Wednesday, October 08, 2008

Fascinating - Follow the money

☛ TS Follow the money: A look at the money fueling Arcata and Eureka elections
Over in the 4th Ward, Clark narrowly edged out Jager in the contributions race, bringing in $20,754 in cash donations compared to Jager's $17,804. Clark also loaned his campaign $480.

Jager, however, has not spent as much as Clark up to this point in the election, and carries the edge in cash on hand, $6,153 to $4,094.

Clark received a total of 69 donations at an average of $300 each, while Jager garnered a total of 58 donations at an average of $306 each.

Perhaps more interestingly, the disclosure forms also show how a few big donors can change the dynamics of an election.
Of the $61,740 in cash raised by all four candidates, $11,250 of it, or 18 percent, came from two entities and went to two candidates.


Sedgefield Properties, owned by Bill Pierson, donated a total of $9,000 to Clark and Atkins -- $1,500 to Atkins and $7,500 to Clark -- accounting for 37 percent of the candidates' war chests.

Ken Miller, a local physician, donated a combined $2,250 to the same two candidates -- $750 to Atkins and $1,500 to Clark -- accounting for another 9 percent of the candidates' cash contributions.

The campaign contributions also show how money from outside city limits can play a sizable role in the race for Eureka's council seats. According to the disclosure statements, almost 17 percent of the combined contributions to all four candidates didn't come from donors with Eureka addresses.

The biggest beneficiaries of these donations seem to be Clark and Atkins.

Almost 25 percent of Clark's cash contributions ($5,100) came from donors who listed addresses outside of Eureka while 27 percent of Atkins' contributions ($1,000) came from donors with non-Eureka addresses, according to the disclosure statements.

The disclosure statements also show that City Councilman Chris Kerrigan's consulting firm, Kerrigan Associates, has been hired on by Clark and Atkins. According to the statements, the firm has received $1,250 from the Clark campaign and $1,000 from the Atkins campaign for its services. Kerrigan is currently representing the Eureka's 4th Ward but is prohibited from running for re-election due to term limits.


☛ ER Eureka candidates disclose donation information
With one month left until the November election, three of the four Eureka City Council candidates have raised almost as much money as many of the 2006 candidates did in their entire race.

Second Ward appointed incumbent Polly Endert brought in the most, with $24,191. Fourth Ward candidate George Clark raised $21,234, while Frank Jäger, also vying for the 4th Ward seat, raised $18,044.

Second Ward candidate Linda Atkins raised $8,137, of which $4,500 came from her own pocket.

Endert and Jäger received small donations from a number of donors, including developers, real estate and financial industry sources, while Atkins and Clark received large donations from a few benefactors.

...Clark said his supporters struggled financially and could only give small amounts.

“I’d like to be financing my campaign with 10,000 $5 donations,” he said. “We’re doing everything we can ... we’re fighting the machine.”


No, Mr. Clark. You are part of the machine.

It's all very interesting, because we all know how Bill Pierson feels about the Marina Center -
George Clark for the Marina Center! Labor endorses Clark and Adkins
Sid Berg responds to Clark/Marina Center rumors

47 comments:

  1. You contribute to any campaign's this fall Rose?

    ReplyDelete
  2. I also thought that was ironic of George calling the Jager campaign a "machine." Tone it down Matt. You are being labeled.

    ReplyDelete
  3. The true machine in Eureka elections is Bill Pierson's family.

    Together (Bill Pierson and his sister Ann Pierson) have given $10,000 to the Clark/Atkins campaigns as of September 30.

    We can only imagine that Pierson will throw huge sums of cash Clark/Atkins by November 4.

    Not that Pierson's contributions have any quid pro quo.

    ReplyDelete
  4. When questioning Rob Arkley's huge contributions, you said Rose that he should be able to give his money wherever he sees fit- he has the right because it is his cash.

    But does this line of reasoning not apply when it is funding a liberal candidacy?

    Please explain...

    ReplyDelete
  5. At least the Piersons are LOCAL businesspeople.

    ReplyDelete
  6. Who is Arkley backing? None of it has come to light. And by the way, Arkley grew up in Arcata.

    ReplyDelete
  7. "Who is Arkley backing? None of it has come to light."

