Although the mini-mystery of the content of the $173,000 ad buy by a new political non-profit will not last much longer, the larger mysteries may linger: who is funding this campaign and why they are targeting conservative Mesa Mayor Scott Smith for his presidency of the U.S. Conference of Mayors when he is involved in a tightly-contested GOP primary for Governor.
Arizona's Politics reported yesterday on the new ad buy by an Iowa-based group called Legacy Foundation Action Fund. At the time, the FCC filing showed a total market buy of just over $111,000. That filing (by KPNX) has now been revised - the LFAF has purchased $173,000 worth of airtime over the next couple of weeks.
One of LFAF's current projects is pressuring the leadership of the U.S. Conference of Mayors "to support policies that move this nation forward and reject wasteful spending, job-killing regulations, and Obamacare." They have posted 60-second radio ads targeting Smith and the two (Democratic) mayors who are Vice Presidents of the organization. (The LFAF's other projects include supporting a property tax reform measure in Iowa and supporting a conservative Senatorial candidate in Nebraska.)
The mystery ad began running on Friday but is not scheduled for any Saturday slots (on Channel 12, at least).
As LFAF has not yet posted the ad on the internet - a mystery for such a large campaign in the year 2014 - and has not responded to Arizona's Politics' inquiries, PLEASE let us know if you spot the ad and confirm the assumed content. If you could forward a copy of the ad - or, a link - that would be all the better.
(The earlier article on this subject is located here.)
We welcome your comments about this post. Or, if you have something unrelated on your mind, please e-mail to info-at-arizonaspolitics-dot-com or call 602-799-7025. Thanks.
Showing posts with label Following Money In Arizona's Politics. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Following Money In Arizona's Politics. Show all posts
Saturday, April 5, 2014
Friday, April 4, 2014
LISTEN, KNOWN UNKNOWN: New National Group Buys $100,000+ In Phoenix Ads APPARENTLY Targeting Mesa Mayor Scott Smith Because... (FOLLOWING MONEY IN ARIZONA'S POLITICS)
(UPDATE, 4/5/14, 9:00am: An updated version of this article is here. The FCC filing linked below was removed and a new, larger one was filed. And, more.)
This is an interesting one. A new $100,000+ political ad campaign begins running today in the Phoenix market, APPARENTLY targeting Mesa Mayor and GOP Gubernatorial candidate Scott Smith BECAUSE he is the current President of the U.S. Conference of Mayors.
The video is not yet available online, although the group does post a 60-second radio ad that targets Smith.
The radio spot (which Arizona's Politics has not confirmed as actually being on the air) focuses its fire on the U.S. Conference of Mayors as not being a non-partisan group, and that "a majority of their public positions only promote left-wing positions." (emphasis added)
The radio spots also appear to target the Mayors who are Vice Presidents of the Mayors' group - the Democratic Mayors of Sacramento and Baltimore. (And yes, that would be former Phoenix Suns' star Kevin Johnson.)
The television spot begins airing this afternoon, and an FCC filing showing a total market buy of $111,125.
The group has apparently not yet filed as a political committee with Arizona's Secretary of State, and there is little information about it available on the internet.
Arizona's Politics has left messages with the relevant parties seeking more information. We'll supplement as new information becomes available.
We welcome your comments about this post. Or, if you have something unrelated on your mind, please e-mail to info-at-arizonaspolitics-dot-com or call 602-799-7025. Thanks.
This is an interesting one. A new $100,000+ political ad campaign begins running today in the Phoenix market, APPARENTLY targeting Mesa Mayor and GOP Gubernatorial candidate Scott Smith BECAUSE he is the current President of the U.S. Conference of Mayors.
The video is not yet available online, although the group does post a 60-second radio ad that targets Smith.
The radio spot (which Arizona's Politics has not confirmed as actually being on the air) focuses its fire on the U.S. Conference of Mayors as not being a non-partisan group, and that "a majority of their public positions only promote left-wing positions." (emphasis added)
The radio spots also appear to target the Mayors who are Vice Presidents of the Mayors' group - the Democratic Mayors of Sacramento and Baltimore. (And yes, that would be former Phoenix Suns' star Kevin Johnson.)
The television spot begins airing this afternoon, and an FCC filing showing a total market buy of $111,125.
The group has apparently not yet filed as a political committee with Arizona's Secretary of State, and there is little information about it available on the internet.
Arizona's Politics has left messages with the relevant parties seeking more information. We'll supplement as new information becomes available.
We welcome your comments about this post. Or, if you have something unrelated on your mind, please e-mail to info-at-arizonaspolitics-dot-com or call 602-799-7025. Thanks.
Wednesday, January 22, 2014
Arpaio Raises $3.5 Million During/After Failed Recall Effort; Step Aside, Seagal! (FOLLOWING MONEY IN ARIZONA'S POLITICS)
Maricopa County Sheriff Joe Arpaio raised more than $3.5 Million during and after last year's failed recall effort, according to a press release from his 2016 re-election campaign manager. Arpaio sees it as an indication that he should give "serious consideration" to entering the already-crowded Republican race for Arizona Governor this year.
The campaign finance report for the 13-month period from November 27, 2012 through December 31, 2013 is not due until the end of this month, and has not yet been posted on the County's website. But, Arpaio campaign manager Chad Willems released the numbers today, saying that he "continue(s) to be blown away" by the support.
Arizona's Politics has asked Willems for a breakdown of how much of the support came in response to the failed recall effort last Spring. The recall effort was the subject of many fundraising e-mails from the Sheriff and his wife.
(UPDATE, 12:00pm: Willems tells Arizona's Politics that the report has been filed with the County Recorder's Office (this morning), and that about $2M of the contributions came during the period that the recall was at issue.)
The ongoing legal battles regarding the MCSO being found by a federal judge to have engaged in racially-biased policing has also been a fundraising "hook". Arpaio and the MCSO recently wrote a letter to U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder demanding that the federal government pay $38 Million for costs associated with the Melendres case and ensuring that the Sheriff's Office does not racially profile in the future.
For his part, Arpaio sees the fundraising numbers as a sign that he should consider jumping into the already-crowded GOP primary field to replace Jan Brewer as Governor: "“Every four years, my supporters encourage me to run for Governor. Based on these fundraising numbers and knowing I could be competitive, I will have to give it serious consideration.”
(Arpaio friend and actor Steven Seagal also publicly toyed with the idea of running for Governor, earlier this month.)
We welcome your comments about this post. Or, if you have something unrelated on your mind, please e-mail to info-at-arizonaspolitics-dot-com or call 602-799-7025. Thanks.
The campaign finance report for the 13-month period from November 27, 2012 through December 31, 2013 is not due until the end of this month, and has not yet been posted on the County's website. But, Arpaio campaign manager Chad Willems released the numbers today, saying that he "continue(s) to be blown away" by the support.
Arizona's Politics has asked Willems for a breakdown of how much of the support came in response to the failed recall effort last Spring. The recall effort was the subject of many fundraising e-mails from the Sheriff and his wife.
(UPDATE, 12:00pm: Willems tells Arizona's Politics that the report has been filed with the County Recorder's Office (this morning), and that about $2M of the contributions came during the period that the recall was at issue.)
The ongoing legal battles regarding the MCSO being found by a federal judge to have engaged in racially-biased policing has also been a fundraising "hook". Arpaio and the MCSO recently wrote a letter to U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder demanding that the federal government pay $38 Million for costs associated with the Melendres case and ensuring that the Sheriff's Office does not racially profile in the future.
For his part, Arpaio sees the fundraising numbers as a sign that he should consider jumping into the already-crowded GOP primary field to replace Jan Brewer as Governor: "“Every four years, my supporters encourage me to run for Governor. Based on these fundraising numbers and knowing I could be competitive, I will have to give it serious consideration.”
(Arpaio friend and actor Steven Seagal also publicly toyed with the idea of running for Governor, earlier this month.)
We welcome your comments about this post. Or, if you have something unrelated on your mind, please e-mail to info-at-arizonaspolitics-dot-com or call 602-799-7025. Thanks.
