For those of us who follow politics, our favorite day of the year is Election Day. That’s the Super Bowl, the World Series, the NBA Finals, the Stanley Cup all rolled into one.
The next best thing are the dates for campaign finance reports. Unlike the election results, they don’t give us definitive results, but they do offer tantalizing hints at how things are going. The latest round of reports in Virginia were filed Friday night and thanks to the nonprofit, nonpartisan Virginia Public Access Project, they’re all online, so let’s dive in.
Wait: I need to deliver my customary caution about money and politics. Randy Newman was right when he sang “It’s Money That Matters,” it just doesn’t matter as much as some people think. Fundraising is not determinative: There are lots of examples of lesser-funded candidates winning over better-funded ones. What matters is whether those lesser-funded candidates have enough money to get their message out — and, of course, whether that message motivates voters. All the money in the world wouldn’t make people buy liver-flavored ice cream. How much money is enough? That’s a more difficult question to answer. What we can say with more certainty is the political equivalent of “where there’s smoke, there’s fire.” In this case, where there’s a lot of money being spent by both sides, we probably have a competitive race. Both parties are ruthlessly practical when it comes to money: They don’t direct it to races they feel are sure things either way.
One more thing about money: Some money flows not to the candidates donors want to win but the candidates donors think will win. For instance: Some money is ideological. The National Rifle Association is obviously not going to direct money to candidates in favor of various gun restrictions; environmental groups aren’t going to send money to those who don’t agree with their agenda. But other donors are much more transactional. Let’s consider the case of a hypothetical Virginia Horseradish Growers Association. Maybe the horseradish growers tilt Republican and they’d like to pass fewer taxes but they’ll happily give to Democrats if they think Democrats might require that all school lunches include a dollop of horseradish. If those horseradish growers see one candidate pulling ahead, you can bet they’ll give more money to make sure they’re on the winning side (thus no doubt spurring the other candidate to warn that his or her opponent is in the pocket of Big Horseradish).
OK, onto the money. Overall, these reports show that Democratic candidates have outraised Republican ones in both the state Senate and the House of Delegates. In the Senate, Democrats have raised $7.5 million, Republicans $4.8 million. In the House, Democrats have raised another $7.5 million, Republicans $5.7 million. I’m not particularly moved by these numbers because these only reflect what the candidates themselves have raised, not what outside groups are doing. I recently spoke with a Republican candidate who had finished a day of door-knocking in his district and he’d come across houses that had already been visited by a certain conservative group working independently. I have no reason to believe that Republicans will lack for resources in this campaign once Gov. Glenn Youngkin gets through raising money. For our purposes today, we can only focus on what the candidates themselves have raised, so keep that in mind.
I’m also mindful that these statewide figures are inflated by candidates in districts where they face no opposition, or only light opposition. For instance, the biggest cash horde by any House candidate is by a candidate with no opposition — $1 million in the bank for Del. Barry Knight, R-Virginia Beach, chairman of the House Appropriations Committee. (Of course, that’s also a good way to stay unopposed.) In the Senate, the biggest amount of cash on hand is $989,379 by Senate Majority Leader Richard Saslaw, D-Fairfax County, who is retiring. Some of that money may eventually find its way to candidates in competitive races; some of it may not. For that reason, I’m going to zero in strictly on those races to see where they are now.
To stay true to our region, I’m going to start in the west and work our way east to look at some of the most competitive races that will ultimately determine who controls the House and Senate.
HD 41: Franklin (D) continues to outraise Obenshain (R)
This is the most competitive House district west of Richmond. Just how competitive it is might be a matter of dispute. It voted 55% Republican in 2021 but was closer in previous elections. Blacksburg-based political analyst Chaz Nuttycome of Cnalysis.com ranks it “likely Republican,” but that’s a downgrade from his previous “very likely Republican.” He cites a surge of voter registrations in Montgomery County, which he believes will favor Democrats.
On the money side, Franklin has proved herself an impressive fundraiser who has consistently outpaced Obenshain. For this reporting period (which covers July and August) she outraised him $167,710 to $108,529. She also has almost twice as much cash on hand as he does: $150,586 to $77,403. The closer we get to Election Day, the more that cash on hand matters.
Franklin’s haul of campaign cash pales to what candidates in the most competitive districts are getting but the point is, she’s well ahead of Obenshain in money. We’ll have to wait until November to see if the votes follow. Republicans must not be worried. I notice that Youngkin has yet to bring his campaign bus tour to the Roanoke or New River valleys. Instead, he’s hitting swing districts up and down the urban crescent or thereabouts.
Of note: Cardinal News is sponsoring two campaign forums this fall. One of them is booked but the one on Oct. 3 in Blacksburg featuring Franklin and Obenshain still has seats available. You can register for free here.
SD 4: White-Boyd (D) outraises Suetterlein (R), but he has big cash advantage
For the period, Democrat Trish White-Boyd took in $124,073 to Republican state Sen. David Suetterlein’s $111,731. However, he had a big campaign treasury to start with so he’s got $472,449 to her $60,366.
