Wednesday, May 16, 2007

A Math Lesson For Jeff Warren

Easton Councilman Ken Brown raised $75 between between February 8 and April 16. He earned 905 votes. Jeff Warren's $12,385, raised between January 1 and April 30, got him 831 votes.

Cost of Ken Brown vote - 8 cents.

Cost of Jeff Warren vote - $14.90.

Money means shit in Easton.

Any questions?

8 comments:

Sir Tube of the Snorkel said...

A little money spent prudently can whup a ton of cash spent by a fool.

Bernie O'Hare said...

In Easton, money means shit.

House of Crayons said...

Bernie,

You will be hearing a lot more on Jeff Warren's money in the near future. We are going to investigate his donations as they relate to ballots he has cast as a member of the city's Zoning board.

This conflict may be too large to ignore.

Stay tuned.

Bernie O'Hare said...

H/C!

Thank you!

It will be impossible to show that quid pro quo, but it's something voters need to know.

In local elections, the influence of money on decision-making is much easier to see and establish than it is in the bigger races.

If all your work does is establish the need for electoral reform, it will be a huge success.

J. Spike said...

Bernie what about the other council candidtaes and the price per vote?

Bernie O'Hare said...

The only Dem close to Warren in money was Eli Warner, She raised $805 and got 793 votes. That's roughly $1 per vote. Not bad!

Anonymous said...

Bernie, I would suggest you read your other blog on the media. They have set up a no-win situation in which they willnot cover press conferences. They give some BS about resources but tell them you want to trash an opponent or have some blood and they run drooling. Local candidates need to raise $$ unless they are blessed with a group of people who love them or hate their opponents, either way that is really not a rational and dispassionate way to pick a candidate. Following the $$ is interesting but holding your pal Deegan and other press bigwigs responsible is also important.

Bernie O'Hare said...

Anon 6:45,

I agree the MSM could do much more when it comes to covering local campaigns. I laid out some suggestions.

But now the latest argument for special interest $ appears to be that we have to get money like this or we wouldn't be able to run a campaign. And that's just not true.

In a local race especially, there are lots of ways to raise money. Selling tickets to picnics or dinners really helps fund a campaign with a lot of small donations and generates grass roots interest. I poured thru the campaign finance reports, and saw a lot of campaigns funded with many small donations.

But when you start taking large amounts of money from a few people who deal or want to deal with the city, you're compromising yourself. It's tantamount to legal bribery. There's no excuse for that.