$44,592 too much?

The Daily Journal has a poll on their website:

Is $40,000 too much money to run a campaign for Burlingame City Council? Yes /No / Not Sure

The accompanying article states:

Burlingame election purses are overflowing with money as Planning Commissioner Ann Keighran boasts $40,545.02 of almost pure donations compared to Gene Condon's $44,592, most of which is loans.

The last round of campaign finance forms were turned in yesterday showing a wide range of monetary support for the nine candidates. Keighran, who raised all but $1,000 of her campaign funds, said she started fundraising in March probably a lot earlier than others. I have a lot of supporters that believe I'm going to do a good job. It's great that I have that support and I have a broad cross section of people,? she said. Less than a couple weeks away from the election, Keighran has $8,548.66 left to spend. She said there is still some printing to be done and vote cards to be sent out closer to the election.

Condon loaned $26,000 of his money and has $5,775.91 left.

Root, retired Expo Center manager, collected $21,676 with the majority, $19,676 from donations. O'Mahony has a similar pocket book with $20,420.52 collected, $18,007.99 came from donations. Baylock collected $16,367 with $5,000 coming from loans. Cohen and Andersen raised their entire budgets from donations. Cohen collected $11,859, while Andersen took in $8,813. Lembi brought in $6,450, $2,000 came from loans. Prendiville did not file campaign financial papers because he did not raise and will not spend over $1,000

- Written by Fiona

Comments

How much is too much? Who is to say? Last time I checked, there was no set price on freedom of speech.

The accompanying article is interesting - check it out.

[Resident]

While the amount of money being spent may seem big without the context of what that money is being spent on, it seems as if the beneficiaries of this spending are the residents/voters of Burlingame, who, as a result of this spending have received material detailing the challenges facing the city, material detailing the candidates' positions, and probably have a better candidate pool from which to pick than ever.

[Jen]

Of course this is too much. It used to be a downpayment on a house. In the past, people have done well, who have had more worker bees willing to pound the pavement, than pocketbooks. I think that this community should look into campaign spending limits. Also, I have received numerous double mailings of campaign material. Can't these lists be merged? What a waste of trees, and too much landfill.

[Can Democracy Survive?]

Most of the big money is apparently being spent on glossy mailings....From the average citizen's point of view these are not very helpful in helping one cast an informed vote. They are full of generalized feel-good statements that the consultants have told people will win votes and sometimes they contain downright "inaccuracies". Kudos to those who have been sponsoring the "debates" around town -- candid responses from candidates are much more telling than canned speeches, rehearsed in front of a campaign consultant. Especially big kudos to taping these events and rebroadcasting them on TV. Kudos also to those who keep these blogs alive as the back-and-forth dialogue also helps the undecided learn more about each candidates. Maybe what we need to ban is mailers -- no chance for rebuttal and kills the trees!

I also really enjoyed the candidates that held the casual Coffee Talks and donut events.

[Resident]

The glossies are limited by their format in the amount of information they can provide. Some of the candidates who do indeed have specific plans for improving the city also have more detailed position papers on smartvoter.org

[fred]

Fiona, too tired to type out the Daily News Article about the Burlingame High debate? Or are the hairs on the back of your neck still too stiff from the Condon endorsement. Come on do Russ, Anne and Cathy a favor!

Well, a big thanks for sharing all the important information that relates favorably to your candidates! I'll just skim the papers for the rest of the story...

Fred, Fiona posted the article under A Good Experience, and KRN posted the voting results. What more do you want? If there is an article you would like posted here, go for it.

[Jen]

Stop nit picking, Fred! I also posted the following, also.You know, Fiona isn't responsible for doing everything herself. Where is your contribution?

(From A Good Experience, posted after KRN posted student poll.....)

"I think Condon did well last night, too; the best he has done so far, and am not surprised that he made top three pick of the students. He spoke to their issues, clearly he is interested in bettering their futures."
-Jen

[fred]

A good experience is the first article, that was yesterday, today's article is "High School students endorse four council members".

My point is they want me to graciously thank her for selectively posting articles that entirely benefit the CBB choices for council.

Fred you are like a pathetic child. Please please please include all the articles you desire. It is up to you - and me - to put whatever the hell articles we want. Start typing, Fred and stop whining.

What is more telling is the "facts" in the Daily News about some of the candidate donors:
Baylock - seven listed, six from Burlingame
Andersen - nine listed, only two from Burlingame and Peninsula Coalition in those seven NOT from Burlingame
Root - ten listed, all from Burlingame
Lembi - thirteen listed, two not from Burlingame

According to the San Mateo Times, Condon also has spent the most money. So far, he has spent $38,467 on campaign brochures, signs and postage

Condon, Mahony, Prendiville, Keighran, Cohen were unavailable by press time. Hope the Daily News will include their donors in the next edition.

