She could have a lot of staffers or just a few really well paid ones.

James... perhaps you should actually read the entire post. I'll copy and paste for you:

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.

Looking at cash-on-hand is definitely something that matters, but it's hard to evaluate in a box-score kind of way.

Maybe Brown has bought an excessive number of snacks for the campaign office (bad) or maybe she's already paying for television ads (good).

That's stuff that's excellent fodder for research (go ahead, it's all on ORESTAR) but putting the cash-on-hand number in a box score doesn't illuminate anything.

Looking at Orestar, Kate Brown has a balance of $157,050. She has raised $375,000 and has already spent two thirds of her money.

Yes, but what she has left is more than anyone else has raised (before expenses). I haven't seen any polling on this race, but money is often an imperfect proxy for support. If that's true in this case, it looks like it will be tough for any of the other three to catch her.

That's more than 72% of her expenditures and those are reoccurring meaning 72% of the money she raises will be going to these general expenditures

You just mixed apples and oranges. Those categories may be 72% of her expenditures so far - but that doesn't mean that 72% of all the money she raises goes to those things.

I should disclose here: My company built Kate Brown's campaign website, but I speak only for myself.

OK, Mr. A&O and JHL... I'll play along.

Having said that cash-on-hand is important, but that it doesn't lend itself to a snapshot that illuminates whether a campaign is strong or weak - I'll put the challenge back on you:

What data points would you add to the box score above, related to expenditures or cash-on-hand, that tells us whether a campaign is weak or strong?

And keep in mind that this needs to work early in the race and it needs to work late in the race. The goal is a monthly snapshot that describes trends over time.

Don't just criticize. Offer a suggestion. Because I've spent hours and hours on this -- and I've given it my best shot.

And btw, A&O, this statement you made...

The only thing that makes this an "apples and oranges" argument is that you continually avoid talking about cash on hand, real expenditures, not hypothetical ones, and insist that the only relevant indicator to focus on is amount raised.

...is at odds with reality. I've said repeatedly that cash-on-hand and expenditures are VERY relevant indicators. But that there's no way to boxscore them - without digging into the details.

For example, here's what I wrote this weekend on one of the other threads:

Charlie, you're absolutely right. For the campaigns involved, the cash-on-hand is very important. More to the point, campaigns actually look at the individual expenditures. If your opponent is spending money on donuts and bumper stickers, you celebrate. If your opponent is spending money on TV ads, you brace yourself. The point is that simply putting the cash-on-hand in a box score doesn't illuminate anything. You gotta dig deeper and actually look at what people are spending on -- which is WAY beyond the scope of these monthly reports. That said, I'd absolutely LOVE it if someone would do a post now and then on what campaigns are spending their money on - and give us an evaluation on who is being smart and who is being dumb.

And here's what I wrote last month:

Thanks, Emily and JHL. I think you're right - the expenditure side of the ledger is often where the REALLY interesting stuff is. But it doesn't lend itself to a month-to-month box-score approach like we're doing here. ... Simply comparing cash-on-hand numbers doesn't tell you anything. You have to actually examine the numbers underneath - and while that's what the individual campaigns are certainly doing (and what hyper-interested political junkies can do via ORESTAR) - that's beyond the scope of a month-to-month box score approach.

So, I'm all ears. Got a suggestion for reporting expenditures in a way that tells us which campaign is wasting money and which campaign is kicking ass? Let's hear it.

A&O --

Once again, the goal here is to measure campaign strength. Which campaigns are comparatively strong and which ones are comparatively weak?

<h2>An example to test your suggestion: It's April 1st. Candidate Jones has $150,000 cash-on-hand. Candidate Smith has $50,000 cash-on-hand. Which one is stronger?</h2>