Thursday, August 26, 2010

Did Riemer Get a Bump from the Incumbents’ Deal? (Updated)

Campaign finance data suggests that council at-large challenger Hans Riemer may have received a small bump in campaign contributions in the immediate aftermath of our report on the incumbents’ non-aggression pact.

Consider the number and amounts of Riemer’s contributions over the last three weeks of the Pre-Primary 1 reporting period.


During the week of 7/20-7/26, Riemer received 29 contributions worth $6,555. During the week of 7/27-8/2, Riemer received 24 contributions worth $5,565. For the two weeks together, Riemer raised an average $866 per day, which is a healthy clip for any candidate.

On 8/3, we reported that the four at-large incumbents had struck an agreement to not target each other. That same day, Riemer received 20 contributions worth $2,720. On the following two days, 27 more contributions came in worth $6,135. For the week as a whole, Riemer raised 77 contributions accounting for $15,040. That’s a pace of $2,149 per day, or 148% more than his prior two-week average. (We excluded 8/10, the last day of the filing period, from these calculations because nearly all candidates sent out last-minute appeals on that day.)

Was Riemer’s fundraising spike caused by the incumbents’ deal? It’s impossible to know for sure, but the data is consistent with the many complaints we have heard over the incumbents’ midnight-hour reconciliation. Sentiments such as these can only be helpful to Hans Riemer.

Update: MPW commenter Mike Raia notes that Riemer sent a fundraising email on August 3. We have also learned that Riemer sent a fundraising email on July 21 and, according to the above statistics, it did not generate the same yield as the the one on August 3.

4 comments:

Kevin Gillogly said...

Adam,

To make your conclusion, you would need to complete the logic and look at how Hans' contribution level after that date compares to the others.

In addition, you need to take out any mailings that went out from Hans that hit immediately prior to the "deal" date. I am sure that Hans' campaign would share that with you since it would only strengthen their case.

Finally you still would need to show cause and effect. That those who gave to Hans knew of the "deal" and then contributed to Hans BECAUSE of the "deal".

Since you have not done that sadly you are giving conjecture and trying to pass it off as a fact.

Adam Pagnucco said...

Kevin:

Sadly, you missed the point I was trying to make. This blog post was asking a question, not giving an answer. Its title was "Did Riemer Get a Bump from the Incumbents' Deal?" Its title was not "Riemer Gets Bump from the Incumbents' Deal." The final paragraph said:

Was Riemer’s fundraising spike caused by the incumbents’ deal? It’s impossible to know for sure, but the data is consistent with the many complaints we have heard over the incumbents’ midnight-hour reconciliation. Sentiments such as these can only be helpful to Hans Riemer.

So I am using the data to ask a question, not to insist on a conclusion. Furthermore, Riemer did not send out any mailings prior to the date on which I reported the deal. If you have an alternate explanation for his money spike, please state it.

Kevin Gillogly said...

Adam,

I got your point. And if you say that Hans did not send out a mailing immediate prior to the "deal" then I accept that.

But it was the way you phrased your "question" that concerns me.

You are looking at Hans contribution in isolation. If there was no spike in Hans' contributions than you never post this message. They have and you pointed that out.

You have been posting detailed finance data (thanks, great service to all readers) so it should not be that hard to complete the circle and compare the increases of the other candidates. If all candidates have a spike in their contributions then there is no need for this posting.

If other candidates have a similar spike then you could phrase the question: Who is not getting a spike? And what does that mean?

Right now your "question" is conjecture. You have the data take the final step and see who also has an increase in contributions and then ask. Otherwise we are back to another ice cream consumption causes crime argument.

So here is my question (and I have not looked at the data as closely as you): who else has had an increase in their contributions during the same time?

If there is a pattern then you have something. In fact, I would love to know.

Mike Raia said...

Adam,

Hans may not have sent a mailer, but he did send an email to his list on Aug. 3 reminding constituents of the upcoming filing deadline.

Just an observation.

-mike