Can A Chamber Of Commerce Support A Candidate With Money Recieved From A City
Few issues received as much attention in previous election cycles as did the part of coin in politics. This was particularly the example at the presidential level; Republican nominee Donald Trump insisted that his ability to self-fund his campaign meant he owed no favors to the wealthy or special interests, and U.S. Senator Bernie Sanders refused to endorse the apply of Super PACs to support his candidacy for the Democratic nomination. All the same, former Federal Election Commission chairman Robert Lenhard claimed that in comparing to these federal elections, "The relative touch of a Super PAC can be far greater in a downwardly-ticket race."[1]
The corporeality of money raised and spent by political candidates and outside groups in local elections tin can vary dramatically. Although many local elections feature footling to no campaign spending or political advertisements, a few resemble country or even congressional elections in terms of the significant sums of money involved. This is often related to partisan battles between Democrats and Republicans over control of mayoral offices, city councils, courts, and school boards beyond the state. Big amounts of money are likewise spent in local elections by business organisation interests, labor unions, environmentalists, and others without direct ties to political parties, particularly on notable local election measure elections. Examining the role and telescopic of money in local politics is disquisitional to gaining a thorough understanding of the election process and system.
2016 elections
Understanding campaign finance
-
- Run across also: Federal entrada finance laws and regulations and Political spending non controlled by candidates or their campaigns
Political spending is not limited to money raised and spent by candidates and political parties. Political activity committees (PACs) are groups formed to raise and spend money in gild to back up or oppose candidates. A super PAC, formally known as an independent expenditure-only committee, can "enhance unlimited sums of money from corporations, unions, associations and individuals, and so spend unlimited sums to overtly advocate for or against political candidates." A super PAC must file regular reports with the Federal Election Commission.[2]
While candidates and parties must file detailed expenditure reports, independent organizations and unions do non face the same requirement. These groups contribute an increasing percentage of all political spending. In the 2012 election, only about 40 pct of their federal spending was fully disclosed.[3]
Reporting requirements for political spending vary essentially from state to state, and particularly from municipality to municipality. Neighboring cities or counties in the same state can and often do have significantly dissimilar campaign finance disclosure rules. Local reporting requirements often differ from land-level requirements. Ballotpedia tracks known fundraising and expenditures in sure mayoral elections, school board races, and local ballot measures. Some local government entities do not freely publish or share campaign finance disclosure reports past candidates.
Municipal
-
- See also: United States municipal elections, 2016
Elections for mayor, city council, and county commission tend to receive more attention than other local elections, such as for judgeships or school boards. This attending manifests by manner of voter turnout, media coverage, and political spending. The money flows to and from candidates, political parties, and outside organizations. The size of the city or county and the structure of its government are important variables impacting the amount of money campaigns demand in order to win.
The estimated cost for a competitive city council campaign in Seattle's 2012 election was betwixt $250,000 to $300,000.[4] One research written report constitute that the average cost to run a successful city council campaign in a major American city was $193,732 in at-large elections, $112,512 in district elections, and $128,406 in cities that apply a mixture of the two systems.[4]
Mayoral campaigns in big cities tend to be much more than expensive. For example, the Chicago Tribune estimated that the campaign of Chicago Mayor Rahm Emanuel (D) and his affiliated PAC spent more than than $22.eight million on his 2015 re-election bid. His general election opponent, Jesus "Chuy" Garcia, spent less than $5 1000000 between his campaign and affiliated satellite spending.[5] By comparison, the mayoral election in America's 99th-largest city by population—Boise, Idaho—featured less than $250,000 raised by all three candidates, ane of whom did not file a campaign finance report.[vi]
In 2013, the Sunlight Foundation published a study regarding the availability of campaign finance information in municipal elections. The written report plant massive disparities between data availability from location to location. Some municipal governments offered no resources or candidate reports, whereas others provided comprehensive campaign finance reports from candidates equally well as meaning contextual information regarding the rules and procedures around the reporting system. The report summarized:
| " | Many cities fall into a gray area somewhere in the middle, wielding web services in imperfect, merely well-intentioned ways to share at to the lowest degree some of the data they collect. [...] Very few cities really meet all of the essential disclosure practices for open campaign finance data.[7] | " |
| —Sunlight Foundation (2013)[8] | ||
Elections to sentinel
Maricopa County, Arizona: The county sheriff race betwixt incumbent Joe Arpaio (R) and challenger Paul Penzone (D) featured one of 2016's largest campaign warchests for a local authorities candidate. Prior to October 2016, Arpaio raised $12 million for his re-ballot bid to a seventh term in function. He had received national attention due to his opposition to illegal clearing and back up for Republican presidential nominee Donald Trump. A Time magazine article in 2009 referred to Arpaio as America's "toughest sheriff" and questioned whether he was "an effective law-enforcement officeholder or, as his critics say, a flagrant man-rights violator."[9] Arpaio's opponent, Penzone, raised $540,000 prior to October 2016. Penzone ousted Arpaio with approximately 55 percent of the vote in the full general ballot on Nov 8, 2016.
