McPherson out-raises Hammer by $71K
by Joe Shreve and Joe Shreve
May 31, 2012 | 4605 views | 10 10 comments | 40 40 recommendations | email to a friend | print
With the June 5 primary election taking place next week, candidates for the various offices are working to make their final campaign pushes.

Fliers and advertisements are in mailboxes throughout Scotts Valley and the San Lorenzo Valley, and campaign money is being spent on other advertising, as well.

The final week before the election is also the last time to check on the candidates’ war chests.

Thursday, May 24, was the deadline for the three candidates for Mark Stone’s 5th District seat on the Santa Cruz County Board of Supervisors to disclose their campaigns’ revenues and expenditures between March 18 and May 19.

Bruce McPherson

Over the two-month period since mid-March, Bruce McPherson’s campaign reported raising $26,643 in cash donations, and an additional $1,166.40 in nonmonetary contributions for a total value of $27,809.40 — bringing the McPherson camp’s total haul for the year up to a reported $118,341.40. His campaign began 2011 with $4,594 in the bank.

During those same two months since March 18, the campaign reported spending $43,087.18. The largest single expenditures were $9,370.35 paid to Maverick Mailing for campaign literature, and payments of $8,000 apiece to McPherson campaign managers Kris Reyes and Stephen Reed.

During the life cycle of the election, McPherson’s campaign has reported spending a total of $86,315.35. As of May 19, the campaign had $27,428.05 cash on hand.

Eric Hammer

Between March 18 and May 19, Eric Hammer’s campaign reported receiving $13,570.10 in cash donations, along with $350 in nonmonetary contributions, for a grand total of $13,920.10 during the reporting period.

Hammer’s campaign has brought in a grand total of $47,023.10 in 2012 which was added to his coffers from 2011.

Within the most recent reporting period, Hammer’s camp reported spending $12,642.21, with the largest payout being two payments of $2,000 each to the Monterey-based campaign consulting firm Campaign Frameworks.

Over the course of the election, Hammer’s campaign has reported spending a total of $47,696.21. As of May 19, Hammer’s camp reported having $1,766.54 in the bank.

Bill Smallman

According to Santa Cruz County Clerk Gail Pellerin, Bill Smallman’s supervisorial campaign had not submitted campaign financial disclosure documents for the March 18 to May 19 period by the May 24 deadline and, as of Tuesday, was considered late.

Pellerin said that should the County Clerk’s office not receive the disclosures, the campaign would be notified, first by phone then by certified letter, and given 10 days to comply before beginning to accrue daily fines up to $100.

Pellerin said, the campaign could be turned over to the California Fair Political Practices Commission if it continues to fail in its reporting duties.

For more information: www.votescount.com
Comments
(10)
Comments-icon Post a Comment
pican
|
June 05, 2012
Great job bill i.e. filling out paperwork...is this

an example of your work at the Lompico water district? R.I.P Michael & Jane...ZaZoo
Truthinesss
|
June 02, 2012
In a recently published letter to the editor, the writer believes that “less than 3 percent” of the money raised by Bruce McPherson is “from our community” (“Hammer understands 5th District’s needs,” Michael Burns, May 25).

Here, I believe, are the real facts: Almost 600 contributors have given to McPherson’s campaign — nearly half of them are 5th District residents — which would mean they have given more to McPherson than to Eric Hammer. Put another way, about 95 percent of the donors to McPherson live in Santa Cruz County, which is very impressive.

Check the facts and those are, McPherson is being supported by more people from “our community” that anyone else in the race, from firefighters and environmentalists to Annette Marcum and Hilary Bryant. He always has promoted community involvement. I trust he will help us become a better community to safeguard our environment, parks and public safety, as well as give much-needed attention to our transportation network.

Russell Gross, Ben Lomond

anonymous
|
June 02, 2012
http://www.co.santa-cruz.ca.us/ele/cd/hammer5192012.pdf

About 2/3 of the way down. Under Schedule C Nonmonetary Contributions Received. $350.00 in advertising.

Also, what's up with all those out-of-area union donations?
Helen Sullivan-Thomp
|
June 03, 2012
It is important to keep in mind that many of our Fifth District citizens belong to those so called out-of-the area unions.

I think that I would be more concerned about the six lobbyists listed on Mr. McPherson's disclosure forms.

Also, I am going to post my name whoever you are.
Karen Vera
|
June 02, 2012
According to those campaign disclosure statements filed with the county elections department Boulder Creek Bulletin contributed $350 on April 10, 2012 to the Eric Hammer Campaign in free advertising.

Boulder Creek Bulletin charged the Bruce McPherson Campaign $374 for advertising during the same period.

There was discussion that the Boulder Creek Bulletin was merely a front for the Hammer campaign. I fought this idea because I wanted to believe that it was a sincere endeavor.

This is very disappointing.

Hammer Taxed
|
June 02, 2012
All I'll say right now is that BC Bulletin did not donate nor do they actually endorse a candidate. The truth on that will come out soon as the Bulletin just found this out. Let's say there was deceit and someone took advantage but the mistake will be brought to the attention of those officially in charge. He has burned more bridges and continues to do so. The BC bulletin does not have extra money to give out and certainly is not a front for Hammer. He once again is trying to hide his mistakes and point the attention away from him.
Karen Vera
|
June 02, 2012
How can it be Hammer's mistake? It's listed as a contribution on his campaign finance disclosure form.

How does that point the attention away from Hammer? His campaign team has the sense to not lie on an election form.
Boulder Betty
|
June 01, 2012
It's all small donations and therefore a compass of constituent support.
no surprise
|
May 31, 2012
To be expected. Big money buys elections all the time.
Whining already
|
May 31, 2012
Not so true look at Meg. that's what all the democrats said then. What does money have to do with people voting.(oh yeah those who have worked hard for their money want to use it as they please not have government use for their own need. that would be who votes) Campaign money is all BS in the first place and so is Hammer.


We encourage your online comments in this public forum, but please keep them respectful and constructive. This is not a forum for personal attacks, libelous statements, profanity or racist slurs. Readers may report such inappropriate comments by e-mailing the editor at pbeditor@pressbanner.com.