In a discussion that followed from a post I wrote a couple days back, a commenter asked about how much money had flowed into the district 4 race from outside sources. There have been some questions circulating about just how much money the race’s winner, Natalia Rudiak, was getting from outside the district.
It seemed like an interesting question, and while I’ve looked over the campaign finance reports previously, I hadn’t done a systematic look at that side of it. I thought it might be interesting to try.
Besides, my wife is at a social function … so it’s either do this analysis, or the sinkful of dishes waiting for me at home.
Anyway. What follows here is something between a back-of-the-envelope calculation and a thoroughgoing review. It includes only the contributions between January and early May. Rudiak had raised quite a bit of money in 2008, and of course there was money flowing into this race in the final days of the campaign. But I figure January-to-early-May is a large enough sample to get a feel for the patterns here.
In any case, it’s hard to be TOO definitive about this stuff, for a couple reasons which I’ll outline in a boring disclaimer at the bottom of this post.
So what follows is a breakdown for the source of each candidate’s contributions, based on address information provided by the reports. Please note: I’m leaving PAC contributions out of this analysis, for reasons stated in the disclaimer, and also contributions of less than $50, for which donor information is not recorded. These numbers track contributions from individuals giving more than $50 only.
For purposes here, I’m assuming any donation coming from the following ZIP codes are “within the district”: 15210, 15216, 15226, 15227, and 15234. ZIP codes don’t precisely overlap the district’s boundaries, I realize, but it’s really all I’ve got.
Donations identified as being from “elsewhere within the region” are those that come from ANY ZIP code that begins with a 151 or a 152, except the district ZIPS mentioned above. “Out of state/region” come from any zip code lower or higher than 151xx or 152xx.
Got it? Here we go.
Anthony Coghill
Contributions within the district: $4,625 (or 21 pecent of non-PAC contributions)
Contributions from elsewhere within the region: $14,475 (66 percent)
Contributions from out of state/region: $2,900 (13 percent)
Note: Coghill’s “within the district” total includes a $1,600 contribution he made from his own pocket. The “within the region” total includes an $8,000 amount made by Lisa Orlando, his campaign treasurer. Obviously those contributions are a sizable chunk — nearly 40 percent — of his total fundraising, and affect the numbers above accordingly.
Patrick Reilly
Contributions within the district: $3,180 (24 pecent)
Contributions from elsewhere within the region: $3,390 (25 percent)
Contributions from out of state/region: $6,950 (51 percent)
Natalia Rudiak
Contributions within the district: $2,595 (or 12 pecent)
Contributions from elsewhere within the region: $15,405 (72 percent)
Contributions from out of state/region: $3,600 (17 percent)
Notes: Rudiak took in $2,300 from individuals beyond state lines — the largest amount.
So … what conclusion do we draw from this?
Much of Rudiak’s support from outside the district came from East End areas like Squirrel Hill, Lawrenceville, and Point Breeze. That’s no surprise, really: From day one, it was clear Rudiak was going to be able to tap those progressive voters, who previously haven’t exerted much influence outside their leafy precincts.
Is that proof she’s an Astroturf candidate, as the commenter on my previous post speculated? Eh, I don’t know. I’ve looked at a lot of campaign finance reports in my day, and nothing sinister leaps out at me here.
She got a lot of money from elsewhere in the city, sure — much of it in $100 amounts from progressives. But to keep it in perspective, Coghill got the backing of folks like Todd Reidbord (of Walnut Street Properties fame), parking baron Merrill Stabile. So which bothers you more?
To be sure, Rudiak had some heavy-hitting PACs in her corner too: A statewide SEIU PAC gave her $6,500, the Western PA Laborers $5,000. The teachers, plumbers and other unions kicked in as well. So did the Progress Pittsburgh PAC, a fledgling outfit that coughed up more than $1,500 to advance the progressive agenda.
But it would be unfair to single out Rudiak from taking money from these sources. I mean, I can’t even count the number of contributions I’ve seen from the Laborers over the years.
So maybe the worst thing that can be said about Rudiak is … she tapped friends and fellow travelers for support, along with some high-octane PACs. Which is to say, she played the game that almost every politician plays (or tries to). And she won.
Now if you’ll excuse me … I hear those dishes calling me.
Boring disclaimer: This analysis leaves out money from PACs, because PACs can represent people living within the district even if the PAC is based outside of it, and I can’t think of a fair way to apportion the money from them.
In some cases, contributors list their work addresses rather than their home addresses — I used whatever ZIP code was provided, but there may be some errors resulting from that. In some cases, ZIP code information was missing — I left those out unless it was easy to classify the donor (as in situations where they listed another state in the address).