    Well obviously not Linda Atkins!!
    And one reason why it might not have come into the light is because you haven't passed the Arkley home yet.

    ReplyDelete
  8. 9:12. I posted the information from the news coverage of the campaign disclosures. The only 'editorial' comment I made is that Clark is part of the machine, in other words, it is disingenuous of him to play that rhetorical game.

    I did not say anything about Bill Pierson's right to donate to whomever he chooses. Nor have I ever questioned Arkley's right to give to whomever he chooses. I wish he hadn't given all that money to Gallegos, but he did, and it is his right to do so.

    I've also said this notion of a cap on donations is idiotic. But that, large donations are certainly going to be scrutinized, and may even be used as an issue in a campaign.

    I've said that Measure T is grotesquely unfair because it limits some entities and not others. Specifically, it attempts to prevent targeted businesses from being able to fight back against unregulated orgs and activist attack groups.

    That pretty much covers it. It's all pretty clear, but you don't seem to be able to grasp any of it, whoever you are.

    To reiterate - it is very interesting that Pierson backs the Clark/Atkins mutation, when Clark apparently told the Unions that he supports the Marina Center, and it's interesting that he thinks anyone would believe that.

    ReplyDelete
  9. Well, you may use the word, "interesting," but we all know you really mean that the candidate is selling out when they accept. That is, if they are liberal.

    ReplyDelete
  10. Bullshit 10:12. I know Rose and know her to be quite moderate in most matters. Just because she doesn't do the duckstep with the progs, you see her as hating liberals. What I think is that she dislikes psuedo-liberal hypocrites.

    ReplyDelete
  11. Thanks, 10:18.

    Actually - I0:12, I think people can make up their own minds - IF they have the facts from both sides.

    Selling out? That implies an opinion was changed - as opposed to someone being put up to run in order to accomplish a goal - i.e. "a Progressive majority" on a City Council, or a Board of Supervisors.

    That very term implies allegiance to something that is not the general electorate.

    ReplyDelete
  12. What's the old line? Some of my best friends are liberals. Some are even BIG L Liberals. Sadly.

    ReplyDelete
  13. esquan wrote, "And one reason why it might not have come into the light is because you haven't passed the Arkley home yet."

    Well, not to quibble, but Arkley doesn't have a Polly sign in his front yard, at least last I looked. He has a Jager sign.

    ReplyDelete
  14. Rose wrote, "I've also said this notion of a cap on donations is idiotic.".

    Well, I don't know I'd go so far to say it's idiotic.

    I do have fun with the situation here, though. I've mentioned before that limits on individual donations could leave the lesser known (or liked) candidate at a disadvantage. For example; if Clark has 30 supporters that can give $50 and Jager has 70, that means Clark is stuck with only $1500 while Jager gets $3500 to play with.

    Clark's situation shows that not having donation limits can level the financial playing field. He has a few supporters with the big bucks and that helped him level things out and actually surpass Jager in fundraising.

    Not that I'm not sympathetic towards donation limits, I just think they'll put someone at a disadvantage.

    I'm all ears as to suggestions for supposed "campaign finance reform". In particular, I'd like to know what Clark and Atkins are suggesting as being more "comprehensive" reform? Some variation of Measure T? You can't help but wonder.

    ReplyDelete
  15. Of bigger concern is why Sedgefield Properties (Bill Pierson) gave Bonnie Neely $5,000 in 2007 - a non-election year and why Pierson Building Supply (AKA: Bill Pierson) gave Ms. Neely another $1,000 so far in 2008?

    ReplyDelete
  16. Please enlighten us about your concern-

    Let me guess- you don't approve of Bonnie, and it angers you when someone funds her political efforts

    ReplyDelete
  17. 8:18 - I am not 6:52 but another. I don't approve of Bonnie because I see her as corrupt. Her links to Pierson and his money and the tribes and their money is disgusting. She has been slurping at the public trough for too long.

    ReplyDelete
  18. No story here, please stay back and move along now.

    ReplyDelete
  19. Notwithstanding Rose and Fred's dissing of campaign donation caps, I still think that's the way to go.

