In 2008 a candidate for City Council informed me that a political operative from the San Fernando Valley told this non-incumbent hopeful that if they did not have between $80 and $90K raised by the the time of the first campaign report (12-31), they might as well wrap up their campaign because they would NEVER attract the kind of large independent expenditure money from interested PAC’s and largish commercial and development interests.
By the 12-31 filing date this candidate had reported about $44,000 in funds raised, including a $20,000 personal loan. Subsequent reports indicate they spent about $44K, so they raised additional funds to repay the loan. This candidate came last in the election.
Let us examine the fundraising pattern of the last successful nonincumbent to attain office. Laurie Ender by the first filing date had raised $44K including $15K of personal loans to the campaign. (She spent 12 months raising that money.) Eventually, she would raise and spend $80K from her own campaign treasury, not counting independent expenditures that local legend state equaled that amount. She also obtained a valuable endorsement from Buck McKeon. Laurie would come first in the election.
So how are our candidates doing this time around? Each of the incumbents have raised about $12K each, but with the power of incumbency comes a treasure trove of independent money AND endorsements. Stay tuned on that.
Of the challengers TimBen Boydston raised around $12k and Dave Gauny raised a whopping $205 DOLLARS through 12-31. So to meet the spending of the last successful nonincumbent, they need to raise and spend between $22K and $26k PER MONTH between now and the election, or roughly $1,000 per work day. And the independent money and endorsements will flow to the incumbents.
How does this turn out? Not well for the nonincumbents.
TBB has honest individual donations. Can Frank Ferry say the new $15,000 PAC is not special interest…don’t think so!
Please voters do not let this be another bought and paid for special interest election like the last one.
Even Bob K. knew that G&L put Laurie on the council.
This analysis is so flawed it is not worthy of comment.
And yet you commented, Rocky. Go figure.
Ya got me there
So what is wrong with Meyers’ column?
Let me count the ways…
1. The economic climate is completely different. In 2008 some people were still hopeful that the go-go years would somehow continue. Here in the reality of 2010, all political campaigns and political parties, and non-profit enterprises of all kinds, have seen their contributions drop drastically. It’s a different time and using the old measuring stick doesn’t work.
2. A ‘political operative from the San Fernando Valley’ is the source for this column? Puhleeeze! Political operatives take a lion’s share of campaign funding, and are paid pretty big bucks for their advice. Some campaigns, such as TimBen Boydston’s grassroots campaign, is not paying any professional politicos but is getting plenty of free advice from people with solid political backgrounds from both major parties.
3. Incumbents do have an advantage when it comes to fundraising since the special interests with existing access to City Hall support incumbents. Is that an insurmountable advantage? Read on.
4. Meyers completely discounts TimBen Boydston’s prior service as a City Council member. While Boydston is not an incumbent running for re-election, neither is he a raw and untested challenger. In all of Meyer’s musings, he never mentions this as a factor.
5. If incumbents win all the time and challengers should just throw in the towel, how do you explain the Scott Brown effect? Brown, a Republican, runs for Teddy Kennedy’s Senate seat in overwhelmingly Democratic Massachusetts, and Wins! Any Democrat, indeed, a ham sandwich registered as Democrat, should have easily won this race. The reason? The political season is completely different. People across the country are in the mood to turn out incumbents, and this is resonating in our local area with a ‘NO VOTES FOR INCUMBENTS’ movement.
Driving while looking in the rear view mirror can be dangerous, Mr. Meyers. We found that out in 2008/09 in the financial world, and we are finding that out in the political world now. As Mr. Meyers defends the old status quo, people are tired of the back room deals and the special interest money that have run this town for too long. The people have an opportunity to take their City Council back through the power of their vote.
I’m on board…
Clean Out City Hall.
NO VOTES FOR INCUMBENTS.
John Q:
I am not defending the status quo, but I do actually feel a sense of insult that the challengers have not raised much money. They are either deluded or not serious about this race.
Now I know part of the problem is that they are surrounded by well meaning friends and family who create the bubble of love and support and feed shibboleths like past service on the City Council translates into a certain amount of votes, its an anti-incumbent tidal wave, real grass roots effort, blah, blah, blah…..