Liberal donor George Soros spent money to oust Arpaio from his seat. He donated to Maricopa Strong, an anti-Arpaio organization that sent direct mail fliers to county voters criticizing the sheriff on the footing of "using our coin to clean up his messes instead of keeping usa prophylactic." This referred to a lawsuit against Arpaio that had cost the county government approximately $l million.[10] Soros and his affiliated organizations also spent coin to support the Democratic challenger in a district attorney race in Jefferson Canton, Colorado, as well as to promote a local ballot measure in San Diego, California, to institute runoffs for all urban center elections.[eleven] [12]
Portland, Oregon: Oregon Treasurer Ted Wheeler (D) significantly outraised and outspent his competition in the race to replace outgoing Mayor Charlie Hales (D). Wheeler reported $327,701 in contributions and $235,562 in expenditures weeks before the primary election on May 17, 2016, which more than doubled the figures reported by his closest competitor, Multnomah County Commissioner Jules Kopel Bailey (D). Bailey reported $111,033 in contributions and $103,854 in expenditures. None of the other x candidates raised or spent in the six figures during the campaign. Wheeler won the mayor's office outright in the May primary by receiving a elementary majority of the vote. He led the field with nearly 55 percent of the vote, followed past Bailey in second place with more than than sixteen percentage of the vote.
Baltimore, Maryland: The District ane city quango main race in Southeast Baltimore, Maryland, received meaning attending due to the unusual amounts of money raised by multiple candidates.
Democratic candidates Zeke Cohen, Mark Edelson, and Scott Goldman had all raised more than $100,000 each past February 2016 in preparation for the city primary election on April 26, 2016. The Baltimore Sun noted that these figures rivaled those of mayoral candidates and highlighted that some local residents were referring to the contest as a "street fight."[xiii] Cohen won the Democratic nomination with a plurality of the vote in the primary election. He faced Republican nominee Matthew McDaniel in the full general ballot on Nov viii, 2016. Cohen defeated McDaniel with approximately two-thirds of the vote in the general ballot.
The quango seat was vacated by James B. Kraft (D), who spent 12 years in that office earlier his 2016 campaign for a judgeship on Maryland's 8th Circuit Court. Although Baltimore'due south last Republican mayor was elected in 1963 and its last Republican city council member left office in 1942, the country co-operative of the Republican Party claimed that the November general election race for the District 1 seat would exist competitive. Executive Director Joe Cluster dismissed the relatively low fundraising totals past the party'southward primary candidates and stated, "Whoever our nominee is, we plan on introducing them to the big donors around the state. We have very few competitive races this yr. This is one of them, and the political party will put try into information technology."[xiii]
Courts
-
- See also: Local trial court judicial elections, 2016
The National Institute on Money in Country Politics, Justice at Stake, and the Brennan Center for Justice published a joint report in 2015 called Bankrolling the Bench to examine the office of money in judicial elections. Although the report focused on state supreme courtroom elections, which featured more than $34.v meg in political spending between 2013 and 2014, it also referred to several local court elections.[14] I section investigated a 2014 election for the 19th Circuit Court in Cole County, Missouri. The Republican State Leadership Committee spent hundreds of thousands of dollars to support an unsuccessful bid past a Republican candidate to oust the incumbent Division IV judge.[xv]
A different report past Mother Jones claimed, "Donors potentially buy a lot more influence, with less money, when they dorsum judges" instead of congressional candidates due to the lesser amount of money involved.[16] The same report included some enquiry on political spending in local court elections for the 2011-2012 ballot wheel. In a study of ten states with judicial elections, it found that, by far, the nearly was spent on Texas elections at more than than $xviii million, with Illinois as the runner-up with less than $9 million spent total. Information technology concluded, "Campaign funding in races for lower courts is even more obscure [than in state court elections]-despite the fact that these races produce the vast majority of judges, and those well-nigh citizens will face."[16]
Political spending in judicial elections has come nether criticism from entities such equally the Center for American Progress, a liberal recall tank, which labeled it a "distorting influence."[17] Former Michigan Supreme Courtroom Primary Justice Clifford Taylor (R) denied that coin in judicial elections was a negative element and stated, "People aren't buying judges. People are ownership an approach to the police. And that'southward a very different affair." Taylor added that the foremost critics of judicial election political spending were those who seek to use the court system to bypass conservative country legislatures and stated, "They consider the judicial co-operative to be the action arm of the American left."[18] In 2014, Republican State Leadership Committee Chairman Matt Walter argued that political spending helps judges to "go far better touch with their voters."[19]
Schoolhouse boards
-
- See also: School board elections, 2016
With rare exceptions, such every bit the Los Angeles Unified School District, school board elections tend to feature little political spending compared to other types of elections. A survey of elected school board members conducted past the National Schoolhouse Boards Association in 2010 found the post-obit:
