Sign up for Bulldog News Alerts so you don't miss a thing!

inn-art_copy

spj-vert

ire

guidestar

ilhigh

 

Print E-mail
(4 votes, average 4.00 out of 5)
Proposition 3 Campaign Reports Finances

10-1 campaign proponents raised more than $40,000,
Proposition 4’s 8-2-1 advocates’ report not submitted

by Ken Martin
© The Austin Bulldog 2012
Posted Tuesday, October 9, 2012 9:23pm
Corrected Thursday, October 11, 2012 9:57a

Austinites for Geographic Representation (AGR), the proponent for Proposition 3 on the November 6 ballot, reported raising $40,662 from July 1 through September 27. However, The Austin Bulldog’s tally of the contributions totals $37,882. Campaign treasurer Stacy Suits was in Dallas today and not able to resolve the discrepancy. (The report was correct as submitted. The Austin Bulldog regrets the error.)

The AGR total does not include the $29,131 previously reported in the January and July campaign finance reports. The latest report brings total campaign contributions to nearly $70,000.

Austin Community For Change (AC4C) the proponent for Proposition 4, did not submit its PAC report by today’s 5pm deadline. AC4C’s only previous report showed the organization had raised $1,907.

AGR’s largest donation was the $15,000 received from “Home PAC Corporate,” a political action committee operated by the Homebuilders Association of Greater Austin. Home PAC gave two donations, one for $11,000 and another for $4,000. (Home PAC also donated $1,000 during the previous reporting period that ended June 30.)

Harry SavioHarry SavioHarry Savio, executive vice president of the Homebuilders Association, explained the Homebuilders interest in geographic representation. He said that the cost of running a campaign citywide prevents people who work for a living from running for office.

“It seems like they need a voice and a perspective that’s not available on the council right now,” Savio said. Proposition 3 offers “an opportunity to become more populist in local government,” he added. “We decided it would be a good idea to have single-member districts and it’s something we want to support.”

John RamseyJohn RamseyJohn Ramsey, who founded the Liberty For All Super PAC, donated $10,000 to AGR. In a telephone interview, Ramsey said he moved to Austin in March and is impressed with the way the AGR brought together a diverse coalition of supporters, including Democrats, Republicans, Independents, Greens, and a large number of community organizations.

AGR supporters are “dropping politics as usual and coming together as Americans to solve an issue” he said. “Causes like this at the local level intrigue me the most.”

Ramsey said he is involved in “liberty politics” which is an outgrowth of “an entire generation that is sick and tired of politics as usual.” He said the two major political parties are “not very different” and the movement is centered on nonviolence and taking care of neighbors but not through the force of government.

Ramsey said his Liberty For All Super PAC helped elect two U.S. representatives: Thomas Massie in Kentucky’s 4th Congressional District, and Kerry Bentivolio in Michigan’s 11th Congressional District. The goal of the PAC, according to its website, is “to put America back on track by electing candidates who understand that limited government is the basis of security, prosperity, and peace.”

According to OpenSecrets.org, the Liberty for All Super PAC spent $1,722,904 in independent expenditures for the 2012 election cycle, of which $797,754 supported Republican candidates, and $925,150 opposed Republican candidates.

Ramsey’s political activity was reported May 23 by Forbes in an article titled “A College Millionaire With a Super-PAC Shows the Rich Don’t Ruin Democracy.” BusinessWeek profiled Ramsey in a May 23 article titled “Grandfather’s Millions Make Paul Fan a Political Player.” To see a YouTube video, click here.

Other significant donations

AGR PAC reported receiving a pledge of $20,000 from Kirk Mitchell, a longtime Austin environmentalist. Mitchell promised to match AGR donations made in September up to that amount. That pledge is not included in the AGR totals for this report. (Disclosure: Mitchell is The Austin Bulldog’s largest donor.) 

Roger Baker, a longtime Austin transportation activist who has been one of the more active AGR volunteers, donated $2,000. (Disclosure: Baker has made donations to The Austin Bulldog.)

