Money in the 2013 Greenburgh Supervisor Primary Race - so far

Paul Feiner’s name recognition, personal popularity, and financial resources have made him a formidable candidate for more than two decades.    Campaign finance disclosure reports available online at www.elections.ny.gov stretching back to 2006 show that Feiner’s campaign has consistently held between $100,000 and $150,000 in campaign funds in reserve over the past 7 years.   Beyond the other advantages of incumbency, the Feiner campaign war chest is an imposing deterrent to any potential challenger, who would immediately start the brief campaign season at a six figure financial disadvantage.  Although Feiner has gradually increased his monthly spending commitments in recent non-election years, the dearth of competitive elections combined with steady, low –level fundraising in off-election years, has allowed Feiner to steadily grow his war chest while also strategically distributing funds to local political and charitable organizations, further building loyalty bonds with Greenburgh voters.  Whether or not Feiner has intentionally set $100,000 as the minimum level for his campaign account, retaining this amount of campaign funds in reserve has proven an intelligent choice as evidenced by the 2007 campaign when Feiner expended $110,000 during the election season - outspending his opponent and his own fundraising efforts by $40,000.  Still, Feiner ended the expensive 2007 primary season with over $90,000 in the bank in contrast with his opponent who apparently ended her campaign with $40,000 of debt.   It is one thing to be electorally humiliated by Feiner, but it is quite something else to also suffer financially for that dubious privilege.  

So what is going on with money in the 2013?  It was unclear until the May 21 Greenburgh Democratic Party convention whether Feiner would be challenged in the Sept. 10^th Democratic primary for the position of Town Supervisor.    Feiner may not have expected any challenge as he did relatively little fundraising early in 2013, raising only $300.  This lackadaisical early effort must also have arisen from the comfort that, at the time of the convention, Feiner’s campaign held $132,977 in funds.  With the announcement of Bernstein’s nomination, Feiner immediately ramped up his fundraising.   Between May 21^st and July 2^nd, he raised $12,570, including from 40 donors who gave at least $100 each.   After this initial burst of activity, however, Feiner’s fundraising quickly and surprisingly plummeted.   In the eight weeks between July 2^nd and August 25^th, Feiner’s campaign raised only an additional $2,297, including 14 $100 or more donors (in contrast with the $14,700 Feiner raised during the same eight week period in 2007).   While Feiner was raising $14,867 dating back to Bernstein’s May 21^st nomination, he was also spending $44,712.  Much of this money ($15,305) went to the legal bills paid by Feiner’s campaign for the unsuccessful attempt to knock Bernstein off the Sept. ballot by challenging the validity of ballot petitions and signatures.   An additional $14,000 went toward mailing and printing costs in the past few weeks: presumably for the flyers recently sent to Greenburgh residents.   In sum, while Feiner had spent almost $30,000 more than he had raised in 2013, he still held $103,131 in campaign funds with two weeks remaining in the campaign.  (Note: of course the expenditures do not include expenses incurred but not paid or billed as of the financial disclosure date). 

With his nomination on May 21, Bob Bernstein was starting the campaign with a $132,977 financial disadvantage compared to his candidate.  Bernstein, too, appeared to get caught off-guard by his nomination and did not have his fundraising organization in place to accept contributions until June 1^st.    In his first five weeks of activity, however, Bernstein’s fundraising efforts were successful:  between June 1^st and July 11^th, the Bernstein campaign collected $28,150, including 51 donations of $100 of more.  (With a ten day head start, Feiner collected less than half that amount).    But while Feiner’s fundraising dived precipitously since early July, Bernstein’s fundraising efforts remained strong, garnering $19,875, including 87 large donors ($100 or more).   Significantly, in contrast with Berger’s donors in 2007, who included many from outside Greenburgh, nearly all of Bernstein’s large donors listed Greenburgh or 10583 zip code addresses.      While Bernstein has raised $48,025, he has also spent $35,510.  Bernstein’s largest vendor (at $23,450, or 2/3 of all expenditures) is Pivot Group, described on its website as “a voter communications firm specializing in providing direct mail, advance targeting and strategic guidance to Democratic campaigns..”  http://www.thepivot.com/wp 