| " | 73.nine per centum of elected board members written report that their campaign spent less than $one,000 in their most recent election, and 87 percent spent less than $5,000. Just 2.six pct of board members spent more than than $25,000. The patterns are very different in big and pocket-size districts, however. In modest districts, 95.2 percentage of candidates say they spent less than $1,000, and none report spending $x,000 or more. In large districts, on the other hand, ten.1 percentage of members spent more than $25,000, and over one-quarter spent $ten,000 or more, while simply 33.2 percent spent less than $1,000.[7] | " |
| —Frederick M. Hess and Olivia Meeks (2010)[20] | ||
Since only 94 of America'south 1,000 largest public school districts held partisan schoolhouse board elections as of 2016, the most pregnant campaign finance spending in those races rarely originates from political parties. Teacher unions tend to be the ascendant force in school board races, since their endorsements and ability to mobilize teachers and other voters make a meaning difference in local elections. Research studies show that teacher unions hold a "dominant presence" in schoolhouse board elections and that "union-endorsed candidates won board seats over iii-quarters of the fourth dimension, and matrimony support is more than important than incumbency reward."[21]
Their influence extends to political spending at the federal, state, and local levels. 2 PACs associated with the National Education Association union spent $12 million in the 2010 election bike, $14.iv one thousand thousand in the 2012 election wheel, and $xiv.ix million in the 2014 election cycle. A pair of PACs associated with the other summit national teacher union, the American Federation of Teachers, spent $15.1 million on elections in 2010, $12.seven million in 2012, and $18.7 million in 2014.[22]
A competing group that endorses pedagogy reform proposals contrary to most matrimony-supported policies, Democrats for Education Reform (DFER), spent $382,000 across all three ballot cycles. An Education Week article noted that DFER and other instruction reform advocacy organizations, such equally StudentsFirst and Stand up for Children, "have much smaller coffers" and typically contribute to "candidates who back educational activity policies that run afoul of the unions, such as evaluation and pay compensation systems based in office on student test scores; culling models of teacher certification; and an increase in charter schools." In the 2014 ballot bicycle, Correspond Children spent approximately $900,000 and StudentsFirst spent $one.2 meg, although the latter arrangement had spent more than $four.2 million in 2012.[22]
Other interest groups such every bit parent organizations, chambers of commerce, and partisan-affiliated entities can as well get financially involved in school board elections. This tends to be on a smaller and less frequent scale than teacher unions or instruction reform organizations. Withal, these interest groups can accept a pregnant bear on on a particular ballot. For example, a conservative political advocacy arrangement founded by Charles and David Koch, Americans for Prosperity, spent "'in the low half dozen figures' on cable television set ads, mailings and canvassing" in 2015 to influence the Jeffco Public Schools recall ballot in Colorado.[23]
The author of a study on satellite spending in school board elections stated the following:
| " | Local arenas can serve as important battlegrounds in national politics—penetrated past networks of outside donors and organizations who meet local elections as critical contests over competing visions of didactics.[7] | " |
| —Sarah Reckhow (2016)[24] | ||
Her study listed multiple instances of wealthy donors who had spent coin on school lath elections beyond several states. This included the widow of Apple founder Steve Jobs, Laurene Powell Jobs, and Texas hedge fund director John Arnold. The study concluded that these large donors typically supported schoolhouse board candidates who ran confronting opponents with teacher union support.[24]
Elections to watch
Sacramento County Office of Education: Ii of the three candidates who campaigned together every bit a slate supported past the California Lease Schools Association (CCSA) won their elections on June seven, 2016. Joanne Ahola won the Area 4 seat and Heather Davis won the Area 6 seat, although fellow slate member Roy Grimes was unable to oust board member Harold Fong from the Area vii seat. Ahola was employed past the CCSA at the time of the election. The association spent $483,000 in support of the slate and approximately $3.3 million on a set of xv land and local candidates across California who favored charter schools.
CCSA's senior political director, Carlos Marquez, said after the ballot, "We engaged vigorously because we recognize that county boards of education play a critical part in our sector to get a fair milkshake at beingness evaluated and ultimately canonical." Fong criticized the satellite spending in the race and stated, "I retrieve the people have expressed their stance well-nigh this and we should motion forward and elect people who will actually do the work of the county lath instead of picking on one vote and trying to utilize that 1 vote to get rid of someone."[25]
St. Joseph school board fellow member Eric Bruder
St. Joseph School District: Ii of seven seats on the St. Joseph Lath of Education in Missouri were up for general ballot on April five, 2016, in the wake of years of controversy and turmoil in the district. This included investigations past the Missouri State Auditor, the Federal Bureau of Investigation, the United States Department of Instruction, and the Internal Acquirement Service. These investigations resulted in the sentencing and imprisonment of one-time superintendent and school board president Dan Colgan due to the misuse of more than $40 million in commune funds as office of a stipend arrangement that lasted over 14 years.
