Galloway will report raising $150K for BoS race

(c) 2009,

I spoke with a representative of Lorri Galloway’s campaign last night and they will report having raised about $150,000 in the just completed filing period for her 4th district Board of Supervisor’s race.

Again, this is sourced from within the campaign, and we don’t have access to the full reports yet.  But I’m curious to see how her donations match up on an Apples-to-Apples (or if you prefer Oranges to Oranges) basis with Tom Daly, Rose Espinosa, and the two Republicans in the race.

More details to come…

  37 comments for “Galloway will report raising $150K for BoS race

  1. Publius
    February 1, 2010 at 12:34 pm

    Apparently, because I tried to include the link to her finance report above, my comment was incorrectly marked as spam. I’m trying again:
    You’re incorrect again, Dan.
    I’m looking at Lorri’s report, publicly available at
    From the Summary, Page 3, Line 1 – Monetary Contributions received this period – $44,630.00 A decent showing, but nowhere near what your sources told you.
    Are you including the $100,000.00 Lorri lent her own campaign on the final day of the reporting period?
    That money isn’t really “raised” since it has likely been paid back already.
    It’s a widely-used bookkeeping trick to inflate your numbers and scare off opponents (and their supporters).
    Lorri’s true “spendable” money is actually $32,778.00 – her current cash on hand minus this large outstanding debt.
    Nice attempt to fool your readers!

    • Dan Chmielewski
      February 1, 2010 at 1:37 pm

      When I filed the story, I made it clear I had not yet seen the reports so your claim I am trying to fool my reader is inaccurate.

      Considering John Campbell has donated more than $300K to his congressional run and Steve Choi loaned his AD race $200K in late November, candidates who have the ability to help fund their campaigns have an advantage over candidates who can’t.

  2. Publius
    February 1, 2010 at 2:30 pm

    Well, Dan, either your source at the campaign played you when claiming she “will report raising $150K” or you were misleading your readers. Which is it?
    How about updating your headline and story now to reflect the truth now that the numbers are out. You might regain a bit of credibility with a correction.
    Furthermore, if you want to compare apples to apples, take a look at Daly’s report also online. (Before you go there, Dan, you should know that I haven’t made up my mind yet.)

    Galloway (Full Year) Daly (4th Quarter)
    Monetary Contributions Received This Period
    $44,630 $66,273
    Outstanding Debts
    $100,000 $0
    Spendable Cash (COH minus Debt)
    $32,778 $44,633

    Espinoza has raised about $2K and has a similar spendable amount.
    Shawn Nelson’s report is not up yet.
    I find it amusing that you compare Lorri G. to self-funders Campbell and Choi. She has much more in common with them than you care to admit (unethical behavior, win at any cost mentality, etc)
    Doesn’t look like Daly will drop out as you hoped, since he clearly wins Round 1 of the money race so far.

    • Dan Chmielewski
      February 1, 2010 at 5:29 pm

      1. She will report raising $150K. Fact.
      2. I reported I hadn’t seened the financials. Fact
      3. There’s nothing to “correct”
      4. The links you provided don’t open for me on three machines I have tried; want to share your password?
      5. Your math sucks (44.6K minus $100K equals $32.8 ???); $66K minus $0 equals $44.6K)
      6. Who died and left you in charge of decided what’s ethical and what’s not? If she has residency in the district at the time of filing, that’s all it takes.
      7. “Win at any cost mentality”? Maybe if more Dems had this, we’d have more elected Dems.
      I could care less Pub, how much credibility I have with you.

  3. Garcia
    February 1, 2010 at 4:51 pm

    Whether she gets money from business or individuals, people will complain that special interests are funding her is she self-funded she is not beholden. Either way, her campaign stash makes her strong and it says loud and clear MOVE OUT OF THE WAY!

  4. Doc
    February 1, 2010 at 5:09 pm

    30k or so of daly’s 4th Q is from the Clerk Recorders Comm. Why not go all in?
    Galloway’s 100k show’s she’s in it for sure, daly isn’t willing to risk it for his own sake
    He wont back out at until the last possible second, chicken much?
    44k raised, pretty decent..its spending that gets you ahead in the race.

