News

Harmer claims fundraising momentum increasing in his congressional campaign

GOP donors uniting behind candidate in bid to unseat McNerney, aide says

David Harmer, the Republican candidate for Congress in the 11th District that includes Pleasanton and the Tri-Valley, raised $402,244 between April 1 and June 30, ending the quarter with $233,046 in available cash on hand, his campaign spokesperson said today.

"David Harmer has increased his fundraising momentum since winning the primary as GOP donors unite behind his campaign," said campaign spokesman Tim Clark. "We are firmly on track to meet our general election finance goals."

For the year, Clark said that Harmer's broad-based finance effort has netted over $788,000 from 2,102 individual donors.

Clark said that in the first quarter of 2010, Harmer out-raised incumbent Jerry McNerney (D-Pleasanton) by nearly $100,000.

"McNerney raised $282,251 in Q1 while Harmer, despite not entering the race until mid-January, raised $380,964," Clark said.

Harmer, who won the GOP primary in June to compete against McNerney, who is seeking reelection to his third term in Congress, in an attorney who has served as in-house counsel to several U.S. companies. He also has worked with the Heritage Foundation, Cato Institute and the Pacific Legal Foundation.

Comments

Like this comment
Posted by Sal
a resident of Downtown
on Jul 12, 2010 at 2:11 pm

I guess Harmer's fundraising was also helped by the bailout money he took after he got fired from his last job.


Like this comment
Posted by 2010 voter
a resident of Castlewood
on Jul 12, 2010 at 2:48 pm

i am trying to figure this out, i keep seeing comment here Harmer took a bailout, I googled and came up with a democrat press release and a republicanprimary opponent who refer to severance pay when Harer got laid off from Washington Mutual Bank when they were gobbled up by Chase Bank...
if the guy got laid off when his company was bought out, how is that "taking a bailout"? because Chase Bank laid him off it is a bailout?

sounds like taking a severance check that the company owes you so you can support your family after becoming unemployed, not to mention in a terrible economy where new jobs are not real plentiful? just asking, yeah?


Like this comment
Posted by Stacey
a resident of Amberwood/Wood Meadows
on Jul 12, 2010 at 3:05 pm

Stacey is a registered user.

2010 voter,

It's easy. Harmer would probably not have gotten the bonus and severance if Chase had folded. When a company folds, they don't usually have money to pay things like bonuses and severances because all assets go to creditors first. If you recall in the dotcom bust, many employees got screwed like that.

As a relative always said, "They're all a bunch of crooks."


Like this comment
Posted by 2010 voter
a resident of Castlewood
on Jul 12, 2010 at 3:57 pm

yeah i get that, but that gives me two more questions, so an employee, because he is running for congress he should refuse money he is entitled to?

and on top of that isn't chase one of them that paid the bailout back and claimed that they didn't need the bailout to survive anyway?


Like this comment
Posted by Chet
a resident of San Ramon
on Jul 12, 2010 at 5:17 pm

The GOPers can collect and spend all the money they want on Harmer but we will never be fooled again and return the the failed policies of the GOP. Harmer should not even be considered as a serious candidate as he does not even live the the district. We have a fine Congressman Jerry McNerney who lives in the district and works hard on issues important to all of us in District 11. His work for our veterans, soldiers and families has been outstanding and very important to us in District 11. Thank you Jerry McNerney!!!


Like this comment
Posted by M.
a resident of Downtown
on Jul 12, 2010 at 8:46 pm

M. is a registered user.

I think it just comes down to the way people throw the term "bailout" around these days, it is a buzzword to get people up in arms over government/political spending etc... After all it is election season

So in this case the use of the term bailout money refers to when JPMorgan Chase laid Harmer off, he received his bonus and severance package. Because that company received bailout money and then gave money" to Harmer in the form of bonus and severance he "took bailout money. I'm not a supporter of Harmer, but this is a bit of a stretch to say the least.

M.


Like this comment
Posted by Patriot
a resident of Another Pleasanton neighborhood
on Jul 12, 2010 at 9:26 pm

"and on top of that isn't chase one of them that paid the bailout back and claimed that they didn't need the bailout to survive anyway?"

Chase, and other large bailed out companies, "paid back" the government using money received through AIG (using AIG as a TARP slush fund) and by unloading toxic assets to through the Federal Reserve Emergency Lending facility. To say that they could have paid the money back without that is just speculation.

Web Link

Furthermore, contrary to what you might believe, no one forced Chase to take TARP money. The CEO and board could have resigned if it came to that. But rather than stick to principles and reject the Treasury "request" that they take TARP money, they decided to take the easy way out and take the money.

If Harmer wants to be taken seriously, a good first step would be to give back the money. I don't know if that will be enough to convince a lot of people, but it would be a first step.


