I was inspired to write this when I read Adam Probolsky’s post earlier that OC Supervisor John Moorlach had endorsed AD71 candidate Neil Blais.
I’ve only met Supervisor Moorlach once – in 1995 – when he was the lone voice decrying Orange County’s bankruptcy. He wasn’t a supervisor then, but his shining the spotlight on the shenanigans that the OC Treasurer was involved in with municipal funds led to his successful political career.
From afar, I’ve always thought Supervisor Moorlach has been a solid public servant – especially because he knows how people can manipulate numbers.
So – I was a little surprised he endorsed Neil Blais today – especially because candidate Blais was caught "cooking the books" on his campaign accounting.
I’m going to reprint Eric Linder’s post over at the Red County blog. Eric does a very thorough job of dissecting the games being played.
I’ve been involved in political campaigns for a long time – and I know funny money when I see it.
Inside The Numbers: AD71
If you look on the surface, the race in AD71 appears to be neck and neck. At first glance, both Neil Blais and Jeff Miler have raised about $360,000, and both have about $230,000 Cash On Hand.
But that’s where the similarities end. If you look inside the numbers at all, it’s becoming increasingly clear that Neil Blais’ campaign finance reports would make even Enron’s accountants blush.
First is a matter of what is clearly just show money. Back in June, two days before the end of that campaign finance reporting period, Neil loaned himself an odd amount of money – $64,597.42. Well, what do you know – two days before the close of the December reporting period, he loaned himself the exact same amount of money, down to the cent. For anyone who’s ever been involved in a campaign, this is a tell tale sign that the candidate has little intention of spending the money in his campaign. I mean, if you’ve had to take out a line of credit just to make your campaign seem competitive, but have to play the hokey pokey with the money going in and out before each reporting period, few serious people in politics believe the money is really going anywhere. The $100,000 Neil has loaned himself is staying right where it is.
Then there’s a matter of outstanding debts. This is another old trick that candidates play. They stop paying their bills for weeks leading up to the close of the reporting period, just to minimize what it looks like their expenditures from the period were. Neil’s campaign ended the period with over $23,000 in debt.
And let’s not forget the "General Election" money game that unserious candidates like to play. This one goes like this: a candidate only allowed to raise $3,600 per person per election. What that means is that Donor A can only give Candidate X $3,600 to spend in the Primary. But if the Candidate gets to the General, the Donor can give me another $3,600. So, some candidates just collect all $7,200 up front, providing an artificial boost to their reported numbers in the meantime. But in a practical sense, the money does them no good during the course of the Primary, as they can’t spend any of it. Neil Blais is certainly playing this game too, having over $18,000 in "General Election" money that he’s counted towards his supposed parity with Miller.
As I said at the top, when you look inside the numbers, Neil’s campaign is all show, and no dough. If you take his reported $230,000 Cash on Hand, and subtract his $100,000 loan that he can’t even afford to part with for six months, subtract his $23,000 in debt, and subtract his $18,000 in "General Election" money, what you’re left with is less than $90,000 that he can actually spend, or barely more than 1 out of every 3 dollars he claims to have.
It’s all right there, when you look inside the numbers
I also invite everyone to review AD71 candidate Jeff Miller’s financial disclosure too.
You’ll find it right here.
Jeff has raised $364,628 and has $226,389 cash on hand (the only number that really matters). You won’t find personal loans in and out and then in again to inflate his numbers – and the money in the bank is for the Primary (not padded with General Election money).
Fundraising is an indicator of a campaign’s strength. "Cooking the books" to look stronger than you are is an indicator of a campaign in trouble.
February 11th, 2008 at 12:00 am
Isn’t anyone paying attention to the national scene?
John McCain and Mike Huckabee are still in the hunt while Mitt Romney, with all of his funds, has thrown in the towel.
It’s nice to be in the spin cycle and watch how the team represneting less than 30 percent of the electorate tries to put down Rancho Santa Margarita Mayor Neil Blais who has been endorsed by many of the top OC elected officials with whom he must interact when he becomes the 71st AD representative.
February 11th, 2008 at 12:00 am
This isn’t the national scene – it’s a State Assembly Primary.
Neither Miller nor Blais have near the name ID that any of the presidential contenders have.
In a major media market like the one AD71 is in, the race will be completely ignored by the press.
