Member of the reality-based community of progressive (not anonymous) Massachusetts blogs
Dick’s post last week on City Council campaign spending caught my attention.
He reviewed the reports that were filed with the state’s Office of Campaign and Political Finance (OCPF) and analyzed how much each candidate raised and spent.
The data not only showed how efficient City Councilor Patrick Murphy’s campaign was, spending $0.71/vote but the wide range in spending, from Murphy’s $3,627 to ex-City Councilor’s $28,330.
After reading the blog, I reviewed the reports filed with the OCPF focusing on expenditures that were directly associates with media.
SUN
WCAP
Print &
PostageSub-Total
Total
Spending%
The Sub-Total column represents the spending on media/outreach while the Total Spending is for all expenditures including fund raising costs.
Murphy’s campaign spending or lack of it is amazing. Does it reflect a new approach to spending for local elections or is it an anomaly? Patrick did not spend money and in turn did not have to raise any. I wonder if it will encourage others to run this kind of race in the future.
If you review where the funds were spent, there is a major difference between incumbents and challengers. The latter had to send all of their money doing direct outreach work, while a number of incumbents spent their campaign money on supporting charity, social, athletic, fraternal organizations’ fund raisers. I really wonder if this kind of spending turns into strong political support.
As I had commented on Dick’s blog, if CC R. Elliott had spent more money, would he have finished near CCs K. Broderick, J. Milinazzo and B. Martin? I think so.
Also, if ex-CC A. Mercier had spent more money on outreach/advertisement, would he have finished in the top 9? Maybe. But then if spending equated winning, A. Kazanjian would have finished in the top 9.
The money spent on paper advertisement is much larger than the radio because the print ads are much more expensive than radio ads.
As for new media, well most of it is free so there are no expenditures. Facebook, Youtube, twitter, web sites, blogs and e-mail blasts do not cost a campaign any money. All three winning challengers used some or of these new media quite successfully.
[powered by WordPress.]
42 queries. 0.387 seconds
February 2nd, 2010 at 8:50 am
You seem to equate money with popularity and Kazanjian’s totals blow that theory right out of the water. Success in fundraising only comes when you are able to tap into those willing to give. The usual cast of characters are tapped frequently in this town. So, to say that Rodney could’ve done better if he spent more money is saying that the Dogman could’ve finished in the top three if he spent 50 thousand.
February 2nd, 2010 at 12:30 pm
I would vote for Dogman.
February 2nd, 2010 at 3:40 pm
I’ve posted the current Campaign Warchest ending in 2009 for the Lowell Delegation Pangy-Golden-Murphy & Nangle on my Blog if anyone is interested.
Not Surprisingly Pangy has the most but Nangles balance is surprising and the person who took the most donations from PACS since Sept. 2009 is also interesting.