That would be the logical headline if one local weekly publication was to write a story about Huntersville Mayor Jill Swain's 35-day campaign finance report filed a couple weeks ago.
At least that is what one would think after reading the publication's most recent anonymous commentary lamenting non-Huntersville residents expressing interest in the town's mayoral race.
When the anonymous columnist took potshots at citizens, he/she described them as people "who don’t live in the town they are targeting, meddling in an election with which they have no claim to stake and are clearly actively engaged in attempting to influence."
Ironically, while this local paper seemingly wrote the piece in defense of Mayor Swain, one could certainly say the same about the vast majority of the money donated to Mayor Swain's campaign a little more than a month out from Election Day. This election cycle, $2700 out of $2800 donated to the campaign has come from people who don't live in Huntersville.
I guess those donors are trying to unduly influence the Huntersville race, right?!?!?
In truth, saying that would be about as silly as the comments coming from that local publication.
Of course almost all politicians and campaigns have supporters and opponents coming from outside their jurisdictions. Of course those people have a right to their opinions.
That is doubly true in the North Mecklenburg area where our multiple municipalities have overlapping interests, share state legislative districts, participate in numerous regional bodies together, and regularly strive to act as a cohesive unit to counter the influence of the Big City to our south.
The Citizens of all Lake Norman area towns certainly do have an interest in who is elected in all of our towns. That's because the decisions made by those officials impact all of us.
There is another headline one could also use after looking at the Mayor's campaign report. "Is Mayor Swain mailing it in this election cycle?" would also be appropriate. That's because her report shows a whopping 3 donors and zero expenditures.
That's a shockingly small number when compared to Swain's previous runs. Certainly, the mayor has more than a few supporters left, but one has to wonder at that low number.
As we head into the final stretch of this campaign season, we can expect a few more surprises. Activists from across the region working to impact the top spot in the region's biggest town shouldn't be one of them.
Bonus Observation: The local paper also scoffed at those outsiders meddling in the Huntersville election as members of a closed "echo chamber" on Facebook so they were preaching to the choir - implying they were somewhat irrelevant. As a frame of reference, the Exit 28 Ridiculousness Facebook group has over 4500 members. Only a little over 9400 votes were cast in the Huntersville, Cornelius, and Davidson mayoral races combined in 2013. Considering that the vast majority of this group lives in one of these three towns, rather than being irrelevant it may very well be the deciding factor this time around.
In almost any election I can recall, the media cry, albeit responsibly, about enormous campaign expenditures and criticize candidates for wasteful spending when so many financial needs continue to exist in the communities the candidates are vying to represent. A history of a public demanding accountability in this area is one reason for the requirement of disclosure in campaign funding . And the larger the campaign war chest, typically, the greater the criticism of the candidate.
ReplyDeleteNaturally, one would think that when a candidate choses to run a campaign focused on a history of successful service and constituent satisfaction, rather than attempting to "purchase" an election with an expensive media blitz that included negative attack ads, they would be applauded.
Apparently not.
Mr Dickerson, thanks for the comment.
DeleteI do typically agree with you on this point, and if Mayor Swain's campaign fund raising history had always been as you imply - meaning minimal - then your point would be very well taken.
Unfortunately, that's not really the case. At this point in 2009 the Mayor Swain had raised nearly $11,000. In 2011 she had raised over $15,000 on the 35-day report. Just before Election Day in 2013 it was just under $19,000.
A cursory look at the reports from the challengers in each of those elections shows that Swain typically outraises her competitors by a very significant margin. She has not had a problem, as you say, in "buying" the election in the past
The fact that that does not appear to be the case this time is very telling. What it tells is anyone's guess.
In the interest of balance then, may we please see your publication of the same campaign data for the same period in this campaign with an "out of town donor" breakdown for Ms. Swain's challengers?
DeleteMr. Dickerson, I think you may need to go back and read the post again.
ReplyDeleteI said focusing on th in-town versus out-of-town supporters is somewhat silly. It would be akin to what the weekly publication did in saying non-Huntersville residents have no claim in who wins the Huntersville election.
The only point I really made about the Swain Campaign's fundraising is that it has fallen off when compared to previous election cycles.
However, if knowing the breakdown is of interest to you that info is available from the reports on MeckBOE.org.
I respectfully request you re-read your own article, beginning with the headline. In jest or not, its message is clear.
DeleteIn addition, Ms. Swain's fundraising info is equally available, but interesting, if not obvious, why you cited her figures in your blog but are only willing to direct people to another source for her competitors', even after being specificly requested a request for reporting for balanced coverage. Your bias is clear, as well as weakly substantiated.
DeleteMr. Dickerson, I think you may need to go back and read the post again.
ReplyDeleteI said focusing on th in-town versus out-of-town supporters is somewhat silly. It would be akin to what the weekly publication did in saying non-Huntersville residents have no claim in who wins the Huntersville election.
