I don’t think that the MA-5 Congressional campaign should be about money. I think this campaign should be about asking: who will to fight for the middle class, the poor, and for the “little guy”? Who is going to fight for LGBT rights and women’s health? Who will fight for strong gun control? In short, who will be a bold progressive?
In my last post about MA-5, some pushed back and said that money does matter in this primary and should be taken into consideration when determining which candidate to support. Well, ok, then.
But if money matters in this primary, then lets be honest about where we are at for this primary. Remember: not all money that a candidate raised can be used in the primary — if they raise over a certain amount from an individual, it has to be used for the general election. As I wrote in my last post: the general election is insignificant because we are so unlikely to see a strong Republican challenger. The primary in October is the election, so if we are going to gauge candidate support based on how much money somebody has, then we should judge the candidate based on how much money they have to spend in the primary.
Fortunately, the good people at the FEC help give us the numbers. Here’s the breakdown:
True Cash on Hand for MA-5 Congressional Race
If you take away how much money each candidate has raised that can only be spent in the general election, we have a very different primary than the media narrative suggests. Recent headlines have said that Peter Koutoujian is winning the money wars except that it turns out that a good deal of his money is for the general election — not the primary. David Bernstein said that Peter Koutoujian is “fibbing” about the amount he raised. That’s a reporter’s words–not mine. I’ll leave it to David Bernstein to defend that claim. But here’s the bottom line: Katherine Clark and Carl Sciortino are far and away the frontrunners when it comes to money — not Peter Koutoujian. He comes in 4th, not 1st.
Let’s go one step further. Here’s something interesting that got kind of lost in a BMG post from mathelman: during January-March, Katherine Clark raised ~$262,000, and in April-June she raised ~$228,000. A hefty sum — but she actually slowed down the pace of her fundraising. By contrast, Carl Sciortino raised ~152,000 in the first period and ~$203,000 in that same April-June. So, he might not have raised as much as Senator Clark… but Carl increased his fundraising by ~34% and she decreased her fundraising by ~13%! (According to Helman.)
So, if you ask me: who is in front when it comes to fundraising? Easily, Katherine Clark and Carl Sciortino. But who is actually BUILDING a campaign based on lower dollar donors (read: grassroots support)? It’s definitely Carl Sciortino.
Who knows what the next quarter will bring. But if I had to choose between losing 13% or gaining 34%, I think the choice is obvious. And if we’re being honest about this primary, then it’s clear that Sciortino is the best positioned to turn out to be the surprise frontrunner — not Koutoujian.
Hey, I love that you’re laying out the facts. I’d suggest that, next time, you round to the nearest thousand dollars or, at the very least, the nearest dollar. Whatever you do, format all cells the same (Koutoujian’s general, natch).
I think you’re overselling Mr. Sciortino just a tad. Firstly, two data points do not form a reliable trend. After all, Mr. Koutoujian raised *all* of his ~$228k in the second quarter, an increase of INFINITY!!1!!juan!!
So, thanks for putting out the data. That’s helpful. The analysis seems like a bit of a reach though. Sometimes, it’s best to just let the numbers speak for themselves.
I appreciate your first point. Fair enough!
On the data points: I think we’re only going to see one more report before the primary in October, if I am not mistaken. So there’s only going to *be* three data points total. And in 1, Koutoujian has no data.
And on the “reaching”…I don’t really think so. The big headlines about money were that Koutoujian is out in front for the primary thanks to strong Q2 numbers. But that’s just not true because almost $81,000 of the money he raised he won’t use in the primary. He’s not 1st. He’s 4th.
So even if you discount the fact that Clark apparently couldn’t raise as much money in Q2 as in Q1, it’s clear that Clark and Sciortino are the money leaders — right now. Obviously, campaigns are fluid and that can always change. But I’m talking about where we are right now. And where we are is not with Koutoujian on top. It’s true that even if Clark raises even 10% less in the next quarter than Q2, she will still have, all told, a very significant amount of money. But her money lead not exactly commanding — it’s less than $70,000 more than Sciortino. (She’s over 100,00 above Brownsberger, which, I guess to me is just psychologically significant. So i guess you could say they are the 3 money leaders, but 3rd place in a 5-way doesn’t seem worth bragging about.)
But as I said up top: much more interesting than how much money they raised is how the candidates choose to spend their money — and what they say in those ads and on the doors.
Is there much data for this conclusion?
I suspect it is correct having seen some numbers from Sciortino’s campaign that his Q2 numbers came from more than 1500 donors. I have not seen anything similar from Clarke’s campaign, but I suspect she has larger donors (judging by her affinity group – attorneys, compared to Sciortino’s – activists). Some data would be nice, though.
That he had raised his money from over 1,500 individuals. That he only has $2,600 in post primary dollars makes me think that almost all of them donated smaller than the primary limit, and, likely, smaller dollars.
thank you for reminding us that *primary* money is particularly important.
Still, it seems strange to me that you both argue about trends (“Clark apparently couldn’t raise as much money in Q2 as in Q1”), but then write that “I’m talking about where we are right now.”
I read the data like this:
1. Ms. Clark is ahead of Mr. Sciortino (not “C and S” as you tend to write it), and Mr. Sciortino is ahead of the three-way-tie for last.
2. If I’m Mr. Brownsberger or Mr. Koutoujian, I’m a bit concerned — tapping out large donors early is to be expected, and these two did just that (large ratio of general-only funds to total funds). But, it’s easy to for fundraising efforts to fall off quickly when you’re going after the few, the proud, the Oliver Warbucks of the world. If they don’t get some news or get hot in corners of the liberal world, they might have real trouble picking up more money.