Saturday, January 18, 2014
FOLLOWING MONEY IN ARIZONA'S POLITICS: GOP Appetite To Remove Grijalva Is Gone; Saucedo Mercer Campaign Starving
As Republicans look to defeat three Arizona Democrats in swing Congressional districts, the appetite to defeat longtime progressive Rep. Raul Grijalva (D-CD3) has waned. As a result, the campaign of Gabriela Saucedo Mercer - who was the Republican nominee in 2012 - is starving.
Saucedo Mercer has filed her campaign finance report for the year ended December 31, 2013, and not only is it barely in the black, but it pales in comparison to where she was at this point two years ago (when she was a no-name new candidate).
Saucedo Mercer, a Tucson businesswoman, brought in $5,795 in contributions in the 4th quarter of 2013, with a total for the year of $22,351. As of December 31, the campaign's bank account had a balance of just $773.
In 2011, she had brought in more than $100,000 in contributions and started 2012 with $10,000 in the bank. She had benefited from contributions from several employees from Rosemont Copper and related companies, as well as reliable Republican donors. In 2013, only Jim Click and Gabriela Saucedo Mercer stand out among the major donors.
Of course, much of her 2011 fundraising success can be attributed to the fact that it was just after Grijalva had barely passed the 50% mark in the 2010 election against Ruth McClung. And, the lack of success in 2013 may be because Grijalva defeated Saucedo Mercer 58%-37% and the Republican money is being saved for the neighboring races against Reps. Ron Barber (CD2) and Ann Kirkpatrick (CD1).
Grijalva has not yet filed his year end report (due January 31), but he had $95,000 in the bank on September 30, 2013.
Arizona's Politics attempted to reach Saucedo Mercer for comment on her finance numbers.
We welcome your comments about this post. Or, if you have something unrelated on your mind, please e-mail to info-at-arizonaspolitics-dot-com or call 602-799-7025. Thanks.
Saucedo Mercer has filed her campaign finance report for the year ended December 31, 2013, and not only is it barely in the black, but it pales in comparison to where she was at this point two years ago (when she was a no-name new candidate).
Saucedo Mercer, a Tucson businesswoman, brought in $5,795 in contributions in the 4th quarter of 2013, with a total for the year of $22,351. As of December 31, the campaign's bank account had a balance of just $773.
In 2011, she had brought in more than $100,000 in contributions and started 2012 with $10,000 in the bank. She had benefited from contributions from several employees from Rosemont Copper and related companies, as well as reliable Republican donors. In 2013, only Jim Click and Gabriela Saucedo Mercer stand out among the major donors.
Of course, much of her 2011 fundraising success can be attributed to the fact that it was just after Grijalva had barely passed the 50% mark in the 2010 election against Ruth McClung. And, the lack of success in 2013 may be because Grijalva defeated Saucedo Mercer 58%-37% and the Republican money is being saved for the neighboring races against Reps. Ron Barber (CD2) and Ann Kirkpatrick (CD1).
Grijalva has not yet filed his year end report (due January 31), but he had $95,000 in the bank on September 30, 2013.
Arizona's Politics attempted to reach Saucedo Mercer for comment on her finance numbers.
We welcome your comments about this post. Or, if you have something unrelated on your mind, please e-mail to info-at-arizonaspolitics-dot-com or call 602-799-7025. Thanks.
Thursday, June 21, 2012
WATCH: Club For Growth Support For Jeff Flake Surpasses $1.25 Million, Doubles Down On "Imposter" Ads Targeting Wil Cardon (FOLLOWING MONEY IN ARIZONA'S POLITICS)
Clarification, 5:50p.m.: Edited to reflect that Proposition 400 was to provide funding for a transportation plan, part of which included light rail.)
As promised, the Club For Growth dropped a second quarter-million-dollar ad buy this week on an increasingly-vitriolic GOP primary battle for Arizona's U.S. Senate seat. That puts their support of Rep. Jeff Flake (R-CD6) - and/or opposition of opponent Wil Cardon - above the $1.25 Million mark.
The "Imposter" ads have been a fixture on Phoenix airwaves during the past couple of weeks, and will apparently continue for the next couple.
The pair of 15-second spots attack Cardon's conservative credentials, based upon his Executive Committee position with the group that campaigned for the transportation plan (which included funding for light rail) in 2004 and upon his participation in the Urban Land Institute.
The Club initially spent $290,258.62 on these ads (plus a 60-second radio spot). Today's filing extends that campaign by spending an additional $280,963.43. (By the way, the Club For Growth has a problem filling out the forms, not totaling "Total Expenditures This Period" and not indicating whether the expenditure is supporting or opposing the candidate; this makes it difficult for groups like the Center for Responsive Politics to properly monitor expenditures.)
Combined with the more than $22,000 which the Club For Growth spent on raising money for Flake after he announced his candidacy to replace the retiring Jon Kyl, and the $673,229.93 which Club members have contributed to Flake's campaign through the Club For Growth "conduit", and CFG has now provided at least $1,266,492.76 to the Flake effort.
As noted last year in Arizona's Politics, the ties between the Club For Growth and Rep. Flake have long been close, and that there is nothing nefarious in the relationship. "There is nothing nefarious either implicit or explicit in the Flake/CFG relationship - Rep. Flake has consistently been a fiscal conservative, even before he was in Congress. However, it is of interest when one ideological organization provides such a large portion of a candidate's campaign fund."
We welcome your comments about this post. Or, if you have something unrelated on your mind, please e-mail to info-at-arizonaspolitics-dot-com or call 602-799-7025. Thanks.
As promised, the Club For Growth dropped a second quarter-million-dollar ad buy this week on an increasingly-vitriolic GOP primary battle for Arizona's U.S. Senate seat. That puts their support of Rep. Jeff Flake (R-CD6) - and/or opposition of opponent Wil Cardon - above the $1.25 Million mark.
The "Imposter" ads have been a fixture on Phoenix airwaves during the past couple of weeks, and will apparently continue for the next couple.
The pair of 15-second spots attack Cardon's conservative credentials, based upon his Executive Committee position with the group that campaigned for the transportation plan (which included funding for light rail) in 2004 and upon his participation in the Urban Land Institute.
The Club initially spent $290,258.62 on these ads (plus a 60-second radio spot). Today's filing extends that campaign by spending an additional $280,963.43. (By the way, the Club For Growth has a problem filling out the forms, not totaling "Total Expenditures This Period" and not indicating whether the expenditure is supporting or opposing the candidate; this makes it difficult for groups like the Center for Responsive Politics to properly monitor expenditures.)
Combined with the more than $22,000 which the Club For Growth spent on raising money for Flake after he announced his candidacy to replace the retiring Jon Kyl, and the $673,229.93 which Club members have contributed to Flake's campaign through the Club For Growth "conduit", and CFG has now provided at least $1,266,492.76 to the Flake effort.
As noted last year in Arizona's Politics, the ties between the Club For Growth and Rep. Flake have long been close, and that there is nothing nefarious in the relationship. "There is nothing nefarious either implicit or explicit in the Flake/CFG relationship - Rep. Flake has consistently been a fiscal conservative, even before he was in Congress. However, it is of interest when one ideological organization provides such a large portion of a candidate's campaign fund."
We welcome your comments about this post. Or, if you have something unrelated on your mind, please e-mail to info-at-arizonaspolitics-dot-com or call 602-799-7025. Thanks.
Tuesday, April 3, 2012
JUSTICE & FAIRNESS & IRONY, Continued: AG Tom Horne Killed HIS Complaint Against Anti-Horne Independent Expenditure Campaign (FOLLOWING MONEY IN ARIZONA'S POLITICS)
The following post raises some questions based upon facts observed in reviewing this story. This blog is not intended to be opinion-driven, but will label posts as "commentary" when necessary.
(((UPDATED 1:12pm: It turns out that AG Horne's office did refer the CFJF/DAGA matter to an independent prosecutor - the Maricopa County Attorney's Office - shortly after taking office, and the MCAO took the CFJF before an Administrative Law Judge for violations of election laws. Details in post to follow.)))
One of the more intriguing aspects of the news about the FBI investigation into Arizona Attorney General Tom Horne has yet to be explored: He was not just on the receiving end of a complaint relating to the independent expenditure ad campaigns that dominated Arizona media in the fall of 2010; he was a complainant. He was not just being investigated; he was demanding an investigation. He was not the target of possible legal action; he was the initiator of legal action. And, the topper: a complaint he initiated against the Democratic Attorneys General Association apparently DIED ON HIS DESK!
