For every $4 contributed to candidates running in contested aldermen races this election cycle, slightly more than $1 came from donors living beyond Newton’s borders, a TAB review of campaign finance filings found, Jonathan Dame of Newton TAB reports.
Most of the donations from outside Newton — and nearly all of the out-of-state money — went to Jake Auchincloss, the 27-year-old Newton native and political newcomer who claimed victory Nov. 3 over Marcia Johnson, a 16-year veteran of the board from Ward 2….
Auchincloss said voters should “consider those donations from outside of Newton to be a reference check.”
“The money I raised from outside of Newton came from people who worked closely with me or who have known me almost my entire life,” said Auchincloss, who came in second in the race for two at-large seats from Ward 2. “That money represented a vote of confidence that I would serve my constituents ably.”
In addition to raising around $30,000, Auchincloss said his campaign knocked on 14,000 doors, made 7,500 phone calls, sent out three mailers and printed 250 lawn signs.
“This is what it takes to unseat a longtime incumbent,” Auchincloss said.
Tow things:
1) It would have been useful to know this before the election.
2) Mr. Auchincloss’ quote above is totally out of context w.r.t. the article. “This” does not refer only to the money as is intimated above, but also to the other effort (door knocking etc) put in by then-candidate Auchincloss.
WTH – Green is green. How parochial can people be? North or South side of Newton? Look where all Mayor Settie Warren’s donations come from. Who cares?
I am the treasurer for Brian Yates’ campaign and to all the on line reporting of donations. I’m happy to report that all $300.00 that he received from out of town contributors came from members of “Friends of Hemlock Gorge” who have moved to other parts of Massachusetts or out of state. And the overwhelming majority of his financial support came from folks in Newton who have worked with him for years, but a surprising number came from newer residents who have come to kn ow Brian in more recent times. Most of our checks were in the $25.00 range; that’s not the kind of dough you give to get some kind of political payoff, particularly from Brian who, in any case, wouldn’t know how to do it
.
I don’t think there is anything nefarious in the money Jake collected from out of state donors and I know a lot has to be from the great impression he’s obviously made with people along the way; but I think it’s a lot healthier when local citizens fund local campaigns.
I’m waiting for the first heavily contested races and heavily financed races for area councils which I predict will begin to occur two election cycles from now.
I coasted to an easy victory on Rodney Barker’s coattails. The Barker machine ran first for the 5th election to our area council in a row.
Elmo is right. The quote is totally out of context. Come on Greg!
I disagree but I’ve added the the full “context” to the quote so as not to take this conversation off track. (For those who weren’t following, I’d left out the part about the lawn signs and mailers –which of course cost money — and the door knocking)
I used Auchincloss’ quote in this headline not to be critical (as I presume Jeffrey and Elmo assume) but because I thought it represented revealing insight from someone who — as this year’s only successful challenger — was explaining how hard it is to challenge an incumbent.
Although I leaned incumbent this Election Day (but not exclusively) I’ve often supported challengers and I certainly would have liked to have seen several other alders face a challenge this year.
The fact that it took Auchincloss that much money and a seemingly fully time effort, does confirm that we have a problem with our system.
Greg, I was not assuming that you were being critical. I assumed worse–that you were trying to pervert the truth to get blog hits.
You just took steam out of an op-ed that I am thinking of writing for which I am collecting election data. We do have a problem with our system. Hopefully the charter commission takes it seriously. Jake did everything right. I am super critical and I can’t imagine how he could have run a better campaign. Yet, he did not win the election. He came in second and not that far above third. Given this, why would anyone waste their time challenging an incumbent in Newton? Future potential challengers will remember this election, shake their heads, and say “I would have to be nuts to run.”
Coming in second in a contest where the top two winners prevail is winning. That’s not debatable.
Also, Susan Albright did everything “right” too. Sometimes a candidate, or a sports team for that matter, finishes second, or lower, not because they were bad but because someone else was good.
Oh and Jeffrey, in this election, the challengers happened to be facing high profile, respected, aldermen who have a good record of constituent service.
Hmmm. I’m no expert on politics but I’ve always had the impression that whether in Newton or any town, or in state or federal elections it’s nearly always an uphill battle to unseat an incumbent.
The incumbent has always been through at least one successful election cycle already. They’ve just finished serving a term in the public eye. They’ve already established a group of supporters, etc.
Is there really anything unusual about what’s going on in Newton in this regard? Jake Auchincloss was a good candidate, worked hard, and unseated an incumbent. Other first time challengers lost their first time races to incumbents but attracted substantial support and sizable fractions of the votes.
Isn’t that all about par for the course in most towns? Putting aside the specific politics and positions from the candidates in these races, would you expect challengers in general would typically have won more races in other towns?
