From Jonathan Dame at Wicked Local Newton..
Ruthanne Fuller has an early fundraising advantage over Scott Lennon in Newton’s 2017 mayoral race – but both candidates are ahead of where their predecessors were during the 2009 election, a review of campaign finance records shows
When this amount of funding is raised for a race in a municipality of fewer than 90,000 inhabitants, you can safely say that the mayoralty is bought-and-paid-for. Depressing.
So sad! What will we see next – 30 second ads or Robocalls?
BTW – can anyone please share link to all the donors? I would like to see where is the support coming from? Newton or California/Florida.
It took me longer than I expected, so I only did it for one candidate, but –
An Excel analysis of the $50k that Ms. Fuller raised between 12/16 and 12/31 (as per the OCPF website) breaks down as follows:
Newton: 53% (a little over $25k)
Other MA: 28% (about $13.5k, including $3,400 from Brookline)
Other states (CA, CO, IL, MD, MI, NY, TX, VA, WA): 20% (just under $10k)
I don’t draw any conclusions from that, other than my own disappointment and apprehension that this amount of money is being pumped into a race for what should be, if conducted honestly, a pretty formulaic position, i.e. mayor of a small suburban city.
@Michael: Thanks for taking the time to do that. This is exactly the kind of thing we’d hoped people would do when we started this blog. And, you know, Lennon should be easier because he had fewer donors! 😉
And yes, it’s always good to ask questions about out of town money but I agree it’s likely friends, family, colleagues, etc. especially this early in the cycle. To me it this just shows that (a) she’s serious and (b) people believe in her.
But @Neil P: Rather than sit around and be paranoid…get to work. All this information is public record, look up some donors and do some research. Then share what you learn.
Maybe Ms. Fuller can explain the motivation of money coming from outside of Newton.
BTW – this should also serve as a clear indication why eliminating Ward Councillors is a BAAAD idea. Citywide races are expensive!!
@Neil – I’d only be concerned about out-of-state donors if they were: 1) contractors, consultants, etc. with business before the city, or 2) ideologues trying to stealthily impose their will through manipulation of local elections.
But glancing at the list, I suspect that the out-of-state donations are mostly her friends and colleagues, each sending a few hundred dollars.
Neil has a good point about the cost of city-wide races. Ward councilor has been a good stepping stone for newcomers – instead of needing to get name recognition city-wide, they only need to get known to 1/8 as many people. Getting onto the city council from the ward position is a good way for residents to learn more about a councilor and then allow them to run city-wide on a record, instead of just promises.
Let’s not go crazy here.
I’m impressed with the amount both candidates have been able to raise. I have no concern over out of city donors. This shows that people that know them feel comfortable enough in their ability to run a city. Also, what has to be taken into consideration is that $500 used to be the maximum one can donate, this is the first mayoral election where the max was moved up to $1000.
Also as far as out of city money is concerned …money is money and out of city money spends just as good as in city money. Impressive so far.
Asking for money for yourself is not fun and it’s hard.
Money is necessary. When I ran in 2005 there were many rumors about me that I wished I had money to correct. Thats where money is most useful…not allowing your opponents overjealous base (and there are plenty of them even in Newton) to incorrectly define your campaign.
Excellent points about those pointing out the importance of ward councilors when you look at the cost of running citywide. It’s also easier to raise money when you come from money. That is not a slam on anyone, but if we make all elected seats citywide and expensive, then those who come from money will have an advantage. If person A and person B both have lots of friends but person A has friends who can max out whereas person B’s friends love them just as much but can only afford to give $25 or $50, well the advantage goes to the one from a tonier circle of friends.
All valid points, but let’s not be disingenuous about the sizes of contributions or where they came from. They both receive plenty of $500 and $1,000 checks and had a similar % coming from out of town/state — my analysis puts it at 62% vs 68%.
Another interesting comparison is number of Newton donations. Fuller has 145 and Lennon has 100.
Emily,
That’s always been the case.
@Tom – it may have always been the case, but now the Charter Commission wants to eliminate ward councilors, which will eliminate that opportunity for people with less name recognition and fundraising ability to get their foot in the door.
Mgwa,
There are ways to make up for not having as much money as your opponent.
