On July 20, 2007 all Campaign Finance Reports for the Spring 2007 elections were due. Here is some summary information on the 6 School Board candidates as well as the Political Action Committee (PAC) for the failed referendum.
OUR SCHOOLS OUR FUTURE ( REFERENDUM PAC)
Total money raised was slightly less than $10,000
Total money spent was approx. $9,000 so, presumably there is about $1,000 left for the next time.
Contributions greater than $100 were:
Brent Wogahn: $1,000
Eau Claire Student Transit: $1,000 (the bus company for the district)
WEAC: $1,000
AFT: $1,000
Eau Claire Anesthesiologists: $500 (JoAnne Evans' husband's employer)
Market and Johnson: $500
Richard Baer: $500 (owner of Avalon Florist)
Carol Olson: $500
RBC Dain Rauscher: $300
JoAnne Evans: $250
Bonni Knight: $250 (teacher and organizer of One Voice group)
Mark Faanes: $250 (Ken Faanes' brother, also employes at Wipfli who does the ECASD audit)
Huebsch: $250
Sharon Manz: $250 (also employed at EC Anesthesia)
Landmark Company: $250
Dell Construction: $250
Ayres Associates: $250
Kimera Way: $125
George Clay II: $150
SDS Architects: $150
Expenditures greater than $400 (total)
L&M Mail Service mailings: $3,188
Leader Telegram ads: $2,540
Copying: $1,149
Yard signs: $1,139
*************************************
MIKE BOLLINGER
No donations. He spent $3,394.35 of his own money for his campaign.
Expenditures greater than $100
Leader Telegram ads: $2,254
Yard signs: $868
Copies, printing: $146
**************************************
KEN FAANES
Approx. $450 in small donations from 8 people (all $100 or less).
He spent $2,809 of his own money for his campaign.
Expenditures greater than $100
Leader Telegram ads: $2, 093
Yard signs: $868
Copies, printing: $165
*******************************************
MARIA HENLY
Total receipts: approx. $4,500 (cash)
Donations greater than $100:
Wisconsin People Conference: $500
EC Area Educators: $500
Progressive Majority of WI: $462 (in-kind donation of voter lists)
Maria Henly: $358 (total out of pocket)
Karen Schreiter: $200
Jill Barland: $175
Ruth Rosauer: $150
Jane Lindsay: $150
plus 41 donations of $100 or less
Expenditures greater than $100
Leader Telegram ads: $1,109
Printing/copying: $829
Yard signs: $763
Volume One Ads: $756
Stickers: $300
Senior Review ad: $300
T-shirts: $286
**********************************
BOB JANKE
Mr. Janke declared that his campaign cost less than $1,000 so there is no requirement to file a State Elections Board Finance report.
***********************************
TERRI STANLEY
Total Receipts: $1,465 (cash)
Donations greater than $100
AFSCME: $500
Jim Moessner: $250
Progressive Majority of WI: $462 (in kind voter lists)
Expenditures greater than $100
Yard Signs: $586
Printing: $497
Campaign workers: $320
**********************************
BRENT WOGAHN
Total expenditures of $3,425. All funded by the candidate.
Expenses greater than $100:
Leader Telegram ads: $2,214
Yard Signs: $980
Printing: $197
*******************************************
Election Results
Referendum YES: 6,388
NO: 8,026
Faanes: 7,366
Bollinger: 6,570
Wogahn: 6,226
Henly: 5,903
Stanley: 5,407
Janke: 4,636
All election pundits are welcome to dissect this information and give us their analysis!
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
3 comments:
I don't think the outcome of those two elections had much to do with the expenditures of the various parties but I found that information interesting.
One has to look at the various ward results
and the turnout as local elections are determined by a small minority of those eligible to vote and that varies a great deal from ward to ward as some are high turnout; others like the dorms low or practically non-existent.
I have looked at the ward data and find some intetesting correlations between the votes for the referendum, the school board, and the state Supreme Court candidates in key wards.
The more conservative wards determined by the supreme court race were also those voting NO on the referendum,
The board race was more complex as all candidates but one supported the referendum.
Key wards in local elections in the area are usually 3, 25, 31, and Town of Washington- all high turmout. I don't have the turnout data compared to previous years so can't really tell what happened, I have a number of theories that need more checking.
The third ward was a key ward as the race there was much more even than I had expected. The candidates I thought would win in that ward did but not by the margins needed to overcome weaker showings in other wards.
Each of the candidates had a personal base of support, only shared in a general way by the apparent grouping of candidates. Those with a larger unified base who got out the vote for that base won.
I sensed there was less unity within the general bases for one group of candidates than the other. Part of that I think had to do with the Motesorri School issue whatever that was. I knew it was there but could never (and still can't) figure out what the below the surface issue there was and is.
Jim, I don't think you've got it correct. the referendum made this a very atypical election. Last year less than 7,000 people voted in the school district election, this year it was over 15,000. That means there were thousands, perhaps a majority of the turnout, that had would not have shown up otherwise and had little or no history with spring elections. The overwhelming majority of those new voters were there to vote 'No' on the referendum, you can see that clearly from the wards where turnout was up the most.
What you had was large numbers of voters with a much lower level of attachment to local politics than usual. These were the people that swung each election. The correlation between increase in turnout over 2006 and winning positions and candidates was striking. And I'll bet very few of those 'No' voters even knew which candidate opposed the referendum.
I've done quite a lot of work on this already. Maybe this weekend I'll find the time to run the numbers on voters with no prior spring election history. But I think writing big checks to the Leader-Telegram was a pretty effective way to reach those voters. I'll note that in the Supreme Court race the winner and her surrogates outspent her opponent and her surrogates by a lot.
But Mr. Schwartz, did not Mrs. Henly spend more than the other candidates? I don't follow your line of thinking when it comes to the money issue.
I do however, agree that it was a very unique election and that the candidates who reached the '3rd rail' were the winners.
Post a Comment