Making sense of campaign finance reports
Campaign finance reports for the quarter ending on 30 are becoming available at Montana’s Commissioner of Political Practices and the Federal Election Commission. When I examine a CFR I begin with the big four:
- Amount raised. As much as during the last quarter? Compared to the opposition? Compared to what’s needed for the campaign’s budget?
- Amount spent. Same questions as above, plus where the money went. The less spent on consultants and staff, and the more on direct communication with voters, the better.
- Cash in the bank. At this point, campaigns for 2016 should have more in the bank than they did last quarter. And that amount should be commensurate with what a winning budget requires.
- Burn rate [(amount spent/amount raised) * 100]. If the burn rate approaches or exceeds 100 percent, a red flag appears. There may be a good reason for burning so much cash, but the burn might simply be the result of lax fiscal discipline and/or bad decisions. Hillary Cinton’s campaigns are notorious for high burn rates.
Next, I look for:
Loans and self-financing. Did the candidate loan himself money? If so, how much? Did he contribute his own money to the campaign? If so, how much? Using one’s own cash to prime the pump is okay, but a heavily self-financed campaign — for example, Matt Rosendale’s 2014 bid for the GOP nomination for U.S. Representative — raises enough red flags to darken the sky.
- The size of the median reported individual contribution, and for the percentage of contributors who are maxed-out. The latter can’t donate again later, but the former can. The lower the median contribution, the better. The lower the percentage of maxed-outs, the better. The larger the number of contributors, the better.
- The people to PAC ratio [$ from individuals/$ from PACs]. The higher the better. PACs are not intrinsically evil … well, probably not.
- Missing information. Some donors forget to submit required information. But if a lot of information is missing, the campaign’s fundraisers and treasurer aren’t doing due diligence.
- Over the limit contributions. This happens to all campaigns — donors make mistakes — so I don’t get excited when I find one. But if I find a lot, and no record of the amount over being returned, I do raise an eyebrow.
- Family member contributions. If there are half a dozen contributions from people with the same surname who reside at the same address, it’s time to check the ages of the contributors. It’s just possible that Daddy and Mama Megabucks are using little Suzy Megabacks, age three, to circumvent contribution limits.
- Out-of-district contributions. There will be some, mostly from friends and family. But if there are a lot, especially from people sharing occupations and employers, special interests probably are targeting the election.
- Big out-of-state disbursements. The big statewide campaigns, especially campaigns for federal office, will hire national advertising firms that specialize in campaign management. But legislative district candidates who spend a lot out-of-state, and to a lesser extent out-of-town, may not be all that enthusiastic about supporting local businesses.
- Infamous contributors, say the chief of crazy talk for the local peckerwood militia. These are never solicited by the candidates, but they’re embarrassing nonetheless. And they’re used by the opposition for Gotcha! strikes. I never hold candidates responsible for receiving contributions from nutjobs, but I do hold them responsible for how they handle the situation.
There’s more to extract from CFRs, of course, but that’s where I start.