The only point I really made about the Swain Campaign's fundraising is that it has fallen off when compared to previous election cycles.
However, if knowing the breakdown is of interest to you that info is available from the reports on MeckBOE.org.
Just a cursory look, the first nine paragraphs of your blog deal with the citizenship of the campaign contributors. Only the last three paragraphs and the "Bonus Observation" focus on the amounts.
ReplyDeleteSatire is not your forte Mr. Short.
Here is why...
ReplyDeleteThe point of this piece is that it is irrelevant where people come from when they support or oppose a candidate particularly in an area like North Meck where towns have so many overlapping interests. The local weekly in question seems to have a different point of view on that and chose to target citizens with its remarks. Also, since an event involving Mayor Swain was the subject matter underlying the paper's story it seemed appropriate to use her as an example in this column. It was sort of an added bonus that her fundraising numbers perfectly fit the point.
Honestly, if you wish the post I wrote had not been written your concern should really be directed at the local paper, not me. If that story had not occurred, I can assure you it never would have occurred to me to write this one.
As for the headline, was it a little pointed? Sure, headlines tend to be that way.
Your persistance has gotten the better of me though, so i did go check. The same headline for Swain's competitor would have said 72%. If you add in family members as "local" it would go down to about 50%. The vast majority of the rest looks like it comes from people in the other North Meck towns or Charlotte.
And the competitor is outraising her about 9-1, but that appears to be more a function of Swain's fundraising effort falling way off compared to previous campaigns rather than anything else.
Again, thanks for reading.
Here is why...
ReplyDeleteThe point of this piece is that it is irrelevant where people come from when they support or oppose a candidate particularly in an area like North Meck where towns have so many overlapping interests. The local weekly in question seems to have a different point of view on that and chose to target citizens with its remarks. Also, since an event involving Mayor Swain was the subject matter underlying the paper's story it seemed appropriate to use her as an example in this column. It was sort of an added bonus that her fundraising numbers perfectly fit the point.
Honestly, if you wish the post I wrote had not been written your concern should really be directed at the local paper, not me. If that story had not occurred, I can assure you it never would have occurred to me to write this one.
As for the headline, was it a little pointed? Sure, headlines tend to be that way.
Your persistance has gotten the better of me though, so i did go check. The same headline for Swain's competitor would have said 72%. If you add in family members as "local" it would go down to about 50%. The vast majority of the rest looks like it comes from people in the other North Meck towns or Charlotte.
And the competitor is outraising her about 9-1, but that appears to be more a function of Swain's fundraising effort falling way off compared to previous campaigns rather than anything else.
Again, thanks for reading.
I see you refused to publish my last comment. Nice censorship. But then again, it appears I was the only one reading your work anyway.
ReplyDeleteActually, I posted it and replied. It was the one where you asked me to look up the opponent's numbers. I did. His were 72%.
DeleteHowever, I see both posts are now gone. Resend it and I'll repost. In four years I've only not posted one or two comments because they broke the comment policy posted above.
You haven't done anything but call me out on what you disagree with me on. I don't mind that at all.
In fact that is kinda the point of comments in this kind of forum isn't it"?
Mr Greer, my sincere apologies...I believe this is it. Fortunately, it comes in email as well.
ReplyDelete"In addition, Ms. Swain's fundraising info is equally available, but interesting, if not obvious, why you cited her figures in your blog but are only willing to direct people to another source for her competitors', even after being specificly requested a request for reporting for balanced coverage. Your bias is clear, as well as weakly substantiated. "
My response beginning with "Here's why"...was in response to yours.
Feel free to keep the conversation going. I am glad to see this has caught your interest to the point of bringing you back to check up on it days later.
Uh, that would be a nope. The comment referenced above is more than a few comments behind.
ReplyDeleteI returned here this afternoon while completely bored during a meeting and was wondering, days later, if my comment had finally shown up as it was not posted more than 24 hours after it was originally sent.
Here it is now, ever more poignant given you aren't even keeping track of the posts on your blog. And it will indeed be the last on this issue if, in fact, it ever appears.
Originally posted Sunday, October 18 "Mr. Short, your attempts at misdirection, unbalanced reporting, and biased, unsubstantiated perspective have only been outdone by your suggestion I blame another author for your shortcomings in a retort... Respectfully, this will be my last post. For as it has been attributed to many for its truth, 'There is no value nor honor in engaging an unarmed man in a battle of wits.'"
Ok, well...all I can tell you is the one you just posted is not in the email thread I receive when a comment comes in. The blog site sends one email when it comes in and one when I post it.
ReplyDeleteThe above comment is also not in the unpublished comments on the blog itself. So, I would have had to delete it twice - on the blog and in my email - to not have it. Point being, that is unlikely.
You can choose to believe me or not. Really does not matter to me.
I am not saying you did not send it, just that it appears I did not receive it.
An editor once told me some people will like what you write and some will hate it. But even the ones that hate it will read. You seem to fall into that latter category.
I hope you keep reading.