As a financial professional a big part of my job is analyzing trends and tracing monetary results, and the filing of David Gauny’s final financial report for the 2010 campaign was a big eye opener.
The handful of political junkies will recall that in his first campaign filing for the period ending December 31, 2009 David Gauny raised only $205 which brought mockery from many quarters. Magically, however, David Gauny raised nearly $32,000 for the period ending February 27, putting him far and away in the lead of any candidate.
However, nearly $16,000 of that amount was in the form of a “loan” to the campaign. This generally means personal money placed into the campaign, with the hope of winning the race and as an incumbent retiring the debt with a broader contribution base.
For the remainder of the campaign David Gauny raised an additional approximate $12,000 which would have given him about $44,000 to spend, easily matching the incumbents even with their shadowy PAC independent expenditures.
But lo and behold with the final report just filed we learn that Mr. Gauny spent only $27,500 on his campaign. The difference? On the final report the $16,000 amount is shown as a “negative loan,” leading one to believe it was never actually funded.
A local political operative once told me that he never paid much attention to personal money placed in campaigns because it never really got spent in real life: The spouses generally would not allow it, which brings up a few questions about Mr. Gauny’s campaign:
1. Was the “loan” a ruse never intended to be funded but used to generate excitement about the amount of money raised at the interim filing?
2. Alternatively, did a family member at some point veto the actual spending of the money?
3. Since anti-incumbents say money makes all the difference, would the actual spending of this illusory money have changed the outcome of the extremely close election?
Loading ...
Mr. Myers, personal loan money for the campaign, if not spent, can be returned to the candidate before the end of the filing period. This is what you may be seeing here. All candidates loan money to their campaigns — especially newcomers who may not have the fundraising connections. The reason it is a loan is because the candidate expects to get it back once enough contributions have been given to the candidate from other sources. This makes absolute economic sense. It is not a ruse as much as it is simply economic reality. You must have money to run a campaign. As a newcomer, raising money is much harder at first, so you contribute personal money to get your campaign running. As you get contributions, you use these contributions before you use your own money. There would be no reason to fake this since the laws are pretty clear that it must be actual money. You seem to spend a lot of time saying you analyze local political campaigns, but as a financial professional you may want to check up on state campaign financing laws. As someone who has run a local campaign in a different area of the state, my understanding is that this is perfectly legal. You may also want to check the other newcomer candidate filings. You would probably see that others are doing the exact same thing.
SA:
It is obviously not illegal, and everything was accounted for correctly, but the fact remains that this money was never “spent” in the course of the campaign (all expenditures were funded with third party money) and “returned” in full after the election. I stand by the questions above, and obviously if this money had been spent on the campaign it could have made all the difference.
Mr. Meyers:
The purpose of the loan to the campaign was to fund immediate expenditures while continuing to fundraise through election day. It’s a bit difficult to receive a donation in April and increase the campaign budget accordingly.
The loan was deposited into the campaign account and repaid in increments as fundraising continued. At the end of the campaign we “forgave” several thousand dollars of the loan so that the campaign would not have carryforward debt.
We did our best with limited funds but gained a wealth of knowledge.
Mrs. Gauny:
Thank you. So I can be sure about the numbers, was the total spend of the campaign organization about $27,500?
I have a .pdf version of the complete filing if you would like a copy. Is my email address available to you with your admin privileges?
Just sent you the email. Thank you very much.
Mr. Meyers you are absolutely correct! Mr. Gauny had no intention of ever spending his own money, he was only trying to create false momentum. The irony, of course, is if he had spent his money he would have won. Then local lobbyists Hunt Braly and Arthur Sohikian would have had to go raise him the money to pay off his debt! I wonder if Mr. Gauny would have had a problem with that?
Hey Tracy and Tim,
Can we all get a copy?
Tim’s point is correct. The loan was intended to influence more people to give and the seriousness of the candidate. In this case, David never spent most of the loan money and he got it back. Odds are, if he had spent event half of it he would have one. He will most likely not get the same chance again.
David and Tracy Gauny will be remembered for the class and dignity with which they conducted an effective campaign against stong incumbents. Time will tell whether David will run again, but he is not looking in the rear view mirror second guessing himself. Our community owes serious candidates who take the time, effort , and personal commitment to challenge the existing power structure a debt of gratitude.
Yeah, the way he stepped on Mexicans, playing up the fear of brown people standing on our streets. What a class act!
This is the guy who took the invitation of Frank “assassinate politicians” Jorge, the man who allied and locked arms with that filthy racist, Roger Gitlin. I’m never going to forget this.
When the next election rolls around, he’ll find another shape to shift into. Racial resentment might not be in his next act, but decent people in Santa Clarita will remember this.
@ mike, you make several inflammatory statements without basis. I am a “brown” person by your characterization and I can assure you David Gauny has never “stepped” on me or been disrespectful, more than I can say for some other “candidates”. He has said and done nothing to lead a rational unbiased person to believe he agrees with Mr. Jorge or any of the other more radical factions. Appearing in the same venue does not imply complicity. In fact, David made a point of saying he did not agree with some of the other participants. People say a ton of things I disagree with at almost every meeting I attend. Does my attendance or participation indicate I agree? How about Council or CCAC meetings? Please do not make me list all the reasons why that is simply not the case!
