OC Political

A right-of-center blog covering local, statewide, and national politics

Archive for the ‘Campaign Finance’ Category

The perpetual race for second place

Posted by Brenda Higgins on June 2, 2018

Polls are not hard to understand.  The science of polling, even with the basic college level understanding of how the math behind it works, is also easily understood to be not just subjective, but fully within the manipulation of the pollster.

It doesn’t take a scientific poll to see and comprehend what has happened in elections in the U.S. and around the world in the past three U.S election cycles.  People with a real power to vote, have done so. And, they have done so in outright rebellion to those in power who have told them what to do and how to vote.  In spite of the effort of this ruling class of politicians and pollsters and pundits, people have rejected their group-think advisements to vote as they are being told to vote, and they are voting, with a level of enthusiasm and fervor, that we have not seen in our lifetime.

People have, in massive numbers, rejected what they have been told, and voted for candidates that experts said could not win.  My opinion is based upon my own very unscientific polling. I knocked on people’s doors and talked to them about things like health insurance and abortion. I called them on the phone and talked to them about Unions and school bonds.  I knocked on their doors to remind them to vote or show up to their caucus. I have done this many thousands of times in the past few election cycles.

They want to talk about things that aren’t in the polls.  In 2014 in Arkansas, people expressed angry reflexive passion to  vote for any candidate with a “R” by their name. In 2015 there was fury over more special elections and efforts to create more special taxes to fix things they thought were already paying taxes for.  In Nevada in 2016 they only wanted to talk about Donald Trump or Bernie Sanders and had no interest in hearing anything else.  In 2018, as I talk to people on phones and at their front door, about the down-ticket, they want to talk about Travis Allen.

The politicians and pollsters and pundits, have told people in the past three election cycles that whatever they are feeling or thinking as an individual, sitting in their living room in front of their TV or behind their computer screen, the way that they should think because a lot of people think that way, and this is who you should vote for because all the other people are going to vote that way.  The American public has rejected that instruction out of hand, and have become inherently distrustful of the media and of ‘establishment’ politicians.  Funny thing it, the media is now telling them that this has happened because of Donald Trump.  The media misses it again.  The rebellion is not ‘because’ of Donald Trump,  Donald Trump is because of the rebellion.

So it is in 2018, California.

Here’s a poll.  How many Democrat governors have we had in California since 1959?  That is more than a half century.  Think about that, because in the past three election cycles, Democrats, Republicans, pollsters and media pundits, continue to tell Californians that they can only have a Democrat governor.

In the past 59 years, we have had three Democrat Governors.  Brown, Brown, Davis, and Brown again.  Three. And one, Grey Davis, was kicked out of office by the rulers of California, the California people.  In the same time period, we have had four Republicans, Schwarzenegger, Wilson, Deukmejian, and Reagan.

Reagan’s two terms were after the two terms of Edmund G. Brown. and before two terms of his son, Jerry Brown.  Jerry Brown had ANOTHER two terms, after Schwartzenegger ousted Grey Davis. The last time we had a one term Governor was Culbert Olson in 1938. He was a Democrat. Before Culbert Olson, sequential Republicans held the office for nearly 50 years. You have to look back to 1894 to find another Democrat Governor.  My point is, there is not a long or strong history of support for Democrat Governors in this state, and in the last three election cycles, voters in every other state have rejected Democrat governors by wide margins.  Republicans are Governors in 33 states.  In 32 states, Republicans control BOTH houses of the legislature.  In 2010, Republicans controlled ONLY FOURTEEN STATES.  14, in 2010.

The tide has changed and California citizens are missing the benefit of conservative ideals.

In the past three election cycles, the pollsters and pundits and party leaders (in both parties actually)  are telling the voting public to sit down and be quiet, that there may never be a republican Governor in California again.  In keeping with their pearl clutching and hand wringing, over their polls, and research and infinite wisdom, they have given us, Meg Whitman and Neel Kashkari in the past two races for Governor.  There was a bizarre victory lap when Neal Kashkari lost by less than expected in 2014.  These two were barely Republicans, they were wealthy people who spent their own money and the party rejoiced in that.  Kashkari, who had never held public office and supported Obama in 2008,  was outspent by something like 10 to 1, so he got more votes per dollar than Meg Whitman.  The party leaders bizarrely counted in a victory and called on Tim Donnelly to step down because (by default)  Kashkari was the party ‘standard bearer’.

