The state Senate race for District 9 is drawing big money, with Democrat Lee Nyquist and Republican Andy Sanborn taking in about $100,000 each for their campaigns. It's still only primary season, with the primary Sept. 11, and the opponents for the District 9 seat are drawing near-record numbers.

On Aug. 22, candidates who raised $500 or more were required to disclose their receipts and expenditures to the Secretary of State. According to the document filed by his campaign, Nyquist raised $95,113.

Nyquist, New Boston's town moderator since 1992 and a trial lawyer with Shaheen and Gordon, said his fundraising demonstrates that New Hampshire is ready for change and he's the change they want.

Emphasizing that two-thirds of his money came from donations of $100 or less, Nyquist said he also got the money from high-profile donors like Manchester-based contractor Dick Anagnost, in addition to Centrix Bank President Joe Riley.

Nyquist's disclosure also shows money from political action committees like the New Hampshire Association for Justice, which gave $3,000 to the campaign, in addition to the Granite State Teamsters at $1,500. The New Hampshire Democratic Party and the state Senate Democratic Caucus each gave $1,000 in in-kind donations.

With $70,000 on hand, the sole Democratic contender for the Senate seat said the money will be spent on mailings, political signage, print media, and ads in local paper.

Nyquist gave $2,250 to his own campaign. And he's quick to juxtapose that against his opponent Andy Sanborn, who gave $25,000 of his own money. Subtracting the candidates' families contributions to their own campaigns, Nyquist said he has outraised Sanborn 93,000 to 80,000.

Sanborn established residency in Bedford following Republican-led redistricting this year. Dublin was added to District 9, as well as Fitzwilliam, Hancock, Jaffrey, Peterborough, Richmond, Sharon, Temple and Troy. Merrimack was the only town removed from the 14-town district.

Sanborn said he moved to be closer to his wife's parents. Nyquist did not comment on Sanborn's residency during an interview.

So far, Sanborn's bid has garnered over $110,000 in contributions.

In 2010, Sanborn contributed $35,000 to his Senate campaign. But he said money isn't everything.

“To me the money is good, it's nice to have, but it's not the deciding factor,” he said. “I think people pay more attention to where you stand on the issues.”

Sanborn has also taken big money from PACs representing the medical, banking, real estate and transportation industries, totaling over $14,000.

Gubernatorial candidate Ovide Lamontagne gave $150 to the Sanborn camp.

Rep. Ken Hawkins and Michael Kenney are the two other Republicans in the primary race with Sanborn. Hawkins has raised nearly $40,000, but he wasn't surprised by his opponents' numbers.

“If you go back and look at previous campaigns, most of them are 50 to 100 grand for a state senate seat,” he said.

Though he's behind in the fundraising race, Hawkins doesn't see it as a disadvantage.

“If you look at campaigning, money is one piece of it, and it's nice to have, but it's more (about) the one-on-one campaigning and the house parties, that type of stuff, getting neighbors to tell their neighbors about you. That's where you get the votes.”

Michael F. Kenney, a Navy veteran and self-proclaimed Tea Party candidate, was absent on the Secretary of State's list of disclosures. Though he didn't respond to a request for an interview, Kenney has pledged not to accept an amount more than $40,000.

“I have made a commitment not to exceed the $40,000 campaign donation threshold and have signed an affidavit with the Secretary of State to that effect,” Kenney wrote on his campaign website. “Total contributions will be divided equally between primary and general elections.”

Big money not unusual

Big money in New Hampshire's Senate races is nothing new. Since 2004, over $2 million has been spent annually on the contests for the state's 24 seats.

Sen. Lou D'Allesandro, D-Manchester, is leading the pack of Senate candidates with a coffer of $305,000, most of which is rolled over from previous campaigns. D'Alessandro raised $37,000 this primary season, as of the Aug. 22 report.

According to the National Institute on Money in State Politics, a nonprofit group focused on the influence of campaign money in state elections, candidates for the 2010 State Senate elections raised $6,227,000, an average of $46,005 per candidate, with seven candidates raising over $90,000.

Democrat Jackie Cilley, who lost her bid for the District 6 seat in a Republican landslide year, outraised all candidates with over $219,000. But by the August filing date she had just $49,000 in the gubernatorial race.

In 2010, D'Alessandro had $226,000 to his name. But by Aug. 25 of that year he had only raised $40,000, less than half of Sanborn's and Nyquist's numbers.

Two years earlier, Senate candidates raised $2,619,000. Ted Gatsas topped the list with $210,000. Gatsas claimed $113,000 on the August disclosure.

Though many abhor the influence of money in politics, others view it as an indicator of a lively democracy. The more money going into a race, the more vibrant the contest.

According to Denise Roth Barber, managing director of the National Institute on Money in State Politics, less money often signifies less contested races.

“This year, if you're seeing a lot of money already, the next question would be are there a lot contested primaries, or are there just a few hotly-contested primaries that are driving the totals way up,” she said.

Barber said the amounts raised during senate campaigns depend on several factors. The Tea Party has raised the stakes in its efforts to elect more conservative Republicans, she said, pitting them against the Republican establishment in tight primary races across the country.

“In 2010, the main thing that helped you win is if you were a Republican,” Barber said.

Barber said her organization examines not only the influence of money, but also the importance of incumbency.

“We've looked at that over the years and we consistently find that, if you're an incumbent, you have a greater-than 90 percent chance of winning your race. And if you are somebody who has the most money in the race, then you also have a 90 percent chance or better of getting elected.”

And if an incumbent outraises his or her opponents? “You're all but a sure bet of winning,” Barber said. “Money and incumbency continue to be the two leading factors of winning a campaign.”

srios@newstote.com