  5. Publius
    February 1, 2010 at 6:45 pm

    She reports RAISING (Monetary Contributions Received) as $44K and LOANING herself an additional $100K. Money loaned (to yourself and likely repaid the day after filing closes) is not money raised. She did so simply to inflate her relatively weak numbers. Do I need to state this more simply for you to understand, Dan?
    I did not include the expenses each candidate paid this year because I didn’t feel it was relevant. Lorri’s 44.6 minus 11.8 (expenses) equals 32.8 Cash on Hand (removing the dubious loan). Tom’s 66 minus 11.4 (expenses) equals 44.6 (Cash on Hand).
    The link works just fine for me – try OC Registrar of Voters -> Campaign Finance -> Search Filings -> Electronic.
    Feel free to EXAMINE the reports and tell me how you can still claim that she RAISED $150K.
    I (a voter) consider shopping for a district, and then using a non-residential building of a longtime donor to create the appearance of residency to run for office terribly unethical. How is it not?
    The numbers don’t lie. Lorri and her supporters do.

  6. February 1, 2010 at 7:58 pm

    Here are the reports;

  7. ocresident
    February 1, 2010 at 8:22 pm

    I know that many people put a lot of energy into analyzing the financial reports of those running fo these types of positions. But in this case, I don’t much see the point since the election is still more than 4 months away. I understand that all of the candidates are jockeying for position at this stage, but as a voter, I’m not going to get at all excited until the filing deadline. Once I know who’s actually running, I’ll start to care.

  8. February 1, 2010 at 9:28 pm

    Look at the filings, not only for the grand totals, but for the amounts and sources of donations. Galloway has the usual suspects of developers, attorneys, and unions. Even those donations are the courtesy amounts to keep her happy, but they are not maxing out in an overwhelming display of affection and loyalty. Lorri seriously lacks the smaller donations of residents, which indicate grassroots support in the District. Contrast that with Daly’s support. Donations also show the usual suspects that donate to democratic candidates, but then he also has some solid donations from names easily recognizable as community leaders in the District. Daly clearly takes this round…all the way to the bank. Cya Lorri.

  9. Dan Chmielewski
    February 2, 2010 at 7:49 am

    Colony — there’s a considerable number of Daly donations moved from the Clerk Recorder’s account ot his BoS account; and I’d argue the same “usual suspects of developers, attorneys and unions” making donations to Daly; BTW, “usual suspects” is a phrased typically used by another blog and only in the context of Santa Ana.

    The bigger picture that you are missing here, Ms. Red County, is that the combnation of three Democrats in the race has fiscally outperformed the Republicans in the race. Lorri even beats Shawn Nelson when you strip away her $100K self-contribution and his $99K self funding.

    It looks like Rose Espinosa has no real chance and could be a game changer for the Dems with an endorsement of either Galloway or Daly. We’ll see.

    • February 3, 2010 at 7:30 am

      The difference is that ALL Lorri has is outside corporate type help, or donations from the Hills. Daly has those donations AND smaller items from names I recognize as local leaders, whose influence carried much weight in the community. For instance, how much mileage would a large campaign sign in the very visible lot of Paul Kott bring? Because Lorri is NOT getting Kott’s spiff, it goes to Daly, along with the donation listed there. (personal satisfaction of Lorri looking out the back window of her house onto the view of the largest Daly sign we can find, aside)
      The woman has SOME money, most of it Monopoly money she “loaned” herself, but Daly has money AND community support.

  10. Dan Chmielewski
    February 2, 2010 at 7:55 am

    Colony — I looked at Daly’s report; I cam make the same argument you’re making against Galloway. Few folks are maxing out for Tom

  11. Publius
    February 2, 2010 at 10:39 am

    So, Dan, will you finally admit that Lorri actually RAISED $44K in this period and not the $150K your headline and story claim?
    Writing that she raised more than three times what she really raised makes you complicit in Lorri’s most recent attempt to deceive those of us following this race.

    • Dan Chmielewski
      February 2, 2010 at 3:54 pm

      Publius – Fact. She raised about $150K for her race. If she hasd $100K to spend on her race, she can. The campaign report is availble here for anyone to see. And so is Daly’s. Will you finally admit Daly moved thousands from his clerk recorder account to the supes race? I stand by my story and the way its reported. But tell me — I didn’t see any checks from you or Luke in Daly’s report. Put your mney where your mouth is, because all you really have is one vote which Lorri probably knows she’s not getting from you anyway.

      • Luke Skywalker
        February 2, 2010 at 5:57 pm

        Come on Dan, even you can’t delude yourself this much. $100,000 loan to yourself is not fund-raising, and if you take that money that she is clearly using to bolster her numbers Daly BEATS Her. The sad part is that he does so without even trying! He has done absolutely nothing, and people still gave him more money than her.
        And the reason for that is very simple. She’s an un-ethical, disrespectful, ladder climbing, carpetbagger.