Summary: as of late August, Bernstein has raised $48,025 including about 140 individual donations of $100 or more.   Feiner, by contrast, has raised $14,867 during the same period, even with a head start of about ten days.   But while Bernstein has raised $33,158 more than Feiner during this campaign, the Feiner campaign’s deep pockets have come into play, allowing Feiner to spent $44,712 (a campaign cash flow deficit of nearly $30,000) while Bernstein’s campaign has spent $35,510, or $9,202 less than Feiner.    Although Feiner has raised much less and spent significantly more than Bernstein’s campaign through August 25^th, Feiner still holds a huge financial advantage of more than $90,000, holding $103,132 in campaign funds in contrast with Bernstein’s account balance of $12,515.    

Comparison to 2007:  The 2007 campaign started three months earlier than the 2013 campaign as Berger began collecting funds in early March.  Simultaneously, Feiner energized his own fundraising. From the campaign’s start in March through the late August “11 Day Pre-Primay” reporting date, Feiner raised about $43,000 through late August ($28,000 more than in the later starting 2013 campaign season) and spent $37,288 ($7,424 less than he has already spent in the shorter 2013 campaign), ending the same period in 2007 with a cash balance of $141,687 ($38,555 more than the 2013 late August balance of $103,131).  

Berger had already started her fundraising in early March in 2007, three months ahead of Bernstein’s start date of June 1 in 2013.   By late August, Berger had raised $34,168 – not including $30,000 she loaned to her own campaign  - contrasted with Bernstein who has raised $48,025, or $13,857 more during a campaign season that has been three-months shorter than Berger’s in 2007.   Berger had also spent $57,604 by late August (running out of money in the process) , compared to Bernstein’s spending $35,510 ($22,094 less than Berger) during the same time period while also keeping his campaign solvent. 

Conclusion:  Defeating Paul Feiner cannot be accomplished by outspending Greenburgh’s twenty two year incumbent.  Bernstein’s fundraising success has been impressive and Feiner’s fundraising efforts have been surprisingly lax so far.  Nevertheless, in light of Feiner’s $132,977 head start, it is impossible in a short campaign season for Bernstein or any challenger to match Feiner’s inexhaustible financial resources.  Just to maintain his campaign spending levels to date, Bernstein cannot relax his fundraising.  The Berger campaign’s financial travails demonstrate how it is easy to run out of money when challenging Feiner.  It will be interesting watch future financial disclosure reports to see whether Feiner’s financial advantage will force another challenger’s campaign into financial distress  or if Bernstein’s campaign will continue their successful fundraising.

In contrast with 2007, the 2013 fundraising data may suggest a certain lack of enthusiasm among Feiner donors or, conversely, that the Feiner team is very confident about the Sept. 10^th primary. But, despite his calls recent calls on facebook for more money, Feiner has no deeper financial concerns other than how best to allocate his extensive resources.   Feiner’s only serious concern is whether the network of personal loyalty and name recognition he has built over two decades can turn out more than 4,000 voters on Sept. 10th.  

[Note:  Judith Beville has not submitted financial disclosures to the State of New York and is apparently not providing financial support to her co-campaign with Feiner.] 

The Non-Debate of 8/22

So Feiner didn't show up at the CGCA - glad I didn't head over there after all.   Feiner ducked the event, but that was certainly the astute move for him to make.   He is an incumbent with a colossal money advantage ($116,500 for Feiner v. $25,000 for Bernstein, as of mid-August) and he won more than comfortably the last time around (2007).  Feiner must be self-aware enough to know that his strength lies not in oratory but in person-to-person formats.  There was no strategic sense in his taking on an experienced trial attorney in a one-on-one format in a forum (CGCA) which Feiner must deem hostile.  Feiner simply had nothing to gain from this debate.   And give Feiner credit: he made a tactically sound choice by having the community cable station air - in place of his appearance at the debate - a prepared video where he could address the points he wanted to make.   I think conceptually, the video was a great idea as an alternative to a debate.  But, this is also where his campaign stumbled and looked sloppy.   How could campaign consultant Carla Caro release that cheap, amateurish video?   The Feiner campaign certainly has the financial resources to produce a professional video.  Instead, the video that appeared on Verizon 35 looked like it was filmed on someone's smart phone. Plus, Feiner  compounded the poor effect by not rehearsing well.  The Feiner team really fumbled the opportunity to create a smooth, professional looking presentation to show their candidate at his best.  But, does any of this make a difference?  Probably not too much: how many people will see the video anyway?