Contributions of $1,000 each were made by:

Attorney Fred Lewis, president of Texans Together;

Tax attorney Lorri Michel of the Michel Law Firm PC;

M.H. Crockett Jr., president of M.H. Crockett Properties Inc.; and

TBG Partners, an architecture and planning firm whose Austin managing principal is Brian Ott.

Expenditures detailed

AGR reported campaign expenditures totaling $32,450. Major expenditures within that amount included:

• Printing $12,792

• Contract labor $5,267

• Consulting $4,000

To see the complete AGR report, click here.

This report was made possible by contributions to The Austin Bulldog, which operates as a 501(c)(3) nonprofit to provide investigative reporting in the public interest. You can help to sustain The Austin Bulldog’s coverage by making a tax-deductible contribution.

Related Bulldog coverage: This is The Austin Bulldog’s 31st article covering issues and activities pertaining to proposed changes to the Austin City Charter.

Proposition 3 Rally Draws 150-200 People: Crowd hears fiery speeches by proponents of the 10-1 systemfor electing council members, October 8, 2012

Attorney Bickerstaff Addresses Critics’ Concerns: His September 24 article drew numerous comments about the Proposition 3 Independent Citizens Redistricting Commission, October 5, 2012

Feisty Debate Over Electing Council Members: One panelist argues for no change to the at-large system of City Council elections, October 4, 2012

Proposition 3 and 4 Proponents Rev Their Campaigns: Raising money, organizing troops, and pushing plans for geographic representation on Austin City Council, September 28, 2012

Redistricting Need Not Be a Quintessentially Political Process: Independent redistricting commissions for U.S. states and cities, September 24, 2012

Barrientos Lampoons Prop 4 With a Fable: Other proponents of alternative plans for geographic representation push their points, September 14, 2012

Proposition 3 Advocates Falsely Accuse RECA: Group alleges ‘rumor’ of $100,000 pledge by Real Estate Council to defeat Proposition 3, but RECA says not so, September 12, 2012

No-Change Option Surfaces in Ballot Debate: Former Council Member Bob Binder opposes both options on the ballot for geographic representation, September 11, 2012

The Election Wars Have Begun: Interest in how council members elected running high, as face-off debates abound, September 9, 2012

Your Guide to Proposed City Charter Amendments: What’s on the ballot, what it will cost taxpayers, and details provided in the ordinances for each proposition, August 30, 2012

Loud Rally Follows Final Council Vote for 8-2-1: AGR’s Cries Foul Over Work Session Vote for Hybrid; Mayor Leffingwell Said Votes Driven by Ballot Deadline, August 7, 2012

Council Backers of 8-2-1 Plan Accused of Self-Interest: But Facts Don’t Seem to Substantiate Such a Claim, as Related Actions May Bar Most Incumbents From Reelection, August 6, 2012

8-2-1 Near Certain to Go on Ballot: City Council Votes on Second Reading to Put Competition Election Plan on Ballot, July 31, 2012

10-1 Plan Qualifies for November Ballot: Consultant Estimates That 22,435 Signatures Are Valid; Austinites for Geographic Representation Readies for Battle, July 26, 2012

Petition Completed for 10-1 Council Districts: Austinites for Geographic Representation Claims 33,000 Signatures, of Which About 22,800 Are Considered Valid, July 16, 2012

Council Puts 10-1 Election Plan on November Ballot: Votes 5-2 on Three Readings to Adopt Petition Language, Votes 4-2 on First Reading to Also Put 8-2-1 on Ballot, June 29, 2012

Citizens Group to Make Final Petition Push: Austinites for Geographic Representation Claims to Have 17,000 Signatures, and Shoots for 13,000 More, June 4, 2012

City Council Tackles Charter Amendments: Redistricting Expert, Charter Revision Committee Members, and Grass-roots Group Critical of Task Force Plan, April 26, 2012

Council District Backers Want Quick Ballot Decision: Big Press Conference, Big Pressure Promised, to Get Council Decision Before Council Elections, March 8, 2012

Hard Fought, Heartfelt Charter Decision: Charter Revision Committee Votes 8-7 to Back 10-1 Plan for Council Elections, February 3, 2012