Jerry, you are right. We expect incumbents to win. It is a question of degree. If the charter commission does a really good job, hopefully, they will produce reports that compare Newton elections with other cities, and we can think about where we are now and where we want to be.
The danger, I think, is to send a message to challengers that they are better off not challenging an incumbent, and instead, the should “politely” wait to run until the incumbents vacates the position.
So what’s next, most donations came from outside the candidate’s ward? “We oppose the undue influence of outside interests on ward 2 politics…”. People, there are issues that extend beyond town lines. For example, what if a Brookline resident is concerned about the Mishkan Tefilah land? What if a Needham resident wants to improve the Needham Street corridor?
This is ridiculous. What if Auchincloss had asked family and friends to help him finance his race? Besides, you could easily put a different spin on this whole donations story by saying “80% of the money came from inside Newton”.
And finally, I don’t think all that money really helps candidates, from local to presidential races. If that were the case, Mitt Romney would be our president. Jake was elected because he knocked on every door in Newton. At least that’s how he got my vote. Those obscure postcards from this or that “coalition” goes straight to my trash can, as I assume happens in most homes.
The 11/11/15 Tab article reflecting the amount of money raised by each candidate tells the story of who finished where. My campaign may have nosed out a challenger but my election reflects that for 10% of what some of the winners spent, I received a relatively close vote within 1000 votes of those leaders, and comparable to many of the Alders at large.
Hence the much discussed “mandate” is that if a candidate raised all of their campaign funds from one side of an issue then they have only received a mandate from that side. I venture to say that if I spent $18.000.00 more on the campaign then I would have more votes?
My record of public service, community meetings, and the wide range of endorsements that I received guarantees the residents of Newton have an Alderman that owes no favors. That is what I promised 2 years ago, and that is what I promise today.
Thank you Jim Cote! Really Greg? Where’s the outrage about Aldermen (and other elected officials) who accept local donations from individuals doing business with the City and/or have business that depend on City permitting, approvals, licensing, etc…? I’m specifically referring to the incumbent Alderman who had a fundraiser hosted by local land use attorneys who stand to profit directly from the special permits that have to be approved by the Board of Alderman. I believe similar concerns have been raised by the individuals suing to stop the Austin Street project. Whether this practice is outright corruption or simply individuals or groups supporting like-minded politicians, it certainly gives the impression of the soft corruption called “Pay to Play.” The fact that a young man trying to start a political career without the support of the City’s political machinery and networks has to raise money from an extended group of family, friends, and other supporters should hardly be a surprise or imply anything scandalous. I’m much more concerned about the integrity of a number of our City’s incumbent elected officials. Maybe the alderman with the land use lawyer fundraising for her/him should have said, “sorry, thank you for your support. I share your interests, but I can’t accept this funding as it would give the appearance of impropriety?”
Paul, can you be more specific? Namely on a dollar amount raise and the person it was raised for?
It always upsets me a bit when folks imply (or outright say) that anyone who attends a fundraiser or gives to a politician is engaging in pay to play if they do any type of business in the city. A “land use” attorney might have 100 clients or more. To me it really depends on the amount and the circumstances. Will a $200 donation really move someone to vote for your issue?
But the hint of dirty dealing stays in the room and stinks up the joint. Let’s talk details and clear the air one way or the other.
I have no problem with local people from various constituencies donating to candidates that support their positions. It happens all the time – the Newton Dems and Republicans, as well as other organizations including people who support dog parks (a tough one for cat lovers!).
But the real question is this: what are the unintended consequence of the amount of money spent on this election for future elections? Have we’ve upped the ante for what it costs to run for local office? Are people who have family members who can donate at the highest level allowable in a more advantageous position?
I think we have upped the ante and that concerns me. Even as a candidate for the charter commission, I felt pressure to spend more than I had intended.
@Paul. What Fig said. All these contributions are public. Do some homework and then share specifics. I’m not familiar with land use lawyers hosting a party, that’s not saying it didn’t/doesn’t happen, just saying I’m not aware or don’t remember that.
And to repeat my earlier point, I’m not “outraged” where Jake’s money came from. But I am concerned about how much it took.
“have we upped…”
I’m not outraged by any means but concerned about future local elections. The local developers’ contributions paled in comparison to family donations. Is this where we want to go in the future?
I spent a little time perusing Newton municipal election results going back to 2001 and I could not find a single first-time candidate for city-wide office who beat an incumbent (maybe someone knows of an example?). There have been people who won At-Large seats having served on the School Committee, e.g. Susan Albright. But from what I see, new candidates have gotten elected either unopposed or when facing another first-time candidate. E.g. Paul Coletti vacated his Ward 5 seat to run for mayor and Deb Crossley won against another first time candidate).