The at-big school board election featured incumbent Eric Bruder and nine opponents. Bruder was appointed to the board in April 2015 to fill the seat left by Colgan following his resignation. Fellow incumbent Brad Haggard did non run for a second term. A Kansas City-based political action group, the Taxpayer Protection PAC, spent more than $33,900 on directly mail service fliers to voters in support of Bruder and candidate Art Van Meter. Both candidates denied having an association with the organization.[26] Bruder narrowly lost his re-ballot bid by fewer than 200 votes out of 13,828 full votes cast. Van Meter placed 5th in the election, which was won by newcomers Bryan Green and Tami Pasley. Both raised less than $iv,000 for their campaigns, co-ordinate to the Missouri Ethics Commission.[27]
Ballotpedia conducted a serial of original investigative reports of the St. Joseph School District from 2014 to 2015. Click hither to read our coverage.
Knox County Schools: 4 of nine seats on the Knox County Board of Teaching in Tennessee were up for principal election on March 1, 2016, and general ballot on Baronial 4, 2016. Before the full general ballot, seven candidates raised a combined total of more than $100,000, with ii candidates—Grant Standefer in District 2 and Reuben "Buddy" Pelot in District 5—raising more than half of those funds.[28]
Standefer'south opponent, onetime commune educator Jennifer Owen, filed a complaint with the IRS against a nonprofit manager afterwards he sent an email through his foundation's account supporting both Standefer and Pelot.[29] [30] According to Shopper News, all of Standefer and Pelot's donors who had contributed $three,000, the maximum legal donation corporeality for a couple, had received the foundation'southward electronic mail.[31] Pelot survived the master election and proceeded to the general, simply Owen defeated Standefer with more than than 65 pct of the vote. Pelot lost in the general ballot to his opponent, Susan Horn.
Ballot measures
-
- Run across also: Local ballot measure elections, 2016
Ballot measures at the state and local levels can involve massive amounts of political spending. The 2014 election featured more than $467 million in spending on 75 state ballot measures. By comparison, the 2014 election also featured the most expensive U.South. Senate race in history, which cost approximately $100 million.
Political spending on ballot measures can come in many forms, but frequently involves petition gathering, upshot-based advertisements, and voter mobilization. Although local ballot measures do not typically involve the same amount of spending as state measures, some measures can withal feature millions of dollars in spending on these activities. An article by The Washington Post pointed to the approximately $eight million spent by Airbnb to defeat a local measure out in San Francisco that would have restricted short-term housing rentals in the city every bit an case of significant spending on a local measure out. The same article claimed that big spending was well-nigh effective if it was used against election measures instead of in their back up.[32]
Local election measures can also touch on campaign finance procedures in other types of elections. For example, residents in Seattle, Washington, voted in Nov 2015 to pass a measure overhauling the city's campaign finance system. The initiative'south centerpiece provision established a voucher system providing all Seattle voters with a ready of four $25 vouchers that they may give to candidates of their choosing in urban center elections, provided the candidates adhere to certain entrada contribution limits.[33] Although candidate participation in the system is voluntary, the Seattle initiative may accept "national implications" by serving as a precursor for like experiments elsewhere.[34]
Elections to lookout man
Monterey Canton fracking ban initiative: Ecology activists proposed an initiative to ban hydraulic fracturing, ordinarily chosen "fracking," also every bit other high-intensity methods of oil and gas extraction in Monterey County, California. The fracking ban's proponents gathered enough signatures to put the initiative on the ballot on November 8, 2016.[35] The measure was approved.
Even before the measure was put on the ballot, Californians for Energy Independence (CEI), an organisation that supports "state and local policies that permit for continued domestic free energy production and opposes those policies – such as oil taxes and energy bans – that would hinder production and increase reliance on foreign oil," spent an unknown amount to air tv set and radio ads promoting local oil and gas production and opposing the fracking ban initiative.[36] [37] The Natural Resources Defense Quango blog accused CEI of being a front grouping for oil and gas companies "masquerading as grassroots consumer groups or wide-based coalitions."[38] CEI publishes a listing of individuals and organizations who support its mission.
