Campaign Finance: 2013 Primary Edition

Here are the campaign finance numbers, courtesy of NY State [http://www.elections.ny.gov/CFViewReports.html],  for the Greenburgh Supervisor primary starting from Bernstein's nomination by the Greenburgh Democratic Party in late May and continuing through Sept. 20th (i.e., the 10 day post primary financial disclosure filing date).
 Feiner:      Raised:           $16,838 (Feiner started campaign with $132,977 in campaign funds).
                  Spent:             $67,760
                  cost per vote:  $17.61
 Bernstein Raised:            $58,233
                 Spent:              $53,724
                  cost per vote:  $25.08

 For comparison, let's look again at the 2007 primary numbers also continuing through the 10 days post-primary financial disclosure filings. The 2007 campaign, however, started in early March, three months earlier than in 2013.
 Feiner 2007 Raised:            $52,980 (Feiner stated campaign with about $138,500 in campaign funds)
                     Spent:              $74,416
                      cost per vote:  $17.25
 Berger 2007 Raised:           $37,519 (Berger also lent her campaign $40,000)
                      Spent:             $76,177
                      cost per vote:  $34.75

 Random comments:
1. Bernstein's $58K in fundraising is even more impressive when taking into account that the candidates in 2007 each had three extra months to solicit contributions than the 2013 candidates. Bernstein's fundraising success included the support of almost 170 $100+ donations. But, putting this success in context, Bernstein's $58K was little more than one-third of the $150K that Feiner had to work with ($132,977 in funds plus $16,838 raised). And, as he demonstrated in 2007, Feiner too can raise $50,000 during a campaign if he makes the effort.
 2. Edgemont pays up: The vast majority of Bernstein's large (i.e., $100 and more) contributors listed 10583 (presumably Edgemont) and Greenburgh zip codes. This is less true for Feiner who consistently receives contributions from outside Greenburgh and especially Berger, who accumulated relatively little Greenburgh funds.
 3. By continually fundraising during off-years, Feiner is able to maintain a war chest of at least $130,000: he entered both the 2013 and 2007 campaign with this a bank balance around this level. Furthermore, Feiner's not facing challengers in six years has allowed him to keep his funds largely intact while maintaining moderate levels of spending (mainly office/car expenses and charities) consistant with actual fundraising. If Feiner were challenged every two years, however, Feiner would have to change his campaign finance strategy: perhaps by requiring "team" candidates to fundraise also(it appears that Judith Beville raised and spent zero funds for her joint campaign with Paul, which suggests that she may be the shrewdest pol in town).
 4. It may be a coincidence, but Feiner's per vote spending in 2007 and 2013 was consistent at about $17.50 per vote. Although Bernstein's spending was much more efficient than Berger's, neither challenger approached the "bang for the buck" that Feiner enjoyed. If Feiner targets 3,800 to 4,000 votes as a goal to win each Democratic primary, then he should anticipate spending $65,000 to $70,000 for each future primary campaign. While Feiner ended the campaign with $81,874 in the bank, he certainly has enough time in the next two years to restore his funds balance to his usual $130,000. The letter he recently distributed shows that he has already started fundraising in anticipation for 2015.
 5. Bernstein acted similarly to Berger in that he allocated a huge amount of his funds (nearly $38K or about 70%) to a Washington based Democratic-party marketing company. Just like 2007 when 360 JMG collected lots of checks without showing much value for their services, the true winner of the 2013 campaign was The Pivot Group [www.thepivot.com]. When comparing Bernstein's performance to Berger six's years earlier, it does not seem that Bernstein was especially well served by his consultants and management. Bernstein could probably have saved $40K and done just as well. Of course, this was his contributors' money, so it's up to them to raise these questions.
 6. Feiner does not squander contributors' money on DC firms. He also finds a way to spend less on campaign managers/consultants. Feiner's main expenses, are his usual group of vendors, like Scott Schindler, and postage and signage companies. Feiner's biggest single spending extravagence was the $15,000 in attorney's fees to challenge Bernstein's ballot petitions. While this tactic is anti-demorcratic, the risk-reward return of the strategy made it logical, as described below. If you subtract out these legal fees, Feiner spent the same amount on the campaign as Bernstein, while garnering nearly twice as many votes.
 7. The Feiner team's strategy of trying to knock off candidates by ballot challenges may be as much a financial as electoral consideration. If Feiner had succeeded in knocking Bernstein off the ballot, he could have potentially saved his campaign $50,000. This potential reward was probably worth the $15,000 invested in legal costs to mount the challenge, which leads to perhaps the most eye raising campaign expense....
 8. Archibald Mussington's $500 payment for "reimubursement of campaign expenses"? Mussington was the complainant in Feiner's challenges to the validity of Bernstein's ballot petitions. The round number of $500 seems somewhat puzzling as an expense reimbursement. It would interesting to see an itemization of Mussington's expenses and his invoice.