Say WHAT?!?
Horne's Democratic opponent, Felecia Rotellini, was the beneficiary of a fierce independent expenditure campaign by a group calling itself the Committee for Justice and Fairness ("CFJF"). As reported by Arizona's Politics, that "group" was a front for the Democratic Attorneys General Association ("DAGA"). The ads were apparently in violation of a number of Arizona election laws, and Horne filed suit in Maricopa County Superior Court to stop them. He was unsuccessful, but he was able to get Arizona Secretary of State Ken Bennett (Repub.) to file a complaint against CFJF/DAGA with then-Attorney General (and candidate-for-Governor) Terry Goddard (Dem.).
For obvious reasons - both partisan, conflict of interest (Goddard was a member of DAGA), and proximity to the election - the complaint sat in the AG's office until after the election. It was noted that Goddard could have referred it to an independent prosecutor, even after the election. Horne inherited his own complaint when he assumed office in January 2011.
Obviously, he also had a conflict of interest and could have referred it out to an independent prosecutor; he chose not to. It could have been seen as vindictiveness, or as being unnecessary in light of the result. In light of the new developments, it could also be seen as not wanting to open oneself up to counterattacks.
The CFJF/DAGA incident deserved - and, deserves - investigation. When an organization made up of attorneys general of various states engages in political conduct that apparently violates the election laws of one of its member's states, and then denies and hides, it should be held to the strictest scrutiny and be held fully accountable for any violations (ethical and/or legal). That could - and should - still happen in this case. As the title of my post on October 22, 2010, put it: "If There's Justice & Fairness, There Will Also Be Irony; Democratic AGs' Group Could Be Hit Hard, Too"!
We welcome your comments about this post. Or, if you have something unrelated on your mind, please e-mail to info-at-arizonaspolitics-dot-com or call 602-799-7025. Thanks.
(((UPDATED 1:12pm: It turns out that AG Horne's office did refer the CFJF/DAGA matter to an independent prosecutor - the Maricopa County Attorney's Office - shortly after taking office, and the MCAO took the CFJF before an Administrative Law Judge for violations of election laws. Details in post to follow.)))
One of the more intriguing aspects of the news about the FBI investigation into Arizona Attorney General Tom Horne has yet to be explored: He was not just on the receiving end of a complaint relating to the independent expenditure ad campaigns that dominated Arizona media in the fall of 2010; he was a complainant. He was not just being investigated; he was demanding an investigation. He was not the target of possible legal action; he was the initiator of legal action. And, the topper: a complaint he initiated against the Democratic Attorneys General Association apparently DIED ON HIS DESK!
Say WHAT?!?
Horne's Democratic opponent, Felecia Rotellini, was the beneficiary of a fierce independent expenditure campaign by a group calling itself the Committee for Justice and Fairness ("CFJF"). As reported by Arizona's Politics, that "group" was a front for the Democratic Attorneys General Association ("DAGA"). The ads were apparently in violation of a number of Arizona election laws, and Horne filed suit in Maricopa County Superior Court to stop them. He was unsuccessful, but he was able to get Arizona Secretary of State Ken Bennett (Repub.) to file a complaint against CFJF/DAGA with then-Attorney General (and candidate-for-Governor) Terry Goddard (Dem.).
For obvious reasons - both partisan, conflict of interest (Goddard was a member of DAGA), and proximity to the election - the complaint sat in the AG's office until after the election. It was noted that Goddard could have referred it to an independent prosecutor, even after the election. Horne inherited his own complaint when he assumed office in January 2011.
Obviously, he also had a conflict of interest and could have referred it out to an independent prosecutor; he chose not to. It could have been seen as vindictiveness, or as being unnecessary in light of the result. In light of the new developments, it could also be seen as not wanting to open oneself up to counterattacks.
The CFJF/DAGA incident deserved - and, deserves - investigation. When an organization made up of attorneys general of various states engages in political conduct that apparently violates the election laws of one of its member's states, and then denies and hides, it should be held to the strictest scrutiny and be held fully accountable for any violations (ethical and/or legal). That could - and should - still happen in this case. As the title of my post on October 22, 2010, put it: "If There's Justice & Fairness, There Will Also Be Irony; Democratic AGs' Group Could Be Hit Hard, Too"!
We welcome your comments about this post. Or, if you have something unrelated on your mind, please e-mail to info-at-arizonaspolitics-dot-com or call 602-799-7025. Thanks.
WATCH: The Ad AG Tom Horne Facing Investigation For (FOLLOWING MONEY IN ARIZONA'S POLITICS)
When it was airing in heavy rotation in late October and early November 2010, Arizona's Politics posted the independent expenditure ad that is at the heart of the current investigation into Arizona Attorney General Tom Horne. We described it as "hammering back" at Democratic opponent Felecia Rotellini because it began airing well after an apparently-illegal (and pretty dirty) independent expenditure ad started tearing apart Horne. (A post detailing that side of the grimy coin will be up shortly.)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=siPmUBjS7cI
(Here is a link to the Capitol Times story by Jeremy Duda from yesterday, breaking the news of the FBI investigation into Horne in relation to the independent expenditure campaign and the actions taken afterward. In addition, this morning's front page Republic story - which somehow is already off of the front page of the website - very clearly setting forth the allegations and the semi-responsive responses from Horne and Sproul.)
We welcome your comments about this post. Or, if you have something unrelated on your mind, please e-mail to info-at-arizonaspolitics-dot-com or call 602-799-7025. Thanks.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=siPmUBjS7cI
(Here is a link to the Capitol Times story by Jeremy Duda from yesterday, breaking the news of the FBI investigation into Horne in relation to the independent expenditure campaign and the actions taken afterward. In addition, this morning's front page Republic story - which somehow is already off of the front page of the website - very clearly setting forth the allegations and the semi-responsive responses from Horne and Sproul.)
We welcome your comments about this post. Or, if you have something unrelated on your mind, please e-mail to info-at-arizonaspolitics-dot-com or call 602-799-7025. Thanks.
Wednesday, February 1, 2012
FOLLOWING MONEY IN ARIZONA'S POLITICS: Many Arizona Congressional Candidates Wait 'Til Deadline To File With FEC
Yesterday was the deadline for Congressional candidates to file their year-end (thru 12/31/11) financial reports. Many filed them early, some filed at the last minute and some of those may not yet be up on the FEC's website.
Here is a list of the candidates for the U.S. Senate seat being vacated by Jon Kyl (R-AZ) and whether or not their year-end finance report is posted yet:
Don Bivens - no
Wil Cardon - no
David Crowe - yes (switched races to run for House, CD3)
Jeff Flake - no
Ian Gilyeat - yes
Bryan Hackbarth - no
Jon Kyl - no (still has cash on hand, needs to file)
Douglas McKee - no (recently switched races to run for House, CD1)
We welcome your comments about this post. Or, if you have something unrelated on your mind, please e-mail to info-at-arizonaspolitics-dot-com. Thanks.
Friday, July 22, 2011
FOLLOWING MONEY IN ARIZONA'S POLITICS: Flake's 2nd Quarter Contributions Slow, But Now Has $2 Million In Bank
Rep. Jeff Flake (R-CD6) has practically cleared the field for the Republican nomination to replace Sen. Jon Kyl (R-AZ). His fundraising slowed a bit in the 2nd quarter (ended June 30), but he managed to increase his campaign's cash on hand figure to just more than $2 million dollars. ($2,002,620.56, to be exact.)
You will recall that he raised more than $1 million in the six weeks after he announced his candidacy. In the 13 subsequent weeks, he raised $830,226.10. A slower pace, but still not too shabby.
His expenses did skyrocket as his campaign matured. He again spent big (more than $80,000) on direct mail efforts in the 2nd quarter, and loaded up on consultants and fundraising expenses. His expenditures were approximately $88,000 in the 1st quarter; this period, they rose to $390,000. ($389,432.42, to be exact.)
A couple of Republicans have reported raising some money for the primary, Douglas McKee ($19,752 cash on hand) and Bryan Hackbarth (former mayor of Youngtown, $206 cash on hand with $1,000 debt). Many more high profile Republicans who were reportedly interested in the race have either taken a pass or remained on the sidelines. No Democrats have filed yet, although a couple have started "exploratory committees".