Background
Coin in politics
Both President Barack Obama (D) and former Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney (R) raised approximately $1 billion each in the 2012 presidential election via their campaigns, their political parties, and their chief super PACs. Other super PACs raised and spent hundreds of millions of dollars either for or against either candidate.[39] Information technology was the kickoff presidential ballot following the Citizens United v. Federal Election Committee ruling in 2010 by the U.S. Supreme Court, which held that the constitutional First Subpoena right to costless spoken communication applies to corporations and thus the government cannot limit their political spending. A second Supreme Court ruling in 2010, SpeechNOW five. Federal Election Committee, applied the same reasoning to political spending past individuals. In response to these ii rulings, a Federal Ballot Commission (FEC) advisory opinion stated the following:
| " | Following Citizens United and SpeechNow, corporations, labor organizations, and political committees may make unlimited independent expenditures from their own funds, and individuals may pool unlimited funds in an independent expenditure-only political committee. It necessarily follows that corporations, labor organizations and political committees also may make unlimited contributions to organizations such as the Committee that make but independent expenditures.[7] | " |
| —Federal Election Committee (2010)[xl] | ||
This outpouring of political spending was not limited to presidential elections; national super PACs raised another $696 meg during the 2014 midterm elections.[41] Overall, the Center for Responsive Politics estimated that $3.67 billion was spent on the 2014 elections, which included neither entrada spending early in the ballot cycle nor satellite spending on result-based advertisements.[42] Not all of the billions of dollars in 2014 were spent on federal or state elections. Co-ordinate to United states of america Today:
| " | The torrent of outside money that has flooded presidential and congressional races in recent years is flowing into down-ballot contests coast to coast — driven past new, well-funded super PACs and court decisions easing restrictions on corporate and union spending in American elections.[7] | " |
| —United states of america Today (2014)[43] | ||
Governing magazine wrote in 2014 about "a growing sense among donors and activists that the best mode to influence policy isn't in idle, gridlocked Washington. Information technology's in statehouses and city halls."[44] The article claimed that this increased spending was resulting in more than disquisitional advertisements and negative campaigns at the local level, although information technology noted a counterargument that the influx of greenbacks was necessary to give voters more than data about issues and candidates in lesser-known elections.
Spending large sums on local elections is not simply a way of sidestepping gridlock at the federal level, it may exist a more cost-effective approach for activists, donors, and political organizations wanting to make an touch.[45] One million dollars is pocket modify for a presidential candidate, but it would allow a mayoral candidate in one of America's largest cities to double or even triple his or her campaign'south advertising budget. Former FEC chairman Robert Lenhard claimed, "The ability to stride in with a vi- or seven-figure advertising buy is going to be disproportionately effective on a local race."[46]
Since our coverage of local politics began in 2013, Ballotpedia has reported on many elections featuring meaning fundraising and spending by candidates equally well as outside groups. The following section describes what happened in several local elections in 2015 every bit potential precursors for how coin may exist spent in 2016.
2015 examples
Schoolhouse board election in Jefferson Canton, Colorado
A team of anti-incumbent candidates nicknamed "The Clean Slate" swept all five seats on the Jeffco Public Schools Board of Didactics on November 3, 2015. Merely two of the seats were up for regular general election, but the other 3 were added to the election after a large-scale recall effort targeted the iii incumbents who constituted the lath's governing majority. Residents voted to recall all three members of the board's bulk bloc with more than 63 percent of the vote, and "The Clean Slate" candidates were elected to replace both them and the two former members of the board'south opposition faction, neither of whom had decided to run for re-ballot.
"The Clean Slate" candidates also dominated the fundraising race in both the general and the recall ballot. In the general ballot race for two seats, candidates raised a full of $155,957. "The Make clean Slate" candidates, Ali Lasell in District three and Amanda Stevens in District 4, brought in 87.50 percent of that money. Their opponents raised $nineteen,490 between them. The recall election's fundraising contest was more than one-sided, every bit candidates received a full of $158,896 only "The Clean Slate" candidates raised 99.26 percentage of that money. None of the three retrieve targets conducted any fundraising or made any entrada expenditures.[47]
Candidate campaign expenditures do not tell the whole story, however. Four PACs raised more than than half a meg dollars between them to bear upon the recollect election. The two PACs supporting the recall, Jeffco United For Action and Jeffco United Forward, raised a combined full of $295,772. The pair of PACs in opposition to the recollect, Kids Are First Jeffco and For Improve Public Schools, trailed backside significantly with $204,562 in contributions.[47]
The amount of unreported spending past taxation-exempt nonprofit groups in either election is unknown. According to The Washington Postal service, "Michael Fields, country director of Americans for Prosperity-Colorado, said that his grouping [was] spending 'in the low six figures' on cable television ads, mailings and canvassing in Jefferson County."[23]
A local system, Jeffco United for Action, led the recall effort and submitted more than double the required petition signatures for each targeted schoolhouse board fellow member. Earlier the petitions were filed, the 2014-2015 school year proved contentious. Students protested and teachers staged "sickouts" in response to new lath policies on curriculum review and teacher merit pay. The bulk bloc—Julie Williams, John Newkirk and Ken Witt—were all elected in 2013 after campaigning in favor of reforms in the district. Superintendent Cindy Stevenson resigned shortly after that election due to the new board majority'due south want for a alter in district leadership.
