The campaign accounting statements for this year's City Council race have been filed for the period ending September 29th. That five-weeks-to-election day view is a good gauge of who has marshalled what resources, but by no means is it the final word. The best view of the situation comes by directly viewing the Form 460s on the city website. The tally thus far is:
Jerry Deal: raised $19,275 year to date and has a $10,000 loan and $500 in non-monetary contributions for a total of about $30K. Deal has spent about $17K which includes the major expense for flyers and probably postage ($10K).
Terry Nagel: raised $9,641 year to date and received $1,425 in non-monetary contributions. Expenditures of $6,645 so far went mostly for signs and other printing, but probably not postage yet which is often a major campaign expense.
Ricardo Ortiz: raised $3,115 year to day and has a $2,000 loan. The stated expenses of $2,350 include mostly signage which may not leave much for postage costs in the stretch run.
The cash on hand totals would seem to indicate we won't be inundated with mailers this time around.
Thought the candidates might be interested in Michael Lewis' latest piece in Vanity Fair:
http://www.vanityfair.com/business/features/2011/11/michael-lewis-201111
Posted by: Account Deleted | October 04, 2011 at 04:28 PM
"Stuff rolls downhill"
I'm surprised at how widely circulated Lewis' article is. Lorne's reference is the fourth one I have seen or been sent by friends and it is definitely worth reading.
I had a chance to meet Michael Lewis last year and he is quite an interesting and unassuming guy. You should also see Moneyball--the movie based on his excellent book about the Oakland A's.
Posted by: Joe | October 04, 2011 at 10:33 PM
I also recommend Lewis' other "financial disaster tourism" articles in Vanity Fair, on Greece, Iceland and Germany (available for free on VF's website).
Posted by: Account Deleted | October 05, 2011 at 07:10 AM
I see that Rosalie O'Mahoney is on the endorsement list for Terry Nagel. Guess they kissed and made up. Politics does make VERY strange bedfellows. People hold their nose and do strange things during political campaigns. YUK!
Hey, it's shoo-in for the incumbents but I thank Ortiz for stepping in to even have an election.
AS FOR NAGEL, SHE WANTS HIGH SPEED RAIL TO RIP THROUGH THIS TOWN & HAS NOT LISTENED TO THE RESIDENTS OF BURLINGAME. She talks and talks and talks and talks and talks (come up for air, Terry and listen to others) and in the end after talking, talking, talking, talking, she only listens to her opinion.
Posted by: Two Cents | October 07, 2011 at 07:09 AM
"shoo in"? Like when Russ Cohen was a shoo in over Jerry Deal? There's some famous last words.
Posted by: Politico | October 07, 2011 at 03:28 PM
Well Two Cents, you do have two votes. The race may not be over yet. There are a lot of people around town who have put up Ortiz signs in their yards. And, opponents of High Speed Rail have an ally in Ortiz.
Posted by: Emily | October 07, 2011 at 03:30 PM
The sign war continues in the tiny town of Burlingame. What a joke. Deal sign here and Nagel sign with better positioning or vice versa. Deal seems to be following Keighran's lead from long ago, placing signs in the dried grass in front of houses that are empty and up for sale. Maybe the same sign installer is at work. I know many a person with a sign for Deal or Nagel in front of their houses who have no intention of voting for either. Nagel used to describe the Galligan et al council as filled with "good ol' boys." What is so different about the present council with the exception of Brownrigg and Baylock. Politics in Burlingame are a joke and nobody ever sticks to the points outlined in his/her campaign, except Baylock, who has always been true to herself and the residents of Burlingame. The rest are only in it for themselves and the wonderful health benefits they will derive from being on the council. What about term limits???????
Posted by: alittlebird | October 07, 2011 at 07:04 PM