The big way to beat someone who has more money is to work harder by going door to door. Nothing leaves a bigger imprint on people’s mind as when the candidate him/herself actually goes door to door and talks to voters. There are plenty of instances where people with less name recognition and less money win elections. If the candidate wants it enough, they will make up for it in other areas. It’s done all the time.
But, I understand everyone’s concern.
@Tom = Earlier you mentioned you wish you had raised more money when you ran….. I am sure you worked harder as well. Just pointing out that the root of problems here is the large quantity of money in politics. It overwhelms any grassroot efforts.
@Franklin – I am dissapointed that both Lennon and Fuller have raised so much money, especially from outside Newton. The question for us should be – is this what we want to be the New Normal? With elimination of Ward Alderman it will be.
And BTW – it does matter where the money comes from – When someone from Newton gives money, it is because they believe in the vision for Newton that is painted. What is the motivation for someone from Texas or Wyoming to give for a local race?
I really hope Ms. Fuller and Mr. Lennon outline who these out of Newton donors are.
Neil,
I am not dismissing the importance of raising money. Whenever someone comes to me for advice, I tell them the most important thing is raising money. It’s always been that way. BUT, it can be overcome.
Just because I was unable to do it, doesn’t mean others can’t. I was a bad candidate.
@Tom – it’s a heck of a lot more feasible to knock on every door in a ward than in the entire city. That, more than the money, is why ward councilor is an important stepping stone. Once you’ve been on the City Council representing a ward, you have some name recognition for trying to run city-wide.
Under any circumstances, you need to have significant name recognition to run a credible race for City Council. It’s one of the main branches of the city goernment! Why would anyone think that the City Council may be the place where an unknown candidate should begin seeking office? The most viable candidates have led a local neighborhood association/area council, board, advocacy group, or have deep roots in the community.
As I reported earlier, here are the finance reports from candidates in the November 2015 election. With the exception of the ward 2 at-large outlier (Jake Auchincloss whose family was actually quite well known in the ward), there appears to be little connection to the competitiveness of their races and the amount of money spent on the campaign:
Councilor At Large:
$2263 – Lipof
$7135-Wolpe
$500-Kalis
$3300 – Yates
$8300-Crossley
$7600-Pitts
$3571-Malakie
$5586-Ted
$5274 Cote (5271)
Ward 2
$14,000- Leblanc
$4,100- Barton
$18,000- Johnson
$21,000- Albright
$33, 900- Auchincloss
Ward 1
$0-Ciccone
$1019-Leary
Ward 2
$4000-Norton
Ward 3
$0-Bousel-Glaser
Ward 4
$0-Harney
Ward 5
$0-Rice
Ward 6
$0-Blazar
Ward 7
$4500-Baker
Ward 8
$22.50-Lappin
Impressive fundraising by both candidates! Out of state money? No big deal!
Giving this early in a campaign is likely because of familiarity & relationship with a particular candidate. I’m not concerned at all. Since we have not heard much from either Fuller or Lennon regarding their campaign platform or vision for Newton, a donor (from Newton, MA or out of state) likely has a personal or professional relationship with the candidate & knows, likes & believes in that candidate’s experience . I’m guessing all the “low hanging fruit” was asked first – college classmates, business colleagues, family, friends, etc etc. As a result those that know the candidate best gave first – nothing unusual in campaign fundraising.
…Full disclosure I’m supporting Ruthanne & am one of her early 2016 donors for the above reasons ( & more) & look forward to this campaign & the debate on important issues effecting the next generation of Newtonites. #Fuller4Mayor
Agree with mgwa.
Jane says, “Why would anyone think that the City Council may be the place where an unknown candidate should begin seeking office? The most viable candidates have led a local neighborhood association/area council, board, advocacy group, or have deep roots in the community.” I find this statement disheartening as well as troublesome. Most viable is not the same as most qualified or most informed or most anything except most likely to win. Name recognition is what trips up the process unless it’s gained during campaigning.
Calling Jake Auchincloss’s campaign fundraising an outlier is a misnomer. It’s more a sign of the future. Jake both knocked on doors and raised money. He grew his name recognition during the process. Many of the councilors above who raised less were either unchallenged or won on name recognition alone.
Sometimes the past is a prediction for the future but more often than not it’s just the past.
There are many ways to build city wide name recognition that require no fundraising. PTOs, area councils or other neighborhood groups, participation in civic organizations or on non-profit boards, volunteering, attending networking and community events, letters and columns in the TAB and — my personal favorite — intelligent, witty comments daily on Village 14.