We welcome your comments about this post. Or, if you have something unrelated on your mind, please e-mail to info-at-arizonaspolitics-dot-com. Thanks.
You will recall that he raised more than $1 million in the six weeks after he announced his candidacy. In the 13 subsequent weeks, he raised $830,226.10. A slower pace, but still not too shabby.
His expenses did skyrocket as his campaign matured. He again spent big (more than $80,000) on direct mail efforts in the 2nd quarter, and loaded up on consultants and fundraising expenses. His expenditures were approximately $88,000 in the 1st quarter; this period, they rose to $390,000. ($389,432.42, to be exact.)
A couple of Republicans have reported raising some money for the primary, Douglas McKee ($19,752 cash on hand) and Bryan Hackbarth (former mayor of Youngtown, $206 cash on hand with $1,000 debt). Many more high profile Republicans who were reportedly interested in the race have either taken a pass or remained on the sidelines. No Democrats have filed yet, although a couple have started "exploratory committees".
We welcome your comments about this post. Or, if you have something unrelated on your mind, please e-mail to info-at-arizonaspolitics-dot-com. Thanks.
Wednesday, May 18, 2011
FOLLOWING MONEY UPDATE: Arpaio Campaign Confirms Over $3 Million In Campaign Account, More Than $5 Million Raised, and Still Flirting With Senate Run
It is confirmed. Maricopa County Sheriff Joe Arpaio has crossed $5 Million and $3 Million milestones even before he has committed to running for re-election as Sheriff.
Monday, Arizona's Politics reported that Arpaio was "formally kicking off" his campaign for a 6th term in office, via a fundraising e-mail. Tuesday, we reported on Arpaio's amazing fundraising machine that had collected nearly $4.7 Million in the two years immediately after his last election.
Since his last campaign finance report only covered the period through Nov. 22, 2010, and his next one will not be filed for many more months - due to a now-quaint quirk in the reporting system that did not anticipate permanent campaigns - our report could only speculate that Arpaio had now crossed the thresholds since late November, based upon his past performance and conservative guesstimates.
Re-Elect Arpaio Campaign Manager Chad Willems confirmed to Arizona's Politics yesterday (via e-mail) that the campaign has indeed raised more than $5 Million in small (less than $430) individual contributions, and that the campaign coffers contain more than $3 Million. (See, Tuesday's post for overview of what the $2 Million was spent on.)
By comparison, Rep. Jeff Flake (R-CD6) had about $630,000 in the bank after his (easy) House race last November, and raised slightly more than $1 Million ($1,031,172.37) in the six weeks after he announced that he would try to replace Jon Kyl in the U.S. Senate. His cash on hand is (as of March 31, 2011) a comparatively paltry $1.5 Million ($1,570,977.90).
The comparison is somewhat relevant because Willems stated yesterday that Arpaio has not yet made a final decision on whether or not to run for the opening Senate seat. Conceivably, he could switch gears from his just announced formal re-election kick-off. (Not sure whether state and/or federal campaign finance laws would permit the re-purposing.)
We welcome your comments about this post. Or, if you have something unrelated on your mind, please e-mail to info-at-arizonaspolitics-dot-com. Thanks.
Monday, Arizona's Politics reported that Arpaio was "formally kicking off" his campaign for a 6th term in office, via a fundraising e-mail. Tuesday, we reported on Arpaio's amazing fundraising machine that had collected nearly $4.7 Million in the two years immediately after his last election.
Since his last campaign finance report only covered the period through Nov. 22, 2010, and his next one will not be filed for many more months - due to a now-quaint quirk in the reporting system that did not anticipate permanent campaigns - our report could only speculate that Arpaio had now crossed the thresholds since late November, based upon his past performance and conservative guesstimates.
Re-Elect Arpaio Campaign Manager Chad Willems confirmed to Arizona's Politics yesterday (via e-mail) that the campaign has indeed raised more than $5 Million in small (less than $430) individual contributions, and that the campaign coffers contain more than $3 Million. (See, Tuesday's post for overview of what the $2 Million was spent on.)
By comparison, Rep. Jeff Flake (R-CD6) had about $630,000 in the bank after his (easy) House race last November, and raised slightly more than $1 Million ($1,031,172.37) in the six weeks after he announced that he would try to replace Jon Kyl in the U.S. Senate. His cash on hand is (as of March 31, 2011) a comparatively paltry $1.5 Million ($1,570,977.90).
The comparison is somewhat relevant because Willems stated yesterday that Arpaio has not yet made a final decision on whether or not to run for the opening Senate seat. Conceivably, he could switch gears from his just announced formal re-election kick-off. (Not sure whether state and/or federal campaign finance laws would permit the re-purposing.)
We welcome your comments about this post. Or, if you have something unrelated on your mind, please e-mail to info-at-arizonaspolitics-dot-com. Thanks.
UPDATE: Arpaio Campaign Confirms Over $3 Million In Campaign Account, More Than $5 Million Raised, and Still Flirting With Senate Run
It is confirmed. Maricopa County Sheriff Joe Arpaio has crossed $5 Million and $3 Million milestones even before he has committed to running for re-election as Sheriff.
Monday, Arizona's Politics reported that Arpaio was "formally kicking off" his campaign for a 6th term in office, via a fundraising e-mail. Tuesday, we reported on Arpaio's amazing fundraising machine that had collected nearly $4.7 Million in the two years immediately after his last election.
Since his last campaign finance report only covered the period through Nov. 22, 2010, and his next one will not be filed for many more months - due to a now-quaint quirk in the reporting system that did not anticipate permanent campaigns - our report could only speculate that Arpaio had now crossed the thresholds since late November, based upon his past performance and conservative guesstimates.
Re-Elect Arpaio Campaign Manager Chad Willems confirmed to Arizona's Politics yesterday (via e-mail) that the campaign has indeed raised more than $5 Million in small (less than $430) individual contributions, and that the campaign coffers contain more than $3 Million. (See, Tuesday's post for overview of what the $2 Million was spent on.)
By comparison, Rep. Jeff Flake (R-CD6) had about $630,000 in the bank after his (easy) House race last November, and raised slightly more than $1 Million ($1,031,172.37) in the six weeks after he announced that he would try to replace Jon Kyl in the U.S. Senate. His cash on hand is (as of March 31, 2011) a comparatively paltry $1.5 Million ($1,570,977.90).
The comparison is somewhat relevant because Willems stated yesterday that Arpaio has not yet made a final decision on whether or not to run for the opening Senate seat. Conceivably, he could switch gears from his just announced formal re-election kick-off. (Not sure whether state and/or federal campaign finance laws would permit the re-purposing.)
We welcome your comments about this post. Or, if you have something unrelated on your mind, please e-mail to info-at-arizonaspolitics-dot-com. Thanks.
Monday, Arizona's Politics reported that Arpaio was "formally kicking off" his campaign for a 6th term in office, via a fundraising e-mail. Tuesday, we reported on Arpaio's amazing fundraising machine that had collected nearly $4.7 Million in the two years immediately after his last election.
Since his last campaign finance report only covered the period through Nov. 22, 2010, and his next one will not be filed for many more months - due to a now-quaint quirk in the reporting system that did not anticipate permanent campaigns - our report could only speculate that Arpaio had now crossed the thresholds since late November, based upon his past performance and conservative guesstimates.
Re-Elect Arpaio Campaign Manager Chad Willems confirmed to Arizona's Politics yesterday (via e-mail) that the campaign has indeed raised more than $5 Million in small (less than $430) individual contributions, and that the campaign coffers contain more than $3 Million. (See, Tuesday's post for overview of what the $2 Million was spent on.)
By comparison, Rep. Jeff Flake (R-CD6) had about $630,000 in the bank after his (easy) House race last November, and raised slightly more than $1 Million ($1,031,172.37) in the six weeks after he announced that he would try to replace Jon Kyl in the U.S. Senate. His cash on hand is (as of March 31, 2011) a comparatively paltry $1.5 Million ($1,570,977.90).
The comparison is somewhat relevant because Willems stated yesterday that Arpaio has not yet made a final decision on whether or not to run for the opening Senate seat. Conceivably, he could switch gears from his just announced formal re-election kick-off. (Not sure whether state and/or federal campaign finance laws would permit the re-purposing.)
