Over the past few days I have received emails from various campaigns listing candidate endorsements, policy positions or fundraising status based on periodic filings with the appropriate government bodies. Today’s Sac Bee has a report entitled “rookies padding election coffers.” In that report it mentions the race to replace Todd Spitzer, my 71st AD Assembly member. While Carona mayor pro-tem Jeff Miller has raised the most money to date, what’s wrong with Rancho Santa Margarita councilman Neil Blais kicking in some of his own money to partially fund his campaign? Readers might also question the role of Republican strategist Dave Gilliard in this race. Does his firm have any connection to any of the candidates? That involvement, if one exists, is not included in the Sac Bee story.
And where is any reference to Mission Viejo Vice Mayor John Paul Ledesma who early on threw his hat into the same arena? Or any reference to Irvine City Councilman Steven Choi, Ph.D who also announced his desire to seek this office?
When I first ran for city council I did not wish to accept money from any outside source to put to rest that I had an obligation to any special interest. There have been other candidates in Mission Viejo who used the same financing philosophy.
One thing you can say for those who kick in sizable sums is that they have demonstrated a financial commitment to the race. Sadly, the larger the District, the more money you need to reach out to the electorate to send your message.
Juice readers. Back to the headline of this post.
Do you have a problem with those who can raise private money over those who use their own when running for elected office?
Gillaird is the campaign manager for both Jeff Miller and Mimi Walter’s. Gilliard,who only lies when his lips moves, forgot to mention that Mimi Walter’s loaned herself $100,000 last December to run for State Senate. Jeff Miller is the guy who’s press person said they would work to recall any OC. councilperson that did not endorse Jeff Miller. Jeff Miller fits Orange County about as well as pig in a prom dress. IE people need to stay in the IE in their yuppie shack tracts!
Dave Gilliard is Corona Councilman Jeff Miller’s campaign consultant. Miller is the Riverside County candidate running in the 71st race.
As far as the answer to your question, I see no problem with a candidate using his own money for trying to win an election. If that is what they want to do, and they can afford it, why not? And it does lessen the reliance on special interest money.
Larry:
In the article, Dave is identified as Jeff Miller’s consultant.
Matt. After further review you are accurate in your comment.
My e-copy of the Sac Bee reads as follows: “it’s become an epidemic,” said Dave Gilliard, a Republican campaign strategist who works on assembly races.”
Later on in the report there is a space in the printed text where you are correct–they do report that Dave is Jeff’s campaign consultant. It appears on the next line and I should have caught it.
That being said readers should recognize that Dave has a vested interest in spinnning the story.
Anonymous 12:50 p.m.
I agree with you on self financing or partial self financing to diminish the candidate’s dependence on vendor or PAC contributions which may or may not alter future decision making if elected.
While some may argue that only the rich can afford to self finance, as we saw with Cassie DeYoung’s BOS campaign in south county, there are races where the sums spent in campaigns are all over the map. Running for the Lake Forest city council may be one tenth the sum spent for the same post in Laguna Beach. It’s the luck of the draw as to whom the candidates will be and how much they want to grab the brass ring.
I think people/canidates sould run on their own dime. Put their money where their mouth is.
Todays legisature has few wealthy office holders and many, many sell-outs.
I also find it funny on th e oc blog that it was posted the Mimi raised over $500k WITHOUT a loan to herself…lol. You can look online at the SOS web site and see she loaned herself $100,000 in Dece 06 fort his campaign. Very misleading…..but the trugh will come out tomorrow – when campaign reports must be e-filed.
Larry, I like to see more candidates who can put up their own dough and raise money from many donors, preferably a 50/50 split.
flowerszzz.
Ever hear the expression “act of omission?” Don’t volunteer information!
That siad it really is a non-issue in that there is nothing wrong with candidates self financing of campaigns. And as you correctly state, it will all be detailed in the appropriate candidate reports.
LOL larry – well it was not really an act of omission IMO, it was an outright lie but eh who cares we all know consultants are supposed to spin.
I guess I should answer the question being asked….I do not really care one way or the other if they self fund but that being said……A truly great politican SHOULD be able to RAISE the necessary funds from donors in order to run for office.
Personally, I do not think it wise for anyone to use their own money to run for office.(Bad investment!) If you do not have the donor base to raise the funds the right way then their is something wrong with your candidacy. That being said, nowadays it is much more common for candidates to just spend their own money…I just think it is lazy! They don’t want to do the work….the old fashioned constituent/donor outreach and only go for the easiest route. There are now caps on how much you can loan your own campaign , $100k….but there is no limit on how much you can donate to your own campaign (That is unconstitutional).
flowerszzz
Just to make it clear. I do not read the OC Blog that often. As such I did not see the post in question regarding Mimi’s fundraising referenced by you.
Yes, it does look better if a candidate can demonstrate his being approved by the electorate with broad based financial contributions. However, the down side could be vendors making those contributions such as developers, ambulance companies, trash haulers and several other categories who contribute to gain access or influence on future decisions.
Another down side to fundraising is that it can be very time consuming for the candidates. Are we speaking of local school board or city council races or someone runnign for a statewide or congressional seat. There is surely two levels at play in these categories.
Larry we will have to agree to disagree on this. Most offices (not all) have campaign limits to stop the trash company or the developer from buying an elected. While fundraising is time consuming it is, IMO, very important for a candidate to show that they in fact have community support. I do not necessarily have anything against a candidate who “buys” their election…but sometimes they are buying the seat for themselves….not the people they represent.