New Restrictions Proposed for Lobbyist Fundraising: Lobbyists Can Only Give Candidates $25 But Can Collect Unlimited Contributions For Them, January 22, 2012

Committee Debates How to Elect Council: Charter Revision Committee Divided Over Pure Districts vs. Hybrid System, January 9, 2012

Thirteen Charter Changes and Counting: Charter Revision Committee’s Next Job: Tackle Plan for Geographic Representation, December 14, 2011

Council Confirms November 2012 Election Date for Charter Amendments: Resolution Ensures Citizens Initiative Won’t Force May 2012 Charter Election, November 3, 2011

Coalition Launching Petition Drive to Get on the Ballot for May 2012 Election, October 18, 2011

Broad Community Interest Focusing on How Mayor and Council Members Elected, October 4, 2011

Coalition Nearing Petition Launch for Grass-roots Council District Plan, August 24, 2011

Maps Prove Select Few Govern Austin: Forty Years of Election History Expose Extent of Disparity, August 4, 2011

City Council to Consider Proposal to Create Geographic Representation: Election Dates, Term Lengths, Redistricting and Other Charter Changes in Council Resolution, April 27, 2011

Petition Launch Imminent to Force Election for Geographic Representation in City Elections, March 7, 2011

 

Comments  

 
0 #1 Richard Jung 2012-10-10 07:50
Ken, we tried to file on time but got to the City Clerk's Office a few minutes after 5pm (closing time). We submitted by placing under the door and e-mailing a scanned copy to the Clerk's office. There should be no delay in their making it public as they will have it this morning first thing. I have also sent you a copy this morning.
Quote
 
 
0 #2 Richard Jung 2012-10-10 08:15
Well, I think the hypocrisy couldn't be much greater. The people's plan funded almost entirely by developers and a national tea party Super PAC.

This from the NYTIMES "The Caucus" July 30, 2012.

Liberty for All was founded by the unlikely pairing of John Ramsey, a 21-year-old from Nacogdoches, Tex., and Preston Bates, a Kentucky political operative. The two met while campaigning for Ron Paul and decided to marshal Mr. Ramsey’s money behind candidates who will carry Mr. Paul’s libertarian flame.
Quote
 
 
0 #3 Richard Jung 2012-10-10 08:30
I believe an AGR theme was to get money out of politics.

And from the Courier Journal on Liberty for All backed campaign for Thomas Massie:

The big winners in Tuesday's election were U.S. Sen. Rand Paul, his buddy Thomas Massie and money. The big losers included those of us who don't like big money warping our elections, and the long-term losers could be Democrats in the Nov. 6 general election.

Massie, the Lewis County judge-executive, won the Republican nomination for Congress in the 4th District with nearly 45 percent of the vote in a seven-candidate primary that turned out one of every five registered Republicans in the district.
Quote
 
 
+1 #4 Ken Rigsbee 2012-10-10 10:19
I have to wonder why it is worth $40,000 to folks to have single member districts. Wonder what they expect to get for their investment?
Quote
 
 
0 #5 John Bush 2012-10-10 11:34
Richard, you should do a little more homework before admonishing the supporters of AGR. For one, John Ramsey the person donated, not the Super PAC he founded. Additionally, if you looked a little harder, you would find his PAC is not a "tea party PAC", rather it is a PAC focused on electing liberty minded candidates, not necessarily Tea Party candidates. Either way, you guys seeking to preserve the status quo obviously don't comprehend the value and beauty of assembling such a broad based coalition whose members do not always share the same values, but who are willing to set their differences aside to work toward a common goal, genuine representation. We don't require $19 stock photos to appear, diverse, we truly are!
Quote
 
 
+1 #6 Marissa 2012-10-10 12:28
Why is it worth the thousands of hours that hundreds of people have donated to this cause? That labor is worth far more than $40,000. It's because people give what value they have when they consider something to be important. When those people come from all across the political spectrum, it means even more. Prop 4 can't boast anything remotely close to that. As for your baiting, Richard, there are far more Democrats on board with this than with your plan--many are leading the pack, so I don't get the Tea Party fear-mongering.