    I don't care who is trying to buy an election ... Bill Pierson, Rob Arkley, MoveOn.org, Christian Coalition ... it doesn't matter. Caps would require candidates to have a broad base of support and opponents couldn't such up to a tribe or a king maker to stack the deck.

    ReplyDelete
  20. Right you are Chris.

    It's ridiculous to see these attacks on contribution limits over at Heraldo from Atkins herself.

    I'm sure Rose doesn't mean to aide and abet such baseless assaults against keeping big money out of local politics, but calling us "idiotic" for such a common-sense reform doesn't help.

    ReplyDelete
  21. The same ole story with the Pierson's. Gee whiz fellas I wonder how George and Linda would vote on the Marina Center?

    And Kem Miller, the pot docter.

    ReplyDelete
  22. :) - Oh, I understand the desire, Chris.

    It's just that, by setting your cap so low ($500), you're not being realistic as to what it takes to buy signs, pay for ad space and time and mailing costs. Maybe a $1,000 cap would still allow the candidate to be able to afford to get their message out to the voters - most donors here don't give that much anyway.

    But, you have to TRUST the free market. There are dozens of examples where the big money did not prevail. And limiting money isn't going to mean the voters don't get fed a line of bull and elect a bad candidate.

    The only worse idea is public financing of campaigns. :)

    ReplyDelete
  23. And, yeah, 3:57, it's kinda funny to see Atkins' complaint when she is a recipient.

    What's worse is her claim that Jager and Endert are running as a slate. It seems that she shares the blindness that so many have - if you aren't with the "Progressives" you must be suddenly possess one-celled Republican DNA - and, in fact, it is she and Clark who are running as a slate, with an aim toward taking over the Council for somebody else.

    Endert and Jager are simply individuals running for office, what an old fashioned (P.S.) concept.

    ReplyDelete
  24. Just so you know Rose, there is a massive censorship campaign underway over at the Heraldo blog.

    Evidently the criticisms of Democracy Unlimited and its apologists such as Bill Holmes and Heraldo him/herself have hit home.

    Heraldo is now running one of those WordPress filters to block IPs and Heraldo is admittedly deleting posts as soon as they appear which call further support for David, Kaitlin and Measure T into serious question.

    Bill Holmes is also deleting comments on his HighBoldtage blog, but of course this is a fringe whackaloon with a fringe blog, so he doesn't get many comments good bad or otherwise, anyway.

    So Rose, you and I might differ on the Prez race and other issues, but I think we both agree on the threat these Democracy Unlimited cultists pose to our community.

    Heraldo deserves to be exposed on how hostile he & she actually are to free speech.

    I also wonder if Bill is getting paid off by the Cobbites. They've employed local bloggers to shill for them before.

    ReplyDelete
  25. Well, I'd love to know what exactly is being pulled. Save your comments in another form before you post them, just in case.

    ReplyDelete
  26. Here was a comment deleted from the Humboldt Herald just tonight.

    From now on, I'm double posting everything I post there to watchpaul. We need to watchheraldo too since they are part of the same dirty money machine.


    "Good point about the dirty phony DUHC money, Rose. All those Democracy Unlimited gangsters like David Cobb and Kaitlin Sopoci-Belknap should be investigated by the Secret Service for violating the constitution by coining legal tender without an Act of Congress."

    ReplyDelete
  27. That got deleted? Hmmm. Good let's see if there is a pattern I do see the tip of one, but I'll wait.

    ReplyDelete
  28. "But, you have to TRUST the free market."


    Haha, that basic Republican philosophy sure worked out well for the banks, insurance companies, etc.

    Thank you Mr. Bush!

    ReplyDelete
  29. ""Good point about the dirty phony DUHC money, Rose. All those Democracy Unlimited gangsters like David Cobb and Kaitlin Sopoci-Belknap should be investigated by the Secret Service for violating the constitution by coining legal tender without an Act of Congress.""



    Boy, you sure showed them! Bravo!

    ReplyDelete
  30. Thank you Mr. Bush!

    No. Thank Barney Frank, Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid - and the rest of the Democratic cronies - Boxer - et al. They blocked any attempts to stop the landslide, over and over and over again. Brazen, they are now, with Pelosi THANKING Barney frank for his role.

    And you buy it, because anything else would be unthinkable as long as you can take comfort in saying, oh its the republicans! In the face of all the evidence. You are blind.

