rules of the House for the 111th Congress.

When the resolution was first adopted, then-candidate Todd Rokita issued a press release:

Todd Rokita applauded Republicans in Congress today for their decision to adopt a moratorium on earmarks.

“Earmarks are a very real symbol of corruption and mismanagement by Congress,” Rokita said. “I am encouraged by the House Republicans call for a ban on all earmarks. Although the practice of earmarks should have stopped years ago, today’s announcement is a step in the right direction to restore fiscal discipline in Congress.”

In the 2010 GOP primary, Todd Young attacked Mike Sodrel over Sodrel’s votes for earmarks during his single term in office. In fact, Sodrel even threatened to sue Young over campaign commercials that claimed that Sodrel voted for 23,000 earmarks.

Young, Stutzman, and Bucshon were all signatories to a Tea Party publicity stunt, The Contract From America, in which they pledged to “Place a moratorium on all earmarks until the budget is balanced, and then require a 2/3 majority to pass any earmark.”

But to be fair, this isn’t an entirely new game, and it’s not limited to 65 know-nothing GOP freshmen. The Politico piece hints at this:

Boehner and Cantor face additional pressure from Ways and Means Committee Chairman Dave Camp (R-Mich.) and other veteran lawmakers who believe that the tariff breaks should never have been included in the earmark ban in the first place.

The Hill’s reporting says the same thing, relying on an anonymous GOP aide:

A GOP aide, however, said the letter was a classic case of senior Republican lawmakers roping in freshmen to support their old ways of doing business.

“This is what the old guard does, they bring the new guys in and say, ‘It’s a lot more complicated than you thought it was. We can’t change the status quo, we have to do it the way it’s always been done,’ ” said the aide.

Veteran GOP Representatives, including Mike Rogers of Alabama and Louis “Terror Baby” Gohmert of Texas, began pushing for an end to the earmark ban several weeks ago, when the House began taking up the Transportation Bill.

Richard Cowan, writing for Reuters, reported on Rogers’ push for earmarks in a closed-door GOP meeting.

“There was a lot of applause when I made my comments. I had a few freshmen boo me, but that’s okay. By and large it was very well embraced.”

And the tariff-earmark letter shows just how well it was embraced.

I’m not opposed to earmarks, in principle. The earmark ban was a cynical ploy by the GOP to avoid the hard work of good governance, and ignored common-sense suggestions for making the process more transparent and less prone to abuse. So if this leads to real reforms of our earmark system, I’m all for it. But that’s not going to happen if we just start inventing reasons why certain kinds of earmarks aren’t really earmarks.

A few weeks back, Gilbert Holmes of the ACLU of Indiana wrote a column about the importance of voting rights for ex-felons:

Why should you care? People who vote are more likely to volunteer, give to charities and attend school board meetings. Former felons who vote are less likely to be rearrested, because voting helps people connect and become part of something positive.

The disproportionate number of African-Americans affected by voter disenfranchisement, more than 1.5 million across the United States, is an even more stunning number when you consider that one in every 15 black men age 18 and older is incarcerated, and the zero-tolerance policies in our schools have created a pipeline straight to prison for many black teenage dropouts in our communities. When such a large portion of the community is locked in the criminal justice system, you can be sure their interests are not represented either at the polls or in the halls of power.

This topic has been on my mind lately, largely because of a woman named Kemba Smith Pradia. You can read more about her compelling life story, but the short version is this: she was sentenced to 24 years under mandatory minimum sentencing laws for crack cocaine. This, despite the fact that “Prosecutors in the case acknowledged that I never sold, handled or used any drugs.” President Clinton commuted her sentence in 2000, and since that time she has gotten married, graduated college, and attended law school. She could vote here in Indiana. But the problem is, her family just moved to Virginia for work.

Just by crossing the state border, she loses her right to vote.

Smith Pradia recently joined an NAACP delegation to the United Nations’ Human Rights Council, asking them to investigate and support for restoring the right to vote to felons after they complete their sentences.

Watch Smith Pradia talk about her trip, her life story, and her important work bringing attention to this cause with MSNBC’s Melissa Harris Perry:

Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

On Tuesday, Donnelly’s campaign joined with other Democrats in bringing attention to “Equal Pay Day.”

I am a proud supporter of the Lilly Ledbetter Law and the Paycheck Fairness Act. http://t.co/lbL1LrPD

April 17, 2012 5:06 pm via webReplyRetweetFavorite

@JoeforIndiana

JoeforIndiana

It’s #EqualPayDay. Hoosier women earned 72% of what men earned in 2010, 5th worst in the nation. This is unacceptable. http://t.co/lbL1LrPD

April 17, 2012 12:55 pm via webReplyRetweetFavorite

@JoeforIndiana

JoeforIndiana

But just last week, Donnelly was the sole Democrat named to Planned Parenthood Action Fund’s Toxic Ten list, “remembering those who sought to end access to affordable health care for millions of women” by supporting the Pence Amendment to defund Planned Parenthood:

Running for Senate in Indiana, Congressman Joe Donnelly is campaigning on a platform to stand up for families. Unfortunately the policies he supported as a Congressman haven’t always followed suit. In his own words, “I think Indiana would benefit from having a senator whose priorities are day-in and day-out: jobs, the economy, and standing up for working and middle-class families.” His words, however, don’t square with his record—and Donnelly voted for the Pence amendment which would have effectively defunded Planned Parenthood. What are the working and middle class families who go to Planned Parenthood as their primary source of health care supposed to do? You only have to take a look at his record to tell that his “pro-life credentials are crystal clear.”