The election received land and national attending, with The Denver Post editorial lath weighing in against the recall try and deeming it "nakedly political."[48] Local political annotator Eric Sonderman called Jefferson Canton the "ground nix for all kinds of political wars" in Colorado and highlighted that the county was evenly divided betwixt Democrats and Republicans.[49] The Washington Post referred to the Jeffco election equally a "proxy war" featuring Americans for Prosperity, a bourgeois political advocacy group, backing the board'southward reform efforts versus liberal teacher unions supporting the recall activists and "The Clean Slate" candidates.[23]
School board ballot in Los Angeles, California
In Los Angeles, a majority of the school board for the nation's second-largest schoolhouse district was up for election on May 19, 2015. During the 2011-2012 school year, the Los Angeles Unified Schoolhouse District served 659,639 students and had an almanac upkeep of approximately $8.nine billion. The educatee enrollment count would've been enough to make the district the 20th-largest urban center in the U.s.a., and the commune'due south budget exceeded the unabridged upkeep of nations such as Estonia, Jamaica, Iceland, and the U.South. territory of Puerto Rico.[50]
With four of the Los Angeles school board'south seven seats up for election and control of the board at stake, candidates raised simply $1,119,470 for their campaigns. More than half of the contributions, $564,0045, were from the District 5 race alone.[51]
These figures did not account for all political spending in the ballot, however, since a pair of Political Activeness Committees (PACs) spent heavily to influence the race, specially in the District v campaign betwixt incumbent Bennett Kayser and challenger Ref Rodriguez. Kayser's campaign received aid from the PAC associated with the commune's teacher matrimony, United Teachers Los Angeles, due to his public back up for the union and his votes confronting charter school expansion in the city.
Rodriguez, who founded a network of xv lease schools serving approximately five,000 surface area students, received support from the California Lease Schools Clan'south PAC. Both PACs released campaign fliers criticizing the opposing candidate, and Rodriguez renounced a flier from the charter school association's PAC that claimed Kayser "tried to cease Latino children from attending schools in white neighborhoods."[52] [53] He labeled the claim "reprehensible" and said that it did non reflect his opinions of the incumbent.[54]
Rodriguez ousted Kayser with 53.iii pct of the vote in the closest of the three contested elections. In the other two contested races, the candidate endorsed by United Teachers Los Angeles won the District 3 seat and the candidate endorsed by the California Charter Schools Association won the Commune seven seat. District 1 incumbent George J. McKenna III, who was endorsed by both groups only whom endorsed Kayser, ran unopposed for re-ballot.
Local measure ballot in San Francisco, California
San Francisco'south metropolis ballot featured a contentious local ballot measure on November 3, 2015, that was ofttimes referred to equally the "Airbnb Initiative." Suggestion F, which was rejected with approximately 55.6 percent of the vote, would have imposed restrictions on private, brusque-term housing rentals. It would have restricted all such private rentals to 75 nights per year and imposed provisions designed to ensure that owners of such private rentals were paying hotel taxes and following city code. Information technology would besides take required guest and revenue reports from rental hosts and "hosting platforms" every three months.[55]
The initiative targeted websites such as Airbnb and Homeaway, which characteristic abode rental listings nation- and earth-broad. It was proposed by a coalition of land owners, housing advocates, neighborhood groups, and unions—especially those representing hotels—called "Share Better SF." Proposition F opponents heavily outraised and outspent "Share Ameliorate SF" and the measure's other supporters in its bid to stop the new regulations. "Share Ameliorate SF" raised $676,121 and "SF Tenants and Families for Affordable Housing" raised $455,886 in support of the initiative, which amounted to a total of $778,488. Airbnb provided approximately $8 million in funding to the opposition commission, "San Francisco for Anybody, No on F," which ultimately raised $9,013,690.[56]
Support and opposition to the measure out did non split purely forth partisan lines. U.S. Senator Dianne Feinstein (D) and dozens of Democratic officials and affiliated organizations endorsed Proposition F, but the San Francisco Democratic Party itself opposed it.[57] Opponents also included Lieutenant Governor Gavin Newsom (D), Mayor Edwin M. Lee (D), the San Francisco Republican Party and the San Francisco Chamber of Commerce.[58] Post-obit the election, Wired journalist Davey Alba labeled the battle "a symbol of the tensions in a metropolis grappling with the dramatic effects of the tech blast" and noted that the San Francisco Lath of Supervisors could still enact new regulations on curt-term housing rental companies or businesses in similar fields, such as Uber and the ride-sharing manufacture.[59]
See as well
| Local Politics | 2016 Election Analysis | |
|---|---|---|
| | | |
| Municipal regime | Municipal elections, 2016 | Local: Partisanship in local elections |
Footnotes
- ↑ Campaigns & Elections, "Where Super PACs Will Really Thrive," Nov 13, 2012
- ↑ OpenSecrets, "Super PACs," accessed September 25, 2015
- ↑ New Jersey Election Law Enforcement Commission, "White Paper No. 24: Independents' Solar day," March 2014
- ↑ 4.0 4.1 The University of Washington at Bothell, "Campaign Spending in City Council Elections: A Comparison of At-Large and District Contests," accessed March 8, 2016
- ↑ Chicago Tribune, "Emanuel, allies spent at to the lowest degree $22.viii million to win," April 16, 2015
- ↑ Boise Metropolis Clerk, "Information for Voters," accessed March 8, 2016
- ↑ 7.0 vii.1 vii.two 7.3 vii.4 Note: This text is quoted verbatim from the original source. Any inconsistencies are attributable to the original source.
