Mitch Perry
Libertarian Alison Foxall‘s fundraising may be minuscule, at least compared to her Democratic and Republican counterparts.
Nevertheless, the House District 72 candidate is reporting record-breaking campaign cash, more than any Libertarian has ever raised in a Florida House race.
Foxall raised $19,252 since entering the HD 72 special election slated for Feb. 13. That breaks the 14-year-old Libertarian fundraising record for a state House race — previously held by St. John’s County’s Jerry Cameron in 2004, who eventually spent $19,080.
A little perspective: Republican James Buchanan raised $282,630 as of Jan. 4; Democrat Margaret Good collected $227,314 as of the same date.
The three candidates are vying to replace Republican Alex Miller, who unexpectedly stepped down from the seat last September. They are scheduled to debate next week on local affiliate ABC 7 in Sarasota.
“This is obviously a key accomplishment for our campaign, just as the petition push was and debate inclusion was, and we’re not done with benchmarks in this campaign,” Foxall said in a statement. “Unlike our competitors, we don’t get PAC money, so we are happy to hit this mark. Less than three weeks from today we plan to set the bar even higher on election day.”
“I can tell you,” she added, “I love the enthusiasm that has been shown by our supporters and this campaign team. Something special is happening, people are listening, the media is tuning in. This is what we aimed for, and it is happening, and we encourage others to climb aboard as we paint this district gold.”
A new poll conducted by St. Pete Polls published Wednesday shows Buchanan with a narrow three-point lead over Good, 47 percent to 44 percent. Foxall is a distant third with 3 percent of the vote.
HD 72 encompasses parts of Sarasota, along with the unincorporated areas of Siesta Key, Sarasota Springs, Gulf Gate Estates and Fruitville.
5 comments
Steve Hough
January 24, 2018 at 5:37 pm
I commend Libertarians (and Greens) for their tenacity. In addition to the challenge of raising money, they have unequal requirements for ballot access, are generally ignored by the press, and are most often excluded from debates. However, I would suggest that they could achieve broader exposure by having equal access to a top-two nonpartisan open primary. If we want to change politics, we must change the process.
Jonathan
January 26, 2018 at 10:58 am
Steve we already see how that works in California. Top Two only serves to silence 3rd party candidate voices early in the process.
Steve Hough
January 26, 2018 at 3:15 pm
I would suggest third party candidates have a greater voice in a top-two open primary. If they run candidates because they truly believe they can win, they should have no problem with competing in a top-two primary. If they run candidates with the hope of gaining exposure and expanding their base of support, clinging to hard-won ballot access may not be in their best interests.
Alec Soltes
January 26, 2018 at 3:48 pm
A better idea would be ranked choice voting or proportional representation. Our single member winner take all system is going to disadvantage third parties because of the high threshold for election.
Anthony Kraljic
January 28, 2018 at 3:28 pm
I understand both of your points of view here. I too have supported the idea of an “open jungle” primary and then a top 2 runoff, and then I heard complaints in California from third parties saying that it’s easier for major parties and the media to count them out earlier and then they would have no chance of making it to a general election. Another solution that have supported in addition to top 2 is to get rid of political parties, atleast for purposes of elections and how candidates are presented on the ballot. This should weaken the major parties slightly and create a fairer election. Some local elections already do this, and I have seen some libertarians win.
Comments are closed.