Prior to the last reporting period, Assemblyman Greg Aghazarian had a large advantage in money raised over his opponent, Assemblywoman Lois Wolk. However, the last reporting period ending on October 6, 2008 has shown that gap has shrunk considerably.
Los Wolk who represents Yolo and Solano Counties amassed $683,734 in contributions this period compared to Greg Aghazarian’s $213,838. Overall Aghazarian has still outraised the heavy favorite Wolk by raising $1.36 million to Wolk’s $888,736. However, Wolk now ends the period with $205,000 cash on hand to Aghazarian’s $174,000.
A huge amount of Aghazarian’s expenditures for this period was a $480,000 TV and Cabale ad buy.
Aghazarian’s biggest campaign donors remain the Republican party, however, as you can see from the complete donor list, at least 530 individuals and groups have donated $1000 or more to the Assemblyman’s campaign.
Lois Wolk has also spent over $400,000 on campaign ads in the past month with three different TV or Cable ad buys.
Lois Wolk’s, like her opponent, biggest campaign donors are from the Democratic party. She has had around 340 individuals and groups donate $1000 or more to her campaign.
Where does that leave this campaign? From what we have seen up in Davis, the campaign is starting to heat up in terms of the number of ads that are running. However, despite the nearly $2 million combined expenditures between the two sides, it appears still a fairly low profile race. It is not the constant air war barrage that we saw four years ago when Incumbent Mike Machado and Former Stockton Mayor Gary Podesto waged a no-holds barred affair.
By contrast this race is tame. We will see if the two parties continue to pump money into this race. It is our guess that internal polls probably show Wolk with a sizable lead and as a result the spending in this race may decline. We will have to monitor to see what is happening.
Greenwald is the founder, editor, and executive director of the Davis Vanguard. He founded the Vanguard in 2006. David Greenwald moved to Davis in 1996 to attend Graduate School at UC Davis in Political Science. He lives in South Davis with his wife Cecilia Escamilla Greenwald and three children.
Do you know if there is something in our state campaign financing laws which gives donors an incentive to funnel their contributions through the state parties? In other words, does a donor (individual or group) get more bang for his buck by giving to the Democratic or Republican Party committee than he would by simply giving to Wolk or her opponent directly? Or is it the case that most of the money is going directly to candidates, but the aggregation of funds through the parties simply allows the single biggest amounts to any one campaign come from his party?
As a general rule (if we are going to privately finance campaigns), I think we (as a state) are better off if the money goes through the parties. That takes power away from individual legislators and centralizes it among party leaders. The advantage of that is when the party wants to get something done — in other words, it wants to actually stand for something it feels is important — the leaders will have leverage over their members to get them to go along. When all of the power is with the individual legislators, there is much less party discipline and responsibility, and the parties end up not standing for anything.
Do you know if there is something in our state campaign financing laws which gives donors an incentive to funnel their contributions through the state parties? In other words, does a donor (individual or group) get more bang for his buck by giving to the Democratic or Republican Party committee than he would by simply giving to Wolk or her opponent directly? Or is it the case that most of the money is going directly to candidates, but the aggregation of funds through the parties simply allows the single biggest amounts to any one campaign come from his party?
As a general rule (if we are going to privately finance campaigns), I think we (as a state) are better off if the money goes through the parties. That takes power away from individual legislators and centralizes it among party leaders. The advantage of that is when the party wants to get something done — in other words, it wants to actually stand for something it feels is important — the leaders will have leverage over their members to get them to go along. When all of the power is with the individual legislators, there is much less party discipline and responsibility, and the parties end up not standing for anything.
Do you know if there is something in our state campaign financing laws which gives donors an incentive to funnel their contributions through the state parties? In other words, does a donor (individual or group) get more bang for his buck by giving to the Democratic or Republican Party committee than he would by simply giving to Wolk or her opponent directly? Or is it the case that most of the money is going directly to candidates, but the aggregation of funds through the parties simply allows the single biggest amounts to any one campaign come from his party?
As a general rule (if we are going to privately finance campaigns), I think we (as a state) are better off if the money goes through the parties. That takes power away from individual legislators and centralizes it among party leaders. The advantage of that is when the party wants to get something done — in other words, it wants to actually stand for something it feels is important — the leaders will have leverage over their members to get them to go along. When all of the power is with the individual legislators, there is much less party discipline and responsibility, and the parties end up not standing for anything.