Last Friday TimBen attended a party at the Paseo Club as a guest of one of the members. Out of the 75 some odd folks of voting age their, exactly TWO, including me knew who TimBen was or that there was even a City Council election. Besides us two, 11 of those people will probably cast votes (scary) and who will they vote for?
Tim,
A new issue can redefine a campaign in a moment’s notice and as John Q stated perfectly, we are in a different economy this season and a different valley then your quoted sources. I imagine local campaigns in Washington D.C. were even more expensive in 2005 – but both facts are totally irrelevant.
In 2006, remember that a single PAC contribution radically changed Ender’s campaign. Wasn’t it about 50% of her financing – and reported after the election? (This of course came in addition to Ferry’s illegal $12,000 contribution from his funds). This was just 2 years ago, remember? Why is it that you aren’t as “insulted” by those issues as much as you are “insulted” by the fundraising of today’s challengers?
Every campaign (like every good idea) has potential to change the status quo. For someone who takes pride in his math acumen and scientific analysis, your writings conspicuously fail to consider a most basic aspect here: all things do NOT remain equal. Incumbents lose and they are doing so in increasing numbers.
Even to us unwashed masses, it is clear that you are disguising your opinions (agenda?) as facts. And given your repeated public statements that at least two of your votes will go to two candidates with no credibility whatsoever, why should your opinion have any credibility here?
Get back to facts and stop talking to Scott Wilk for messaging ideas. You’re losing credibility.
You have a sense of insult? You, who says he will be voting for Johnny Pride, have a sense of insult?? Cue NotaFerryFan’s theme music!
Brilliant!
I have to agree with David Gauny. You’re losing credibility.
Dave, since you left me hanging on the WRB, perhaps you can respond here:
” By letting illegal aliens gather and loiter in public each and every day, we are informally taking an approach that a recent article describes as follows:”
What in the world are you suggesting here? Wherever three or more Mexicans gather, we should break it up? Perhaps we can enlist the mainstream, sensible minutemen that you’re afraid to criticize. They would love to help, I’m sure.
I don’t know how I missed this on the first reading. How in the world can you determine someone’s immigration status just by seeing them in public?
Are you aware that the guy who introduced Bob has advocated violence against politicians? At that very event he called the president a communist that is trying to conceal his Kenyan birth. The pastor said that this immigration is straight from hell and “of the devil”. Any public servant with his/her marbles intact would have turned around an ran away.
Can we count on you to show up at the next minutemen gathering and lock arms with these people?
Dave:
You also didn’t answer my question put to you personally about how you felt about the John Birchers showing up in solidarity with Bob Kellar and whether you were familiar with their manifesto.
Rocky:
People misuse credibility to mean you don’t agree with the opinion of the person that finds you “not credible.” Fortunately, we have an actual test in the election. If I am wrong I will admit it and analyze the movement of the number that caused the upset. But if I am right, will you bow down and grovel in my shadow?
My apologies Mike, your response at WRB arrived a couple of days after my original response to you and I didn’t see it.
I support putting this issue on the agenda, plain and simple. Immigration has never been the campaign platform for my City Council campaign but our problem with process at City Hall is something I am absolutely calling out. There is case law that supports stronger enforcement locally and it should be discussed if our public wants to discuss it.
RE: the event. If I heard the remarks you quoted here and I was scheduled to speak at that event, I would distance myself from such a position or leave if that was the prevailing tone of the crowd. My concern with this issue goes only as far as the law allows and I would never support or endorse doing anything beyond that. I honestly don’t know when Kellar arrived at the event. Did he hear these comments? I honestly don’t know. Do you?
Reject the side arguments and stop implying that I’m so myopic. Neither of us know what’s possible so let’s get the conversation going and find out. Who knows?… we may land in exactly the same place. Until then, we have clear laws and our unity must begin there… everything else just clouds the issue.
P.S… I agree with remarks made from “the left” that there must be enforcement at the employer level too. As I said, this is not an issue of left or right. both parties are ducking real solutions.
Tim – see my response to mike. Your implication is extreme and insulting to anyone with a brain. Kellar spoke to a group that organized to protest illegal immigration. This in no way means that he endorses or stands in solidarity with every person there.
