July 29, 2008
Re: New PDC Website is Crack for Political Junkies

A caveat/correction accompanying my praise for the redesigned PDC website (regarding which David Postman has similar thoughts): the "cash-on-hand" numbers I provided have to be taken with a major grain of salt.

You can see in the "candidates" section of the "Search the Database" function that a listing of "contributions" and "expenditures" is given. Sadly, that's not the whole tale, which would otherwise allow for a logical and consequent cash-on-hand tally.

At the old PDC website you could see contribution and expenditure totals based on the last summary (C4) report by a campaign. In between those reports, you could also track incoming receipts via required C3 reports from campaigns, detailing their deposits of contributions.

The new PDC site compiles that recent C3 data and combines it with the latest C4 reports to give you the aforementioned summary data. Meaning, the new summary page is rather up-to-date on contributions, not so much on expenditures. It all depends on when on the reporting calendar [pdf] you're looking.

By chance, a C4 report is due today, which will give a snapshot look at various data points, including cash-on-hand. In between C4 reports to the PDC (a schedule that varies notably thanks to the Legislature), the expenditure numbers will vary in their relevance.

Long story short: the cash-on-hand numbers I originally cited aren't going to be very helpful since the last C4 report prior to today was back in early June, covering through the end of May. Much has transpired in some races, especially that for Governor, since then.

Posted by Eric Earling at July 29, 2008 12:09 AM | Email This
Comments
1. $Money, while omni-important in elections will not be the deciding factor this time around. If only the PDC could release intangible subjective data on perception of 'trusted incumbent' versus 'slick challenger', then you'd likely get a clearer picture of standings. Crunching numbers won't do much in that regard. :)

Posted by: Duffman on July 29, 2008 07:05 AM
2. Eric is right. This is slick.

Everyone posting on SP should at least look at the information available. At least look up one of your candidates and check out their contributions and expenditures.

Posted by: swatter on July 29, 2008 07:27 AM
3. Quick check shows SP advertiser Michael Bond getting eaten up by contributions from a Mary Fairhorst.

There is a Superior Court race that has six gents. One idiot has collected nearly 100k and another about 70k, while a third is at 35k. That is more than Rick Bart, supposedly a serious candidate for US House, has raised.

Question: what is so special about Superior Court that justifies such contributions?

Posted by: swatter on July 29, 2008 09:12 AM
4. Hey Eric: Time for you to start pimping "Sound Transit 2 - The Mulligan." You wanted ST2 last year to pass BAAAD.

Prove you are still left of Ron Sims - tell us now how much you like this new ST ballot measure, why we should vote to send untold billions to Greg Nickels, etc. We're counting on your unique perspective.

Posted by: Wishkah on July 29, 2008 09:42 AM
5. Send him an e-mail. He'll respond. Don't ruin this great post. Everyone should check in at the PDC.

Posted by: swatter on July 29, 2008 03:47 PM
6. The new web site is neat, and better, but doesn't seem to be that much more comprehensive or anything. Just cleaner. And while I don't recall an "independent expenditures" option on the old site (maybe I just missed it), and there's more summary data and export options ... I don't see a CSV export, which is so basic I have to think I am just not seeing it (and no, Excel isn't the same thing).

Also, the new site is kinda slow. Does a lot of useless page reloads. And hard to script.

The old site is still available and still easy to script and still has CSV export.

Posted by: pudge on July 29, 2008 04:51 PM
7. I found the regular C3 contribution pages loaded quicker than before.

Posted by: swatter on July 30, 2008 07:53 AM
8. Dino Rossi putting his funds into a "blind trust" to circumvent campaign contributions is a most noteworthy development to watch, one could almost call it "evasive manuvers."

http://www.theolympian.com/politicsblog/story/522431.html

What makes this tactic particularly telling is that the "Public Disclosure Commission (PDC) launches a new tool on Web" for easier comparisons for campaign finance in the governor's race last Friday.

http://www.theolympian.com/politicsblog/story/518343.html

PS: Remember when Dick Cheney came to Seattle to stump for Rossi, in his last bid for the governor's mansion? Cheney also stumped for
Congressman Dave Reichert, also up for re-election this year.

Posted by: atticusfinch on July 31, 2008 06:18 PM
9. Dino Rossi putting his funds into a "blind trust" to circumvent campaign contributions is a most noteworthy development to watch, one could almost call it "evasive manuvers."

http://www.theolympian.com/politicsblog/story/522431.html

What makes this tactic particularly telling is that the "Public Disclosure Commission (PDC) launches a new tool on Web" for easier comparisons for campaign finance in the governor's race last Friday.

http://www.theolympian.com/politicsblog/story/518343.html

PS: Remember when Dick Cheney came to Seattle to stump for Rossi, in his last bid for the governor's mansion? Cheney also stumped for
Congressman Dave Reichert, also up for re-election this year.

Posted by: atticusfinch on July 31, 2008 06:18 PM
10. atticusfinch, um, please describe in what way anything is being "circumvented" and how this "tactic" is "evading" anything.

I won't hold my breath waiting for your description.

Posted by: pudge on July 31, 2008 09:08 PM
Post a comment
Name:


Email Address:


URL:


Comments:


Remember info?