Campaign cash flows for Ravenstahl, Onorato
The campaign cash keeps rolling in for Allegheny County Executive Dan Onorato and Pittsburgh Mayor Luke Ravenstahl.
Onorato banked $71,250 and Ravenstahl raised $17,000 since filing reports Friday with the Allegheny County Elections Division.
Candidates are required to report within 24 hours donations of $500 or larger received between the filing deadline and the May 19 primary.
Onorato isn't officially in a race this year, but is widely viewed as a likely gubernatorial candidate in 2010, Gov. Ed Rendell's final year in office.
Ravenstahl is running for re-election against Councilman Patrick Dowd and attorney Carmen Robinson.
The largest last-minute contribution to Ravenstahl is $15,000 from three executives of The Forza Group, a real estate company that arranged to meet with city planning officials to discuss building at least one hotel in Pittsburgh.
Planning Director Noor Ismail declined to discuss details of the project because the company hasn't applied for approval.
Ravenstahl said he wasn't familiar with the firm. The donation pushes Ravenstahl's total cash and in-kind contributions to $357,000 this year, including a $150,000 loan from Onorato.
Onorato raised about $520,000 this year, pushing his account well above $4.5 million.
Dowd reported $6,500 in additional donations. He raised about $124,500 this year, less than half of what Ravenstahl has received.
Robinson, who missed the Friday deadline, filed a report Monday saying she raised about $23,300 from in-kind and cash donations. She gave $4,700 to her campaign, the largest contribution reported.
TribLive commenting policy
You are solely responsible for your comments and by using TribLive.com you agree to our Terms of Service.
We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.
While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.
We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments â either by the same reader or different readers.
We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.
We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.
We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.
We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.