We welcome your comments about this post. Or, if you have something unrelated on your mind, please e-mail to info-at-arizonaspolitics-dot-com. Thanks.
Tuesday, May 17, 2011
FOLLOWING MONEY IN ARIZONA'S POLITICS: More than $5 Million Raised; Does Joe Arpaio Have Largest Exploratory Campaign War Chest, EVER?
Yesterday, Arizona's Politics reported that Joe Arpaio was "formally kicking off" his 2012 campaign for a 6th four-year term as Sheriff of Maricopa County. Fittingly, such an announcement came in the body of a fundraising e-mail, and prompted the question of just how much money has Arpaio raised BEFORE announcing his re-election.
Given yesterday's news that Jerry Lewis will be retiring from hosting the annual Muscular Dystrophy Association telethon, it seems fitting that I should ask for a drumroll................ nearly $4.7 MILLION ($4,688,840.44)!!! That figure is for the periods of Nov. 25, 2008 - Nov. 22, 2010; it is likely that by now, he is well over $5 million.
The truth is that the Arpaio re-election committee never stops actively raising money. In the 13-month "dead period" after winning his fifth term (Nov. 25, 2008 - Dec. 31, 2009), his committee received more than $1.2 million dollars. Nearly $100,000 per month.. Last year, his monthly take was nearly $300,000 per month.
All of these contributions are from individuals (around the country), and there is a cap of $430.00 per individual.
As noted in yesterday's article, Arpaio did actually spend for his re-election campaign last year, and spent approximately $544,000 in advertising. Most of that advertising chiefly touted political friends running in the 2010 elections (and bad-mouthed opponents), and he was fined $77,000 for some that were determined to be illegal in-kind contributions.
Not all of those contributions are still in the war chest, however. It generally costs money to raise money, and Arpaio's committee is no exception. Pulling out the advertsing expenditures - and the less than $40,000 spent in subsequent legal costs - Arpaio paid out (he is the Treasurer) more than $1.3 million ($1,344,537.40) in expenses. The vast majority of those dollars were paid to Summit Consulting, which - during a campaign - provides much more than just fundraising services to Arpaio's committee. (If you assume that most of the expenses during this pre-campaign period were for the fundraising, that is a fundraising expense percentage of 28.7%.)
The cash on hand, as of November 22, 2010, was $2,828,160.00. Even subtracting the fine and conservatively guesstimating net receipts (which probably received a big boost when Arpaio flirted with running for Jon Kyl's Senate seat) and legal expenses, it is very possible that the war chest is over $3 million. And, no doubt, yesterday's e-mail will bring in a new flood of small contributions.
We welcome your comments about this post. Or, if you have something unrelated on your mind, please e-mail to info-at-arizonaspolitics-dot-com. Thanks.
Given yesterday's news that Jerry Lewis will be retiring from hosting the annual Muscular Dystrophy Association telethon, it seems fitting that I should ask for a drumroll................ nearly $4.7 MILLION ($4,688,840.44)!!! That figure is for the periods of Nov. 25, 2008 - Nov. 22, 2010; it is likely that by now, he is well over $5 million.
The truth is that the Arpaio re-election committee never stops actively raising money. In the 13-month "dead period" after winning his fifth term (Nov. 25, 2008 - Dec. 31, 2009), his committee received more than $1.2 million dollars. Nearly $100,000 per month.. Last year, his monthly take was nearly $300,000 per month.
All of these contributions are from individuals (around the country), and there is a cap of $430.00 per individual.
As noted in yesterday's article, Arpaio did actually spend for his re-election campaign last year, and spent approximately $544,000 in advertising. Most of that advertising chiefly touted political friends running in the 2010 elections (and bad-mouthed opponents), and he was fined $77,000 for some that were determined to be illegal in-kind contributions.
Not all of those contributions are still in the war chest, however. It generally costs money to raise money, and Arpaio's committee is no exception. Pulling out the advertsing expenditures - and the less than $40,000 spent in subsequent legal costs - Arpaio paid out (he is the Treasurer) more than $1.3 million ($1,344,537.40) in expenses. The vast majority of those dollars were paid to Summit Consulting, which - during a campaign - provides much more than just fundraising services to Arpaio's committee. (If you assume that most of the expenses during this pre-campaign period were for the fundraising, that is a fundraising expense percentage of 28.7%.)
The cash on hand, as of November 22, 2010, was $2,828,160.00. Even subtracting the fine and conservatively guesstimating net receipts (which probably received a big boost when Arpaio flirted with running for Jon Kyl's Senate seat) and legal expenses, it is very possible that the war chest is over $3 million. And, no doubt, yesterday's e-mail will bring in a new flood of small contributions.
We welcome your comments about this post. Or, if you have something unrelated on your mind, please e-mail to info-at-arizonaspolitics-dot-com. Thanks.
Wednesday, February 23, 2011
FOLLOWING THE MONEY IN ARIZONA'S POLITICS: No Rubber Chickens On This Circuit: Arizona Congressional Delegations Trips Since Election; Cuba, Reagan Library Highlights
(This will be the first in an ongoing series of reports publicizing trips and gifts given to Arizona's Representatives and Senators in Washington.)
After his easy re-election in November, Rep. Jeff Flake (R-CD6) took off for Cuba. Flake - now running for the U.S. Senate - spent five November days on the island nation on the tab of the Lexington Institute. While the food there was rather cheap, lodging for Flake and his wife ran to more than $300/day.
The next long trip taken by a member of the delegation was when Rep. Gabrielle Giffords (D-CD8) spent five days (with her husband and two daughters) in Charleston, SC over New Year's. The well-known Renaissance Weekend brings together political leaders and other movers and shakers for a series of panel discussions. The tab came to $2,740.00 and was picked up by the group.
Three Republican House members from Arizona attended a retreat in late January in Simi Valley, hosted (and paid for) by the conservative Heritage Foundation. Rep. David Schweikert's (R-CD5) tab was the largest, at $2,521.80, while Rep. Trent Franks (R-CD2) only spent $1,536.10. Flake was in the middle with $2,042.60. Schweikert and Flake brought their spouses.
That same weekend, Rep. Raul Grijalva (D-CD7) attended a similar ideological retreat, but it was apparently much more austere. Grijalva and two staffers spent two days in Chantilly, Virginia, paid for by the Progressive Ideas Network and Progressive Congress Action Fund. The tab for transportation, meals and lodging only came to $535.69/person.
We welcome your comments about this post. Or, if you have something unrelated on your mind, please e-mail to info-at-arizonaspolitics-dot-com. Thanks.
After his easy re-election in November, Rep. Jeff Flake (R-CD6) took off for Cuba. Flake - now running for the U.S. Senate - spent five November days on the island nation on the tab of the Lexington Institute. While the food there was rather cheap, lodging for Flake and his wife ran to more than $300/day.
The next long trip taken by a member of the delegation was when Rep. Gabrielle Giffords (D-CD8) spent five days (with her husband and two daughters) in Charleston, SC over New Year's. The well-known Renaissance Weekend brings together political leaders and other movers and shakers for a series of panel discussions. The tab came to $2,740.00 and was picked up by the group.
Three Republican House members from Arizona attended a retreat in late January in Simi Valley, hosted (and paid for) by the conservative Heritage Foundation. Rep. David Schweikert's (R-CD5) tab was the largest, at $2,521.80, while Rep. Trent Franks (R-CD2) only spent $1,536.10. Flake was in the middle with $2,042.60. Schweikert and Flake brought their spouses.
That same weekend, Rep. Raul Grijalva (D-CD7) attended a similar ideological retreat, but it was apparently much more austere. Grijalva and two staffers spent two days in Chantilly, Virginia, paid for by the Progressive Ideas Network and Progressive Congress Action Fund. The tab for transportation, meals and lodging only came to $535.69/person.
We welcome your comments about this post. Or, if you have something unrelated on your mind, please e-mail to info-at-arizonaspolitics-dot-com. Thanks.
Thursday, December 16, 2010
FOLLOWING MONEY IN ARIZONA'S POLITICS: AZ Senate Pres.-Elect Russell Pearce Seeking Donations Before Next Session; Not Pleading Poverty, But...