Now we have another non-Californian, rich guy, and they are asking the voters to do the same.  Take one for the team, vote this way because we are telling you that everyone else is going to vote this way, and we need to have a candidate at the “top of the ticket”.

Gone is any language about reclaiming the Governors mansion at any time in the future, the strategy is simply to get someone bland enough, lack luster enough in policies, and rich enough to pay for some TV commercials, but not to win.

There is no strategy to re-take the governors mansion or find and promote a conservative candidate for governor in California.

Donald Trump did not have a path to 270.  There is a scientific poll.  The historic fact however, is that he far exceeded that necessary 270.

In 59 years, a member of the Brown family has held the Governors office for 24 years, 6 terms.  There are no more members of the Brown dynasty, but the professionals are telling us that it is time for the Newsom/Pelosi dynasty to be coronated.  There is nothing you can do about it, we have given you this proper second place finisher, please just sit down and let us tell you how to vote.  Ruling, establishment, elitism, but in their tone deafness, they miss, that THIS is precisely what the rebellion has been aimed at.

Remember, this is what they told us about Hillary.  It was her turn.  She had the money, the experience, she was the most “qualified” and that Donald Trump was a joke. The coronation of the next ruling member of the Clinton dynasty had arrived.  Sit down Peasants.   The pollsters always leave out one thing.

The ruling class are not rulers, and the people are still in charge, and their not buying this.

Cox is a big government advocate still. No matter what he tries to do to distance himself from his own ideas. His only voting record, is his vote for Pro-Choice, Open Borders, Libertarian, Gary Johnson.  Cox has never won a race.  That makes him a perfect choice for the second place strategy.

Travis Allen has never lost a race, and was never expected to be in office.  The pollsters, pundits and ruling class have counted him out, and told him to sit down and wait his turn for the entirety of his political career.

Historically, it is time for the Governor’s Mansion to be turned back to the Republicans.  Someone needs to tell the leadership of the Republican party, they dont know it yet.   There is no justification for rolling over and paying dead with a second place candidate.   Californians, just like Americans across the country in the past three elections, have risen up to remind you, who is in charge, and they seem to be pretty tired of Second Place.

 

Posted in California, Campaign Finance | Tagged: | 2 Comments »

Yorba Linda Recall: Young and Lindsey Receives IE Rescue

Posted by Allen Wilson on May 23, 2014

The Southern California Coalition of Business and Taxpayers (SCCBT) has recently established an Independent Expenditure (IE) on March 28, 2014 with a FPPC number 1365006.

The SCCBT has already raised over $100K for the purpose of supporting and/or opposing candidates in state and local offices.

On May 16, 2014, the SCCBT has spent resources at a total cost of over $13,000 on literature on behalf of Yorba Linda Mayor Craig Young and Yorba Linda Councilman Tom Lindsey.

Below is the IE expenses of $8,204.66 for Craig Young:

image

Below is the IE expenses of $5,072.94 for Tom Lindsey:

image

It is possible that this is just the beginning.  All IE late contributions are require to report some activity with the Secretary of State and local clerk and in this case would be the Yorba Linda City Clerk.

Posted in Campaign Finance, Yorba Linda | Tagged: , , , , | 1 Comment »

Campaign Contribution Limits

Posted by Former Blogger Chris Emami on May 23, 2014

In our effort to bring useful information to our readers, here is a database of campaign contribution limits for every office in Orange County:

Office Contribution Limit
UNITED STATES REPRESENTATIVE $               2,600.00
STATE SENATE $               4,100.00
STATE ASSEMBLY $               4,100.00
ORANGE COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS $               1,900.00
ORANGE COUNTY SCHOOL BOARD NONE
ORANGE COUNTY ASSESSOR $               1,900.00
ORANGE COUNTY AUDITOR-CONTROLLER $               1,900.00
ORANGE COUNTY CLERK-RECORDER $               1,900.00
ORANGE COUNTY DISTRICT ATTORNEY $               1,900.00
ORANGE COUNTY SHERIFF-CORONER $               1,900.00
ORANGE COUNTY SUPERINTENDENT OF SCHOOLS $               1,900.00
ORANGE COUNTY TREASURER-TAX COLLECTOR $               1,900.00
ALISO VIEJO CITY COUNCIL NONE
ANAHEIM MAYOR $               1,900.00
ANAHEIM CITY COUNCIL $               1,900.00
BREA CITY COUNCIL NONE
BUENA PARK CITY COUNCIL NONE
COSTA MESA CITY COUNCIL NONE
CYPRESS CITY COUNCIL NONE
DANA POINT CITY COUNCIL $                   690.00
FOUNTAIN VALLEY CITY COUNCIL $                   500.00
FULLERTON CITY COUNCIL NONE
GARDEN GROVE MAYOR NONE
GARDEN GROVE CITY COUNCIL NONE
HUNTINGTON BEACH CITY COUNCIL $                   540.00
IRVINE MAYOR $                   470.00
IRVINE CITY COUNCIL $                   470.00
LAGUNA BEACH CITY COUNCIL $                   360.00
LAGUNA HILLS CITY COUNCIL NONE
LAGUNA NIGUEL CITY COUNCIL NONE
LA HABRA CITY COUNCIL NONE
LAGUNA WOODS CITY COUNCIL $                   250.00
LAKE FOREST CITY COUNCIL NONE
LA PALMA CITY COUNCIL NONE
LOS ALAMITOS CITY COUNCIL NONE
MISSION VIEJO CITY COUNCIL NONE
NEWPORT BEACH CITY COUNCIL $               1,100.00
ORANGE MAYOR $               1,000.00
ORANGE CITY COUNCIL $               1,000.00
PLACENTIA CITY COUNCIL NONE
RANCHO SANTA MARGARITA CITY COUNCIL NONE
SAN CLEMENTE CITY COUNCIL NONE
SAN JUAN CAPISTRANO CITY COUNCIL $                   500.00
SANTA ANA MAYOR $               1,000.00
SANTA ANA CITY COUNCIL $               1,000.00
SEAL BEACH CITY COUNCIL $                   500.00
STANTON CITY COUNCIL NONE
TUSTIN CITY COUNCIL NONE
VILLA PARK CITY COUNCIL NONE
WESTMINSTER MAYOR NONE
WESTMINSTER CITY COUNCIL NONE
YORBA LINDA CITY COUNCIL NONE
NORTH ORANGE COUNTY COMMUNITY COLLEGE DISTRICT NONE
COAST COMMUNITY COLLEGE DISTRICT NONE
RANCHO SANTIAGO COMMUNITY COLLEGE DISTRICT NONE
SOUTH ORANGE COUNTY COMMUNITY COLLEGE DISTRICT NONE
ANAHEIM UNION HIGH SCHOOL DISTRICT NONE
FULLERTON JOINT UNION HIGH SCHOOL DISTRICT NONE
HUNTINGTON BEACH UNION HIGH SCHOOL DISTRICT NONE
BREA-OLINDA UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT NONE
GARDEN GROVE UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT NONE
LAGUNA BEACH UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT NONE
NEWPORT MESA UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT NONE
PLACENTIA-YORBA LINDA UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT NONE
SANTA ANA UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT NONE
ANAHEIM CITY ELEMENTARY SCHOOL DISTRICT NONE
CENTRALIA ELEMENTARY SCHOOL DISTRICT NONE
FOUNTAIN VALLEY ELEMENTARY SCHOOL DISTRICT NONE
HUNTINGTON BEACH CITY ELEMENTARY SCHOOL DISTRICT NONE
LOWELL JOINT ELEMENTARY SCHOOL DISTRICT NONE
OCEAN VIEW ELEMENTARY SCHOOL DISTRICT NONE
WESTMINSTER ELEMENTARY SCHOOL DISTRICT NONE
EMERALD BAY COMMUNITY SERVICES DISTRICT NONE
SURFSIDE COLONY COMMUNITY SERVICES DISTRICT NONE
EL TORO WATER DISTRICT NONE
MOULTON NIGUEL WATER DISTRICT NONE
MUNICIPAL WATER DISTRICT OF ORANGE COUNTY NONE
ROSSMOOR/LOS ALAMITOS AREA SEWER DISTRICT NONE
ORANGE COUNTY WATER DISTRICT NONE
TRABUCO CANYON WATER DISTRICT NONE
SURFSIDE COLONY STORMWATER PROTECTION DISTRICT NONE
MIDWAY CITY SANITARY DISTRICT NONE
SERRANO WATER DISTRICT NONE
BUENA PARK LIBRARY DISTRICT NONE
PLACENTIA LIBRARY DISTRICT NONE

Posted in Campaign Finance | Leave a Comment »

Charles Munger and California Dental IE PAC meddles in AD-55

Posted by Allen Wilson on May 22, 2014

Yesterday, my colleague Craig Alexander reported that Charles Munger was meddling in the AD-73 contest in support for Anna Bryson.