Do you know if there is something in our state campaign financing laws which gives donors an incentive to funnel their contributions through the state parties? In other words, does a donor (individual or group) get more bang for his buck by giving to the Democratic or Republican Party committee than he would by simply giving to Wolk or her opponent directly? Or is it the case that most of the money is going directly to candidates, but the aggregation of funds through the parties simply allows the single biggest amounts to any one campaign come from his party?
As a general rule (if we are going to privately finance campaigns), I think we (as a state) are better off if the money goes through the parties. That takes power away from individual legislators and centralizes it among party leaders. The advantage of that is when the party wants to get something done — in other words, it wants to actually stand for something it feels is important — the leaders will have leverage over their members to get them to go along. When all of the power is with the individual legislators, there is much less party discipline and responsibility, and the parties end up not standing for anything.
The big thing is Prop 34 which puts a $3200 individual limitation on donations.
PACs are limited to $5300 and SCCs to $6400
In contrast, there is a $26,000 limit to political parties in terms of how much individuals can give to them in an election cycle.
Parties do not have limitation in terms of how much they can give candidates. So the proposition went a long way toward strengthening parties at the expense of individuals and groups.
Now what’s interesting is that there is a voluntary of $956,000 for State Senate General Elections. If they do not accept that limit, they get no ballot statement. I have to guess neither candidate is adhering to that.
The big thing is Prop 34 which puts a $3200 individual limitation on donations.
PACs are limited to $5300 and SCCs to $6400
In contrast, there is a $26,000 limit to political parties in terms of how much individuals can give to them in an election cycle.
Parties do not have limitation in terms of how much they can give candidates. So the proposition went a long way toward strengthening parties at the expense of individuals and groups.
Now what’s interesting is that there is a voluntary of $956,000 for State Senate General Elections. If they do not accept that limit, they get no ballot statement. I have to guess neither candidate is adhering to that.
The big thing is Prop 34 which puts a $3200 individual limitation on donations.
PACs are limited to $5300 and SCCs to $6400
In contrast, there is a $26,000 limit to political parties in terms of how much individuals can give to them in an election cycle.
Parties do not have limitation in terms of how much they can give candidates. So the proposition went a long way toward strengthening parties at the expense of individuals and groups.
Now what’s interesting is that there is a voluntary of $956,000 for State Senate General Elections. If they do not accept that limit, they get no ballot statement. I have to guess neither candidate is adhering to that.
The big thing is Prop 34 which puts a $3200 individual limitation on donations.
PACs are limited to $5300 and SCCs to $6400
In contrast, there is a $26,000 limit to political parties in terms of how much individuals can give to them in an election cycle.
Parties do not have limitation in terms of how much they can give candidates. So the proposition went a long way toward strengthening parties at the expense of individuals and groups.
Now what’s interesting is that there is a voluntary of $956,000 for State Senate General Elections. If they do not accept that limit, they get no ballot statement. I have to guess neither candidate is adhering to that.
Thanks, David, that answers my question. I’m not sure if it is old age on my part, but it sure is hard for me to remember what laws we have and have not passed with regard to campaign finance.
It would be interesting (but maybe not beneficial) in Davis if we had a similar law to Prop 34 — one which limited contributions to individuals to say $50, but permitted much larger donations (say $500) to some kind of party organizations.
I realize that we don’t officially have partisan elections for city council. However, everyone seems to understand that we have two parties here: the Greenwald Party and the Saylor Party. If the Davis parties had to work together to get their candidates elected, it might help with a unified message and voting discipline.
The two other advantages of having a Davis Prop 34 that I could see would be 1) to prevent spoiler candidates — where one party runs say 4 people for 2 seats while the other party runs only 3 — and 2) help a person run for office who has good qualities, but is disconnected from the donor community.
More likely, though, it would create rifts, where bigwigs in one of the parties, based on personality clashes, would try to exclude someone from their party from running. That disaffected person, then, might go out and start a third party, and the whole spoiler thing would be much worse.
Thanks, David, that answers my question. I’m not sure if it is old age on my part, but it sure is hard for me to remember what laws we have and have not passed with regard to campaign finance.
