Campaign 2012 - Part 3 ("The Good, the Bad, and the Absent")

As I indicated in Part 2 of this series, I am also a candidate for city council so my opinions may not be entirely neutral. I’ve tried to treat myself like everyone else in this analysis, but for obvious reasons that is difficult to do. That being said, here’s my take on the data. First, let’s review what I think are the salient points.

• Campaign spending has already exceeded the all-time record for Lake Forest and is on track to hit $200,000.

• The power politics surrounding the struggle between Herzog vs. Voigts that led to big spending in 2010 is even more exaggerated in 2012 as Herzog struggles to regain power.

• Nick and Robinson (the Voigts team) together have spent more than $80,000, yet practically none of this was spent in our City.

• There is wide variation in how much of their own money people put into their campaigns, from 83% (Nick) to 0% (Rudolph).

• There is wide variation in how much of their money is spent on people and/or businesses in our City, from 77% (Gardner) to 2% (Nick).

• As far as I can tell, only two candidates are accepting money from people/businesses with vested interests in City Council decisions – Robinson and Rudolph. But please bear in mind, given the time I had to research this issue, I suspect there are more.

So, looking at all of this, here are some observations.

• Despite the fact that he seems to be spending a lot of money, Carrell did not submit any 460 FPPC forms so his expenses cannot be analyzed. I think his inaction in this regards speaks volumes. At a time where everyone is stressing transparency, this is very unusual indeed.

• Apart from the money the City demanded for filing an election statement, BIG spenders Nick and Robinson did not spend a cent in our City. Personally I find that startling and a very poor qualification for asking us to put our City in their hands.

• Apparently without shame, Council woman Rudolph continues to accept money from vested interests, and she spends campaign money in a questionable manner, spending nearly half of it on a personal computer. Combined with the recent information about her high level of dipping into public funds to reimburse herself for travel, her continuation on the Council is an embarrassment to everyone.

• Zechmeister comes off pretty well. She had one of the highest percentages of her own money invested and had the second highest amount spent in our City.

• I look pretty good too. I had a high percentage of my own money in the race, spent more of it on people and businesses in our City than anyone else did, and spent less than anyone else because I relied on volunteers.

Each of you can draw your own conclusions from the data. But I think it’s important to follow the money. You get an insight into the person by looking at how they raise money and how they spend it. And given that each of these people are asking for your vote, and asking you to trust them with the future of our City, it’s important to gain an insight into their behavior.

• Do you want BIG spenders or do you want people who watch their money and spend it carefully?

• Do you want council members who invest in our people and our businesses, or who spend our money in other cities?

• Do you want your council members taking money from people and businesses with vested interests?

• Do you want to encourage transparency or secrecy?

Here’s a summary of the candidates who conform to what most of us consider to be good practices, at least with regard to spending –

• Not a big spender –Gardner, Rudolph, and Zechmeister. (rank order)

• Spends most of their money in Lake Forest – Gardner and Zechmeister. (rank order)

• Doesn’t accept vested interest money – Anderson, Gardner, Nick, and Zechmeister (listed alphabetically)

• Has a modest or no sign campaign – Rudolph and Gardner (rank order)

• Transparent – Anderson, Gardner, Nick, Robinson, Rudolph, and Zechmeister (listed alphabetically)

Of course most of us don’t want to make our decision about whom to vote for only on the basis of their campaign finances, so this information is useful but not definitive.