- ↑ Sunlight Foundation, "The Landscape of Municipal Campaign Finance Data," October 24, 2013
- ↑ Time, "Joe Arpaio, Toughest Sheriff in U.Due south.," October xiii, 2009
- ↑ NPR, "A Local Sheriff'due south Race Is Drawing National Attention And A Hefty Price Tag," Oct one, 2016
- ↑ CBS Denver, "Why A Billionaire Is Interested In The Jeffco DA'due south Race," October 10, 2016
- ↑ San Diego Reader, "Ballot police brawl," Oct xix, 2016
- ↑ thirteen.0 xiii.ane The Baltimore Sun, "A big-coin, 2-political party race for City Council heats up in Southeast Baltimore," February sixteen, 2016
- ↑ The New Politics of Judicial Elections, "Executive Summary," accessed March 8, 2016
- ↑ The New Politics of Judicial Elections, "Lower Court Race Attracts National Attending in Cole County, Missouri," accessed March eight, 2016
- ↑ 16.0 16.1 Mother Jones, "How Nighttime Money is Taking Over Judicial Elections," Nov/December 2014
- ↑ Heart for American Progress, "Partisan Judicial Elections and the Distorting Influence of Campaign Greenbacks," October 25, 2012
- ↑ Mother Jones, "Huge Sums Are Pouring Into Judicial Elections, Simply That Would Never Affect the Courts, Correct?" October 29, 2015
- ↑ Los Angeles Times, "Judicial elections getting more than political with new campaign spending," Nov 23, 2014
- ↑ American Enterprise Institute, "School Boards Circa 2010: Governance in the Accountability Era," accessed March 8, 2016
- ↑ The Didactics Policy Middle at Michigan State University, "How practice Teachers' Unions Influence Education Policy? What We Know and What We Need to Learn," April 2014
- ↑ 22.0 22.ane Instruction Week, "Teachers' Unions to Spend More Than Ever in Country, Local Elections," October 29, 2014
- ↑ 23.0 23.1 23.2 The Washington Post, "In Denver suburb, a school board race morphs into $1 one thousand thousand 'proxy war,'" November ane, 2015
- ↑ 24.0 24.1 Future, "Big donors fund some school lath elections," September 8, 2016
- ↑ The Sacramento Bee, "Charter school group spent nearly $500,000 on county education board races," June 18, 2016
- ↑ St. Joe Aqueduct, "KC PAC is Spending on SJSD Board Race," Apr i, 2016
- ↑ St. Joe Channel, "Big Money Spent on SJSD Campaign," April 5, 2016
- ↑ Knox Canton Clerk, "Fiscal Disclosures: Candidate Information," accessed July 25, 2016
- ↑ Knoxville News Sentinel, "Knox school board candidate cries foul over nonprofit's endorsing opponent," January 15, 2016
- ↑ WBIR.com, "Knox County school lath candidate files complaint with IRS," January eighteen, 2016
- ↑ Shopper News, "Carringer, Fugate Testify Differences," February 16, 2016
- ↑ The Washington Mail, "Big ballot initiative money is a lot more than constructive at proverb 'no' than 'yes,'" November four, 2015
- ↑ The Stranger, "Can We Get Big Money Out of Local Politics by Giving Every Voter $100?" Apr 8, 2015
- ↑ Crosscut, "Information technology's taking a lot of cash to get large money out of local politics," October 6, 2015
- ↑ The Mercury News, "Anti-fracking measure qualifies for Nov ballot, giving Monterey County voters chance to ban controversial oil-extraction technique," June two, 2016
- ↑ Californians for Energy Independence, "Virtually Us," accessed March 9, 2016
- ↑ KSBW, "Big oil ads hit Monterey Canton airwaves," February 2, 2016
- ↑ Natural Resource Defense Council, "Unmasked: The Oil Industry Campaign to Undermine California's Clean Energy Future," November 6, 2014
- ↑ The New York Times, "The 2012 Money Race: Compare the Candidates," accessed March 5, 2016
- ↑ Federal Election Commission, "Advisory Stance 2010-11," July 22, 2010
- ↑ OpenSecrets, "2014 Outside Spending, by Super PAC," accessed March 5, 2016
- ↑ OpenSecrets, "Overall Spending Inches Up in 2014: Megadonors Equip Outside Groups to Capture a Bigger Share of the Pie," October 29, 2014
- ↑ USA Today, "Federal super PACs spend big on local elections," February 25, 2014
- ↑ Governing, "Outsiders Add Money and Negativity to State and Local Elections," October 2014
- ↑ CNN, "Super PACs coming to a city near you," May 19, 2015
- ↑ The Wall Street Periodical, "Super PACs Target Local Races," October 18, 2015
- ↑ 47.0 47.ane Colorado Secretarial assistant of State, "TRACER: Candidate Search," accessed December vii, 2015 Cite error: Invalid
<ref>tag; name "tracer" defined multiple times with different content - ↑ The Denver Post, "Jeffco school board campaign is another misuse of political call back," June xxx, 2015
- ↑ CBS Denver, "In 'Purple District,' Jeffco Schoolhouse Lath Recall Could Have Large Influence," August 26, 2015