It would be interesting (but maybe not beneficial) in Davis if we had a similar law to Prop 34 — one which limited contributions to individuals to say $50, but permitted much larger donations (say $500) to some kind of party organizations.
I realize that we don’t officially have partisan elections for city council. However, everyone seems to understand that we have two parties here: the Greenwald Party and the Saylor Party. If the Davis parties had to work together to get their candidates elected, it might help with a unified message and voting discipline.
The two other advantages of having a Davis Prop 34 that I could see would be 1) to prevent spoiler candidates — where one party runs say 4 people for 2 seats while the other party runs only 3 — and 2) help a person run for office who has good qualities, but is disconnected from the donor community.
More likely, though, it would create rifts, where bigwigs in one of the parties, based on personality clashes, would try to exclude someone from their party from running. That disaffected person, then, might go out and start a third party, and the whole spoiler thing would be much worse.
Thanks, David, that answers my question. I’m not sure if it is old age on my part, but it sure is hard for me to remember what laws we have and have not passed with regard to campaign finance.
It would be interesting (but maybe not beneficial) in Davis if we had a similar law to Prop 34 — one which limited contributions to individuals to say $50, but permitted much larger donations (say $500) to some kind of party organizations.
I realize that we don’t officially have partisan elections for city council. However, everyone seems to understand that we have two parties here: the Greenwald Party and the Saylor Party. If the Davis parties had to work together to get their candidates elected, it might help with a unified message and voting discipline.
The two other advantages of having a Davis Prop 34 that I could see would be 1) to prevent spoiler candidates — where one party runs say 4 people for 2 seats while the other party runs only 3 — and 2) help a person run for office who has good qualities, but is disconnected from the donor community.
More likely, though, it would create rifts, where bigwigs in one of the parties, based on personality clashes, would try to exclude someone from their party from running. That disaffected person, then, might go out and start a third party, and the whole spoiler thing would be much worse.
Thanks, David, that answers my question. I’m not sure if it is old age on my part, but it sure is hard for me to remember what laws we have and have not passed with regard to campaign finance.
It would be interesting (but maybe not beneficial) in Davis if we had a similar law to Prop 34 — one which limited contributions to individuals to say $50, but permitted much larger donations (say $500) to some kind of party organizations.
I realize that we don’t officially have partisan elections for city council. However, everyone seems to understand that we have two parties here: the Greenwald Party and the Saylor Party. If the Davis parties had to work together to get their candidates elected, it might help with a unified message and voting discipline.
The two other advantages of having a Davis Prop 34 that I could see would be 1) to prevent spoiler candidates — where one party runs say 4 people for 2 seats while the other party runs only 3 — and 2) help a person run for office who has good qualities, but is disconnected from the donor community.
More likely, though, it would create rifts, where bigwigs in one of the parties, based on personality clashes, would try to exclude someone from their party from running. That disaffected person, then, might go out and start a third party, and the whole spoiler thing would be much worse.
David,
Do you know if there is something in our state campaign financing laws which gives donors an incentive to funnel their contributions through the state parties? In other words, does a donor (individual or group) get more bang for his buck by giving to the Democratic or Republican Party committee than he would by simply giving to Wolk or her opponent directly? Or is it the case that most of the money is going directly to candidates, but the aggregation of funds through the parties simply allows the single biggest amounts to any one campaign come from his party?
As a general rule (if we are going to privately finance campaigns), I think we (as a state) are better off if the money goes through the parties. That takes power away from individual legislators and centralizes it among party leaders. The advantage of that is when the party wants to get something done — in other words, it wants to actually stand for something it feels is important — the leaders will have leverage over their members to get them to go along. When all of the power is with the individual legislators, there is much less party discipline and responsibility, and the parties end up not standing for anything.
David,
Do you know if there is something in our state campaign financing laws which gives donors an incentive to funnel their contributions through the state parties? In other words, does a donor (individual or group) get more bang for his buck by giving to the Democratic or Republican Party committee than he would by simply giving to Wolk or her opponent directly? Or is it the case that most of the money is going directly to candidates, but the aggregation of funds through the parties simply allows the single biggest amounts to any one campaign come from his party?