All the reports I looked at were handwritten, sometimes sloppily. (I’m looking at you, Reilly campaign.) I did the best I could to decipher them. Finally, it’s always possible I might have mistyped a ZIP or an amount here or there, though I think the numbers are pretty reliable, or else I wouldn’t be inflicting this stuff on the internet.
This article appears in May 21-27, 2009.
I wonder if Carrick has as much wealth, or should I say pockets of wealth, as Brookline and Beechview to begin with.
What leaps off the page is that Reilly accumulated a lot from out of state, and Coghill claimed about as much from the surrounding region as Rudiak. Percentage-wise.
And around how much did the various known associates of WC contribute to Coghill, all in all?
“What leaps off the page is that Reilly accumulated a lot from out of state, and Coghill claimed about as much from the surrounding region as Rudiak. Percentage-wise.”
>>> Yes, but to put that in some perspective: I don’t have the documents in front of me, but a big chunk of Reilly’s out-of-region total was from a single person who works in the hospitality biz (which is where Reilly used to work). And like I said above — Coghill’s in-the-region total is really attributable to a check from his campaign treasurer, who lives in 15211.
These really aren’t large sums of money we’re talking about, so a single big-dollar contribution from an old friend or a close ally can really throw numbers out of whack. Rudiak’s support is different — it tends to come from a much broader pool of people, contributing smaller amounts.
Thanks a lot, Chris. Just to clarify, this is money only, not including donations-in-kind?
“Boring disclaimer: This analysis leaves out money from PACs, because PACs can represent people living within the district even if the PAC is based outside of it, and I can’t think of a fair way to apportion the money from them.”
Eh, I can see that as a fair argument if it’s a regional PAC, but if it’s a national PAC with a DC address, say, I think it’s quite reasonable to consider the money as coming from outside the district. I mean, PACS are the whole problem in astroturfing, so since your post seems written as not just an analysis of the money but a defense of Rudiak, it’d make more sense to include the PACs. Or you could have kept them as separate categories and let people decide for themselves.
“So maybe the worst thing that can be said about Rudiak is … she tapped friends and fellow travelers for support, along with some high-octane PACs.”
Yes, I wasn’t expecting to see anything “sinister”, only that — as you showed — the claims of her being more of a “grassroots” candidate are overblown. You lose your right to the “reformer” mantle if you have to defend your fundraising with “well, everyone else does it, too!”.
In re-reading my post, I realize I sound a lot more picky and ungrateful for your time and effort than I actually am!
So again, thanks, Chris, for responding so quickly to my request. The City Paper provides a great service to this city.
Kevin —
Your point about national PACs is valid, but I’m only seeing one out-of-state PAC on the reports in front of me — a $500 contribution from the DC-based Utility Workers Union of America. The SEIU PAC mentioned above is a state organization based in Harrisburg, but obviously that reflects support from locals here. Rudiak’s second-biggest PAC donation comes from the Western PA Laborers, which is Pittsburgh-based. Most of the other PACs are located in the city or nearby.
Also, if we’re going to go down that path, there are dangers from having PACs that are too CLOSE at hand. One of Coghill’s backers, for example, is a PAC affiliated with Chester Engineering. They’re based in Moon Township, which makes them local. But of course, they also do a ton of work for the Pittsburgh Water and Sewer Authority. Ask Bram how he feels about THAT. (Full disclosure: My father formerly worked for Chester, though never on PWSA projects that I’m aware of, and he left the company several years ago.)
I’m actually not too interested in defending Rudiak: She can take care of herself. I’m just trying to put all this stuff in the context of what it usually takes to win an election.
And yes, this analysis only reflects contributions rather than in-kind donations. If I get a free moment today, I’ll take a quick look at those and see if anything jumps out at me.
I think grassroots support from within the district has an easy metric: the number of people in the district who voted for Rudiak. No one is saying this campaign was off the charts with money spent, and it’s not like Rudiak had anything approaching the level of out-of-district support that (to cite just one well-known example) Luke Ravenstahl has had in each of his mayoral bids.
Thanks, Chris, for sifting through the reports — I know EXACTLY how tedious it is to do that ;). When do you suppose County Council is going to fund its resolution viz. putting that stuff up on line???
That’s a pretty convoluted definition of grassroots, bwycz: the winner was by definition grassroots, unless the winner happens to be someone that “we” don’t like. ?
Again, it saddens me to see the term grassroots, which actually used to mean something, be just another adjective that even progressives apply to anyone we happen to like, regardless of how they run their campaigns. That doesn’t mean Rudiak is unethical or undesirable as a councilwoman: but let’s call a spade a spade.