    ReplyDelete
  31. The trend continues, Rose.

    Now Heraldo/ette is censoring comments calling Kaitlin's re-election into question.

    Part of the same pattern of shilling for the DUHCs and their pro-Measure T, anti-fluoride antics.

    "Since Davies and Schultz support a public vote on fluoridization, with Sopoci-Belknap and Hecathorn opposing even a public forum on the subject, it's not difficult to see who is being misguided. "Democracy Unlimited" indeed!

    And Arcata and Eureka have had fluoride for 50 years now. Do you claim we're all stupid now, Nice?"

    ReplyDelete
  32. Censored comment #3:


    "Yup, 65% of voters in Arcata are too dense. Probably 70-75% of voters in Eureka support fluoride too, they must be uneducatable too.

    That's a real winning strategy for Kaitlin Sopoci-Belknap, deny the voters the right to even have a forum or a vote on what they want the water district to do.

    Democracy Unlimited? Not really."

    ReplyDelete
  33. Do we detect a trend here, or even venturing closer to the identity of Heraldo as one of the DUHCs?

    Censored comment #4:


    "Why not just use calcium fluoride if you're so concerned about sodium?

    It seems to me you disprove your own argument. Kaitlin Sopoci-Belknap voted against holding a public forum on district-wide fluoridization. Her opponent calls for a public vote on fluoride, she's against it.

    If the public is so sympathetic to your cause, why do you oppose putting this issue before the public?

    Democracy Unlimited seems pretty limited when it comes to how Kaitlin is "representing" the voters of Eureka."

    ReplyDelete
  34. "district-wide fluoridization."

    The respective city councils have control of their water.If residents in Eureka are concerned about that,they should demand that the city council hold a forum.

    ReplyDelete
  35. The district was considering fluoride for all residential customers, then backed off when the loonies went after them. Do you really think that last spring's decision was so long ago as to not be a campaign issue this fall?

    All three water board races break down on the battle lines around fluoride. The incumbents in Eureka and Humboldt Hill, and the fringe left candidates in McKinleyville are against it, while Davies, Schultz and both Webb and Shepherd are for it.

    ReplyDelete
  36. Censored comment #5. Now Heraldo doesn't want any Corbett criticism included. Remember who Local Solutions backed in the last MCSD races, Rose?


    "John Corbett has always been a slimeball. Once he witnessed someone obviously getting stalked and harassed in the hall outside the courtrooms here in Eureka, usual sort of family court stuff. John Corbett didn't lift a finger; instead he let out this snickering laugh and even made fun of the person who called for the sheriffs to intervene and prevent an outbreak of violence. I know this because I was attending a hearing that morning and I witnessed him behaving like a jackal.

    He also ran the Arcata Co-Op into massive amounts of debt in the boondoggle remodeling of their Arcata store in 2000 which almost drove them out of business (the Eureka relocation with all its problems was idyllic by comparison to the massive disruption in Arcata). Their own finance chiefs will tell you that the North Coast Co-Op is neck deep in debt to this day because of Corbett's mismanagement of the Arcata remodel. That's why they had to turn to Arkley to finance the Eureka relocation, because they couldn't increase their debt load. Go ahead, ask 'em.

    Corbett also oversaw the blind eye attitude of the air quality board towards the pulp mill, which operated for nearly two years under the Chinese without installation of the necessary scrubbers to cut down on the particulate levels and noxious chemicals released. People got sick because of the arrogant disregard for public safety exhibited by the local air board, which Corbett is the chair of.

    Let's not even get started with the McKinleyville CSD board and how Corbett lets the GM run wild acting more like a dictator than like a general manager. That guy made Dan Hauser appear to have a benevolent management style by comparison."

    ReplyDelete
  37. Censored comment #6 from the Herald:

    "The "socialist" representative and Democrat repping us in Congress is Mike Thompson. He voted for the rescue package once it was fixed up.

    But leave it to that economics expert Bill Holmes to figure out this stuff for the rest of us.

    "We don’t have to entice any businesses to come here" what a gem Bill! What vision!

    If he were really interested in electing Democrats, Bill wouldn't be backing conspiracy theorist Greens like Carol "Pot Doctor" Wolman and Kaitlin "Mea$ure T" Sopoci-Belknap-Cobb."

