Already referenced, was the Amash district punk.  Yeah Tim picked up a little better district protection, but it was putting a specific type of incumbent at risk;  a "Tea Type".

Yup.  So, if we're gonna talk about 2 for 13, then why not also talk about the habitual 1 for 8?  Who in their right mind would go and endorse more of that?  Certainly not I, if I truly wanted my vote to mean anything passing for relevance.

Like I wrote in the comment above... I don't want to read about any Conservatives b!tching about being bludgeoned by Moderate squishes when they are the ones supporting them being there.

OABTW, on this:

As an aside, the finance comparison ($26mil to $11mil) might be explained if there is a federal and state reporting difference.  Not sure.

Would you keep the Party financials sealed from audit?  Nah.  Didn't think so.  Then again, you're not a Schostak.  Hell, the Schostak's even have their retained mouthpiece writing Law in this state, if one has a memory.

Lawrence McLaughlin, chairman of the real estate department at Detroit's Honigman law firm and a longtime Schostak Bros. attorney who worked on some of the Cherryland transactions, confirmed Thursday that he helped draft the law. McLaughlin also testified in favor of the bill at a committee hearing as counsel to an industry coalition, the Building Owners and Managers Association.

"Is Schostak's a beneficiary? Sure they are," McLaughlin said. "Did we do it for Schostak? No, we did it as an industry effort."

The Schostaks kept a low profile, and the firm's name was conspicuous in its absence on a list of 13 companies and their principals that signed a statement in support of the bill.

Bernard Financial Group President Dennis Bernard, who responded to a phone message left for David Schostak, said Schostak stayed away from the legislative effort "because of who his brother is."

But of course...