An interesting post by Stephen Lemons at the New Times' site about incoming Senate President Russell Pearce's pre-session fundraiser. Pearce is - as he is entitled to under Arizona law - collecting as many donations from lobbyists and other interested people just before the next legislative session begins.
But, just so the record is clear: this "fundraiser" with a host committee of approximately 75 is not designed to help some non-Clean Elections candidate retire a campaign debt from a vigorously-fought campaign. Instead, this is to stuff the future campaign warchest of Pearce and to give people and PACs a chance to express their appreciation to Pearce for the work he is about to do.
After all, as of three weeks ago (Nov. 22), Pearce had a cash balance of $66,632.64 in his bank account, with no outstanding debts.
A few other interesting notes:
(1) It apparently does not matter what day of the week it is - Pearce is going to hold his pre-session fundraiser on January 7; this is at least the second consecutive year in which he is gathering up the contributions;
(2) It is likely that not all of the contributors will be happy with the legislative results. For example, at last year's shindig, the AZ Hotel & Motel PAC (the Arizona Hotel and Lodging Association's official PAC) contributed $400; it sat out this year's campaigns and has not disbursed a penny since;
(3) I have sometimes wondered whether anyone but the host committee buys tickets for this type of fundraiser (and who, if anyone, attends); according to the campaign finance report for last year's, the answer is a resounding "no";
(4) Pearce used this campaign account to reimburse himself (on November 5) for airfare and lodging. I would guess that that was for his trip to San Francisco to watch the oral arguments before the 9th Circuit on the SB1070 cases. $551.17.
(5) See previous posts about Russell Pearce.
We welcome your comments about this post. Or, if you have something unrelated on your mind, please e-mail to info-at-arizonaspolitics-dot-com. Thanks.
But, just so the record is clear: this "fundraiser" with a host committee of approximately 75 is not designed to help some non-Clean Elections candidate retire a campaign debt from a vigorously-fought campaign. Instead, this is to stuff the future campaign warchest of Pearce and to give people and PACs a chance to express their appreciation to Pearce for the work he is about to do.
After all, as of three weeks ago (Nov. 22), Pearce had a cash balance of $66,632.64 in his bank account, with no outstanding debts.
A few other interesting notes:
(1) It apparently does not matter what day of the week it is - Pearce is going to hold his pre-session fundraiser on January 7; this is at least the second consecutive year in which he is gathering up the contributions;
(2) It is likely that not all of the contributors will be happy with the legislative results. For example, at last year's shindig, the AZ Hotel & Motel PAC (the Arizona Hotel and Lodging Association's official PAC) contributed $400; it sat out this year's campaigns and has not disbursed a penny since;
(3) I have sometimes wondered whether anyone but the host committee buys tickets for this type of fundraiser (and who, if anyone, attends); according to the campaign finance report for last year's, the answer is a resounding "no";
(4) Pearce used this campaign account to reimburse himself (on November 5) for airfare and lodging. I would guess that that was for his trip to San Francisco to watch the oral arguments before the 9th Circuit on the SB1070 cases. $551.17.
(5) See previous posts about Russell Pearce.
We welcome your comments about this post. Or, if you have something unrelated on your mind, please e-mail to info-at-arizonaspolitics-dot-com. Thanks.
Tuesday, December 14, 2010
FOLLOWING MONEY IN ARIZONA'S POLITICS, 2012: GOP-philic Group Runs New Ads Against Rep. Gabrielle Giffords
Enjoyed your six weeks with no political attack ads on the radio or TV? Hope so, because the break is over.
According to Politico, Karl Rove's Crossroads GPS group is starting to run radio ads in Tucson this week, attacking newly-reelected Gabrielle Giffords (D-Tucson). It is part of a $400,000 campaign targeting 12 congressional districts around the country, in which last month's elections were very close.
While Crossroads GPS did not spend any money in CD8, it did help coordinate much of the GOP-philic outside spending campaign in the Giffords-Kelly race (and others). Also of note: this is not a very big expenditure when put in context of the $1.1M of independent expenditure dollars poured into the Giffords-Kelly race alone; it is certainly more of a "send a message" campaign.
Please watch this space for audio of this new ad, as well as a Fact Check.
We welcome your comments about this post. Or, if you have something unrelated on your mind, please e-mail to info-at-arizonaspolitics-dot-com. Thanks.
According to Politico, Karl Rove's Crossroads GPS group is starting to run radio ads in Tucson this week, attacking newly-reelected Gabrielle Giffords (D-Tucson). It is part of a $400,000 campaign targeting 12 congressional districts around the country, in which last month's elections were very close.
While Crossroads GPS did not spend any money in CD8, it did help coordinate much of the GOP-philic outside spending campaign in the Giffords-Kelly race (and others). Also of note: this is not a very big expenditure when put in context of the $1.1M of independent expenditure dollars poured into the Giffords-Kelly race alone; it is certainly more of a "send a message" campaign.
Please watch this space for audio of this new ad, as well as a Fact Check.
We welcome your comments about this post. Or, if you have something unrelated on your mind, please e-mail to info-at-arizonaspolitics-dot-com. Thanks.
Friday, December 10, 2010
UPDATE: Comment On Clean Elections Proposed Rule Tweak On Asset Returns; Pushed Back To February Meeting
Last week, we followed up on Cronkite News Services' article about the Arizona Clean Elections Commission meeting, and tried to move it forward. Both articles focused on the proposed rule change on assets purchased by candidates worth more than $200.
It was reported that the proposed tweak would be reconsidered at the January 27 meeting; we noted that the 60-day public comment period would end slightly past the meeting. The newly-revised proposed rule IS now up on the Clean Elections website and is open for comment until February 7. The Commission confirmed to Arizona's Politics Thursday afternoon that it has been pushed back to the February 17 meeting.
The new proposed rule is now available for review on the website (also below), and the link to comment is up, too.
In the previous post, I offered some possible options, and urged everyone to offer their comments. Those comments (obviously) still hold. The only additional ones I came up with today are only to clarify a couple of the clauses.
Again, I encourage you to submit comments to the Commission, as well.
It was reported that the proposed tweak would be reconsidered at the January 27 meeting; we noted that the 60-day public comment period would end slightly past the meeting. The newly-revised proposed rule IS now up on the Clean Elections website and is open for comment until February 7. The Commission confirmed to Arizona's Politics Thursday afternoon that it has been pushed back to the February 17 meeting.
The new proposed rule is now available for review on the website (also below), and the link to comment is up, too.
In the previous post, I offered some possible options, and urged everyone to offer their comments. Those comments (obviously) still hold. The only additional ones I came up with today are only to clarify a couple of the clauses.
Again, I encourage you to submit comments to the Commission, as well.
Thursday, December 9, 2010
WRAP-UP CD5 - FOLLOWING MONEY IN ARIZONA'S POLITICS: Arizona's $7 Million House Race
(Arizona's Politics tried to pay close attention to the flow of national spending in Arizona's competitive congressional races during the campaign, through our "Following Money In Arizona's Politics" series.
Congressional District 5, encompassing much of eastern Maricopa County, received quite a bit of that attention throughout the general election campaign. In fact, the negative ads and outside spending started before the ink on the primary election results was dry. Everyone expected a tough rematch battle between Democratic incumbent Harry Mitchell and Republican David Schweikert.
And, it was. Most visibly, on the air, where ads attacking each other were often run back-to-back during commercial breaks on the local news. In the end, however, the Republican wave was more than enough to send Schweikert to Congress on his third try for the office.* Schweikert received 110,374 votes (52.0%) to Mitchell's 91,749 (43.2%), while Libertarian Nick Coons collected 10,127 votes (4.8%). (per official state canvass)
CD5 is the third in our series of post-election reviews of where the money came from. (CD1, CD7) Most of the information is collected from the Center for Responsive Politics - which compiles the required FEC filings. However, totals here may differ from CRP's due to occasionally-confusing coding by the outside group's filings; Arizona's Politics has attempted to catch those (in?)advertent errors.)
The outside spending on the Schweikert/Mitchell race began quickly with the 60-Plus Association's ad attacking the Democratic incumbent on healthcare reform ruling the airwaves at first. The Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee ("DCCC") responded, the National Republican Congressional Committee ("NRCC") entered the ring a few days later, and the air war accelerated right up 'til the last vote dropped.