David, to my knowledge, has never made ANY derogatory remarks about “Mexicans”. He has stated he believes Immigration Laws should be upheld and enforced. I think that probably puts him in accord with the majority of Americans including me, and virtually all of my friends of Hispanic ancestry. He is against ILLEGAL IMMIGRATION not against Cubans, Mexicans, Hondurans, Salvadorans, Pakistanis, Iranians, Canadians, Koreans, etc.
The comments you made here are beneath your intellect Mike and completely visceral and without foundation.
I say this not because of his stance on illegal immigration, but in the manner that he characterized the issue as it affects Santa Clarita, which was ripe with undertones of racial resentment, as well has his close, and official partnership with Roger Gitlin, a clear racist to anyone who is on his mailing list (more on that later!).
I don’t know if DG is a racist, I only know that he used his campaign to exploit racist feelings. This hasn’t troubled you. That’s your choice to make.
@ mike, I disagree with you. I think both David Gauny and Bob Kellar brought this topic up as a direct result of the frustration expressed by many Santa Clarita residents regarding the Illegal Immigration issue. I do not think they are racists nor is the topic racist. I think people try to accuse “racism” to discredit and get people to shut up and back off. It is not working anymore mike! True racism is ugly and I am very familiar with it. There are true racists from all walks of life, political parties, racial and ethnic groups, religions, etc. Taking a position that something is wrong, like breaking the law, and specifically Immigration Law, is not inherently racist nor should reasonable people keep trying to make that claim. The word racism has lost its stigma precisely because of the misuse of the term. Just because you, I presume an Anglo, disagree with me does not make you a “racist” either. We are not going agree on this issue but I like “talking” to you anyway.
“that something is wrong, like breaking the law, and specifically Immigration Law, is not inherently racist”
I would say, that of the people I know, more agree with your stance on this issue than agree with mine. I’d consider very few of these people to be racists. I’m not using a broad brush, but rather a fine point. I think Gauny played to racist impulses in a way that Kellar and others did not. I cited the instances of this at the time.
@ mike, I disagree with you. “I think Gauny played to racist impulses in a way that Kellar and others did not. I cited the instances of this at the time.” I also argued the point with you at the time. I do not think David “played” to anything. He stated his views on the subject and had many including me who agreed with him. That you do not agree is evident and fine, but please do not try to make it something it is not. It is not about race, or racism.
“Appearing in the same venue does not imply complicity.”
HA! Sweet so teaching at the same school as Bill Ayers doesn’t either?
oh Berta, let Bill O, Glenn Beck and the rest of Neo-Con activists who keep trying to connect everything with Nazi Germany and Communism Russia.
@Nate, most normal people can distinguish between a person who attends the same venue but does not espouse the same rhetoric like Gauny vs. Jorge, and being FRIENDS with someone and having an ONGOING relationship with someone like President Obama with Ayers or Reverend Wright. Come on…
Berta,
Are you on Roger Gitlin’s email list?
@mike, I receive email from lots of people even liberals. You specifically ask about Roger Gitlin and have made disparaging remarks about him in the past. I will volunteer that I have received emails and had several in person conversations with Roger about myriad topics including illegal immigration. He never said anything “racist” in my presence. But I guess talking to him makes me a racist in your book. Does talking to Jeff make me a liberal too?
That’s not what I’m getting at. Do you get his regular emails that he sends out to his list?
@mike, I do not know if it is from his “list”, but I get emails from Roger every so often. Why?
Timothy J Myers SR-Next time, Petz suggests you pick up the phone and call David Gauny or take him to Chick Fil-A for lunch rather than attempting to snipe him on the front page with some gotcha style journalism.
Thank you Mr, Gauny for running and putting yoruself out there, he tried to unseat some long term incumbents and came within 32 votes, that is amazing, lets try to encourage others to do the same.
The one thing you always learn when running for elected office is who your friends really are.
Mike has all that bile built up in his head with no basis in fact for the scandalous accusations made against David Gauny. He should make a trip down to Henry Mayo – look out for the construction equipment, and visit Tim Myers daughter-in-law before his head explodes.
Daughter, Petz, Daughter. (No daugther in law yet, but junior has a prospect right now that the Nebraska Bride and I love a lot!)
Sorry…Petz head was about to burst.
Some people lend themselves money and spend it so it is real money. If you don’t make it back, you can carry the loan forward and hope to get repaid. ( I did that and Marsha McClean did that in past elections, to name a few.) Works better if you get elected, of course, or have lots of friends!
I think campaign loans are very problematic for that reason. It’s one thing to put an advance down of future donations. But I have a real issue with repaying a loan with donations solicited while in office, as they really are a gift to the politician – money in their pocket.
If you lose, sure that’s alright, best of luck with it. But a sitting office holder should not be able to receive donations that will be used to repay a loan to themselves.