Thanks in part to presence of more candidates, but also to the New Economy, this year’s city council contenders are raising less—and raising money more slowly—than council candidates have in years past. For example, this time two years ago, Bruce Harrell—a credible candidate running for an open seat that he ultimately won—had raised $72,324, almost half—$33,258—in April. In contrast, this year, Sally Bagshaw—a credible candidate running for an open seat that she may well ultimately win—has raised $67,142, only $14,190 of that raised in April.
In seats where challengers are taking on incumbents, the contrast is similarly stark. 2007 challenger Tim Burgess, for example, had raised $81,810 raised by now, $15,685 of that in April. The incumbent he ran against and ultimately defeated, David Della, had raised $122,970, with $13,425 raised in April. This year Nick Licata has raised $55,723, $14,839 of that in April; his best-financed competitor, Martin Kaplan, has raised $27,185, $13,735 of that in April. And no one has much cash on hand—the candidate with the most cash in the bank is incumbent Richard Conlin, with $58,767 on hand. Two years ago, the best financed candidate was incumbent Tom Rasmussen, with $108,799. (The best-financed campaign with an opponent was Della, and he had $74,076 on hand.)
The total haul for this year’s candidates, to give a macro angle, is $520,370. The total haul for 2007’s seven top candidates only (listed below): $724,663. That’s a 28 percent drop in fundraising compared to the last campaign season.
And the pace of fundraising has been slowing down over time, rather than doing what you’d expect it to do: Pick up in the runup to the August primary. Of 13 candidates who filed reports for April, only five—Licata challengers Jessie Israel and Martin Kaplan, Licata, Conlin, and Position 8 candidate David Miller—raised more in April than they did in March.
So incumbents are having trouble raising money, but challengers are really having trouble raising money. That’s a troubling trend for anyone who wants to shake up the status quo in this year’s council races.
Full numbers below the jump.
May 2009
Position 2
Richard Conlin (incumbent)
$77,428 raised
$14,441 raised in April
$58,767 cash on hand
David Ginsberg
$18,192 raised
$5,763 raised in April
$10,831 cash on hand
Position 4
Sally Bagshaw
$67,142 raised
$14,190 raised in April
$34,781 cash on hand
David Bloom
$33,928 raised
$8,109 raised in April
$28,510 cash on hand
Josh Caple
No reports
Dorsol Plants
$1,468 raised
$425 raised in April
$738 cash on hand
Position 6
Jessie Israel
$25,811 raised
$10,801 raised in April
$15,492 cash on hand
Martin Kaplan
$27,185 raised
$13,735 raised in April
$26,556 cash on hand
Nick Licata (incumbent)
$55,723 raised
$14,839 raised in April
$25,543 cash on hand
Position 8
Bobby Forch
No report
David Miller
$33,354 raised
$11,295 raised in April
$22,132 cash on hand
Mike O’Brien
$40,019 raised
$6,151 raised in April
$28,148 cash on hand
Robert Rosencrantz
$57,927 raised
$15,746 raised in April
$23,625 cash on hand
Jordan Royer
$47,782 raised
$13,066 raised in April
$35,904 cash on hand
Rusty Williams
$38,611 raised
$4,150 raised in April
$32,252 cash on hand
Darryl Dwayne Carter
No report
Robert Sondheim
No report
May 2007
Jean Godden (incumbent)
$142,960 raised
$32,526 raised in April
$89,250 cash on hand
David Della (incumbent)
$122,970 raised
$13,425 raised in April
$74,076 cash on hand
Tim Burgess
$81,810 raised
$15,685 raised in April
$51,142 cash on hand
Tom Rasmussen (incumbent)
$148,792 raised
$15,743 raised in April
$108,799 cash on hand
Bruce Harrell
$72,324 raised
$33,258 raised in April
$54,098 cash on hand
Venus Velazquez
$55,733 raised
$18,180 raised in April
$29,492 COH
Sally Clark
$100,074 raised by 5/10 filing
$21,661 raised in April
$85,664 cash on hand
Wait … Venus? is she running, since she was found INNOCENT?
