After hearing some scuttlebutt (sp??) and listening to some of the rhetoric regarding insider status and campaign finance, I decided to a very unprofessional look at the spending in this race. Some interesting facts arise, and I would like somebody to vet them to see if my tabulations are accurate.
I looked at campaign spending from January 1, 2006 through August 26, 2006. The data comes from the website of the Mass. Office of Campaign and Political Finance. Here’s what I found:
1) Total spending by the Galvin campaign – $90,710.78.
2) Total spending by the Bonifaz campaign – $132,161.22
3) Galvin spending on staff and consultants – a little under $13,000
4) Bonifaz spending on staff and consultants – a little over $66,000.
My take – This detracts from the Bonifaz message of speaking for and to ordinary people and suggests that public financing is not the answer to level the playing field in this race. If this race is a blow-out for Galvin, the deciding factor won’t be resources.
Of course, all of this goes out the window if Galvin goes on TV in the next three weeks.
Galvin has a vast advantage in incumbency and name recognition. Bonifaz spending $100K or so hasn’t had much measurable effect on that, so Galvin hasn’t felt any particular need to spend money. But doesn’t he have millions saved up (e.g., from his abandoned governor’s campaign) if he decides he’s in any trouble in the primary?
<
p>
So it seems to me that “resources are the problem”, in that Bonifaz can’t spend enough to make himself known without triggering a hugely financed counter-campaign. If Bonifaz had a million or two, he might have a chance at such an entrenched incumbent.
<
p>
Is that your point, then, that a campaign finance system that would force both candidates to spend very little would just guarantee the incumbent winning? I should probably know this, but what would the spending limit for SoS have been under the defunded Clean Elections plan?
I had no idea Bonifaz spent that much, on what exactly? I havent seen a single Bonifaz sign even in a big liberal pinko town like Cambridge, his website couldnt have cost that much, and I havent seen any brochures or got anything in the mail. Galvin doesnt need to spend, his face and name are on the freakin voter registration booklet anyway and he has huge name recognition. The question isnt whether or not Bonifaz will lose but by how big of a margin the Galvin landslide will be.
<
p>
And though Ive expressed anti Bonifaz opinions in the past, Im not a current Galvin supporter nor am I a big fan. Hes certainly no Ken Blackwell or Katherin Harris but hes not a Mark Green either.
In 2001, the spending limit under the Clean Elections Law as $162,300 for the Scretary of the Commonwealth primary ($129,800 was to be given in public funds). For the general, the spending limit as $108,100 ($86,500 provided in public funds). The limits would have been adjusted for inflation.
<
p>
This system would have been much fairer to all but the idependently wealthy candidates (who could stil have greatly outspent their opponents but at a political cost of not adhering to the “clean” system). To be fair, some incumbents would also have benefited but only to the extent that they would not face a multi-millionaire challenger. In other cases, incumbents would be hurt by not being able to greatly outspend a non-millionaire challenger.
<
p>
As for the current race, Galvin’s last report showed $675,000 in the bank while Bonifaz had just over $10,000. That’s right, Galvin has 67 times the resources available going in to Spetember. It is inevitable that Galvin will exceded Bonifaz’s spending as Galvin spends much of his remaining money in the last few weeks. Moreover, the fact that he’s spent so little on “staff and consultants” so far shows that he is barely engaged at all and/or is getting a significant “volunteer” help from his many taxpayer-paid employees.
He still doesn’t have a prayer.