Margaret Albright lost twice against two different long-standing incumbents – 3 term Ward 2 member Reenie Murphy and then Jonathan Yeo who had been on the SC in Ward 4 and switched to Ward 2. Albright finally won on her third attempt, but against a newcomer. Cut to 2015 and she was the highest vote getter in any city-wide election.
There are lots of examples of people losing once or twice and finally getting on. But I can’t find an example of someone winning the first time, having never held city-wide office, and unseating an incumbent in the process. Maybe someone else can think of a counterexample.
So what I think Jake has done is pretty rare and the good news is we now have an example of what it takes to win. I don’t think it ups the ante because it’s not like incumbents were losing more often ten years ago to newcomers. But this serves as a template for others who wish to serve.
@Steve: Me? 1997.
@amy Your example came up last night on Ken P’s show when I brought this up. I should have mentioned you but I was only going back 15 years. That’s why I said Jake’s win was “rare” not a first.
Would love to hear about what it took in your case.
There is an interesting article in today’s Boston Globe, which presents an alternate perspective.
Jay Harney, Greg Schwartz, and Dick Blazer.
I have been collecting data on this. My computer just died. My recollection is that think Greer Swiston and Susan Albright beat incumbents.
Does anyone know where I can get the pre-1991 data? Library? I emailed David Olson a few days ago, but he has not responded. He might be busy.
Yes, it is very hard to beat an incumbent. We want choice when we vote. I fear that challengers will look at Jake and say, “If that is what it takes to scrape by, it is not worth it.”
Yes, Greer did as well.
Susan Albright had been on the School Committee for 8 years and was well know in the community.
I agree with Jeffrey’s last statement.
Geoff Epstein beat an incumbent as well.
In 2009, Deb Crossley (8705 votes) came in first in the Ward 5 Alderman-at-Large contest by a wide margin, outpolling an incumbent, Brian Yates (7184 votes) and a sitting alderman, Bill Brandel (6863 votes). There was a relatively high turnout (41%) because of a hotly tested mayoral election. Deb, of course, had been very involved in the Energy Commission, Sustainable Buildings Committee, League of Women Voters and other community and civic organizations over a period of many years, and she has been extremely effective as an alderman, chairing Public Facilities and successfully pushing for infrastructure improvements to our water/sewer/stormwater systems. So there is more than one way for a challenger to beat an incumbent.
Steve had referred to first time candidates winning “”city wide.” Harney and Blazer unseated incumbents in ward contests (as did Brandel). Swiston had run for state rep before so that one deserves an asterisk. It took Epstein (and Siegel) two runs to prevail. And yes, Crossley beat an incumbent (Brandel) but the incumbent was a ward alderman at the time.
But yes to Greg Schwartz who unseated Charlie Shapiro.
And really it makes sense that, at least according to recent history, that it would be easier to win on the ward level or with some other prior elected experience, including school committee.
Greg, I think you may have missed the point about Ald. Crossley. She beat a popular incumbent and a sitting alderman by over 1500 and over 1800 votes, respectively, and came in first as a first time challenger. She didn’t just squeeze by–she dominated that race. And she did it without raising a ton of cash.
@Ted: I didn’t miss the point, I was playing along with Steve’s Aldermen Election Trivia Game and noting that, it seems, only Schwartz (and Swiston*) defeated a sitting at large incumbent in a city-wide contest since Sangiolo did it in 1997 without having run or held a different city office previously.
Schwartz will go down in history as being the last Newton “Alderman” to ever do so.
Also, I wonder if Auchincloss gets his own asterisk as the only candidate to defeat a sitting city wide alderman but to never actually serve as an alderman? Now there’s a research project for some historian.
The best way to win is too not get to uppity, wait for the incumbent to resign, and focus on getting endorsements from sitting alderman. Even better, ask the incumbent to give you a heads-up before resigning, so you can enter early, and dissuade other candidates from entering.
Yes, it is a different position, but let’s not forget that the aldermen endorsement list matched the charter commission elected list perfectly. The hardest way to win is to challenge an incumbent and end up on the wrong side of the endorsement list.
I agree with the premise of the article Alderman THM posted, and predict that next election cycle will offer our city many additional substantive alternatives to the status quo.
What’s missing in this discussion is how did Jake spend all the money he raised. He had quite a few lawn signs and handouts but not close to $28,000 worth. He had no people holding signs at the polls and I think one mailing. If he had paid staff then I think it does change the game for the future.
@Howard Haywood, easy to check. Looks like mailings, printing and canvassing with some administrative staff expenses.
A quick tabulation of his OCPF report shows that Jake spent more than $5K on hired help for canvassing. Looks like he paid $15/hour.
Actually, Greg, I believe that there were a number of common council members back in the 1890s who were elected as councilors but served as aldermen when the bicameral City Council was changed to the unicameral Board of Aldermen.