As a general rule (if we are going to privately finance campaigns), I think we (as a state) are better off if the money goes through the parties. That takes power away from individual legislators and centralizes it among party leaders. The advantage of that is when the party wants to get something done — in other words, it wants to actually stand for something it feels is important — the leaders will have leverage over their members to get them to go along. When all of the power is with the individual legislators, there is much less party discipline and responsibility, and the parties end up not standing for anything.
David,
Do you know if there is something in our state campaign financing laws which gives donors an incentive to funnel their contributions through the state parties? In other words, does a donor (individual or group) get more bang for his buck by giving to the Democratic or Republican Party committee than he would by simply giving to Wolk or her opponent directly? Or is it the case that most of the money is going directly to candidates, but the aggregation of funds through the parties simply allows the single biggest amounts to any one campaign come from his party?
As a general rule (if we are going to privately finance campaigns), I think we (as a state) are better off if the money goes through the parties. That takes power away from individual legislators and centralizes it among party leaders. The advantage of that is when the party wants to get something done — in other words, it wants to actually stand for something it feels is important — the leaders will have leverage over their members to get them to go along. When all of the power is with the individual legislators, there is much less party discipline and responsibility, and the parties end up not standing for anything.
David,
Do you know if there is something in our state campaign financing laws which gives donors an incentive to funnel their contributions through the state parties? In other words, does a donor (individual or group) get more bang for his buck by giving to the Democratic or Republican Party committee than he would by simply giving to Wolk or her opponent directly? Or is it the case that most of the money is going directly to candidates, but the aggregation of funds through the parties simply allows the single biggest amounts to any one campaign come from his party?
As a general rule (if we are going to privately finance campaigns), I think we (as a state) are better off if the money goes through the parties. That takes power away from individual legislators and centralizes it among party leaders. The advantage of that is when the party wants to get something done — in other words, it wants to actually stand for something it feels is important — the leaders will have leverage over their members to get them to go along. When all of the power is with the individual legislators, there is much less party discipline and responsibility, and the parties end up not standing for anything.
Rich:
The big thing is Prop 34 which puts a $3200 individual limitation on donations.
PACs are limited to $5300 and SCCs to $6400
In contrast, there is a $26,000 limit to political parties in terms of how much individuals can give to them in an election cycle.
Parties do not have limitation in terms of how much they can give candidates. So the proposition went a long way toward strengthening parties at the expense of individuals and groups.
Here’s the law:
FPPC on Prop 34
Now what’s interesting is that there is a voluntary of $956,000 for State Senate General Elections. If they do not accept that limit, they get no ballot statement. I have to guess neither candidate is adhering to that.
Rich:
The big thing is Prop 34 which puts a $3200 individual limitation on donations.
PACs are limited to $5300 and SCCs to $6400
In contrast, there is a $26,000 limit to political parties in terms of how much individuals can give to them in an election cycle.
Parties do not have limitation in terms of how much they can give candidates. So the proposition went a long way toward strengthening parties at the expense of individuals and groups.
Here’s the law:
FPPC on Prop 34
Now what’s interesting is that there is a voluntary of $956,000 for State Senate General Elections. If they do not accept that limit, they get no ballot statement. I have to guess neither candidate is adhering to that.
Rich:
The big thing is Prop 34 which puts a $3200 individual limitation on donations.
PACs are limited to $5300 and SCCs to $6400
In contrast, there is a $26,000 limit to political parties in terms of how much individuals can give to them in an election cycle.
Parties do not have limitation in terms of how much they can give candidates. So the proposition went a long way toward strengthening parties at the expense of individuals and groups.
Here’s the law:
FPPC on Prop 34
Now what’s interesting is that there is a voluntary of $956,000 for State Senate General Elections. If they do not accept that limit, they get no ballot statement. I have to guess neither candidate is adhering to that.
Rich:
The big thing is Prop 34 which puts a $3200 individual limitation on donations.
PACs are limited to $5300 and SCCs to $6400
In contrast, there is a $26,000 limit to political parties in terms of how much individuals can give to them in an election cycle.
Parties do not have limitation in terms of how much they can give candidates. So the proposition went a long way toward strengthening parties at the expense of individuals and groups.
