| Joan Buchanan
Well, for starters, Buchanan raised the least among the top-tier candidates (and even considerably less than Anthony Woods), with just $63,865. The big news was that she lent her campaign $250,000, which is why her debt is so large. Once the debt other than her personal loan is deducted from her CoH, though, she falls about midway between DeSaulnier and Garamendi, with $121,630 leading into the home stretch. But it seems like a safe bet that she's willing to lend her campaign more money, if necessary.
The most interesting tidbit from the list of contributions was the fact that four of her five children (including two who are unemployed and one who's a student) contributed the maximum donation of $2,400. The fifth kid donated $250. Hmm... Thanksgiving dinner could be a little tricky this year, don't you think?
On the expenditure side, there were several things that were noteworthy. Buchanan spent $8,080 on campaign consultant, Mary Hughes, and another $19,000 on consultant Michelle Henry. And that poll she dropped early on cost her a princely $35,000. While she spent nothing on signs or tee-shirts, Buchanan spent a pretty substantial amount of money on rent for three campaign office locations. The bulk of her spending was on staff... lots and lots of staff... 30 of them, to be precise. Not just that, but Buchanan's campaign is also paying withholding and Worker's Comp on her employees.
I'm going to circle back and talk more about Buchanan's campaign tomorrow.
Mark DeSaulnier
DeSaulnier raised a respectable $209,779, but his campaign is hemorrhaging money, with $72,769 spent and $77,131 more in debt. Deducting his debt, he entered the last nine weeks of the race with a mere $59,379 available to him.
At this point DeSaulnier's campaign is bearing a striking resemblance to the 2006 campaign of Steve Filson in CA-11. That is to say, it's top-heavy with expensive consultants and many of them are coincidentally Friends of Ellen. $23,391 to general consultant John Shallman (which includes the infamous Ellen Tauscher brochure), $13,500 to fundraiser Lester Connect, $6,439 to fundraisers Fraioli & Associates, $6,000 to field consultant Stephanie Olson (of Burnside & Associates), and $6,467 to "Counterproductive" Katie Merrill (which although identified as being for fundraising, is surely for communications). You can add $2,000 to that for union-made tee-shirts and $11,546 for sign printing and placement (half paid and half as debt).
Finally, the DeSaulnier campaign reported paying just one employee, campaign manager Shara Perkins, who had pulled down nearly $18,000 by June 30. The campaign also paid withholding, Worker's Comp, and medical insurance for its sole employee.
John Garamendi
It doesn't come as a particular surprise that Garamendi outraised the other candidates handily, with most of his contributions coming from wealthy patrons who live outside the district. Deducting his debt from his CoH as of the end of the quarter, he had $205,382 available to him as of July 1 -- better than any of the other candidates, but still not a huge sum.
So what did he spend his money on? Well, all those signs decorating (or blighting, depending on your perspective) CA-10 haven't been cheap. Garamendi's spent $23,400 so far on printing and placement, which must be why he felt the need to scrimp and spend only $1,006 on scab tee-shirts. Garamendi also spent $1,098 on illegal robocalls. It's worth noting here that one of the defenses I heard floated for why it was okay for him to make those robocalls in defiance of the Public Utilities Commission Code was because the company placing the calls was located outside of California and therefore not bound by California law. Not true. Garamendi's robocall provider was Targetted Communications of Los Angeles.
On the staffing front, it looks like Garamendi had six paid employees up to June 30; yet he paid no withholding or Worker's Comp -- apparently his entire staff is made up of independent contractors.
Aside from the scab tee-shirts, there were two other notable takeaways from Garamendi's FEC report. The first is that the Garamendi campaign did not spend one thin dime in CA-10. Not a single campaign vendor hailed from CA-10, nor did any of the campaign's employees. He didn't even buy postage stamps in the district. Perhaps that shouldn't be too much of a surprise, though, since Garamendi doesn't live in CA-10. He lives in CA-03, and actually spread around quite a bit of money within his home district.
The other interesting side note is this. I have to admit that I lost quite a bit of respect for Garamendi when he came out in opposition to Proposition 2 last November. At the time I wondered just why any Democrat would be opposed to the belief that farm animals should be accorded the minimum humane treatment of being able to turn around, lie down, or spread their wings. Well, now I guess I have a better understanding of that, at least.
- $1,000 contribution from Poultry PAC Fed
- $1,000 contribution from FarmPac
- $1,000 contribution from Gallo Cattle Co.
|
