Thanks to Northampton County's voter registration office, I have complete copies of the thirty- day post election campaign finance reports filed last week by eight of ten candidates for county council seats in November 6 election. Candidate Mark Schwartz, who spent under $250, is excused from filing any reports. Similarly, Tom Dietrich filed a report indicating he spent no money and took in no contributions during the thirty-day period.I scanned these finance reports and uploaded them to an online library so we can all look at them for ourselves and follow the money. It is my hope that the county eventually begins to make these local finance records available online.
Here's a breakdown of what each candidate spent in the general election. McClure is the big spender.
At Large Race: (countywide)Tony Branco (D) ($15,424.13) v. Peg Ferraro (R) ($16,781.02)
Tony Branco 2d Friday preelection report
Tony Branco 30 day post election report
Peg Ferraro 2d Friday preelection report
Peg Ferraro 30 day post election report
District 1: (Bethlehem area) Ann McHale (D) ($498.77) v. Tom Dietrich (R) ($172.31)
Ann McHale 2d Friday preelection report
Ann McHale 30 day post election report
Tom Dietrich 2d Friday preelection report
Tom Dietrich 30 day post election report - no money spent
District 2: (Easton area) William Wallace (D) ($8,853.79) v. Mike Dowd (R) ($4,151.40)
William Wallace 2d Friday preelection report
William Wallace 30 day post election report
Mike Dowd 2d Friday preelection report
Mike Dowd 30 day post election report
District 3: (Nazareth area) Lamont McClure (D) ($35,767.75) v. Mark Schwartz (R) (no report)
Lamont McClure 2d Friday preelection report
Lamont McClure 30 day post election report
District 4: (Slate belt area) John Maher (D) ($16,877.43) v. Ron Angle (R) ($26,094.64).
John Maher 2d Friday preelection report
John Maher 30 day post election report
Ron Angle 2d Friday preelection report
Ron Angle 30 day post election report
Based on the official tally, what's the dollar/vote ratio? (1) McClure - $8.97 per vote; (2) Angle - $4.67 per vote; (3) Maher - $3.75 per vote; (4) Wallace - $2.17 per vote; (5) Branco - $1.02 per vote;(6) Ferraro - $0.91 per vote; (7) Dowd - $0.83 per vote; (8) McHale - $0.11 per vote (9) Dietrich -$0.08 per vote; and (10) Schwartz - $0 per vote.
18 comments:
The dollar/vote ratio makes you think about how much we can be bought for...
Thanks again, Bernie, for all your efforts to make this information public. I want to note that HUGE chunks of bucks are not included in your per vote tally. The costs for all the negative mailers against Angle and Ferraro, and the costs of all the negative robo calls are not included. There was lots of other money spent to influence this election – some of which appears on the NC Dem. Committee’s filing – much which does not. I figure if you include all the monies in your per vote costs – Branco’s tally should add in another $2.50 to $3.50 per vote above the $1.02 and Maher’s tally is between $18.00 and $24.00 per vote.
Anon 2:10,
You are absolutely right. I do not include the money that local Dems spent to slam both Angle and Ferraro. The filed report fails to reflect that accurately.
Will Power wrote:
So McClure (who spent over $35,000) had to spend about an extra $385 each per vote to get his 91 more votes than the Republican. How can he think he belongs even close to the shadow of the good government that John Stoffa presents and offers when he had to trick, lie, bargain, etc. to get where he just barely got for all the wrong reasons?
Answer that Lamont (where is your pride?)or Charles or Joe...and how about not being cowardly anonymous.
WRITTEN BY WILL POWER
OH, forgive me...that's right, his objective is all dark, and he
Where is the Schwartz report? He received $10,000.00 from the Republican Party inkind and didn't report it. Will they tell this to the Attorney General?
