Note: This post updated on 2/3/08 to fix a substantial error. We had the 2007 starting balances for Senators Metsger and Walker reversed, which made the campaign totals inaccurate (though the daily pace and average contributions were correct.) Brown and Avakian were correct originally. The box score and chart below is now accurate. Thank you to Senator Metsger for the heads-up.
Here's the latest look at the money chase for the Secretary of State race.
Last month, Kate Brown led her nearest competitor, Rick Metsger, by $222k. This month, her lead is unchanged. In just a month, Rick Metsger grew his funds from $70k to $114k. Brad Avakian's account grew from $45k to $66k. Vicki Walker's totals went up slightly from $65k to $73k.
Fundraising has picked up for all four candidates. Brown's daily pace (over 90 days) is up slightly from $1093/day to $1124/day. Metsger's has jumped dramatically from $303/day to $720/day. Avakian is up from $334/day to $457/day, and Walker is up slightly from $270/day to $303/day.
Here's the box scores and the charts:
|2007 starting balance||$7,575||$95,771||$40,178||$11,678|
|daily pace (last 90)||$456||$1,123||$720||$302|
|daily pace (last 30)||$701||$1,305||$1,004||$287|
Technical notes on the jump...
We retrieved this data from ORESTAR on February 1, 2008. Because campaigns can choose to delay their reporting up to 30 days, some recent data isn't available yet. The "daily pace" is based on the last 30 or 90 days for which we do have data. Our chart starts in July 2007 because most campaigns didn't raise money during the legislative session. The "average contribution" is based on actual cash contributions since January 1, 2007 - while the "current total" includes in-kind contributions, sold items, interest income, and the starting balance. Also, some campaigns lump together under-$100 contributions into a single line item - so the number of contributions may be slightly understated and the average contribution slightly overstated. In order to measure campaign strength, these numbers include the initial cash-on-hand on January 1, 2007 plus all funds raised since then.
Why not look at cash-on-hand? Because it doesn't lend itself to an apples-to-apples view. The goal is to provide a snapshot view that compares the financial strength of the statewide campaigns and legislative caucuses. Does a low cash-on-hand mean that a campaign is failing to raise money? Or does it mean that they're spending money on big-ticket items like polling, direct mail, and television? We assume that campaigns spend money in whatever way they think is most strategically smart. So, looking at the total funds raised since January 1, 2007 (plus the opening balance that day) is the best snapshot of overall financial strength.
And yes, we'll include Republican candidates - if any of them ever decide to run for statewide office in Oregon ever again.