[Jen]

I haven't seen the paper this morning, too much to do. Can't you post something for a change?

[fred]

Wahh, wahh, wahh. All I'm saying if Condon wasn't in that article if Root was the fourth choice by the high school students - your liitle fingers would be click-clacking away.

CONDON, CONDON, CONDON, CONDON, CONDON, CONDON, CONDON, CONDON, CONDON, CONDON, CONDON,CONDON, CONDON, CONDON, CONDON, CONDON, CONDON, CONDON, CONDON, CONDON, CONDON, CONDON,CONDON, CONDON, CONDON, CONDON, CONDON, CONDON, CONDON, CONDON, CONDON, CONDON, CONDON,CONDON, CONDON, CONDON, CONDON, CONDON, CONDON, CONDON, CONDON, CONDON, CONDON, CONDON,

Fred, for your consumption - and now lets get serious about the serious candidates!

[fred]

Who's the child?

[KRN]

A straight fact in politics is that the candidates who spends the most money wins. This leads to the second question funds raising v. loans. A candidate who raises funds in participating in democracy and is attempting to establish a base through financial contribution from those who would support the candidate. Why would a candidate loan themselves money except to buy the election? Most elected officials at the national level are already millionaires and use their own $$$ to run. Mike Huffington spend $26 million (much of his own $$) for a seat in the U.S. senate. Why? Power. Fundraising equals a political base. That base may be interest groups but it is still a base. A loan is an attempt to buy the voters because of a lack of a base. I suspect that election laws will allow a candidate to raise funds in future events in order to pay back loans.

KRN, you might want to check back to the article in Burlingame Voice print archives that compares the spending with votes in the 2003 election. It is clear from that, as it says in the article, that money can't buy you city hall.
At a Glance

CandidateSpentVotes$ / Vote
Nagel$19,4462,791$6.97
Coffey$35,1032,344$14.98
Cohen$11,5532,168$5.33
Janney$36,6672,096$17.49
Andersen$5,132772$6.65
Prendiville$942286$3.29

http://www.burlingamevoice.com/main.php?Id=10Article=75

[Jen]

Thanks Stephen, very interesting. Did anyone keep track of those stats for the '01 election? Just curious. .....

[abba dabba abba]

Fred my understanding of the CBB is that it truly has about 10-15 active members. They sound much larger than they really are as they are pretty darn vocal. My only issue is that they are not registered as a PAC (at least not to my understanding). The group was started over the Safeway project. Seems like the members of the group have gone the PAC route as they have run out of anything substantive to protest.

In regard to the money, Does using more money in a campaign insure election? Not sure, but it tells me the person really wants the job. Traditionally it is true that incumbents don't have to raise as much because they are better known. If they are really well known they raise next to nothing. Then what you have is a person essentially owning a seat. People who want to keep that from happening and really want to win have to spend the money. Gene and Ann are doing that. Spending what it takes, it's all legal.

One thing I really can't understand is all this stuff about high school kids. The majority can't or don't vote. Stay with me here........The majority of people that can vote, don't vote..........So, who does vote consistantly..........Ask your parents or grand parents. Yup it's the grey hairs running the show. God bless em. The old school. The new school could take a lesson. Vote! It's a right not an obligation. Vote! It's the key way of expressing your views to our community leaders. Vote! If this makes you upset, I still hope you vote.

Well Jen, thanks for asking. Indeed the Burlingame Voice did do an analysis of spending in the 2001 election and you can see the results at http://www.burlingamevoice.com/main.php?Page=11Id=8Article=2
In Summary:

CandidateSpentVotes$ / Vote
O'Mahony$20,9104,070$5.14
Baylock$16,8613,456$4.88
Galligan$18,5493,419$5.42
Osterling$18,1222,973$6.09
Jensen$1,1161,844$0.61

Go Patrick!

[Jen]

Wanting the job is one thing, but where it comes from matters, at least to me. I want candidates in place who are not beholden to certain special interests. On the student issues, it is important to involve them, because they are future decision makers. Maybe if more were approached before voting age, they would become active voters as adults, too!

As Russ said, they can't vote, but they can influence. What a great thought.

[Mary]

This site is so much better than any of the newspapers it's kind of scary. Why don't any of the papers have any of this kind of detail? I just got Dan Andersen's flyer and I see the apartment association that is really the apartment-owners association and the realtors endorsing him. I imagine they have also given him money. These aren't exactly the affordable housing lobby and yet I have heard Dan talk about that like he means it. What does he really stand for these days?

winning.