Like this comment
Posted by Patriot
a resident of Another Pleasanton neighborhood
on Jul 12, 2010 at 9:30 pm

"but this is a bit of a stretch to say the least."

Please explain why this is a stretch. To paraphrase another post -- A bankrupt Bank would not have been able to pay him his bonus. That makes him a direct beneficiary of the bailout.


Like this comment
Posted by Patriot
a resident of Another Pleasanton neighborhood
on Jul 12, 2010 at 10:06 pm

Remember that Harmer advertises that he is against bailouts.


Like this comment
Posted by Stacey
a resident of Amberwood/Wood Meadows
on Jul 12, 2010 at 11:53 pm

Stacey is a registered user.

I think people are just trying to give Harmer the benefit of the doubt because the information on the matter is just fuzzy enough.

It looks like WaMu went bankrupt just days before TARP, their assets given to Chase (shareholders assert illegally), shareholders lost everything (and it looks like they're not standing idle by it either!), WaMu executives got paid bonuses and severance by Chase. That's pretty nice to get a bonus with severance and the shareholders got screwed. Chase probably had no real obligation to honor any contractual entitlements between WaMu and executives (the earlier question about it seems somewhat moot). It would be speculative to wonder whether Chase would have done that were it not for the TARP money.


Like this comment
Posted by M.
a resident of Downtown
on Jul 13, 2010 at 12:27 am

M. is a registered user.

Patriot,

The reason I think that the entire bailout money thing in this case is a stretch is quite simple.
Getting a bonus and severance is normal operating procedure in that industry, as well as many others. In other words, this is the accepted corporate social norm, and as such accepting the bonus and severance packages is nothing out of the ordinary. The entire thing just stinks of campaign season PR as usual. I don't like the guy, in fact I think he is a buffoon of a candidate, but that is neither here nor there.

SImply put there is no need for misrepresentations of facts, events, etc.. Over simplification of things, and overstatements of facts in order to get someone elected, it should be about the issues, not imaginary, or overblown scandal. The American people have a hard enough time as it is sifting through all the OP ED in search of fact

M.


Like this comment
Posted by jimf01
a resident of another community
on Jul 13, 2010 at 8:40 am

True enough M.

Patriot you seem to want it both ways, saying "contrary to what you might believe, no one forced Chase to take TARP money" but "To paraphrase another post -- A bankrupt Bank would not have been able to pay him his bonus"

Either Chase needed the money or they didn't, AIG slush funds and other conspiracy theories aside, an employee, a highly compensated employee was laid off and presented a severance.

Stacey, I generally find no disagreement with what you post here, but this line has two big errors "Chase probably had no real obligation to honor any contractual entitlements between WaMu and executives"

First, they had obligations, you are trying to say they probably had means to escape them. Second, you are terming David Harmer an executive. He was not an executive, he was an attorney.

This Stockton Record opinion piece : Web Link

was one of the first to bring the story to the fore, I think that Harmer's position on TARP and stimulus are perfectly consistent with his actions in accepting a bonus and severance pay.

I have said it before and I will say it again, if you found yourself in that situation and you have kids and a wife and bills to pay, and you would turn that money down, then go ahead and continue to criticize David Harmer.


Like this comment
Posted by SteveP
a resident of Parkside
on Jul 13, 2010 at 9:09 am

SteveP is a registered user.

To all you Mcnerney kool aid drinkers, put down the drink and step away from the bar. Harmer had an employment contract and would have been paid regardless. Give it up---your constant repeating of the same lies does not make it true.
I was contacted by phone last night for a survey regarding how I would vote for the 11th district. Based on the leading questions, it was obvious it was paid for by our famous windmill engineer. After the questioning was over, they asked if I had changed my mind about voting for McNerney, even after they had mentioned that Mc voted with Pelosi on many issues......can his camp really be that out of touch?


Like this comment
Posted by Patriot
a resident of Another Pleasanton neighborhood
on Jul 13, 2010 at 9:21 am

"Patriot you seem to want it both ways, saying "contrary to what you might believe, no one forced Chase to take TARP money" but "To paraphrase another post -- A bankrupt Bank would not have been able to pay him his bonus""

I don't understand how I'm wanting to have things both ways. Chase needed the money because they took the money. If they didn't need it they could have refused it. It is as simple as that. If Chase had been allowed to fail, there would have been no severance. That they "paid the money back" is irrelevant.

" I think that Harmer's position on TARP and stimulus are perfectly consistent with his actions in accepting a bonus and severance pay."

And I think they are perfectly inconsistent. If he believes companies should not be bailed out by the government, then he should practice what he believes. Chase took bailout money. If they didn't need it, they shouldn't have taken it. Harmer received payments from that bailed out company. If he doesn't believe in bailouts, he should return the money. Simple stuff.