3. Mr. Sciortino’s large number of donors is a big advantage, especially if he can develop a team of volunteers to shake $20s and $50s out of more people (and those people a second time). Of course, folks who give even $1 feel a connection to a campaign, so he’s got 1500+ who are pulling for him, and could be cajoled to contribute by knocking on doors, calling their friends and fam’, etc.
All these candidates need to be dialing for dollars for many hours each day. There’s not much time left to raise money — early money allows a campaign to budget their resources to maximize their effectiveness. Late money gets thrown around in a desperate manner… it’s not useless, but not as effective as good planning.
Again, thanks for putting out the data and reminding us that the primary is where the action is.
To point 1: If I had to choose, I’d choose to have more money. Senator Clark has that. No question. But if I had to choose whether to have about $70k more than my opponent and Q1–>Q2 going down 13% vs. having $70k less than my opponent and Q1–>Q2 going up 34% … I think I’d choose the latter. Wouldn’t you? Maybe not. Just my preference, I guess.
So, my point isn’t that Sciortino is leading Clark in terms of COH — of course it’s silly to argue that. I just showed that Clark is leading Sciortino, obviously. My point is, given that we only have 2 data points, I’d rather be “going up” with smaller donors than “going down” with larger ones. Then again, I’m not working on any of these campaigns, so what do I know?
I don’t know how much a TV ad buy costs in this area, exactly, but I can’t imagine that a $70k difference is enough to totally overpower her opponents, especially when there are 4 of them. Never bought a TV ad – anybody who actually has should chime in and correct me. I am open to the possibility that having $70k COH more than your next opponent really is significantly more…but I just don’t think so. Maybe I’m wrong. We’ll find out!
In the above analysis of Q2 it is not mentioned that Senator Spilka raised more than Rep. Sciortino – why is that not a key data point? As stomv points out raising all of the ~204K is the second half of the second quarter is an increase of
whatever that means 😉
I am curious to see the geographic reach and concentration of the donors as well.
Across the district?
Across the country?
Concentrated in a couple of constituent sub-sets?
Thank you.
I think that’s important to note, too. Shoulda added that. I think I didn’t focus on Spilka at all because she came in last on primary COH, and this post was more about that number than anything else.
I don’t recall when Sheriff K. entered but I thought Senator Spilka was the final entry. So, momentum will be another consideration…..which of course is extremely challenging in a July heat wave.
There are many more factors to watch as the race unfolds. Breadth of the candidates is critical.
Are you supporting Rep. Sciortino?
It’s a long running joke of making a REALLY GOOD (LOUD) POINT. You put lots of exclamation points [!!!!!!!!!!!]. But you take your hand off the shift key before you press that last 1 [!!!!!!!!!11]. Then, to mock that behavior, folks started doing [!!!!!!!!!!one!!!]. Then, to one up (or, rather, juan up), it became [!!!!!!juan!11!one!].
It’s just Internet silliness.
Of course money can buy lots of things, including political love, but there is a second way that money can be influential especially in a crowded field. The press anoints top-tier candidates based in large part on their fund-raising prowess. The candidates get the buzz and the coverage. It’s hard to break into this group without money.
That makes those quarterly fundraising reports a lot more important than (in my view) they ought to be, often into self-fulfilling prophecies, because who wants to back a loser?
On that score it is nice that there are no clear losers. Of course some have more or less success raising money than others, but all seem to be playing in the same ballpark.
The next quarterly report will be out just before the primary and will provide a nice boost for whomever does best with the bucks. I’d like to think it will be too late to actually pick the nominee, but who know.
Clark’s raw itemized receipts can be found here:
http://images.nictusa.com/pdf/194/13964072194/13964072194.pdf
Sciortino’s:
http://images.nictusa.com/pdf/683/13964082683/13964082683.pdf
Spilka:
http://images.nictusa.com/pdf/310/13964085310/13964085310.pdf
Brownsberger:
http://query.nictusa.com/pdf/512/13941114512/13941114512.pdf
Koutoujian :
http://query.nictusa.com/pdf/013/13964088013/13964088013.pdf#navpanes=0
Afertig what did you use to tabulate the data? Seems like a good tool considering the FEC isn’t even done processing it. Thanks for the great post 🙂
It says on the report whether funds are for primary or for general in a little check box. And if it doesn’t, you can just add up the donor’s donation if it’s above the limit and mark it for the general. I don’t really have any special magic. Also: thanks for reminding me – I meant to include this in the original post (but it was like 11pm and I was hot from the weather and tired from the day):
If you want to check the numbers PLEASE, PLEASE do so. If somebody thinks this is inaccurate, they should feel free to do the math. Seems to me that no news outlet bothered to do the work of figuring out how much was raised for the primary and that’s why the reports were that Koutoujian led the money race, when in fact, he’s in 4th.
Also, I want to take this moment address a potential criticism that some people might make. I want to be very clear: I don’t think that the amount anybody has raised, no matter how you slice the numbers, gives any candidate a huge advantage. And that’s kind of my point about why I say that money shouldn’t matter. When all the candidates are more or less within about 100k of one another, what matters is the content of their campaign and the type of campaign they run — not money. I’m saying that what matters is the candidates positions — but if we MUST talk about money (because that’s the only thing we’re used to talking about, or something) then we should only be talking about money that can be spent in the primary.
That information about the money leaders sounds about right to me. Sciortino shouldn’t have any problems raising money in the race. Given Clark’s experience and ties, I can see why Clark would not have a hard time raising money either.
Spilka entered last, so that does make sense.