Some context: Suetterlein ranks in the state Top 10 for cash on hand; only five other Senate candidates have more cash on hand that he does. I also can’t help but notice that Franklin, running in a smaller House district, raised more money than White-Boyd did in a larger Senate district — and has more cash on hand. All that makes me think we should pay special attention to that House race.
HD 51: Could Fariss pull an upset?
Del. Matt Fariss, R-Campbell County, has a lot going against him. He faced a nomination challenge from a candidate with ties to U.S. Rep. Bob Good. Then he was charged with two felonies related to an alleged hit-and-run case where a woman who says she was romantically involved with him was struck by his vehicle. In the aftermath, he didn’t file for the Republican nomination, handing that to former Campbell County Supervisor Eric Zehr. Shortly before the deadline, Fariss filed to run as an independent.
In a previous column, I pointed out the challenge he faces: The district has changed dramatically since he last ran — 42% of the voters are now in Bedford County, where he’s never run before. Another 4% are in Pittsylvania County, so that’s nearly half the voters who are new to him. Zehr’s never run there, either, but the danger for Fariss is that Republican voters there will simply vote for the Republican nominee without giving Fariss a thought. These new campaign finance reports (which came out in the same week in which Fariss was formally indicted) show he’s raised absolutely nothing. None of that bodes well for him. And yet … Fariss has more than twice as much cash on hand as Zehr.
Fariss has $42,333, Zehr just $18,796. There hasn’t been any reason for Zehr to have more if he’s only worried about Democrat Kimberly Moran. This is an 80% Republican district and Moran has raised — well, absolutely nothing, either. Could Fariss’ cash advantage make a difference? I have no idea but lately I’ve heard Republican chatter that maybe they should be doing more to help Zehr, just in case.
Is there an opportunity here for Fariss and Zehr to split the Republican vote enough that Moran could win? I refer you to math. This is a district that voted 79% Republican and just 20% Democratic two years ago. Even if Republicans split down the middle for Fariss and Zehr, that’s 39.5% apiece. Also this: The finance reports show that Moran has raised $0 in the past two months and has $0 in the bank.
Last week state Sen. Louise Lucas, D-Portsmouth, retweeted our story about Fariss’ indictment, with this note: “I want to know how much airtime this gets on every TV station in Virginia compared to the reporting of another candidate having consensual relations with her spouse. One is much more serious than the other.” Here’s an opportunity for Lucas to emphasize that: She could come out and host a fundraiser for Moran.
HD 52: Walker (R) and Woofter (D) tie in fundraising but he has more cash left
This district shouldn’t be close. It voted 57.5% for Youngkin in 2021. For the period, though, Democrat Jennifer Woofter and Republican Del. Wendell Walker essentially tied when it comes to fund-raising. He took in $45,883; she took in $45,034. He has more cash on hand, though: $87,206 to $38,293.
SD 17: Jenkins (D) edges Brewer (R) in fundraising but she has more cash
This district is considered one of the keys to control of the Senate, no matter which way it goes. It went 52% for Youngkin in 2021. The Senate contest features two delegates trying to move to the upper chamber: Republican Emily Brewer and Democrat Clint Jenkins. For the period, he took in slightly more money: $357,595 to her $330,811. She’s got more in the bank, though: $124,982 to $94,693. CNalysis.com has this as “leans Republican.” I’d expect a lot more money to flow into this district before this campaign is over.
Now, onto some key districts outside our official coverage area.
HD 57: Gibson (D) holds big money advantage over Owen (R)
Here’s the important thing to know here: These finance reports run through Aug. 31 and so were compiled before The Washington Post reported that Democrat Susanna Gibson and her husband had been performing sex online for tips. Since then, the former Twitter, now known as X, has been aflame (when is Twitter never not aflame?) with Democratic activists vowing their support and claiming they are giving money to her campaign. If Gibson gets a surge of grassroots donations, those will show up in the next report, not this one.
In this one, though, she has a clear advantage over Republican David Owen. In July and August, she outraised him $595,304 to $188,288, making her the third-biggest fundraiser in any House race during that period. She also has a cash-on-hand advantage of $467,747 to $247,924. Gibson is a prolific fundraiser: Only three other candidates have more money in the bank and two of them are party leaders: The aforementioned House Appropriations Chairman Barry Knight, R-Virginia Beach, and House Minority Leader Don Scott, D-Portsmouth.
This is also one of the most competitive House districts in the state — it voted 51.2% for Youngkin two years ago. Both sides agree that the road to a majority runs through this part of western Henrico County and eastern Goochland County. (Don’t let the map fool you; 87% of the voters in this district are in Henrico). How will the sex videos disclosure play out? How will her big money advantage play out? A Republican recently told me that as a result of the sex videos, the party now considered this district an easy win. Maybe that’s so, maybe it’s not. Gibson’s money advantage suggests Republicans might not want to count this one on the board just yet. We’d have all been watching this district on election night anyway, but now we have more reason to.
Now let’s look at three other House districts that are considered toss-ups.