Like this comment
Posted by susan
a resident of Pleasanton Valley
on Jul 13, 2010 at 9:56 am

Mceerney is SO DESPERATE HE IS STOOPING TO LIES. HE DOESNT KNOW A SERVERENCE PACKAGE FROM A BAILOUT, BECAUSE HE IS ANTI BUSINESS, AND NEVER DID ANYTHING FOR THIS DISTRICT BUT VOTE FOR EVERY BAILOUT, AND ABOVE ALL ELSE HE VOTED FOR THE HEALTH CARE BILL TO BE ADMINISTRATED BY OUR GOVERNMENT WHO CAUSED THE BANK FAILURES AS THEY WERE NOT BEING INFORCED BY THE GOVERNMENT BUREAUCRACY. I CAN'T WAIT TO VOTE JERRY MCERNEY OUT OF OFFICE. LETS ALL GIVE MONEY TO HARMER.


Like this comment
Posted by Stacey
a resident of Amberwood/Wood Meadows
on Jul 13, 2010 at 10:05 am

Stacey is a registered user.

Recently read in someone's email signature:

"The original tea party was to protest the East India Trading Co. bribing Parliament for a tax break that crushed competing small businesses. To convert this into today's economics, the Tea Party should be vandalizing, or at least picketing, the Chase bank and its Payday loan subsidy."


Like this comment
Posted by Stacey
a resident of Amberwood/Wood Meadows
on Jul 13, 2010 at 10:08 am

Stacey is a registered user.

SteveP,

Employment contracts do not have to be honored when the company goes bankrupt. You can Google for loads of tales from the era of the dotcom bust of all the employees who got screwed. Aren't you one of the posters advocating for letting the State go bankrupt so it doesn't have to honor public employee union contracts?


Like this comment
Posted by Stacey
a resident of Amberwood/Wood Meadows
on Jul 13, 2010 at 10:16 am

Stacey is a registered user.

jimf01,

I think you misinterpret my points. The desire/actions of the employee to take the money or not is not at issue and frankly who cares? As you rightly point out, anyone in that situation would seriously consider taking the money. The real question is whether or not a bankrupt entity would even be able to offer the money to the employee. This isn't a question of who has higher moral ground. It's a question of the socialization of business risk. The public gets little return on its investment while pockets get lined.


Like this comment
Posted by Stacey
a resident of Amberwood/Wood Meadows
on Jul 13, 2010 at 10:23 am

Stacey is a registered user.

More on the Boston Tea Party: Web Link

"The company was not able to meet its payment on dividends and loans and was moving towards bankruptcy. Of course the British government was reluctant to let it happen from fear that this may disrupt financial markets. As an alternative to a direct loan the Ministry decided to allow the company to send tea to America without paying an export duty."


Like this comment
Posted by Stacey
a resident of Amberwood/Wood Meadows
on Jul 13, 2010 at 10:27 am

Stacey is a registered user.

I think when people talk about how friendly to business a candidate is, let's keep in mind how the huge tax cut given to a "too big to fail" corporation lead to the Boston Tea Party. Corporations are not the same as small businesses. Small businesses are the strength of a nation, corporations become parasites when not properly regulated. Just say no to Corporate Socialism.


Like this comment
Posted by Pete
a resident of Danville
on Jul 14, 2010 at 8:19 am

Jerry McNerney is a disgrace and a sock puppet for Pelosi. Look at his record. He has consistently followed the direction of his master Pelosi. He voted for the porkulous without bothering to read the bill, he voted for Obamacare without bothering to read the bill. Time and again McNerney has shown he is incompetent and has breached his basic duty to his constituents. The nimrods in the House have not even produced a budget this year, their primary duty to the Nation. It is an outrage.

We need new representation in our government at all levels. California is on life support and will face the same fate as Greece, just a matter of time. The feel good entitlements, government unions and illegal aliens are going to be the end of the State. AS more cities follow Vallejo into bankruptcy maybe the sheeple will wake-up and run these bums out of office.

California sends a disgraceful lineup to DC. Woolsey, Pelosi, Waxman, Feinstein, Boxer, Lee, Waters, Stark, Miller and the list goes on. We need to send fiscally responsible representatives to office and not these Spendocrats.


Like this comment
Posted by Wordpress Themes
a resident of Ridgeview Commons
on Jul 24, 2010 at 12:17 am

Genial dispatch and this fill someone in on helped me alot in my college assignement. Say thank you you on your information.


Sorry, but further commenting on this topic has been closed.

CityServe helps give a Pleasanton vet a fresh start
By Tim Hunt | 2 comments | 441 views

Is Graduate School the Sensible Next Step After College?
By Elizabeth LaScala | 1 comment | 302 views