@Ted: That’s the opposite: Councilors who became Alders.
I have to agree with Paul about the apparent complicity which occurs in the Newton when it comes to local elections.
When part of the professional success of the individuals(s) hosting fundraiser(s) for an incumbent pol’ depends on the approvals of elected officials – this implies “dirty dealing”.
The DEMPAC run “Campaign 2015” demonstrated another piece of this collusion. This DEMPAC was organized to support specific Democratic Party candidates (not all of the Demorats running in the local election – how ‘undemocratic’) who were in support of the current petition before the Newton Board of Aldermen for the Austin St project and included many members of the Friends of Austin Street. (Without naming ‘names’, many of whom have organized other political campaigns in Newton and across the Commonwealth).
Conclusion: Challengers to local elected office are left with the option to pursue raising serious money outside of Newton.
The location in which family, friends or former coworkers reside is completely unimportant in terms of campaign donations. The only exception would be if they happen to be part of an outside political organization. Otherwise it’s a non-issue. Your skills, character, and suitability for office could be better to someone who currently resides in Sugar Land, TX as your next door neighbor.
$Ted, Deb C was the top vote getter but Bill Brandel was running for the at-large seat for the first time. He was Ward Alderman at the time, not the at-large incumbent. True she out-polled Yates but Brian also was elected. It’s an interesting case, though.
Janet, you continue to use the acronym DEMPAC, which implies it is a registered democrat PAC and is very misleading, and post about its “dirty dealing,” and “collusion.” You continue to criticize on V14 most things democratic. You insist there is a difference between your NDCC and DEMPAC. You are the head of the ward 1 Newton Democratic City Committee, but you sound more like a Republican.
You receive notice about events sponsored by the NRCC to hear quite conservative speakers, which is not a problem at all but you make comments such as “Another reason why it’s better to be a Republican vs a Democrat,” on their event pages.
And you are on their lists as a member of Newton City Committee alongside other vocal Republicans, who don’t deny they are Republicans.
Personally I don’t care if you are either or none of the above, but it would be helpful in discussions if you would either pick a party you agree with most of the time to be the head of or become an independent or unenrolled so your comments and emails would be easier to understand.
Greg has asked about your continuous criticism of your party and its members before, since you are head of a Ward Democrat Committee. I would like to know why you are a member of the NDCC but don’t like anything about it? And what is the Newton City Committee?
@Gail plus canvassing/organizational software. Looks like he ran his campaign like a pro. Can’t wait to see him be that effective on the city council.
Raising a lot of money and having a sophisticated we’ll run campaign does not automatically translate into being a good elected official. Jake has put the spot light on himself and his performance will be closely monitored. His task will not be easy because he has big shoes to fill, Marvia Johnson has been an outstanding public servant.
To throw in another asterisk. Before Greg Schwartz beat Charlie Shapiro, Charlie had not had a contested election. He won his first (and only) term after Rob Gifford pulled out of the race over the summer. The only (I think) current Council-critter-to-be who has not yet had a contested race: Marc Laredo.
@Sean: So Charlie Shapiro has never won a contested election? (Including Governor’s Council, twice, and Charter Commission) I didn’t realize that!
@Howard Haywood, perhaps I am too much an optimist but Jake may be able to more than up to the task. I think one complaint about our city officials is poor communication to the citizens. A few of the alderman have taken up the challenge and I appreciate their weekly update emails. With Jake’s campaign efforts he can, and hopefully will, convert his contact database into a tool to share what is going on in City Hall. And of course expand his database to prepare for fighting off any of those pesky challengers who may wish to run in two years.
I hope you are right Groot. I have no idea what type of city councilor Jake will make with nothing to go on except his campaign strategies. We will soon see.
Setti Warren
Greg,
Yes, but he’s had the courage and commitment to put himself out there. Props for that.
@Sean: I entirely agree (and I’ve even voted for the guy at least half those times) I’m just starting to wonder if I’m about wear out my asterisk key.
@Janet: Charlie and I spar now and again but he has my respect. I believe he knows that and I believe we are always happy to see each other in person.
@Jane: What about Setti Warren? He did not defeat a sitting incumbent, if that’s what you’re thinking.
While some folks can only stay in their comfort zone and write about the work done by others, from my count Shapiro has put himself forward for public service 4 times (5 if you include Charter Commission). Unquestioningly this means that Charlie has the interest, drive, qualifications, and intention to serve his community. Despite the ceaseless bullying and attempted degradation of Shapiro’s character on the V14 blog, the count remains:
Shapiro 5, Reibman 0.
@GReibman
Glad you are reitrated your respect for Charlie Shapiro. One would ever believe that reading this blog.
He didn’t unseat a sitting incumbent, but his opponents were high profile electeds.