Mo. Sen. McCaskill spent $19.3M, now in debt

Friday, December 7, 2012

JEFFERSON CITY, Mo. (AP) — Missouri Sen. Claire McCaskill spent more than $19 million on her re-election campaign but hasn’t finished paying all the bills.

A summary of the Democratic senator’s finances released Friday shows she had less than $8,800 in her campaign account as of Nov. 26.

McCaskill defeated Republican congressman Todd Akin last month after waging a heavy TV advertising campaign.

Her finance report shows she spent nearly $19.3 million during the campaign and has a debt of about $238,000

Campaign manager Adrianne Marsh says McCaskill has some outstanding invoices for ad production.

Akin also has been seeking donations to repay campaign debt. But it’s not clear how much Akin still owes, because his campaign has declined to release a summary of his post-election finance report.

More like this story

Rison 5 months, 2 weeks ago

And these were our two choices... Neither one could spend within their already outrageous campaign funds, and that is who we get to choose to run the country. Imagine how much good could be done with $19.3 Million. People don't even like seeing or hearing the ads. In fact, candidates ads have caused me to vote against more politicians than for them.

newone 5 months, 2 weeks ago

I agree, they acutally made me not want to vote for either!!!

hudson 5 months, 2 weeks ago

I think we should just sell the office to the higest bidder !

connor 5 months, 2 weeks ago

We did. Funding Abortions proved more important to women than fiscal responsibility.

Paroquet 5 months, 2 weeks ago

Tch, Connor, you know better. The monies aren't used to provide abortions. You just can't take money away from those places that do provide them. Federal monies are used for other projects and services; like preventing pregnancy. And I think a lot of should agree that what happens to their own bodies is their own decision. Really, there should be no public disclosures of abortion statistics.

Speaking of which, are you signed up to unconditionally adopt or provide foster care yet? No? So you're just against it but aren't doing anything except trying to tell an individual what they can and can't do that has no effect upon you? You're for federally legislating right down to individual health choices that are none of your business? That's big government right in someone's privates and you call it "conservative"?

connor 5 months, 2 weeks ago

Abortion is not a health issue and no one needs to be signed up to adopt someone else's child to be against having their tax dollars go to funding abortion.

How many ex-Hostess employees you got on your couch?

Crump 5 months, 2 weeks ago

It took a lot of money to cover her past. If the wallsof ramada could talk!

Please review our Policies and Procedures before registering or commenting

Or login with:

OpenID

News Tribune