HD 21: Thomas (D) has edge over Stirrup ( R)
Democrat Josh Thomas outraised John Stirrup $456,022 to $295,688 and holds a cash advantage of $375,129 to $282,529. This was a 51% Youngkin district.
HD 82: Adams (D) outpaces Taylor (R)
Republican Kim Taylor was a surprise winner in 2021. This time around, Democrats seem to be taking no chances. Kimberly Pope Adams has outraised Taylor $499,062 to $360,167 and has more cash on hand: $439,116 to $247,234. This was a 50.6% Republican district two years ago.
HD 97: Feggans (D) outraises Greenhalgh (R) but she has more cash
Democrat Michael Feggans took in $632,736 to Republican Del. Karen Greenhalgh’s $597,707. That made them the first- and second-biggest fundraisers in any House races during the reporting period. However, she still has more money: $521,824 to $381,501. In fact only one other delegate has more cash on hand: Del. Barry Knight, R-Virginia Beach and chair of the House Appropriations Committee, has more than $1 million in the bank.
Now let’s move over to the Senate side and look at some of the closest races.
SD 16: VanValkenburg (D) takes in almost twice as much as Dunnavant (R)
Del. Schuyler VanValkenburg is challenging state Sen. Siobhan Dunnavant and is doing quite well on the money side of things. He raised almost twice as much money as she did — $976,260 to $507,352 — and has more cash on hand, too. He’s got $899,304, she has $593,246. For context, he has more cash on hand than any other Senate candidate this year. On the other hand, she’s got the third-largest treasury of any Senate candidate this year. This was a 53% Democratic district two years ago. Of note: This Senate district overlaps with part of House District 57 — that Gibson-Owens contest. Given how little ticket-splitting we have these days, it’s entirely possible that the outcome in one race may influence the other.
SD 24: Mason (D) outraises Diggs (R) but is behind in cash
This was a 51% Republican district in 2021 so this was always going to be a close race, but Democratic state Sen. Monty Mason may have inadvertently made it closer when he was caught by a hot mic earlier this year when he was caught calling age verification for pornographic sites as “that online parental garbage” and “it’s all part of this parental crap that they are selling.”
In this reporting period, he’s been an impressive fundraiser: He’s taken in $1,006,901 to $628,598 for Republican Danny Diggs. That makes him the second-biggest fundraiser in the state during the past period. He’ll need to take in even more, though, because Diggs has a cash-on-hand advantage of $425,262 to $357,134.
SD 27: We don’t know yet. UPDATE: Griffin (D) has more than twice as much as Durant (R)
Of note: The campaign finance reports for Democrat Joel Griffin aren’t available yet so it’s impossible to make comparisons here. This is the district where Del. Tara Durant is the Republican nominee and independent Monica Gary is also on the ballot — and Matt Strickland, who lost the nomination to Durant, is waging a write-in campaign. It was a 54% Republican district two years ago.
Update, Sept. 18, 7 p.m.: Griffin’s report is now in and it shows him well ahead of Durant. During the reporting period, he raised almost twice as much money — $643,231 to her $350,546 and $80,149 for Gary. He also has more than twice as much cash on hand: $518,850 to Durant’s $196,721 to Gary’s $28,998.
SD 31: Perry (D) takes in twice as much as Segura (R)
This is arguably the closest Senate race in the state. This district went 50.03% for Youngkin two years ago. This time around, Democrat Russet Perry has a clear money advantage over Republican Juan Pablo Segura. She took in twice as much money as he did: $1,315,078 to his $653,316. That made her the biggest fundraiser in the state during the summer months. She also has almost twice as much cash on hand: $848,404 to $437,821.
Bottom line: In key districts, Democrats generally have more money
I started off by downplaying the role of money and I still hold to that, so this observation may not mean anything. However, in the most competitive districts, the Democratic candidates generally are raising more money than the Republicans. In some cases, the Republicans (such as Brewer, Diggs and Greenhalgh) have more money in the bank but at the rate their Democratic opponents are raising money, there’s no guarantee that cash advantage will last. Read into that whatever you will. If Democrats wind up winning those races, we’ll surely point back to that fundraising advantage. If they don’t, they’ll go into my bulging file of elections where the best-funded candidate didn’t win.
Finally, you may be among those who are sickened by the huge amounts of money that is poured into politics. I always look at these numbers and remember the line that Caiaphas sings in “Jesus Christ Superstar”: “Think of the things you could do with that money, choose any charity, give to the poor.” I’m waiting for the day when two campaigns agree to tithe, and donate 10% of their fundraising to some worthy local cause — endowing scholarships, buying new lab equipment for the local school or so forth. I’ll keep waiting. There is one thing you can do, though: You can donate to Cardinal News. We’re a 501(c)(3) nonprofit that depends on donations to provide in-depth reporting. The amount that some of these campaigns have raised in two months would be enough to cover our entire annual budget. I’ll also gently point this out: Half these candidates will be gone after Election Day, but we’ll still be here. You can help us cover the winners and what they do in office by donating here.
Want even more politics? You can sign up for our free weekly political newsletter, West of the Capital, where I offer additional commentary each week.