      • Luke Skywalker
        February 2, 2010 at 6:42 pm

        Hey Dan WHY don’t you let the other ANTI-Lorri people know that you and Chris emailed me privately to tell me know that I wouldn’t be able to comment under whatever name I choose or I’d lose posting privileges? IT was clearly an effort to dissuade me from commenting on Lorri’s unethical behavior, lest I lose my precious access. I can’t beleive you would then comment about Luke here! This behavior you’ve displayed on this race is simply astounding!

        • February 2, 2010 at 7:46 pm

          Actually, Chris emailed you and I didn’t. If you want me to “out” you and Publius, I have no desire to, but blogging for this site requires you blog and post under your own name which are terms you agreed to when you joined. So rather than go off on Lorri’s “unethical” behavior, I suggest you consider your own personal integrity and ability to keep your own promises. You were given a choice — use your real name for blogging and commenting or comment with a pseduonym and lose blogging privileges. Your call hotshot.

          • Luke Skywalker
            February 2, 2010 at 8:23 pm

            Now you just plain lying Dan! Check your sent folder Jan. 28 at precisely 4:39 pm, you and Chris contact me separately and individuality instead of thru the google group. It was incredible to me that you would even dare do that given the heated on-going debate we’ve been having on Lorri Galloway corrupt nature, but you just couldn’t help but going after me personally could you? You have issues dude, for the love of the 4th keep them in Irvine.

          • Publius
            February 2, 2010 at 8:35 pm

            You’ve decided to arbitrarily enforce rules that you’ve made up out of thin air against those of us who happen to disagree with you.
            This blog has morphed from a place where intelligent discourse was welcome to one where people with differing opinions are threatened to make them shut up.
            I began commenting here under this name long before being asked to join as a contributor. I plan to continue to do so as long as I have something to say.
            Perhaps you should familiarize yourself with Rule 11 of the “Terms Of Use.”

            • February 2, 2010 at 8:49 pm

              The terms of use refer to commenters, not bloggers. So I don’t see how #11 works here fro you. Might I suggest YOU review rule #8.

              If I had any respect for you, I say “in due respect,” but since I don’t, your contributions to this blog have in posts and in comments are tepid at best.

              I’m sorry you hate Lorri so much. But even by applying your standards to Daly’s fundraising versus hers, a $20K difference is hardly earthshattering now, is it?

              Looking forward to seeing how Lorry/Daly compare when it comes to Union endorsements.

            • Publius
              February 2, 2010 at 9:26 pm

              check again, Dan.
              Your 4:39 email to Steve on 1/28 became part of the google discussion called “SUSPECT”
              we all saw it. makes it tough to claim you never sent it to him.

  12. Publius
    February 2, 2010 at 5:44 pm

    She did not raise anywhere near the $150K you claimed in the headline and article. ADMIT IT!!
    She raised just over $44K and loaned her campaign an additional $100K. Why are you counting loaned money (which, by definition, must be paid back) as money raised. Are you unable to comprehend the differenced in the campaign report?
    If I had said that Daly had never moved money over from his C-R committee to his Sup committee, I would now have to admit that he did. But I did made no such claim, Dan. You are the one who claimed something would be reported that simply didn’t turn out to be factual. And now you stubbornly refuse to correct this error.
    Finally, I don’t understand your fascination with proving support through a financial contribution. There are other ways to show support for a candidate. I have stated clearly that my mind is not made up on this race, so why should I let you bully me in to writing a check to any of them?
    Dragging Luke into this makes no sense. He has stayed mum on the finance reports as far as I can tell.
    You’ve proven yourself to be both a bully and a fool.

    • February 2, 2010 at 7:41 pm

      I’m 6K off; sue me.

      If she wins, I’m sure it will be paid back. That’s what happens with candidates who win. They get more donations and can pay back their loans. If they lose, they typically don’t.

      The text in the lede paragraph says she will reporting raising “about $150K” which in journalism 101 is a fine description. As far as proving support though financial contribution, I make no such claim; in fact, in my post, I even say I’ll be curious to see how see stacks up against Daly and Espinosa.

      But keep jumping to those conclusions and then tell me you haven’t already made up your mind.

      Again, how big was your check to Daly?

      • February 2, 2010 at 7:48 pm

        “She did not raise anywhere near the $150K you claimed in the headline and article. ADMIT IT!!”

        Within $6K of $150K is certainly “near” what I reported. I’d also suggest your continued insistance that I change my story to meet your standard is bullying.