It is now reported that the California Dental Association (CDA) IE PAC decides to get involved in the AD-55 contest in support for Ling-Ling Chang with a $129,000 drop.

The CDA IE PAC spent $100,000 on TV/Cable Buy and $29,000 on polling.

The Spirit of Democracy PAC controlled by Charles Munger gave CDA IE PAC $29,000 to pay for the polling, which was more of an “in-kind” donation.

The polling was mysteriously conducted few weeks ago to households in the AD-55 contest including yours truly relatives living in Orange County.  The poll initially asked for the registered to vote female in the household, then asked for the registered to vote male, if the female wasn’t home.  The poll asked basic questions who the voter would vote for Governor, U.S. Representative, which they finally asked questions about Phillip Chen and Ling Ling Chang.

The interesting aspect of the poll was they provided bio statement for each candidate and asked the likeliness of voting for either candidate.  When the pollster mentioned Ling Ling Chang, the first thing they stated was that “She was BORN and RAISED in Southern California”.  The respondent to the poll stated that they were unlikely to vote for Ling Ling Chang, because they bluntly stated that the “raised and born” part was a lie based on an article from the Orange County Register by Martin Wiskol.  The second part mentioned Ling Ling Chang being in charge of an educational organization for 8 years.  The respondent again bluntly told the pollster that if someone wants to be part of education, then they need to be in the classroom.

Nevertheless, the CDA IE PAC is also meddling in AD-9 and AD-64 contests supporting Democrats Elk Grove Councilman Jim Cooper and Carson Councilman Mike Gipson, respectively.

This contributor was warned that Charles Munger would find a way to meddle in the AD-55 contest and surely he has one way or the other.

Though, for a IE PAC to coordinate efforts with Munger is very chilling as it should serve as a warning to voters in the 55th AD that Ling Ling Chang isn’t the true Conservative that she is portraying herself as, because a particular IE PAC has already backed Democrat candidates for Assembly.

image

 

Posted in 55th Assembly District, Campaign Finance, State Assembly | Tagged: , , , , | 5 Comments »

Completed 2012 Campaign Finance Report

Posted by Former Blogger Chris Emami on May 5, 2014

After a bit of a delay the completed 2012 Orange County Campaign Finance Database is now here for our readers. Click the below link to view the report and a new page will be added to the top of the website providing our readers easy access to the information.

2012 Local Campaign Finance Report

Posted in Campaign Finance | Tagged: , | Leave a Comment »

Commentary: “For The Love of Money” by Assemblyman Hagman

Posted by Allen Wilson on April 28, 2014

image

 
Assemblyman Curt Hagman (R-Chino Hills) offers his thoughts regarding the corruption scandals of Senators Calderon, Wright and Yee that made headlines the past few months.

Hagman represents the 55th Assembly District and currently candidate for San Bernardino County Supervisor.

Recently, news of yet ANOTHER state senator being indicted for corruption sent shockwaves throughout California. When I heard the charges against San Francisco’s Leland Yee, I shook my head in disbelief. Could a man known for his gun control efforts be part of an international gun trafficking ring? We do not know all the facts, but I do know that the charges against him are so serious that the Legislature cannot pretend that it should conduct business as usual.

The troubles of three state senators now mean that more than 10 percent of the Democrat members of the State Senate are either under indictment or have been convicted of a felony. Senator Yee joins two other senators who are also facing serious legal trouble. One senator is facing bribery charges while another was recently convicted of a felony for lying about his residency – as he resides outside the district he represents.

And how did the Senate respond? They voted for Senate Resolution 38, which gave all three senators paid vacations. The Resolution also plans to give all senators and their staff additional ethics training. Presumably they will be told that trafficking rocket launchers, taking bribes and making deals with mobsters is inappropriate at any time. To be fair, the State Constitution currently gives no authority to the Senate to suspend legislators without pay and President Pro Tem Steinberg is proposing a constitutional amendment to finally fix that issue. I’m astounded this has not happened sooner.

All legislators understand the law and take an oath to follow it. However, no amount of ethics training will prevent a crooked politician from doing the “wrong thing.” According to the FBI affidavit against Senator Yee, he was well aware of the laws he was breaking. At one point, the senator reportedly said on tape, “I hope I don’t get indicted.”

