Contributor Opinion by Roald Schrack: 2009 Election Finances Update

>In the original report on November 18 the final candidate financial report had not been made. I stated that if the final report made any major changes that I would issue an update. The final report on December 3rd showed increases up to 30% in expenditures of some candidates. Most candidates had changes much smaller. The final line of the table comparing the last 4 elections needs modification The expenditures in 2009 are now much closer to the peak year of 2005.

The financial reports of the candidates can now be found on the city website.

A comparison of expenditures in 2009 to previous elections is presented in the table below.
The very low numbers shown for $/Vote occurred in years that the Mayor and Council ran as a slate, greatly reducing expenses for individual candidates. Since there was no opposition to Coyle and his slate, there was no significant expenditure of money.

The graph labeled Votes per Donor shows in graphic form the relative votes obtained per donor. Donors are a major outreach method for a candidate. Marcuccio was remarkably effective in getting 190 donors but not as effective as other candidates in turning these assets into votes. It is possible that some slating took place to augment her vote total.

The final graph shows the cost of a vote for the candidates. The highly competitive race between Marcuccio and Hoffmann made them pay more for a vote than would be the case for a less competitive race. In the table showing the cost per vote in other elections it can be seen that in weak or non- competitive races the cost per vote drops markedly. For the council races where the candidates were closely matched in relative ability, it is clear that there is a strong correlation between campaign expenditure and votes obtained. Consider the cases of Henn and Pierzchala. Pierzchala spent nearly twice as much as Henn and beat him by only 62 votes. It is probably true that the $6000 Pierzchala invested in his race was necessary for him to win.

The new modified tables that include the December data are shown for contributions and expenditures. The tables include an additional column showing the amounts added in the December 3rd reports.

The amounts added in the last report are quite large in some cases, but there is no indication that an attempt was made to conceal donations. Such a move might have negative consequences for it would be held against the candidate if they ran again and in addition the candidate would lose the appearance of strength before the election that could help them get votes. It is interesting to note that the largest increase in expenditures in the December report was by Marcuccio, who won.

New Cash Cont. – from the December 3 financial report
Total Cash Cont.- Total cash contribution to candidate including December 3 contributions.
# Donors – Total contributions list. There may be duplications
# N-R Donors – number of contributors with non-Rockville addresses
% N-R Donors – % of Donors with non-Rockville addresses
In-Kind Cont. – Value of listed in-kind contributions.
Total Cont. – sum of cash and in-kind contributions
Unpaid Loans – Value of loan, usually made by a candidate to their campaign. None of these has been repaid.

New Expenditures – from the December 3 financial report
Total Expenditures – All expenditures including December 3 expenditures
Balance – Amount left in campaign account. Loans have not been repaid.
Ave. Cont. – Average contribution, Cash Contributions divided by number of donors.
Votes – Votes received by candidate
$/vote – Expenditures divided by number of votes.
Votes/donor – Votes divided by number of donors.

Roald Schrack

This is a contributor opinion. Rockville Central encourages readers to submit such opinions for consideration — the more voices the better. We especially welcome people who disagree with us. We ask that all such contributions be civil and we reserve the right to edit (in consultation with the author) or reject. Contributor opinions should not be seen as reflecting opinions held by Rockville Central editors, as they are just as frequently at odds with our own views. That’s the whole point!

Share and enjoy:

Hide Sites