The final total for outside groups ended up in Schweikert's favor, $1.7Million to $1.5Million. However, if you remove homegrown outside money - the Arizona Republican Party ($84,998) and John McCain's committee ($80,472) - the national independent expenditure money was virtually even. This is also reflected in the DCCC vs. NRCC numbers - $1,179,157 vs. $1,145,283!
Here are the other IE's on behalf of Mitchell: $267,316 by America's Families First Action Fund, $29,266 by America Votes, and $4,600 from NARAL Pro-Choice America. (The UFCW and Sierra Club spent $436 and $10, respectively.)
Going to bat for Schweikert were: the Club For Growth ($153,284), the SuperPAC for America ($89,794), $52,224 from the NRA, and $35,292 from the American Academy of Ophthalmologists. (Didn't see that one coming, didja?) The 60-Plus Association spent $19,251, National Right to Life dropped $13,039, and Revere America kicked in $1,302.
The close contest in outside money spent was also reflected in the spending by the candidates' committees themselves. Adding in their disbursements, nearly $3.8M was spent by Mitchell or on his behalf, compared to $3.3M by Schweikert or on his behalf.
BOTTOM LINE: It was a great win for Schweikert and the Republicans. Like Gosar in CD1, Schweikert enjoyed an advantage in outside money spent on his behalf; however, unlike his new colleague, Schweikert was outspent by the incumbent/on his behalf. Nevertheless, his victory margin exceeded Gosar's.
This was the most expensive congressional campaign in Arizona (maybe even including the Senate race, after all is picked through), clocking in at slightly over $7.1 Million. Still, Schweikert went into debt ($530,000, all but $30,000 to himself); more on that to come.
*The 8.8% spread in favor of Schweikert was less than the average margin of victory for the statewide GOP.
We welcome your comments about this post. Or, if you have something unrelated on your mind, please e-mail to info-at-arizonaspolitics-dot-com. Thanks.
Congressional District 5, encompassing much of eastern Maricopa County, received quite a bit of that attention throughout the general election campaign. In fact, the negative ads and outside spending started before the ink on the primary election results was dry. Everyone expected a tough rematch battle between Democratic incumbent Harry Mitchell and Republican David Schweikert.
And, it was. Most visibly, on the air, where ads attacking each other were often run back-to-back during commercial breaks on the local news. In the end, however, the Republican wave was more than enough to send Schweikert to Congress on his third try for the office.* Schweikert received 110,374 votes (52.0%) to Mitchell's 91,749 (43.2%), while Libertarian Nick Coons collected 10,127 votes (4.8%). (per official state canvass)
CD5 is the third in our series of post-election reviews of where the money came from. (CD1, CD7) Most of the information is collected from the Center for Responsive Politics - which compiles the required FEC filings. However, totals here may differ from CRP's due to occasionally-confusing coding by the outside group's filings; Arizona's Politics has attempted to catch those (in?)advertent errors.)
The outside spending on the Schweikert/Mitchell race began quickly with the 60-Plus Association's ad attacking the Democratic incumbent on healthcare reform ruling the airwaves at first. The Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee ("DCCC") responded, the National Republican Congressional Committee ("NRCC") entered the ring a few days later, and the air war accelerated right up 'til the last vote dropped.
The final total for outside groups ended up in Schweikert's favor, $1.7Million to $1.5Million. However, if you remove homegrown outside money - the Arizona Republican Party ($84,998) and John McCain's committee ($80,472) - the national independent expenditure money was virtually even. This is also reflected in the DCCC vs. NRCC numbers - $1,179,157 vs. $1,145,283!
Here are the other IE's on behalf of Mitchell: $267,316 by America's Families First Action Fund, $29,266 by America Votes, and $4,600 from NARAL Pro-Choice America. (The UFCW and Sierra Club spent $436 and $10, respectively.)
Going to bat for Schweikert were: the Club For Growth ($153,284), the SuperPAC for America ($89,794), $52,224 from the NRA, and $35,292 from the American Academy of Ophthalmologists. (Didn't see that one coming, didja?) The 60-Plus Association spent $19,251, National Right to Life dropped $13,039, and Revere America kicked in $1,302.
The close contest in outside money spent was also reflected in the spending by the candidates' committees themselves. Adding in their disbursements, nearly $3.8M was spent by Mitchell or on his behalf, compared to $3.3M by Schweikert or on his behalf.
BOTTOM LINE: It was a great win for Schweikert and the Republicans. Like Gosar in CD1, Schweikert enjoyed an advantage in outside money spent on his behalf; however, unlike his new colleague, Schweikert was outspent by the incumbent/on his behalf. Nevertheless, his victory margin exceeded Gosar's.
This was the most expensive congressional campaign in Arizona (maybe even including the Senate race, after all is picked through), clocking in at slightly over $7.1 Million. Still, Schweikert went into debt ($530,000, all but $30,000 to himself); more on that to come.
*The 8.8% spread in favor of Schweikert was less than the average margin of victory for the statewide GOP.
We welcome your comments about this post. Or, if you have something unrelated on your mind, please e-mail to info-at-arizonaspolitics-dot-com. Thanks.
Friday, December 3, 2010
WRAP-UP CD7 - FOLLOWING MONEY IN ARIZONA'S POLITICS: GOP Successfully Expanded Playing Field
Arizona's Politics tried to pay close attention to the flow of national spending in Arizona's competitive congressional races during the campaign, through our "Following Money In Arizona's Politics" series.
Congressional District 7, encompassing much of southern Arizona, received quite a bit of that attention in the last three weeks. It was supposed to be a walkover for Democratic incumbent Raul Grijalva as he defeated political newcomer Ruth McClung. After a couple of weeks of Republicans talking up the race as possible upset material, the GOP-philic groups started putting money into the race. On October 15, Arizona's Politics documented the first (and biggest) salvo, by "Americans for Tax Reform." That set the wheels in motion for more attacks and counter-attacks.
While the young McClung did not win, she - and the GOP-philic groups - certainly did get Grijalva's - and the Dems' - attention. The official canvass shows that the final tally was 79,935 (50.3%) to 70,385 (44.2%). (Independent Harley Meyer and Libertarian George Keane each pulled about 4,000 votes.)
CD7 is the second in our series of post-election reviews of where the money came from. (Most of the information is collected from the Center for Responsive Politics - which compiles the required FEC filings. However, totals here may differ from CRP's due to occasionally-confusing coding by the outside group's filings; Arizona's Politics has attempted to catch those (in?)advertent errors. One more note: outside spending reports should be FINAL, as Independent Expenditure groups were required by law to file with the FEC within a day or two of spending; however, post-election reports from the candidates are not yet due. We will produce a final report to include ALL spending on each campaign.
Independent expenditures supporting and opposing the candidates in CD7 only took off in the last 2 1/2 weeks of the campaign. When the dust settled (and the mud splatted), Democratic incumbent Grijalva was the beneficiary of $850,000 of outside spending, and Republican challenger McClung watched as $586,000 was spent on her behalf.
As noted above, Americans for Tax Reform threw the opening fistful (of dollars, of mud) when they spent $230,184 to run a TV ad in the Tucson market titled "Working" (watch). Arizona's Politics Fact Checked it out at a respectable "B+" (which earned some criticism). The much-discussed U.S. Chamber of Commerce added $161,215 opposing Grijalva, and Sen. John McCain jumped in late with $102,962 worth of advertising and robo-calls.
Other Republican-philic IE committees involved were: Americans for Limited Government ($22,499), FreedomWorks ($24,534), and Protecting America's Retirees ($29,560). Smaller actors were: 60-Plus Association ($6,606), Susan B. Anthony List ($2,933), Revere America ($2,901), the NRA ($1,482), Independent Women's Voice ($1,414) and the National Right to Life ($19).
The cavalry riding in for Grijalva was led by the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee ("DCCC") ($178,154), America's Families First ($302,592), and MoveOn.org (Spanish-language ad) ($145,605). Behind them were several groups that seemed to devote some of their resources to paying staffers working on Grijalva's behalf: Campaign for Community Change ($108,245), SEIU (union) ($65,000), League of Conservation Voters ($29,725) and Defenders of Wildlife ($18,136). Smaller actors were: Blue America PAC ($1,998), the Humane Society of the U.S. ($54) and the Sierra Club ($10).