Ultimately, all three senators should resign from office to remove the thick fog of corruption hanging over the State Capitol. As long as they are allowed to remain in office, it will be much more difficult to make progress on the issues that matter to all Californians such as jobs and public safety. The public is already deeply cynical about government and the least elected representatives can do is take responsibility for their actions.

Unfortunately, it is hard to ignore the fact that the alleged corruption took place in a political environment where one party has absolute control over Sacramento. As that popular saying goes, “Power corrupts; absolute power corrupts absolutely.” When one party is accountable to no one, it makes it much more tempting for some to overreach and abuse the power entrusted to them by the citizens.

I have spent years as a volunteer for the San Bernardino Sheriff’s department and have seen firsthand that sitting behind bars is the last thing anyone wants to do. Perhaps all elected officials should take a prison field trip as part of our annual training? It would be a more powerful lesson than ethics training and suspension with pay.

I know that Californians are sick and tired of the mess in Sacramento and want to see an end to the culture of corruption. Elected officials need to be held accountable to the people of their district and the citizens of California. You, the voter, can help by electing men and women with integrity and character – who will do what’s right even when the FBI isn’t eavesdropping.

Posted in 55th Assembly District, California, Campaign Finance, Orange County, State Assembly | Tagged: , , , , , , | Leave a Comment »

Campaign Finance Database Is Coming Soon

Posted by Former Blogger Chris Emami on November 27, 2013

I have completed the 2012 Campaign Finance Database and it will go up as a series on the blog starting next week. As a way to give our readers a taste of what they will get starting next week I am going to post the methodology behind the research today:

Methodology

Assignment

Clients have requested original research be conducted, and databases created for the 2012 election cycle[1] contributions to candidates who ran for County Offices, City Offices, School Districts, and Special Districts. Completed research may be found in the later parts of this document which was created from research beginning January 4th 2013 and ending November 18th 2013.

County Offices

  • County office research includes candidates who ran for Orange County Board of Supervisors and Orange County Board of Education.
  • The elections of Orange County Assessor, Auditor-Controller, Clerk-Recorder, District Attorney, Public Administrator, Sheriff-Coroner, Superintendent of Schools, and Treasurer-Tax Collector are not included in this database due to these elections taking place in 2014.
  • The “Form 460”[2] documents for each candidate running for these offices was acquired from the Orange County Registrar of Voters.
  • Once “Form 460” documents were acquired, the data from “Schedule A-Monetary Contributions Received”[3] was transferred to a Microsoft Excel database.
  • Once in the Excel database, each contribution was classified into a specific category for a candidate running for the office; Individuals, Unions, Businesses, Trade Associations, and Political Groups.
  • Once this data sort was finalized, Excel was used to calculate the total amount of money donated to that candidate in each category.
  • These steps were repeated for each candidate.
  • For purposes of this analysis, businesses are defined as a company that conducts any type of business.  Trade associations are defined as an organization that is founded and/or funded by businesses that operate in a specific business sector. Unions are defined as organizations of employees both in the private and public sector that are formed to advance the interests of their members. Individuals are defined as any individual person or couple. Political groups are defined as a Political Action Committee (PAC) which operates for political purposes (i.e. Political parties, candidate controlled committees, etc.)
  • This data once set, was then sent into chart format as well using a function in Microsoft Excel to show contributions (by category) in a pie chart to give a better visual depiction of where money came from for each candidate.
  • Finally, data from Excel was transferred into the later section of this document.

City Offices

  • City office research includes candidates that ran for City Councils, City Treasurers, City Clerks, and City Attorneys.
  • Certain races that did not take place in 2012 will not appear in this database.
  • The “Form 460” documents for each candidate running in these offices was acquired from the City Clerks of each individual city being researched.
  • Once “Form 460” documents were acquired, the data from “Schedule A-Monetary Contributions Received” was transferred to an Excel database.
  • Once in the Excel database, each contribution was classified into a specific category for a candidate running for the office: Individuals, Unions, Businesses, Trade Associations, and Political Groups.
  • Once this data sort was finalized, Excel was used to calculate the total amount of money donated to each candidates in each category.
  • These steps were repeated for each candidate.
  • For purposes of this analysis, businesses are defined as a company that conducts any type of business.  Trade associations are defined as an organization that is founded and/or funded by businesses that operate in a specific business sector. Unions are defined as organizations of employees both in the private and public sector that are formed to advance the interests of their members. Individuals are defined as any individual person or couple. Political groups are defined as a Political Action Committee (PAC) that operates for political purposes (i.e. Political parties, candidate controlled committees, etc.)
  • This data once set, was then sent into chart format as well using a function in Microsoft Excel to show contributions (by category) in a pie chart to give a better visual depiction of where money came from for each candidate.
  • Finally, data from Excel was transferred into this document.

