The 2005 City Council campaigns were the most expensive on record, with 7 candidates spending well over $180,000 vying for 3 open four-year seats on the council. Every election season the question comes up Can money “buy” City Hall? The short answer appears to be no, but lots of money doesn’t hurt either! Here’s a list of the overall money spent in 2005 and the amount per vote. The three winners are highlighted
| Candidate | Campaign Expenses | Votes | $ per Vote |
| Condon, Gene | $48,713 | 2492 | $19.53 |
| Keighran, Anne | $40,779 | 4415 | $ 9.24 |
| O’Mahoney, Rosalie | $31,422 | 4073 | $ 7.71 |
| Root, John | $30,083 | 3640 | $ 8.26 |
| Baylock, Cathy | $17,669 | 3667 | $ 4.82 |
| Andersen, Dan | $11,953 | 2024 | $ 5.91 |
| Prendiville, Paul | Did not spend enough to file a report | ||
Every candidate seeks to spend a “Goldlilocks” amount – not too much, not too little, just enough to get elected. In this sense, Anne Keighran probably spent too much and Cathy Baylock probably spent too little (given that she only narrowly beat challenger Root who outspent her by 70%). Our most-seasoned politician, 5 term Rosalie O’Mahoney probably spent “just right” although one wonders whether O’Mahoney felt compelled to spend more this time given the large amount of dollars being spent by others. O’Mahoney spent 50% more in this 2005 election than she did in 2001.
What does all this money buy? Well, if you felt your recyling bins were heavier during election season you were probably correct. Almost 50% (or $80,000+) of the total money spent was for campaign literature and postage. Keighran and John Root spent $50,000 between the two of them. Keighran spent over $30,000 on literature or almost ¾ of her budget and Root spent almost $20,000 or 2/3 of his budget on campaign literature. O’Mahoney spent over $10,000 and Baylock spent close to $9,000. Gene Condon reports spending only $4584 for literature and postage, but some of his literature spending is almost certainly included in the whopping $15,000 he spent on a San Francisco campaign consultant, which was 30% of his budget. Print ads in newspapers, education and soccer foundations and other civic organizations account for another 15% (or $28,000+) of the money spent – with Condon spending the most money in this category (almost $13,000), O’Mahoney a distant second at $7,300 and Keighran third at $4500). Include the ubiquitous yard signs and you have another 8% of the spending, with Keighran at $5,000 outspending the second biggest yard sign spender, O’Mahoney ($3500) by 50%. Web services and $12 the cost of campaign parties make up another 12% of the spending.
So, the question is Should campaign spending be capped in Burlingame before it spirals out-of-control and beyond the reach of most “ordinary” folks? I personally do not find slick, consultant-controlled campaign literature to be helpful in making my voting decisions – I thought the websites, the media opinion pages, the blogs, and the three civic debates were a much better way of learning what each candidate really stands for. Theoretically, we could limit the number of times that mailers can be sent (twice or 3x in one campaign) and prescribe the time that they are sent. That way they could all be sent at once and voters could easily compare them. Then candidates could be afforded one or two more opportunities to follow up. Since campaign literature and postage was such a huge expenditure a limit on the number of mailers would have the effect of limiting the expenditures and would also help save our trees. To limit the money spent on ads, perhaps the City could buy the ads in the print media and advertise the website addresses for each of the candidates, the time and place of the public debates and the time and channels when the TV will air them and re-air them.
And what about those yard signs? They do generate visibility for a candidate and often direct the public to websites, but gads, what a public eyesore for two months! I bet none of these limits on how money can be spent would pass muster with the election authorities so our best bet is probably to limit overall spending. All candidates will have to agree to the limits for them to work—and I doubt that will happen, so prepare yourself for November of 2007.
Recent Comments