Yes, money is important but it’s not the only thing.
@Marti:
I don’t see how having grass roots experience in a community would not make a candidate for City Council or any other local office, more qualified or informed.
@Jane said “Why would anyone think that the City Council may be the place where an unknown candidate should begin seeking office?”
I am dissapointed to see the Charter Commission put qualifiers like this for someone inspiring to bring their experience and leadership to the city government. However, I respect Jane for her candor, and for informing us where CC was coming from.
@Neil P: Jane Frantz is not the Charter Commission. She is one of nine charter commissioners. I didn’t read her comments as speaking for the commission. It’s unfair to her and the rest of the commissioners to suggest otherwise.
I’m just referring to the reality of the situation. if you want to be a City Councilor, you don’t submit a resume and attend interviews. You have to win an election and in order to win an election, a lot of people need to know who you are. A lot. The more connections you have in the city, the more people are likely to vote for you. If a candidate hasn’t been involved in the city in some way, then I don’t understand how people are going to know who s/he is.
As Greg pointed out, there are many paths that lead to a candidate having a record in the city that would lead to name recognition.
Jake’s funding is an outlier because it’s never happened before. Several uncontested
Greg, I didn’t mean to imply that grassroots, community service would not be beneficial to any candidate. I only meant a candidate who is “most viable” – most likely to win – is not always the best person for the job. I think all of the avenues you mentioned are excellent preparation for holding local office but that doesn’t mean a previously unknown, more recent member of the community should’t be considered as well.
Neil – Each member of the charter commission has his/her own opinion on all matters and I speak for myself and no one else.
Candidates for a position on the City Council, no matter what its size or composition, need to have the time to run a campaign and benefit from having a history of involvement in city affairs. I really doubt I’ve broken a top news story with that statement.
I provided data about the most recent municipal election, during which two ward incumbent Councilors who ran unopposed spent as much as, close to, or more than candidates in at-large contested races, with the exception of the Ward 2 race. A case has been made that a Ward campaign is less expensive to run than an at-large campaign, but the data doesn’t support that position.
MGWA (and others), theoretically, you’re right. But, as a practical matter, I can think of exactly one aldercritter/councilor who has entered at the ward level and then stepped up to city-wide: Scott Lennon. In Scott’s case, he had been a ward alderman for over ten years (I believe), had been board vice-president, and had eyes on first board president and then the mayor, so he stepped up (appropriately) to a city-wide seat when the opportunity arose. The counter story is what happened to Bill Brandel when, after a term as a ward alderman, he ran for an at-large seat and lost.
Look at the current ward councilors and you’ll see that many are among the most senior, with many more junior councilors in at-large seats. Historically, it just hasn’t been the case that newcomers use the ward seats as stepping stones or that there’s any particular hurdle to winning an at-large seat. Incumbency is probably a bigger factor.
Not sure on what basis we’re using the term “step up” in moving from ward seat to at-large seat. They’re just different. Same voting privileges. Whereas going from councilor to mayor, or councilor to state legislator is a “step up” in terms of being a different job with more responsibility or authority or voters you’re representing.
Sean, thanks for pointing out the difference between theory and practice.
Emily, ward councilors (elected by a percentage) and at-large councilors (elected city-wide) having the same voting rights and chance to lead boards is a major reason many want to eliminate ward councilors.
Ruthanne’s fundraising is impressive. $100k in a month is an accomplishment in itself and speaks to her personal network and popularity. 50k coming from elsewhere is not a factor. It just indicates she has many successful contacts who can comfortably donate $1000, and there’s nothing wrong with that at all.
It appears from the report that Scott raised 50k or so in Dec with fewer $1000 contributions, and a much larger percentage of smaller contributions, which is also impressive.
These are both really good people and it will be an interesting race for sure.
As far as Jane’s post listing the amount used to be reelected goes, it simply reinforces the need to vote down the proposed revised Charter and retain Ward Councilors. (which I don’t think was her intention)
@Marti-Same voting rights might be a valid point, but the alternative of gutting ward representation is simply a worse option. There is no evidence whatsoever that points to an outcry from residents asking to take away their Ward Reps.
“The first rule of “do no harm” is taking a backseat to power consolidation.