School Districts

  • School District research included candidates who ran for Community College District, Union High School District, Unified School District, and Elementary School District.
  • Certain races that did not take place in 2012 will not appear in this database.
  • The “Form 460” documents for each candidate running in these offices was acquired from the Orange County Registrar of Voters.
  • Once “Form 460” documents were acquired, the data from “Schedule A-Monetary Contributions Received” was transferred to an Excel database.
  • Once in the Excel database, each contribution was classified into a specific category for a candidate running for the office: Individuals, Unions, Businesses, Trade Associations, and Political Groups.
  • Once this data sort was finalized, Excel was used to calculate the total amount of money donated to each candidates in each category.
  • These steps were repeated for each candidate.
  • For purposes of this analysis, businesses are defined as a company that conducts any type of business.  Trade associations are defined as an organization that is founded and/or funded by businesses that operate in a specific business sector. Unions are defined as organizations of employees both in the private and public sector that are formed to advance the interests of their members. Individuals are defined as any individual person or couple. Political groups are defined as a Political Action Committee (PAC) that operates for political purposes (i.e. Political parties, candidate controlled committees, etc.)
  • This data once set, was then sent into chart format as well using a function in Microsoft Excel to show contributions (by category) in a pie chart to give a better visual depiction of where money came from for each candidate.
  • Finally, data from Excel was transferred into this document.

Special Districts

  • Special District research includes candidates who ran for Community Services District, Water District, Sanitary District, Sewer District, Recreation/Park District, and Library District.
  • Certain races that did not take place in 2012 will not appear in this database.
  • The “Form 460” documents for each candidate running in these offices was acquired from the Orange County Registrar of Voters.
  • Once “Form 460” documents were acquired, the data from “Schedule A-Monetary Contributions Received” was transferred to an Excel database.
  • Once in the Excel database, each contribution was classified into a specific category for a candidate running for the office: Individuals, Unions, Businesses, Trade Associations, and Political Groups.
  • Once this data sort was finalized, Excel was used to calculate the total amount of money donated to each candidates in each category.
  • These steps were repeated for each candidate.
  • For purposes of this analysis, businesses are defined as a company that conducts any type of business.  Trade associations are defined as an organization that is founded and/or funded by businesses that operate in a specific business sector. Unions are defined as organizations of employees both in the private and public sector that are formed to advance the interests of their members. Individuals are defined as any individual person or couple. Political groups are defined as a Political Action Committee (PAC) that operates for political purposes (i.e. Political parties, candidate controlled committees, etc.)
  • This data once set, was then sent into chart format as well using a function in Microsoft Excel to show contributions (by category) in a pie chart to give a better visual depiction of where money came from for each candidate.
  • Finally, data from Excel was transferred into this document.

Variables & Other Issues

  • No other websites such as [http://www.followthemoney.org/] [http://www.opensecrets.org/] provide data as it relates to local campaign finance, as most data derived in research is from the California Secretary of State. This means that no other database exists which would provide a comparison for the data in this report.
  • The total amount of campaign contributions may appear slightly lower than might be expected, due to the amount of money that is spent on behalf of candidates through Independent Expenditures (I.E. s). This database consists only of money contributed directly to candidates.
  • Some candidates may have loaned money to their campaigns, which is also not included in this report.
  • Another variable is that reported numbers can change as candidates may amend original campaign finance reports and submit revised reports. All data in this report is accurate as of the day research was completed.

The accuracy of this database is heavily dependent on candidates/campaign treasurers accurately reporting data. Campaign data incorrectly reported due to human error is impossible to detect. Poor penmanship is another factor that causes transcription issues with this type of research.


 

[1] Includes all contributions reported by candidates running for local office on their “Form 460’s” which were turned in reporting contributions received from January 1st 2012 through December 31st 2012”

[2] “Form 460” is the official form as set by the Fair Political Practices Commission used by candidates running for office to report their campaign finance activity.

[3] This part of the “Form 460” includes information on who each contribution came from and what amount they donated to each campaign.

Posted in Campaign Finance, Orange County | Leave a Comment »