Campaigning for Seattle City Council is 90 percent Dialing For Dollars, 10 percent talking issues with voters.
Big money is necessary because the city is so large, approaching 600K people, and all elections are city-wide. The only way to reach enough voters to win is to spend big. Most recently the communications medium of choice is carpet-bombing voters’ mailboxes with slick mailers — very effective, and very expensive.
If council members were elected from districts, the number of voters a candidate would need to reach would be far less. Campaign mailings would be cheaper, and more importantly, with less time spent on the telephone Dialing For Dollars, candidates could spend more time meeting voters face-to-face. It’s called Retail Politics. Meeting voters on their front porches, in coffee hours, and in neighborhood meetings.
Sure, rich or well-connected candidates will always have an advantage, but in a district a candidate can run a grassroots campaign and reach a winning set of voters on the cheap. Grassroots is infinitely harder in city-wide campaigns.
Seattle is one of only two large cities in America that elects all its councilmembers at-large. The other is Detroit. It’s time for a change.
I’m sure these posts take a lot of work and politicians like them, but how about comparing candidates on issues or background instead? I have no clue who a lot of these people are. It’s really cynical to just report on the money-raising horserace, and I’m slightly cynical myself.
lizzie has a point.
After all, all but one city council member voted to force the Billionaire’s Tunnel (SR-99 Viaduct replacement) and Mercer Millionaire’s Mess on Seattle taxpayers (which includes renters) even though we citizens strongly said we didn’t want either.
What? What? All that City money the Council gave to all those consultants and they show no love?
@3, @4, et al.: ECB has never shown any inclination whatsoever to actually report on the issues in the City Council races. It’s horse-race all the way! Next series of posts: who hired/fired which campaign consultant. Bet on it.
“carpet-bombing voters’ mailboxes with slick mailers — very effective, and very expensive.”
Really? I consider myself to be at least minimally engaged in civic life, but those are the FIRST things I toss in the recycle bin.
And, while I agree wholeheartedly with you on the need for districts, you won’t get much movement on that issue here. Part of the religion of this area is that Income Tax is communism and that districts would make us just like Chicago. (Never mind that Chicago is a far superior city to Seattle)
As a first-time candidate I can attest to this year’s difficulty in raising money. Many people who looked at the numbers above would use them to make their decision on who is and is not a viable candidate. While numbers tell a lot about a candidate’s connections and fund-raising abilities, the problem with that is you miss out on the heart and soul of each of the candidates running: what they are passionate about and how they would serve the community. As a first year candidate I made the choice to focus the beginning of my campaign on the issues that each and every one of us are feeling in the city by spending face-to-face time with voters.
Ultimately, are you wanting to choose to vote for me based off my ability to raise money or is it my honest concern for this city and the way I prioritize listening to people on the ground over chasing dollars? I have and will continue to run a strong grassroots campaign that is supported by the families who live in our neighborhoods that are hurting–not just because of the economy, but from property taxes that are too high and a local government that they feel isn’t listening to them. They may not have large amount of money they can donate at one time, but they do have the time and energy that they are investing in this campaign that has been invaluable to me. That is what we are missing out on when we focus on fundraising and not on the issues.
@Dorsol: You got my BF’s vote. He adores you.
I like Jessie Israel, but hey, the race is still early. I agree with the other comments that we need to get to know the people running on the issues.
So hey Erica, can we do a live blog with each of the candidates each week? Like we ask questions, moderated, and they have to respond? Or maybe have set questions that are submitted and have them respond, then open the live blog to comments or further questions? That would be AWESOME.
It is a fallacy to simply assume campaigns will cost less if we elect Council members by district. State legislative district campaigns are now as expensive as City Council races, yet they cover less territory.
Candidates will raise and spend as much as they can. Donors will give to candidates whether or not there are districts. Donors give because they seek to curry favor from an elected, because they agree politically with the candidate, or because they are a friend or associate of the candidate.
Honestly, I think this may even out races more and not less. People were raising close to $200k last election. I’ve never seen a progressive City Council candidate who wasn’t an incumbent raise more than about $75k.