Steve Filson's Campaign Finances
Well, Kevin finished up yesterday with his fine series of questions for Richard Pombo. I couldn’t help but notice that the comment thread was moving pretty far afield from Pombo’s shady dealings with Jack Abramoff and Neil Volz, so I thought I’d move some of the comments from that thread into a post here.
Longtime reader $.02 has been tracking campaign finance records for the candidates in CA-11, and posted two comments with his latest take on Steve Filson's financial status. Here's his first comment:
I just checked the latest posts on the Federal Election Commission's web site and lo and behold...Later in the evening, $.02 reported back with this update:
1) Filson's gone and dropped a $15,000 moolabomb into his campaign from his own (lighter) wallet, just today (or at least, just filed today)
2) At first blush, this would seem to indicate he's willing to invest in himself (which is good, especially since he pleads poverty from having lost his United pension as a campaign highlight), but
3) One could also posit that this sort of thing (self-funding) typically (if it happens at all) happens early in the campaign, as seed money to get started, and
4) Since $15,000 will barely buy a single mailing these days, and since he's raised over $400K when the 48 hour notices are added to the Pre-Primary number, between lots of PAC money and lots of max checks, one wonders...
Has the "big donor" well run dry? Or is Steverino just playing "Restaurant Makeover" on Food Network?
It's over for Steverino.So, have at it here -- just try not to break any of the furniture.
1) As of 5/17/06, his (badly) managed campaign had $65,397 and change in that wonderful phrase, "cash on hand". At the same time, he had over $41,427 in debt, which meant that his actual "uncommitted cash" (that which he could spend on new stuff not already in the in-box as an "accounts payable" from yesterday's fun) was a mere $23,900 and change.
2) His burn rate from the latest reporting period (4/1 - 5/17) was an astonishing $3,278 per day (yes, kiddies, PER DIEM!) which meant that he had a mere 7.31 days of "uncommitted cash" left to spend as of 5/17, unless he brought in a whole YACHTLOAD more than he was spending on that per diem basis.
3) For the latest period using only F6 48 hour reports (which means it's not entirely Apples to Dells, but bear with me), he's raised a mere $22,200 without his own big fat check-o of $15,000 just yesterday. Let's try to calibrate that to a "total funds raised" since the F6s only count $1,000 and up, and the "itemized" only needs to be $200 or more. His "unitemized take" for the last reporting period is a mere 18.5% of his total, so being generous and saying that his "non-F6 take" is double that, he still has 63% of his take having to be reported via F6s, which means if his F6 total is only $22,200, his "total total" is a mere $35,200 and change through 5/31, for a "take rate" of $2,517 per diem.
4) Since he continues to burn at $3,278 per day (or higher, who knows?) and his rake-in is only $2,517 per day, his unpaid friends as of 5/17:
Lisa Tucker -- $22,400+
Russ Miller -- $4,400+
Fraioli and Co. -- $5,500+
might be getting nervous about having their invoices turn into dead presidents and might have said to Steverino's checkbook:
Show me the MONEY!
P.S. to Rock-a-bye -- it DOES matter as to when money is given -- if it is given during a primary, it must be assumed to be used for you or AGAINST your opponent, who is also from the same party, so you and I can't vouch for that $15,000 not going for some last-minute hit piece against McWindmill, now, can we?