When I was at City Hall on the day we turned in the signatures, I asked the Prop 4 people how many signatures they got--they said they didn't even have a petition! How very democratic!
Quote
 
 
0 #7 Richard Jung 2012-10-10 12:45
John, my mistake about misreading whether the man contributed or the PAC he owns contributed.

As for your comment about his PAC, each candidate his PAC has supported so far is a tea party favorite correct? Massie in Kentucky, Bentivolio in Michigan, and of course Ron Paul. If, however, you have some objection to being labeled as a tea party pac, by all means, let's go with libertarian pac.

You should do a little homework as well John, AC4C advocates fair and inclusive change. As for the stock photo, our underfunded group is working hard to try and get out there to engage and inform to counter the AGR money machine's campaign of disinformation and I will admit, the quality of our website has suffered for it.

However, if that libertarian PAC is willing to give us $10,000, we will spend the money required to take more photos to make AGR happy.

I do wish we had more money though to hire paid consultants like Linda and Jessica, hire fundraising/image consultants at $4,000, etc., but to this point, we are still just trying to fight the mega-funded machine that is churning out distortions and misrepresentati ons about our efforts to have a proposition out there for people to consider on its merits. Yes, that's right we want the people (you remember them don't you) to make up their own minds about the proposals. Consider both Prop 3 and Prop 4 and vote for one, the other or both. Shocking isn't it.

And while I do appreciate the concept of the "coalition" that your paid consultants and image builders have put together, I have seen what the extreme right wing does once it has inserted huge Super PAC money into local politics and I don't want that to happen to my Austin.

By the way is your Super PAC not currently suing the Travis County Democratic Party about the race that your candidate lost for Constable and which your PAC pumped $35,000 into? If you are willing to pump $35,000 into a constable's race, how much are you willing to pump into a city council district race that AGR claims will only take $25,000 to be competitive in? I wonder.
Quote
 
 
0 #8 Marissa 2012-10-10 14:24
Maybe you are confused about the timeline, Richard Jung, and that is understandable because you weren't around. The AGR coalition has existed far before any substantial amount of money became involved. I remember Linda and others begging for donations each week just so we could have the bare minimum of supplies and labor required for this monumental effort. It began early last year, when community members got together, put aside their political differences, and painfully pieced together and voted for a plan that (nearly) everyone could agree on. It's unfortunate that people like you and others who support Prop 4, could not see that and it is by far the reason we have so much support--attending even one of those meetings would have shown how amazingly diverse and broad the support for this plan is and how frustrated all these disenfranchised groups are with the corrupt city politics of Austin. The 8-2-1 plan was soundly defeated in voting by members of this community group, for a much more representative plan, one which the business leaders and moneyed interests couldn't sink their dirty hands into as easily.

What's sad is you can't even take a picture of you guys grouped together--do you even meet?! When is your next meeting? How long have you been meeting? Just an FYI--you don't need to be some richly funded group to get a meeting space at the Austin Energy building or even the local library, so can't use your lack of funds as an excuse. AGR only had several thousand when the petition effort was underway, so framing AGR as a "money machine" is pretty absurd.

It is truly infuriating to have been a part of all of this since the beginning, to have spoken with and met so many different and passionate individuals who want to see this city change for the better, and here your astroturf group comes along and maligns it! This is a once-in-a-lifetime coalition and the reason your group has so little support is because THERE IS NO ONE LEFT in the city to support it--most of the groups, small and large (and not mostly race-based), already support AGR!
Quote
 
 
0 #9 Linda Curtis 2012-10-10 15:12
Richard, would you please disclose (which is required by law) who paid for the Chronicle ad on the 27th? That was in the time period of this report and it's not on your C&E report.

PS Maybe you've been too busy attacking the Who's Who coalition backing Prop 3 to bother filing a proper report?
Quote
 
 
0 #10 Richard Jung 2012-10-10 18:18
Linda,

The Chronicle Ad was not placed on the 27th. And yes, I am not the best Treasurer trying to juggle numerous duties. Freely admitted.
Quote
 

Add comment


Security code
Refresh