Berg Gets 73% Of Contributions From North Dakota, Duane Sand Almost Has More Campaign Debt Than Cash has a run-down of campaign fundraising in North Dakota’s Senate race through the 3rd quarter. It’s all Republicans (until today there weren’t any Democrats in the Senate race) including Rep. Rick Berg, who is hoping to move from the House to the Senate this election cycle, and perennial federal candidate Duane Sand.

Berg’s fundraising has been robust and, surprisingly given that his predecessor in the House Earl Pomeroy routinely got over 90% of his contributions from out of state, mostly from North Dakotans.

FARGO, ND – Republican Rep. Rick Berg, who is running for North Dakota’s open Senate Seat in 2012, finished the third quarter with over $1.01 million raised so far in the cycle according to reports filed with the FEC. In the third quarter specifically Berg raised $658,238 with almost 78% of those contributions coming from individual contributors. The remaining contributions came from political action committees, or PACs.

For the entire 2012 election cycle, Berg has raised $809,950.35 from individuals and $201,500 from PACs.

Most of the individual contributions are originating in North Dakota. According to an analysis done by transparency website, 73% of Berg’s individual contributions over $200 have come from North Dakotans with 27% coming from out of state.

Duane Sand, on the other hand, almost has more campaign debt than cash on hand and has gotten 97% of his contributions from outside North Dakota:

…Duane Sand, has raised $243,608 in the 2012 cycle with $111,956 coming in the 3rd quarter all from individuals. Through the 3rd quarter, Sand has taken only $2,000 from PACs in the 2012 election cycle.

A analysis of Sand’s fundraising shows 93% of individual contributions over $200 coming from outside of North Dakotans, with just 3% coming from North Dakotans.

Sand ended the 3rd quarter with $63,757.17 in cash on hand, and $63,627.03 in debt.

In other words, there doesn’t seem to be any enthusiasm in North Dakota for Sand’s campaign, and when you calculate in debt his campaign really has no money.


Rob Port is the editor of In 2011 he was a finalist for the Watch Dog of the Year from the Sam Adams Alliance and winner of the Americans For Prosperity Award for Online Excellence. In 2013 the Washington Post named SAB one of the nation's top state-based political blogs, and named Rob one of the state's best political reporters.

Related posts

  • Jimmypop

    WOW… did sand get that much cash?

    • melissapaulik

      I’m guessing it was through the letter he had sent through Sharron Angle’s (ran against Harry Reid) organization. Considering that I donated to Angle’s campaign, I guess I can’t complian when Sand goes out of state to get support. Of course, Angle was running against Harry Reid so that was a no-brainer for me.

      • borborygmi

        supporting angle ……yep that definitely is no brains….I mean a no brainer……

  • Jack Daniels

    If the 17th Amendment were repealed the US Senate race would attract little out of state money because the only campaign that mattered would be the one among the majority of the State legislature selecting a Senator.  Any out of state money paid to a state legislator would more likely be called the bribe it is and any money given to a sitting US Senator could no longer be directed to his campaign fund, so would definitely be a bribe.  Just a thought to ponder.

    • Rob

      Repealing the 17th amendment would go a long way toward fixing a lot of the nation’s ills.

      • borborygmi

        one of the reasons for the 17th was the bribery and cronyism within the state legislatures.  Much easier to bribe a few then many to get control..

        • robert108

          So now we have the bribery and cronyism between the Dems and the unionists.  So much better. sarc.

        • Rob

          Except that it breaks down the manner in which our federalist republic was supposed to work.

          Legislators are elected too.  The solution is to not elect corrupt people, not gut our system.

  • Rick Olson

    Well, that’s how it’s done in Canada.  The people of Canada elect the members of the lower chamber of Parliament, the House of Commons, by popular vote in national elections.  Members of Canada’s upper House, the Senate, are appointed to their positions by the Governor General, upon recommendation of the sitting Canadian prime minister.  The Governor General is the vice-regal representative of the Bristish monarch.  He or she is appointed to a five year term by the reigning monarch of Great Britain, in this case the Queen.  The Queen of England is the official head of state of Canada, but in day to day practice, the sovereign is represented by a resident Governor General; and holds all powers and privileges that would otherwise be exercised by Her Majesty. 

    • ec99

      The Senate in Canada has no real power.

      • Rick Olson

        While that is true to a certain extent, in practice, the Canadian Senate is more than just a rubber-stamp body.  The Senate may propose bills, resolutions, etc. and if passed in the upper chamber; they are presented to the House of Commons for their concurrance.  Most of the action does occur in the House of Commons.  When the House passes a bill, it must be considered by the Senate; and a majority vote in favor in the upper chamber sends the bill on to Rideau Hall for His Excellency the Governor General’s “Royal Assent.” The reverse order is the case for a bill which originates in the Senate. Once the House and the Senate pass a bill in identical form, the bill is then presented to His Excellency. Traditionally, the Governor General will give his assent to all bills, but he does have reserve powers in accordance with the Canadian constitution; and in rare circumstances may withhold assent.  If that happens it is akin to a presidential veto. (In Canada, I don’t believe the withholding of assent, i.e. a veto, can be overridden by Parliament).  Additionally, if the Governor General refuses his assent of a bill, then the prime minister would offer his or her resignation. It would be interpreted as the Governor General having lost his confidence in the Prime Minister. Of course the main difference is that Canada, like Great Britain, operates under a parliamentary democracy.  This means a Canadian federal government may rule for no more than five years before another election has to be held.  The leader of the party which wins the most seats in the Commons in an election is named the prime minister, and is asked by the governor general to form a government. The party which wins the most seats in the House of Commons does not always command a majority. It is possible that the party with the most seats does not control a working majority in the chamber, and thus, such a government is referred to as a “minority government” or simply a hung Parliament. In that case, the ruling party would need the help of one or more of the opposition parties to enact legislation and move their agenda, otherwise called “its mandate” forward.  The government remains in power as long as it has the confidence of the Houe of Commons.  Should the ruling party ever lose a vote of confidence in the Commons, then the prime minister must have an audience with the governor general.  At that point, the prime minister offers his resignation to the governor general. Most of the time, the prime minister asks for the dissolution of Parliament and that a national election be held. However, it is within the governor general’s authority to summon the leader of another party and ask him or her to form a government and if so successful, that person becomes the prime minister. It usually doesn’t happen that way. In most cases, an election is almost always called.  The governor general almost always concurs with the advice of the prime minister and orders the immediate dissolution or termination of Parliament and national elections are scheduled.  Once Parliament is dissolved, the general election is held quickly — usually no longer than five to six weeks after the dissolution of parliament.

  • I H8 GOPers

    I suppose it’s good for your stats now that a lot of BIG OIL contributions are now “in state” contributions.