Here’s the law:
FPPC on Prop 34
Now what’s interesting is that there is a voluntary of $956,000 for State Senate General Elections. If they do not accept that limit, they get no ballot statement. I have to guess neither candidate is adhering to that.
Thanks, David, that answers my question. I’m not sure if it is old age on my part, but it sure is hard for me to remember what laws we have and have not passed with regard to campaign finance.
It would be interesting (but maybe not beneficial) in Davis if we had a similar law to Prop 34 — one which limited contributions to individuals to say $50, but permitted much larger donations (say $500) to some kind of party organizations.
I realize that we don’t officially have partisan elections for city council. However, everyone seems to understand that we have two parties here: the Greenwald Party and the Saylor Party. If the Davis parties had to work together to get their candidates elected, it might help with a unified message and voting discipline.
The two other advantages of having a Davis Prop 34 that I could see would be 1) to prevent spoiler candidates — where one party runs say 4 people for 2 seats while the other party runs only 3 — and 2) help a person run for office who has good qualities, but is disconnected from the donor community.
More likely, though, it would create rifts, where bigwigs in one of the parties, based on personality clashes, would try to exclude someone from their party from running. That disaffected person, then, might go out and start a third party, and the whole spoiler thing would be much worse.
Thanks, David, that answers my question. I’m not sure if it is old age on my part, but it sure is hard for me to remember what laws we have and have not passed with regard to campaign finance.
It would be interesting (but maybe not beneficial) in Davis if we had a similar law to Prop 34 — one which limited contributions to individuals to say $50, but permitted much larger donations (say $500) to some kind of party organizations.
I realize that we don’t officially have partisan elections for city council. However, everyone seems to understand that we have two parties here: the Greenwald Party and the Saylor Party. If the Davis parties had to work together to get their candidates elected, it might help with a unified message and voting discipline.
The two other advantages of having a Davis Prop 34 that I could see would be 1) to prevent spoiler candidates — where one party runs say 4 people for 2 seats while the other party runs only 3 — and 2) help a person run for office who has good qualities, but is disconnected from the donor community.
More likely, though, it would create rifts, where bigwigs in one of the parties, based on personality clashes, would try to exclude someone from their party from running. That disaffected person, then, might go out and start a third party, and the whole spoiler thing would be much worse.
Thanks, David, that answers my question. I’m not sure if it is old age on my part, but it sure is hard for me to remember what laws we have and have not passed with regard to campaign finance.
It would be interesting (but maybe not beneficial) in Davis if we had a similar law to Prop 34 — one which limited contributions to individuals to say $50, but permitted much larger donations (say $500) to some kind of party organizations.
I realize that we don’t officially have partisan elections for city council. However, everyone seems to understand that we have two parties here: the Greenwald Party and the Saylor Party. If the Davis parties had to work together to get their candidates elected, it might help with a unified message and voting discipline.
The two other advantages of having a Davis Prop 34 that I could see would be 1) to prevent spoiler candidates — where one party runs say 4 people for 2 seats while the other party runs only 3 — and 2) help a person run for office who has good qualities, but is disconnected from the donor community.
More likely, though, it would create rifts, where bigwigs in one of the parties, based on personality clashes, would try to exclude someone from their party from running. That disaffected person, then, might go out and start a third party, and the whole spoiler thing would be much worse.
Thanks, David, that answers my question. I’m not sure if it is old age on my part, but it sure is hard for me to remember what laws we have and have not passed with regard to campaign finance.
It would be interesting (but maybe not beneficial) in Davis if we had a similar law to Prop 34 — one which limited contributions to individuals to say $50, but permitted much larger donations (say $500) to some kind of party organizations.
I realize that we don’t officially have partisan elections for city council. However, everyone seems to understand that we have two parties here: the Greenwald Party and the Saylor Party. If the Davis parties had to work together to get their candidates elected, it might help with a unified message and voting discipline.
The two other advantages of having a Davis Prop 34 that I could see would be 1) to prevent spoiler candidates — where one party runs say 4 people for 2 seats while the other party runs only 3 — and 2) help a person run for office who has good qualities, but is disconnected from the donor community.
More likely, though, it would create rifts, where bigwigs in one of the parties, based on personality clashes, would try to exclude someone from their party from running. That disaffected person, then, might go out and start a third party, and the whole spoiler thing would be much worse.