Monday, January 29, 2018

AD15 candidate Buffy Wicks raised a whopping $500,000 in campaign contributions last year

AD15 candidate Buffy Wicks raised $209,000
during the first half of the 2017.
Buffy Wicks is again making her opponents in the 15th Assembly District green with envy.

After bursting onto the scene last summer with an impressive one-month haul, Wicks says her campaign will file year-end campaign finance reports that include in excess of $500,000 in contributions.

In addition, the campaign will report roughly $385,000 in cash on hand to start the new year. "We feel very good about our numbers," said Wicks prior to a candidates forum Monday night in Albany.

The amount of fundraising cash was boosted with more than 1,100 individual donors, said Wicks. In addition, 65 percent of all her donors hail from California, she added.

Over the past few months, Wicks has spoke at 70 house parties around the district, which includes Richmond, Berkeley, North Oakland, and parts in between. The effort has also attracted an army of 350 volunteers willing to help the campaign get its message out from now to June, she said.

"We are talking directly to voters and what we're hearing is they want to send someone to Sacramento who actually get something done," said Wicks.

Campaign finance reports will be released Wednesday, but Wicks' total is likely to be far greater than anyone else in the 10-candidate primary race.

Six months ago, very few in the district knew much about Wicks outside of her work at the national level with President Obama and Hillary Clinton's presidential campaign. But a quick $209,000 raised in less than a month and reported last August caught the attention of many local Democrats.

The total, in fact, dwarfed the combined amount of the next three candidates who filed mid-year reports, Oakland Councilmember Dan Kalb, East Bay MUD Director Andy Katz and Richmond Councilmember Jovanka Beckles.


  1. By MW:

    When I discuss politics, please forgive my references and analogies to sports back in the "old days," however a few trillion years ago, in other words back when I was in my teens and twenties, I paid a lot more attention to professional sports than I do now.

    And a common expression just before the start of a boxing match was for the referee to say "Let the best man win." (Since the match normally only involved two contestants, it would have been more grammatically correct to say "Let the BETTER man win.")

    However in races for political office, we often should start the contest by stating "LET THE BETTER FINANCED CANDIDATE WIN."

    For instance until reading this article, and then also reading the entry on Buffy Wicks in Wikipedia, I did not even recall who Buffy Wicks was. However even if she was less qualified than Donald Duck, Mickey Mouse, or any of The Three Stooges, and even at their very worst, still with her unbelievably huge fundraising advantage she would have a high chance of winning.

    1. Why didn't B--- the Vampire Slayer make the list?

  2. Bought and Paid for by corporate Democrats

    1. A not-pure-enough-for-me-or-my-bubble attitude that, writ large, played out marvelously, I mean terribly, in Nov 2016. Go Jill Stein!!!

  3. That's A LOT of money. A key to this race will be how the Obama/Clinton candidate (Buffy) will do against the Sanders candidate (Beckles). Buffy's mailers will all have pictures of her and Obama, securing the win, for my money, but she will never go out of her way to let you know she ran Clinton's California operation again Bernie. Would be interesting if this came back to haunt her (I dont think so).

    1. Probably right. Clinton had essentially - though not completely -- bagged it by the time of the California primary in any event. Now, if Buffy had been a part of Clinton's general election malpractice in Mich, Wisc, Penn, ____, _____, that would and should be disqualifying, as should be any continuing support for Clinton as nominee in 2020. BTW, Bernie would have lost in 2016. He's a better man than Trump, and Clinton is better too. But despite her huge negatives going into 2016 (including some sitting in plain view, but in the blind spot for many Dems, including her role in managing Bill's so-called "bimbo eruptions" (a term that should offend) that Trump exploited, and the FBI's stupid intervention, she still had a better shot than Bernie, and should have won if she had managed the campaign competently. It's very important to beat the Liar in chief, if he runs, in 2020. It's important to select a politician fully competent to do that even if she or he may not be 100% ideal in terms of every minor policy and sub-policy preference we have.

    2. Not necessarily true, because the polls in the swing states had Bernie much farther ahead of Trump than Clinton. Clinton had much stronger negative ratings than Bernie in those swing states also.

  4. of course not necessarily true, but take the polls with a grain of salt (as we all have been forced to do). and it is hard to rely too much on Bernie polls when he was never the nominee and also therefore never really the object of negative campaigning by Trump (quite the opposite: Trump praised Sanders and courted his voters)