I only got to see a small part of Bernstein un-debate presentation, but I liked his reasoned, measured response to the town professional manager issue.
One point about Feiner's video:  Fortress Bible was all about traffic on Dobbs Ferry Road?  I've read the lengthy trial court decision and this certainly didn't come out strongly as the town's central objection: I remember reading about the town's contriving objections to parking spaces and drainage.  Who came up with this talking point and when?

Response from Paul Feiner to my Ballot Signature Posts

Thank you to Paul Feiner for submitting the following response in the comment section to yesterday's post [D. Weinfeld]:

The petition challenge was not frivolous. We felt that Mr.Bernstein did not file the minimum number of signatures required to get on the ballot.
The Westchester County Board of Elections agreed with our teams arguments that over 20% of the signatures collected by the Bernstein camp were invalid. They knocked out 337 signatures out of just over 1500 signatures submitted. Some of the signatures were from voters who live outside of Greenburgh. Others from non Democrats. Candidates need 1,000 signatures of Democrats who live in Greenburgh to get on the ballot.
Before my campaign filed the objections we noticed that Mr. Bernstein signed his own petition twice. Nominating petitions can only be signed once by voters. In addition some signatures on the nominating petitions looked like they were signed by the same person-in the same handwriting.
I do not believe that Bernstein's campaign filed 1,000 valid signatures of registered Greenburgh democrats. There were many irregularities in the petition sheets that were submitted -the court should have reviewed each of the specific objections. We lost the challenge on a technicality. I think that if the court had reviewed each of the specific objections we raised that they would have concluded that Mr.Bernstein filed fewer than 1,000 valid signatures.
If my campaign team had challenged all the Democrats on the petition we might have won the case. But, we did not want to knock off the ballot the candidacies of Francis Sheehan, Diana Juettner, Town Board members and Anne Povella, Receiver of Taxes, town officials who currently serve in office. We lost the case on a technicality and will move forward.
The court made the decision. I'm looking forward to the upcoming campaign. I like competition and am pleased voters will be able to contrast my approach to governing against my challengers.

PAUL FEINER

More about Feiner's ballot petition signature gambit

The decision of Judge Orazio R. Bellantoni of the NY Sup. Crt of the Westchester Co., in the matter of Archibald Mussington (Objector) and Paul Feiner and Judith Beville ("Aggrieved Candidates") v. the West. Co. Board of Elections, Robert Bernstein and Sherron Fantauzzi (Index No. 2891/13)  is informative on several levels. First, this makes it almost certain that Feiner was actively involved (and without any doubt approved) the accusations of fraud against Bernstein and Fantauzzi.  I don't know Archibald Mussington but, unless I hear otherwise, I'm going to assume that he didn't plan this maneuver and retain attorney Alan Goldston completely on his own and pay the attorney's fee out of his own pocket.
What's particularly interesting is that because of bad planning or lawyering on the part of Feiner's team, the judge's decision doesn't actually get to the substance of Mussington/Feiner's accusations of ballot fraud.   Essentially, the judge's opinion states, if the accusations of fraud were valid, the petition challenges would also have invalidated the petitions of Francis Sheehan, Diana Juettner and Arne Povella.  The complaint failed to name the latter three candidates and, consequently, the judge threw out the complaint.
I'm not sure what to make of this: the Feiner team's decision to challenge only the signatures of Bernstein and Fantauzzi, and not the other candidates for whom signatures were collected at the same time, implies that the complaint was not founded on any serious believe that Bernstein and Fantauzzi collected signatures fraudulently.  It can be reasonably concluded that Feiner's team meant only to harass these candidates by causing them to divert time and money from the campaign by spending days preparing their case and appearing in court.  Alternatively, if Feiner's team was serious about the fraud allegations, then the judge's decision implies that their case filing was incompetently prepared.  If the latter were indeed the situation, will Feiner amend and refile the ballot challenges?  If he sincerely believes that fraud was indeed committed, he should certainly do so.  Otherwise, we'll conclude that the Feiner team was bluffing all along.  (On the other hand, do Bernstein/Fantauzzi have a potential claim  against Feiner for frivolous litigation?)
One other correction to my earlier post:  this case did not cost the Bernstein campaign actual money since (as the Bernstein campaign corrected me) attorney Suzanne Berger, who ably represented Bernstein and Fantauzzi, volunteered her services.
So, what exactly was the point of all this?   I would greatly appreciate hearing from the Feiner campaign with an explanation of their thinking.