Obama’s preacher wants God to damn America. Should I not speak to churches of the same religion? Your logic implies that being there somehow endorses every person’s viewpoint and that’s completely unfair to anyone.
To be clear, if the entire crowd was making such demands or statements, I wouldn’t support or speak there. Such a circumstance would be dangerous for our community and as I mentioned previously, anything that clouds the issue is a waste of time. Extreme views do just that. We should attack policy not people.
But what about you? Care to respond about your ongoing passive aggressive behavior?
Dave:
Cards on the table. I don’t think you and TimBen are putting in the work to really win this race, and your fundraising totals show that. And don’t start this shibboleth about Scott Brown signifying some messianic anti-incumbency shift that rolls all the way down to our burg. The fact is he raised over $15 million in an extremely short period of time (ie, he did the hard work).
Why does this insult me? For your supporters they will be discouraged when you lose and whine about how “money” turned the election. $205! Really!
Dave,
What’s missing is a response to your crack about illegals “gathering”. How do you determine someone’s immigration status just by looking at them?
The comments mentioned occurred within minutes of Bob speaking. Unless he was dropped in by helicopter, he was there.
According to a very good source, Roger Gitlin acted as your spokesman/advocate before the 38th GOP club. Is that true?
Dave:
So Roger Gitlin is mobilizing the zoo to bring them back to give you the big “huzzah” at the CCAC forum on February 17. Maybe the Birchers can pass out their “Jewish bankers run the world economy” tracts.
Roger Gitlin did speak at the 38th but I had no idea he would be there. He apparentyly just joined the CRA because he said they had disappointed their newest member.
For he record, I don’t think he spoke on my behalf, he spoke more to the broken process of the GOBN vote called for by Wilk… whose wife also serves on the 9-member panel. He was upset that they took the vote without hearing from the members.
Pigeon-hole me however you want but I have no interest in explaining thing to people who have no interest in hearing.
Dave, fair enough. It wouldn’t be the first time an endorsement was rigged with that group.
But I’d still like an answer.
In speaking with LASD, there are ways they can pick up and even verify status, although they are technically not supposed to do this.
I never suggested in my WRB piece that this was the way to handle the problem, only that allowing it to take place establishes a policy according to the article I cited.
If these were obvious gang members, the Sherrif absolutely could and would annoy their daily routine until they went elsewhere. Do you agree?
Instead, I have a friend whose wife was ticketed for a seatbelt right in front of where they were standing. Somehow these priorities seem skewed to me.
I agree wtih the position that employers must be targeted as part of the process but you can’t deport until the border is secured. I don’t have the answers to all of this and never suggested that I did. But if you put it on the agenda I bet you’d hear at least 10 new, good, workable ideas for local enforcement.
Such an issue should go beyond the opinion of Carl Newton, though I’m sure he researched the issue with deep commitment.
Allowing what to take place? People to gather? On what basis do have to assert that these gatherers are not in the country legally?
Tim Meyers, I see that you are unwilling to respond to any of my points. That is why you are losing credibility.
We have all seen “Jose” and his friends walking around Newhall or Canyon Country. Is this the kind of community we want? There’s a reason we moved NORTH to the Santa Clarita Valley. Let’s send Jose back SOUTH.
My new video is online.
Bob Kellar: Still Protecting America
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hlGIvUafcVQ
John Q:
I compiled and compared the fundraising numbers of candidates in the last election against current candidates at the same time. Those are facts. There is a large disparity between the two. That is also a fact.
Then I drew inferences the large disparity meant that the challengers were either lazy or their support was not as wide as thought. That was an opinion. You disagree with that opinion which is fine which you then support with a bunch of “it’s different this time” stuff which may or may not pan out.
If I end up being right will you bow down and worship me?
NotaFerryFan: Extreme views on both sides are why we never seem to get anywhere.
Not everyone named José is here illegally. I think if you would keep it to the issue without making the insulting comments your arguments would have more credibility.
You do sound like a true racist but since I do not know who you are, I cannot really say. You may be making these outrageous comments recently just to get a reaction. As an American of Hispanic ancestry, I would appreciate it if you left out the slurs and insults and stayed with the issue most people agree with. That illegal immigration is a problem that needs to be addressed.