Therefore, money is a very strong indicator of the ability of a candidate to put out his message to the voters.
If money wasn’t important to Neil Blais, I’m sure he wouldn’t be playing the shell game he has been with personal loans.
While Jeff Miller is my friend and I support him – it concerns me when I see candidates anywhere play this shell game.
February 11th, 2008 at 12:00 am
With all due respect Jim, those of us living in Mission Viejo, the largest Republican voting block in the 71st AD, will support our neighbor Neil Blais who has demonstrated that he is a true conservative. To cite one example was his promoting, and gaining 100 percent support from his peers on the RSM city council, the Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Assoc. co-sponsored property rights protection constitutional amenendment. Prop 98.
Having interviewed Neil I could list many other examples of his having conservative positions on policy issues that impact the 71st AD.
With regard to finances. Don’t underestimate the clout of the grass roots, endorsements by our County leaders and the Internet.
While there surely are voters that do not know either candidate, those of us living in OC do recognize BOS Chairman John Moorlach, who after the Chris Street situation did not take his endorsement of Neil Blais lightly. The same applies to members of our BOS and MV and RSM city council.
Do you really think that our state Senator Dick Ackerman and outgoing 71st AD Assemblymember Todd Spitzer didn’t give a lot of thought to Neil’s chances of winning this race before issuing their endorsements?
Respectfully,
Larry Gilbert, former president, Saddleback Republican Assembly, a chartered unit of the CRA.
February 12th, 2008 at 12:00 am
Larry, I have mentioned it to you before privately that it is inappropriate for you to keep repeating the words “Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Assn.” in connection with your campaign communications for Neil Blais. Your help on Prop. 98 is appreciated, but not when you use it for a pro-Blais campaign spin in your communications. HJTA as a nonprofit does not endorse candidates, and its PAC has taken no position in the race.
However, I have endorsed Jeff Miller and among “those of you” in Mission Viejo who will be voting for Miller, you need to include City Councilman Jon Paul Ledesma, who has endorsed Miller. Ledesma was leading in the polls when he left the race to endorse Miller.
February 12th, 2008 at 12:00 am
Brother Jim.
Prop 98 carries three names as sponsors. One of them being the HJTA. My comment was accurate. Perhaps I should have listed all three of our primary sponsors. Neil’s property rights leadership, now identified as Prop 98, is a public record in RSM. If you read my remarks again I did not state that Neil was endorsed by the HJTA.
JP was ahead of Neil? I seem to recall Rudy being ahead at one time. Let’s talk about those who are still standing. Respectfully, you know the relationship between JP and myself. As he has dropped out I will not air his chances on line.
The race for this predominantly Orange County seat is between a mayor from OC and a mayor from another county. As our attention of late has been on the presidential primaries our focus will shortly shift to local races at which time the voters will have a chance to size up both of the contenders.
As to our choices to replace my Assemblyman we can agree to disagree.
If I am not mistaken Jim you live in the 73rd while I live in the 71st. Therefore this election impacts my neighbors and friends.
February 12th, 2008 at 12:00 am
Larry, I don’t remember reading anything in Edmund Burke or Frederick Von Hayek that considerations of geography have a role in the development of political philosophy. Rather, thinking and analysis serve that process. Conservatives are not electing consevatives when they become so parochial. Instead, what you end up with is an election all about which candidate the “local electeds” can try to squeeze more for state funds after they are elected. Just as you endorse and support candidates outside Missionb Viejo many times (I see your name endorsing on the website for a candidate in the 73rd AD, for example) I urge my friends in the 71st to inquire about the philosophies and records of their candidates, and not put much into where they happen to pay their property taxes.
February 12th, 2008 at 12:00 am
Jim.
Yes, I have endorsed “candidates” in the 73rd. I have also supported candidates from the BOS to the White House and generally issue a Voter Guide.
Let’s shift the focus of this exchange to the topic of elected official endorsements. Your candidate does list a few including John Paul Ledesma.
Jim. My question for you as a supporter of Jeff Miller, is why he did not score with the major elected officials as listed by me above? Perhaps you can tell the Flash readers why Neil received those endorsements and Jeff didn’t.
Are we to believe that Supervisors Moorlach, Bates, Campbell and Norby are not good judges of candidates conservative qualifications and chances of a victory in the primary? Add to that list our local Congressman Gary Miller and DA Tony Rackackas?