    ReplyDelete
  38. Heh. I am thinking of giving this topic its own post - I see a pattern developing.

    ReplyDelete
  39. It's an interesting question to ask why Heraldo and the fake-prog crowd are so interested in propping up Kaitlin's flagging campaign.

    A little mouse tells me they're grooming Kaitlin to run for Jeff Leonard's seat in 2 years when he terms out. She literally lives right on the 3rd Ward boundary line, but just inside it.

    ReplyDelete
  40. Censored comment #7. Heraldo is sure scared of any criticism.

    "You're wrong, mresquan. The Water Board was considering the fluoridation of all residential water. With Kaitlin and the since-resigned Randy Turner's help, they turned their back on accepting further public input on the issue.

    This is why Buzz Webb is running in McKinleyville too, by his own admission. He was shocked how our Water Board would turn its back on public health, as was Stephen Davies. My best wishes to both of them to restore sanity to the water board.

    And shame on you Heraldo for calling someone a lunatic just for disagreeing with you. It's a tactic worthy of McCain."

    ReplyDelete
  41. Don't be knockin' my man, McCain, or I'll give you some links to what happens to people who criticize the Chosen Socialist. You think heraldo's censorship is bad?

    ReplyDelete
  42. I see your comment on there right now 6:55

    A little neurotic today, you are-

    ReplyDelete
  43. You're right 7:10, Heraldo evidently let that comment though a few minutes later, probably because of that swipe at McCain's campaign tactics. And that was left in there for your benefit Rose, to show that many self-described progressives are being censored at the Heraldo just like your camp is. I agree about Obamaniacs intimidating people too Rose.

    So here is *replacement* censored comment #7, yet again a response to misinfo from Bill Holmes, Heraldo's new best friend:

    "The local ACLU supports F & J along with the Green Party?

    But according to Bill Holmes, the ACLU are chock-full of "completely corrupted freaks" who deserve to be purged Green Party-style due to their principled opposition to Measure T (ironically, on the very free speech grounds Bill would deny them).

    And just look what the Cobb/Holmes treatment has done for the Greens: 20% decline in a single year, according to the Times-Standard?

    Make up your mind Bill, are Measures F and J good for the children of our community, or is it more important to enforce your peculiar ideological conformity? Does free speech only apply to people and organizations who agree with Bill Holmes 100% of the time without exception?"

    ReplyDelete
  44. Censored comment #8:

    "So Davies being co-counsel with another lawyer on a totally unrelated case means he is personally responsible for everything that other lawyer does in cases which don't involve him?

    We can only imagine what can be pinned on your hero Gallegos now considering who he's been associated with, starting with Tim Stoen. Actually, that's worse: Davies sure didn't hire Schectman at taxpayer expense, they were both hired by a third party. Gallegos actively recruited Stoen, and entirely on the county's bill.

    If Kaitlin really wants to go there to slime her opponent, I guess it's fair game to ask about David Cobb's long-time employment by a big insurance company in Texas back when he actually was a lawyer. My goodness, Cobb a Corporate Lawyer, heaven forbid!"

    ReplyDelete
  45. Sheesh, now Heraldo is playing games with unwarranted edits of the comments themselves. #8 was re-posted by Heraldo as "Anonymous" with the second and third paragraphs cut out.

    ReplyDelete
  46. Censored comment #9 from the Sopoci-Belknap campaign manager aka Heraldo:

    "I hope Big Boss Man is right about Kaitlin. She's accomplished nothing in the last four years in office."

    ReplyDelete
  47. Censored comment #10, yet again Heraldo covers for Bill Holmes making idiotic claims:

    "Who exactly is Bill Holmes to lecture anyone about local economic development?

    Let's review: Our often stoned friend Highboldtage has never created a job for anyone, anywhere, ever, has never owned a successful business, and has no academic credentials in economics or in business administration.

    Rose pointed out to him how local thrift stores aren't even accepting children's clothing with the glut of it. But don't let facts stop Bill from spinning more bullshit about how some government subsidized clothing factory will save Humboldt County. After all, we grow so much cotton around here."

    ReplyDelete

Comments are open. Play nice.