- ↑ Primal Intelligence Agency, "The Earth Factbook: Country Comparing - Upkeep," accessed March 6, 2016
- ↑ Los Angeles Metropolis Ethics Committee, "2015 City and LAUSD Elections," accessed May eighteen, 2015
- ↑ LA School Report, "In Commune v board race, the Kayser hits merely go along on coming," Feb 17, 2015
- ↑ LA School Study, "PAC attack: New mailer hits Kayser challenger for missing paperwork," February 11, 2015
- ↑ LA School Report, "Charter group cartoon more burn for 'racist' flier on Kayser," February 2, 2015
- ↑ San Francisco Elections Function, "Ballot Question text," accessed Baronial 25, 2015
- ↑ San Francisco Ethics Commission, "Campaign Finance Dashboards - November 3, 2015 Election," accessed March 6, 2016
- ↑ Share Meliorate SF, "Endorsements," accessed September 17, 2015
- ↑ San Francisco for Everyone, No on F, "Endorsements," accessed September 17, 2015
- ↑ Wired, "Prop F has failed. But the battle for SF's soul volition continue," November 4, 2015
| Ballotpedia's coverage of local politics | ||
|---|---|---|
| | Elections • Federal politics • State politics • Public policy • Influencers • Fact check • News | |
| | Municipal government • Schoolhouse boards • Local courts • Local ballot measures • Local recalls | |
| | Municipal elections • Mayoral elections • School board elections • Judicial elections • Local measure elections • Recall elections | |
| | Acme counties • Top 100 cities by population • Top 200 schoolhouse districts by enrollment • Courts and judges by county • Local elections past yr • List of local election measures by state • Political recall efforts by state | |
| | Preemption conflicts between state and local governments • Partisanship in United states municipal elections • United States school shootings and firearm incidents, 1990-nowadays | |
| Ballotpedia | |
|---|---|
| Almost | Overview • What people are saying • Support Ballotpedia • Contact • Contribute • Task opportunities |
| Executive: Leslie Graves, President • Gwen Beattie, Master Operating Officer • Ken Carbullido, Vice President of Ballot Production and Technology Strategy Communications: Alison Graves • Megan Chocolate-brown • Abigail Campbell • Sarah Groat • Lauren Nemerovski Contributors: Scott Rasmussen | |
| Editorial | Geoff Pallay, Editor-in-Primary • Daniel Anderson, Managing Editor • Ryan Byrne, Managing Editor • Cory Eucalitto, Managing Editor • Mandy Gillip, Managing Editor • Jerrick Adams • Victoria Antram • Dave Beaudoin • Jaclyn Beran • Marielle Bricker • Kate Carsella • Kelly Coyle • Megan Feeney • Nicole Fisher • Juan García de Paredes • Sara Horton • Tyler Rex • Doug Kronaizl • Amee LaTour • David Luchs • Brittony Maag • Roneka Matheny • Andrew McNair • Jackie Mitchell • Elisabeth Moore • Ellen Morrissey • Mackenzie Tater • Samantha Post • Paul Rader • Ethan Rice • Myj Saintyl • Maddie Sinclair Johnson • Abbey Smith • Janie Valentine • Caitlin Vanden Boom • Joel Williams • Samuel Wonacott • Mercedes Yanora |
| Ballotpedia'due south Election Assay in 2016 | |
|---|---|
| Primary | Ballotpedia's Election Analysis Hub, 2016 • Terms and concepts: Partisan Risk |
| Federal Desk | • U.S. Firm battlegrounds • U.Southward. Senate battlegrounds • Presidential battleground states • The 2016 Senate races • The mail-2016 federal authorities scenarios • Affect of the 2016 election on the U.s. Supreme Court • Policy positions of the 2016 candidates |
| State Desk | • Gubernatorial and legislative party control of state regime • State government trifectas •Land executive official elections • State legislative elections • Land judicial elections •State supreme courtroom partisanship, 2016 • State supreme court changes, 2016 •2016 ballot measures • State legislative battlefield chambers, 2016 |
| Local Desk | • Partisanship in local elections • Money in local elections • Partisanship in United States mayoral elections • Race, law enforcement, and the ballot box • Education reform at the country and local levels • Battles over school governance • State funding battles and local responses • The fight to shape public school curriculum |
| Policy Desk | • Education policy disputes in the 2016 elections • Healthcare policy disputes in the 2016 elections • Environmental policy disputes in the 2016 elections • Ballot policy disputes in the 2016 elections • Energy policy disputes in the 2016 elections • Upkeep policy disputes in the 2016 elections • Public policy in the 2016 elections |
Source: https://ballotpedia.org/Money_in_local_elections_(2016)
Posted by: herzoganturtat.blogspot.com
0 Response to "Can A Chamber Of Commerce Support A Candidate With Money Recieved From A City"
Post a Comment