Speaking only for myself and not the state or local party, Nick Anas’s statement is exactly right. The DPOC established three priorities this year and concentrated its resources there. The reason you saw “Same-Day, Same-Dollar” contributions from DPOC is that we wanted to get money to her campaign (and the Irvine and Costa Mesa ones) as soon as we had it in hand — no matter who had donated it. There’s nothing sinister about that. (In other words, at least the “From Disney” part of your headline is bogus. Make it “From DPOC,” thanks.)

Here’s the actual story: After people down here (especially but not solely with the Quirk-Silva campaign) had been banging every drum since February to tell the party that we had the real deal down here — a gifted candidate that we believed could win. (Was all of this a secret? No — I wrote about it openly right after the primary, when Sharon had been counted out by many. http://www.orangejuiceblog.com/2012/06/ad-65-fullerton-versus-south-of-the-freeways/.) We knew that we had a potential winner — one who could, improbably, deliver a Democratic Assembly majority. They FINALLY did their own polling and found out that we were right. Norby, in contrast, was not beloved by his caucus and despite his efforts he couldn’t raise that late money. (One problem with trouncing someone in a meaningless primary is that people presume that you don’t need it.)

That good fortune didn’t just happen — getting into the position of being poised to benefit was the result of extremely hard work by Sharon, her husband Jesus, and many others inside and out of the campaign. (Let me claim a little credit for the Democrats of North Orange County club, which along with Jay Chen’s campaign rented the Fullerton HQ from which many people worked on behalf of Sharon and others, myself included, in a truly and properly coordinated campaign.) The voter registration drives that tipped many cities either blue or almost blue are an indication of how hard people worked. Lots of people cooperated — Loretta Sanchez was a prime mover, of course, but even beyond her Sharon has built up a lot of good will with many people over time.

Once the late polling showed that Sharon was where she needed to be, it was (obviously) a major topic of statewide discussion. People up and down the state knew — without having to give others directions — that this was one of the places that their money could help. (SD-31, SD-5, and some others were in a similar category.) When that happens, people send money where it will help. It’s not a matter of earmarking — it’s a matter of people realizing that if you have money there at the end, both any donor and any county committee are going to know that it needs to go to competitive races, just like they know that it needs to go to Democrats.

My sense is that which committees would receive donations depends on donors judgments about the good sense and judgment of the people in charge of those committees — something developed from personal meetings at conventions and from documented track records. Knowing where to direct late money, precisely because it can’t be coordinated, is an art. It involves a lot of study of public “late contribution” reports, checking published polls, and then some blind — and hopefully lucky — guesses.

So “How AD-65 Really Was Won” was not a story of late contributions. It was a story of having a superior candidate who put together a strong operation, uniting the disparate parts of the party, including gobs of active volunteers. The contributions from the final 18 days surely helped, but given a 4-point margin of victory they weren’t likely decisive. Her opponent, by contrast, made some questionable choices — do any of you want to defend this mailer? http://www.orangejuiceblog.com/2012/11/dedicated-husband-chris-norby-puts-out-the-most-shameful-mailer-of-the-year/ — and was apparently overconfident that “he wouldn’t get beaten by a girl.”

And he wasn’t — he was beaten by a smart, hard-working, well-liked woman — and a party unified behind her.