But consider this: While Richard Lugar has spent close to $2 million dollars on TV ads and Mourdock over $400,000, political action committees have spent more than both candidates combined, about $2.37 million. The Lugar campaign doesn’t like it. “Most people in politics today would prefer a system that has a greater degree of transparency,” says spokesman Andy Fisher, “and campaigns that are contolled by the candidates.”

So far, the independent money favors Mourdock. The Club for Growth has spent $1.2 million on television while the American Action Network tab is at $636,000.

So let’s take a look at the numbers from the race so far.

Candidate fundraising

Our permanent incumbent, Senator Lugar, raised more than $800,000 since January, bring his total for the cycle to more than $5.3 million. He also reported about $2.35 million in operating expenditures for the first quarter of 2012.

His GOP primary challenger, Indiana Treasurer Richard Mourdock, still doesn’t have a quarterly report posted on the FEC’s website. Update: Mourdock’s report is now available, and I’ve updated the numbers in the table above. A few days ago, Mourdock’s campaign announced that they had outraised Lugar for the quarter, bringing in about $875,000. The same reports announced that Mourdock had $430,000 on hand at the end of March.

Democratic challenger Joe Donnelly raised just over $300,000 since January, and has raised about $1.7 million in total.

I couldn’t find any information on Libertarian candidate Andrew Horning’s finances.

As Maureen Groppe reports in the Indianapolis Star, 72% of Mourdock’s large individual donations have come from outside of Indiana.

Of the $621,943 that Mourdock collected in contributions of $201 or more, the amount for which individuals contributors have to be identified, about $450,000 or 72 percent came from people who live outside Indiana. A large chunk of those contributions were funneled to Mourdock’s campaign by the Club for Growth, a conservative group that has endorsed Mourdock.

The Star found that just more than half of Lugar’s large individual donors are not Indiana residents.

Independent Expenditures

According to the Sunlight Foundation’s “Follow the Unlimited Money” tracker, the biggest outside spender in the race – by far – has been the Club for Growth. The Club for Growth, led by former Indiana Republican Congressman Chris Chocola, has spent $842,628.08 in the race: $410,086.79 supporting Mourdock and $432,541.29 opposing Lugar.

There’s some confusion created by the fact the Club for Growth uses at least 3 committees: the Club for Growth, the Club for Growth PAC, and Club for Growth Action. (I’ve combined all the expenditures for all 3 above, for the sake of clarity.)

I’m not sure how Shella calculated that outside groups have spent $2.37 million on television, since Sunlight’s numbers add up to only $1.96 million in total, and the data I downloaded from the FEC totals just over $2 million, including some duplicates.

I’ve also omitted any filings from the largely-unsearchable Electioneering Communications disclosures, because I haven’t come across any references to the Indiana Senate campaign.

General George’s campaign raised less than $20,000 since January 1; combined with his fundraising from last year, he’s collected just over $40,000 in total.

Winningham has raised $82,861 to date, based on his latest filing, including almost $60,000 since January 1. On April 17, Winningham loaned his campaign $4785. I can’t tell from the filings if this was in addition to the same amount he loaned to his campaign earlier in the week, or if this is just a duplicate filing. While many of Winningham’s itemized contributors from 2011 were from Texas, his latest filing shows much more local support.

In the meantime, incumbent Republican Todd Young raised more than $176,000 since January 1, including $48,500 in contributions from PACs.

8th District

Incumbent Republican Larry Bucshon raised $96,670 since January, with more than half that amount coming from PACs. He’s raised more than $644,000 this cycle. The FEC does not have an April filing from Bucshon’s primary opponent, Kristi Risk. She had raised about $24,000, and had about $11,000 cash on hand at the end of December. Update: The FEC finally has a quarterly report from Kristi Risk’s campaign. I’ve updated the numbers in the table above. Risk raised just under $16,000 for the quarter – less than her campaign spent in the same period – and has raised about $40,000 for the cycle.

Democratic challenger Dave Crooks has raised an impressive $184,168.87 since the start of the year, a figure that includes a $25,000 loan by the candidate to his campaign and $75,000 in PAC and committee funds. He’s raised $443,892.76 for the cycle, according to his April quarterly filing.

Especially at the presidential level, but also in Senate and House contests, microtargeting – the term of art for the acquisition of this kind of detailed information about specific individuals, including not only your political preferences and your likelihood of voting, but also other seemingly less political facts, like the clothes you buy, the movies you go to, the brands you prefer and the number of bedrooms in your home — has come into its own.

Edsall focuses especially on what the data from microtargeting can tell us about partisan preferences for consumption:

Perhaps most interesting, the findings emerging out of advances in microtechnology are a window into the striking differences in the tastes and interests of liberal and conservatives, Democrats and Republicans. Among other things, Democrats and Republicans differ in the entertainment they prefer, the restaurants they go to, the drinks they chose and the Web sites they visit.

While Edsall relies heavily on one source — Republican strategist Will Feltus of National Media — some of the charts provided are quite interesting. Partisan preference is very pronounced when it comes to media consumption, and the cable news patterns bear that out. But when it comes to fast food, the results are clustered right around the middle. Outliers include White Castle (heavily Democratic) and Cracker Barrel (heavily Republican).

My favorite chart was one that showed the marked Democratic-Republican divide in alcohol preference.

Source: New York Times Campaign Stops blog

Democrats heavily favored cognac, brandy, and gin. Their favorite beers were Milwaukee’s Best and Heineken. Republicans favored blended rye, Canadian whisky, and bourbon for liquors, and Amstel Light, Michelob Ultra, and Miller Lite for beers.

I do wonder how much Feltus has controlled for regional availability and preferences in his studies, but regardless — this is entertaining.

Plus, this information gives us some meaningless tribal bragging rights, and makes me feel slightly better about preferring Dunkin’ Donuts (whose customers lean moderately Democratic) to Starbucks (whose customers lean moderately Republican).