Gov. Jerry Brown may have received a lot of press attention for being frugal in his campaign spending, but the real award goes to state Treasurer John Chiang, who ends the election cycle with $3.3 million in his war chest. (Lt. Gov. Gavin Newsom has $3 million. Brown dwarfs the two with $24 million remaining in his campaign accounts, which will probably be spent on legacy initiatives in 2016.) Chiang successfully navigated the transition from two terms as state controller into winning the job of state banker spent a paltry $24,293 in all of 2014. Divide that by the number of votes Chiang received in both the June and November elections, and you find that the state’s top money man spent less than four-tenths of a penny per vote. Frugal, indeed!
On the other hand, the most surprising spending … at least until you think about what was really going on … was that of Attorney General Kamala Harris. The Democratic incumbent faced a never-heard-of GOP opponent, Ron Gold, and handily won a second term. But she sure did spend a lot of money relative to her fellow incumbent officeholders who were similarly unchallenged: $3.66 million. What did she spend most of it on? TV ads and political consultants. What was she doing? Probably boosting her name ID for — well — a race like the one she’s now running.
One of the biggest dramas of 2014 played out during the early summer, when Democrats Betty Yee and John Pérez were locked in a close battle for second place in the race for state controller, eventually won by Yee. Final records show that Pérez spent almost $3.1 million in his losing effort — while Yee, who won in November, and GOP challenger Ashley Swearengin spent a combined $3.2 million in the fall contest.
As proof that the biggest money is often spent outside of the official committees controlled by candidates — committees with rather small contribution limits in a state as big as California — consider the bitter fight in 2014 waged for superintendent of public instruction. Incumbent Tom Torlakson pulled out a 4 percentage point win over challenger Marshall Tuck, but the the campaign reports filed by the two men mask the size of the battle. The two men spent a combined $4.82 million on their race (Tuck slightly more than Torlakson), but the real money was spent by groups who saw the schools chief race as a proxy for everything from debates over teacher tenure to charter schools and more. The pro-Torlakson independent expenditure campaign, largely financed by the California Teachers Association, spent almost $7.7 million. The pro-Tuck independent group, financed by a handful of wealthy self-described education reformers, spent just north of $10 million. Put it all together, and you have a $22.6 million fight over a position that doesn’t actually have full control over California’s education policy and rules.
Again, this was a relatively quiet election cycle for California. Almost all of the statewide candidate races were a bit on the ho-hum side, and there were only two real barn burners in the world of propositions.
As such, expect the 2016 cycle to be more costly… a lot more costly. Take the newly fermenting U.S. Senate race and throw in a big pinch of ballot measure mania — plastic bags, legal pot, additional taxes, and who knows what else — and the numbers from last year may soon seem quite puny.
http://ww2.kqed.org/news/2015/02/03/california-statewide-campaigns-in-2014-top-226-million-spending/