Anon 3:33,
Schwartz never opened a campaign committee, which is his right when he declares that he will not receive or spend more than $250 in his campaign. He is required to file an affidavit declaring his intentions, and promising to keep records in the event he does go over that estimate.
Now Schwartz did file such an affidaviit. Your argument, as I understand it, is that Schwartz used the local republican committee to do what he did not do for himself. And that's true. The local Rs did circulate a mailer on behalf of both Ferraro and Schwartz.
Under our Elections Code, a political committee may raise and spend money to elect endorsed candidates. Of course, that committee must report, properly, the funds it has received and the expenditures made.
In this instance, the local republican party did file the necessary campaign finance reports to reveal what it raised and what it spent.
You're operating under the misunderstanding that because another political committee raises and spends money on behalf of a candidate, he himself is somehow bound to report this as an in-kind contribution.
But that's not the law. The law is concerned that someone account for the money. Schwartz had no more obligation to report
this as an in-kind contribution than Branco or Maher had to report the calls and mailers paid for by local Democrats.
What's wrong with the Democratic report, quite simply, is that it is a sham. it fails to accout, properly, for the money that was actually spent.
You advise if political committee raises and spends money on behalf of a candidate is fine but must be reported only by committee and I agree. However, to clarify further, my understanding is that if other than political committee in-kind contributions...must be reported by candidate! That's true, isn't it? larry@kisslinger.com
Larry,
Not necessarily. Let's say some group or person decides to advocate for a cndidate and spends money encouraging people to vote for her. Even though the candidate benefits from this, she has no obligation to report it as an in-kind contribution. She may not even know about it. But it still must be reported. If it's done by a person, there must be an independent expenditure report. if done by a committee, then that group must file a report.
The important thing is that the contributions and expenditures must be disclosed. So long as that happens, it makes little difference who does the disclosing.
The Nirthampton Republicn COmmittee spent no where near that amount ($10,000) on any campaign this cycle. Look it up and notice that the candidates reports and the committee reports all match the expenditures.
A Virginia based group spent more than a million promoting Maureen Lally-Green for Supreme Court. You won't see that on her filing in Harrisburg.
Mr. Power,
He can think he belongs in government for the same reason as Mr. Stoffa, he won. I realize this is a holy site for Stoffaholic's but Mr. McClure and Mr. Stoffa both did what it took to win in their respective elections.
Good government had very little to do with campaign's dedicated to winning.
And in that instance, you won't see a report by that Virginia-based group, either. They claim they were not endorsing a specific candidate.
Good government had very little to do with campaign's dedicated to winning.
Thank you Mr. Severson. That winning strategy worked great for Branco and Maher, didn't it? And let's not forget that, sdespite all that money, Lamont won by a scant 91 votes.
You need to re-evaluate that thesis.
Thanks Bernie,
got it...so then full disclosure by somebody/someone/whoever, is the
legal key to most straight forward good government candidates?
On the other hand, cash from anyone, not reported, to candidates or their designees, is a secret hand shake of some sort for mostly bad government, I would think. Those who may think secret "cash" is not involved need some political advice. Just don't ask sleaze consultants for that advice. Larry@kisslinger.com
Michael Correire won by 84 votes for District 3 in his initial run for County Council. I guess that makes him worse than McClure who won by a "scant" 91 votes. How many "secret handsahkes" as Larry K puts it, did Schwartz receive?
Anon 9:39,
When Corriere first ran in Distict 3, there were only 100 people in the district.
As far as "secret handshakes" are concerned, I'm very concerned about that. The figures appearing on Dem reports do not correspond with the number of mailers and robo calls sent.
I live in District 3. I got one mailer concerning Schwartz and Peg, paid for by the R committee. It appears to correspond with what is reported.
bernie, u do know that making false reports to the authorities is a crime? how are u going to deal with that dilemna? they will go back to ur file when you were practicing and i'm concerned for ur welfare.
Free Speech,
Mo worries. I have been able to back up every claim made.
Post a Comment