Panem et Circenses

The Feiner campaign’s Hail Mary pass – a play designed to end  all this election nonsense once and for all - fell well short of the goal line, but did gain the Feiner team some yardage.   Enthusiastic friends of Paul (I don’t know if anyone officially on the campaign payroll was involved) raised objections to the Board of Elections about the validity of the signatures on Bernstein’s ballot petitions and also questioned the validity of those petitions for using the name “Bob” instead of “Robert.”  The Bernstein campaign announced that after a couple of days of court time the presiding judge rejected the Feiner team's the challenges, allowing the primary to proceed with two names on the ballot, instead of the single “choice” that has appeared  in the last two Greenburgh Supervisor primaries. 

It can be reasonably assumed that this scheme to remove Bernstein from the ballot was coordinated with the Feiner campaign.   Feiner, of course, has used this tactic to eliminate previous challengers before voters could be given a chance to participate.  According to this Journal News article from 2009 (http://www.lohud.com/article/20090731/NEWS02/907310335/Elections-Board-investigates-challenge-Weems-Greenburgh-supervisor-race), Richard J. Garfunkel submitted the petition challenges that knocked Pat Weems off the ballot in that year.  Garfunkel had previously appeared on Feiner campaign financial disclosure reports as a payee reimbursed by the Feiner campaign for various expenses.  Some will remember that during the Feiner-Greenawalt campaign of 2007, Garfunkel assumed the role of a sort of quasi-official Feiner spokesman on various blogs.   

According to the Bernstein campaign, Feiner’s challenge was litigated by experienced election law attorney Alan Goldston.  (In the continual small-world ironies that repeatedly arise, Goldston co-chaired an election law seminar with Bill Greenawalt last year).  I’ld be curious to know who retained Goldston.   It’s always interesting to find out where one’s campaign contributions end up.   

This sort of gamesmanship is encouraged by New York state’s arcane and archaic ballot petition rules which heavily favor well-funded incumbents who can afford the litigation that ensues from petition challenges.   This is nasty, Tammany Hall politics, but it is par for the course in New York.  Who can blame Feiner’s campaign advisors for engaging in such tactics?  After all, elections require spending, which in turn requires fundraising.   During the last competitive supervisor’s race, Feiner’s campaign raised $70,000 and spend $110,000.   We can surely expect the same  levels this year.  Isn’t this time-consuming democratic process  really just an expensive, time-consuming annoyance that diverts focus from problem solving?    Even though this year the Feiner campaign failed in its main goal of stopping the primary before it reached the voters, the tactic was effective in that it did serve to distract the Bernstein campaign during these crucial weeks before the great August vacation season.  As I’ve pointed out, there really isn’t much campaigning time left when voters can be expected to be accessible and engaged.  In addition, the litigation certainly cost Bernstein’s campaign thousands of dollars.   Starting with a $140,000 lead in funding, the Feiner campaign – if it is indeed paying for Goldston’s services – can easily absorb this sort of financial tab.   Petition challenges are the definition of low risk/high return.   And they are entertaining!