One other interesting note: according to the Center for Responsive Politics, 72% of the GOP IE money in this race came from groups that do not disclose their donors. In light of the Supreme Court Citizens United decision, that money can come from corporations. Only 26% of the Democrat IE dollars came from such groups - and 1/3 of that was from undisclosed union members, not corporations.
BOTTOM LINE: This was a fascinating close-up look at a successful effort by one party to "expand the playing field" and forcing the other to spend money defending a previously-seemingly-safe seat. Yes, of course Grijalva opened the door with his support of an SB1070-related boycott, and the national climate made it an easy call for the GOP. But, the Republican-philic groups spent just over half-a-million dollars and prompted the Democrats (and Democrat-philics) to pour in $850,000 that they would have preferred to spend elsewhere.
And, although the final figures are not yet in for candidates' committees' spending, it is likely that Grijalva enjoyed nearly a 2-1 spending advantage over McClung. Yet, he barely collected a majority of the votes.
We welcome your comments about this post. Or,if you have something unrelated on your mind, please e-mail to info-at-arizonaspolitics-dot-com. Thanks.
Congressional District 7, encompassing much of southern Arizona, received quite a bit of that attention in the last three weeks. It was supposed to be a walkover for Democratic incumbent Raul Grijalva as he defeated political newcomer Ruth McClung. After a couple of weeks of Republicans talking up the race as possible upset material, the GOP-philic groups started putting money into the race. On October 15, Arizona's Politics documented the first (and biggest) salvo, by "Americans for Tax Reform." That set the wheels in motion for more attacks and counter-attacks.
While the young McClung did not win, she - and the GOP-philic groups - certainly did get Grijalva's - and the Dems' - attention. The official canvass shows that the final tally was 79,935 (50.3%) to 70,385 (44.2%). (Independent Harley Meyer and Libertarian George Keane each pulled about 4,000 votes.)
CD7 is the second in our series of post-election reviews of where the money came from. (Most of the information is collected from the Center for Responsive Politics - which compiles the required FEC filings. However, totals here may differ from CRP's due to occasionally-confusing coding by the outside group's filings; Arizona's Politics has attempted to catch those (in?)advertent errors. One more note: outside spending reports should be FINAL, as Independent Expenditure groups were required by law to file with the FEC within a day or two of spending; however, post-election reports from the candidates are not yet due. We will produce a final report to include ALL spending on each campaign.
Independent expenditures supporting and opposing the candidates in CD7 only took off in the last 2 1/2 weeks of the campaign. When the dust settled (and the mud splatted), Democratic incumbent Grijalva was the beneficiary of $850,000 of outside spending, and Republican challenger McClung watched as $586,000 was spent on her behalf.
As noted above, Americans for Tax Reform threw the opening fistful (of dollars, of mud) when they spent $230,184 to run a TV ad in the Tucson market titled "Working" (watch). Arizona's Politics Fact Checked it out at a respectable "B+" (which earned some criticism). The much-discussed U.S. Chamber of Commerce added $161,215 opposing Grijalva, and Sen. John McCain jumped in late with $102,962 worth of advertising and robo-calls.
Other Republican-philic IE committees involved were: Americans for Limited Government ($22,499), FreedomWorks ($24,534), and Protecting America's Retirees ($29,560). Smaller actors were: 60-Plus Association ($6,606), Susan B. Anthony List ($2,933), Revere America ($2,901), the NRA ($1,482), Independent Women's Voice ($1,414) and the National Right to Life ($19).
The cavalry riding in for Grijalva was led by the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee ("DCCC") ($178,154), America's Families First ($302,592), and MoveOn.org (Spanish-language ad) ($145,605). Behind them were several groups that seemed to devote some of their resources to paying staffers working on Grijalva's behalf: Campaign for Community Change ($108,245), SEIU (union) ($65,000), League of Conservation Voters ($29,725) and Defenders of Wildlife ($18,136). Smaller actors were: Blue America PAC ($1,998), the Humane Society of the U.S. ($54) and the Sierra Club ($10).
One other interesting note: according to the Center for Responsive Politics, 72% of the GOP IE money in this race came from groups that do not disclose their donors. In light of the Supreme Court Citizens United decision, that money can come from corporations. Only 26% of the Democrat IE dollars came from such groups - and 1/3 of that was from undisclosed union members, not corporations.
BOTTOM LINE: This was a fascinating close-up look at a successful effort by one party to "expand the playing field" and forcing the other to spend money defending a previously-seemingly-safe seat. Yes, of course Grijalva opened the door with his support of an SB1070-related boycott, and the national climate made it an easy call for the GOP. But, the Republican-philic groups spent just over half-a-million dollars and prompted the Democrats (and Democrat-philics) to pour in $850,000 that they would have preferred to spend elsewhere.
And, although the final figures are not yet in for candidates' committees' spending, it is likely that Grijalva enjoyed nearly a 2-1 spending advantage over McClung. Yet, he barely collected a majority of the votes.
We welcome your comments about this post. Or,if you have something unrelated on your mind, please e-mail to info-at-arizonaspolitics-dot-com. Thanks.
FOLLOWING MONEY IN ARIZONA'S POLITICS - UPDATE: Arizona Clean Elections Commission Tweaks Proposed Rule On $200+ Assets
The Arizona Clean Elections Commission held their regular meeting yesterday. As reported by Alyssa Newcomb from the Cronkite News Service, the Commission put off voting on a proposed rule change (current rule below) to require participating candidates to dispose of any computers or other assets costing more than $200, purchased with clean elections monies.
The Commission tweaked the proposed provision to give candidates 30 days after the election to either purchase the property for 1/2 of the original purchase price or to turn the item(s) into the Commission (for sale as state surplus).
The change was a reconsideration of the discussion/decision the Commission members had/made at their September meeting, when they agreed on 7 days and 75%. (discussion starts at page 67)
The new proposed rule will be published shortly on the Commission's website and be open for comments for (about) 60 days (until their Jan. 27 meeting, which is only 56 days away - comment early).
suggested comment and current rule, after the jump
The Commission tweaked the proposed provision to give candidates 30 days after the election to either purchase the property for 1/2 of the original purchase price or to turn the item(s) into the Commission (for sale as state surplus).
The change was a reconsideration of the discussion/decision the Commission members had/made at their September meeting, when they agreed on 7 days and 75%. (discussion starts at page 67)
The new proposed rule will be published shortly on the Commission's website and be open for comments for (about) 60 days (until their Jan. 27 meeting, which is only 56 days away - comment early).
suggested comment and current rule, after the jump
FOLLOWING MONEY IN ARIZONA'S POLITICS: Final National Figures On the NRCC vs. DCCC Battle
UPDATE: I received a nice response from Steve Peoples (the Roll Call reporter) indicating that they WILL be putting the numbers into fuller context with IE groups, later today. I'll link it here when I see it. Thanks, Steve.
Roll Call tonight posted the final figures on the spending sprees by the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee ("DCCC") and the National Republican Campaign Committee ("NRCC"). The spending figures had been about even until the last five weeks of the campaign, when the DCCC borrowed to heavily outspend their GOP counterpart. Check here for all the figures.
What I do not understand is how the reporter can note that the NRCC/DCCC figures do not include spending by the parties' Senate campaign committees (NRSC, DSCC) and the parties' national committees (DNC, RNC), but NOT mention the Independent Expenditure groups that poured in extra millions - especially on the GOP side.
We welcome your comments about this post. Or, if you have something unrelated on your mind, please e-mail to info-at-arizonaspolitics-dot-com. Thanks.
Roll Call tonight posted the final figures on the spending sprees by the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee ("DCCC") and the National Republican Campaign Committee ("NRCC"). The spending figures had been about even until the last five weeks of the campaign, when the DCCC borrowed to heavily outspend their GOP counterpart. Check here for all the figures.
What I do not understand is how the reporter can note that the NRCC/DCCC figures do not include spending by the parties' Senate campaign committees (NRSC, DSCC) and the parties' national committees (DNC, RNC), but NOT mention the Independent Expenditure groups that poured in extra millions - especially on the GOP side.
We welcome your comments about this post. Or, if you have something unrelated on your mind, please e-mail to info-at-arizonaspolitics-dot-com. Thanks.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)