  13. Publius
    February 2, 2010 at 8:14 pm

    No, Dan.
    $44,630 is precisely $105,370 short of the $150,000 predicted in your headline and story. (And for future reference, an amount less than 145 is more accurately rounded to 140 in any case.)
    You used the term raised, not raised/loaned. Are you denying that there is a difference?
    I’ll make it clear to those still following this discussion:
    Look at the reports Chris provided up-thread.
    On Page 3 (Summary) of Galloway’s report under Contributions Received, Line 1 – Monetary Contributions Lorri reports $44,630 for this filing period.
    Are my eyes deceiving me, or is Dan still trying to?
    Calling something a “fact,” Dan, does not make it true.
    When you run out of arguments with those who disagree with you, you turn to threats and bullying. Perhaps you should give up your coaching hobby. Your demeanor is certainly far from sportsmanlike.
    All this from a guy who won’t show his own support by donating from personal funds/under his own name. Is the $250 from Madison Alexander, INC. one of those evil corporate contributions discussed on other threads here on LOC?

    • February 2, 2010 at 8:28 pm

      Madison Alexander PR is my company and I am the sole stockholder. Since my wife is a journalist and ethically forbidden from making political contributions and all of my personal accounts are joint accounts with her, it is easier for me to make a contribution to politicians I support through my corporation. This has included President Obama, former Senator Hillary Clinton, Senator Boxer, Melissa Fox for assembly, Beth Krom’s congressional/mayoral/council campaigns, and a host of other political candidates. This also includes contributions to the DPOC. And I sent Lorri another check for $250 in January.

      Oh look, Daly got contributions from “evil corporations” too. Perhaps you can talk your employer into making a contributor to Daly on your behalf since you can only show your support by continuing this argument to tell me how I should blog.

      Journalistically, $144,000 raised (and it doesn’t matter where the checks come from) to a campaign is “about $150” which was the number I got from my orginial tip.

      I haven’t threatened or bullied you. I have stated I stand by my story and my choice of words.

      • Steve Perez
        February 2, 2010 at 9:40 pm

        Dan, What a great opportunity for you to tell everyone who you donate too! No one cares! The only reason it’s even mentioned here is because you tried to blog without mentioning it and I thought I’d disclose that for you.
        Don’t you worry about what I’m doing to effect this race. Well actually maybe you should…

  14. Luke Skywalker
    February 2, 2010 at 8:26 pm

    Now your just plain lying Dan! Check your sent folder Jan. 28 at precisely 4:39 pm, you and Chris contact me separately and individuality instead of thru the google group, requesting that Pub and I discontinue our use of handles. It was incredible to me that you would even dare do that given the heated on-going debate we’ve been having on Lorri Galloway’s corrupt nature, but you just couldn’t help but going after me personally could you? You have issues dude, for the love of the 4th keep them in Irvine. I would have keep this all private, but your goading in the earlier comment was disrespectful and uncalled for, as always. People should know how unethical Lorri and all those around her act!

    You can’t help Lorri Dan, her boat is sinking faster than an ocean liner in the Artic.

    • February 2, 2010 at 8:37 pm

      I don’t an email with that date/timestamp. I only see emails sent to Google groups and the last one I sent was in the 2PM hour. How is remarking I didn’t see checks from Publius or you, Luke, in Daly’s report “going after you?” If you think I’m being disrespectuful of you, then you have much more growing up to do than I thought.

      • Dan Chmielewski
        February 3, 2010 at 9:22 am

        The email witrh the date/time stamp was sent from my Santa Ana office so it wasnt in my sent file in my home PC; the Inbox synchs but emails sent from one machine only show up on the machine sent. I apologize for the error, but not for the other comments and I certainly don’t think I am bullying anyone

  15. Publius
    February 2, 2010 at 8:48 pm

    Your choice of words is factually incorrect, Dan.
    Lorri did not RAISE nearly $150K, and her publicly available report clearly shows this.
    Take a look and tell me what number appears on Line 1 – Monetary Contributions for this filing period.
    As for threats and bullying –
    “If you don’t want me to ‘out’ you [Skywalker] and Publius…”
    Sounds like a threat to my ears.

  16. Luke Skywalker
    February 2, 2010 at 9:01 pm

    Funny you would point out number 8 when it’s only been Lorri people trying to sock puppet their way in here! Remember, the one’s Chris halfheartedly called out, or did you conveniently forget that? I’m sure you and Daniel Lamb had nothing to do with that. And now that we’re on that topic, it was Lorri’s brother who commented on here pretending to be just another commenter. And then we had that scumbag Richard Chavez(you know the one that the Eli home, the supposed women’s shelter, giving him $1000 a month for no apparent reason, which he then conveniently forgot to pay taxes on)commenting on here pretending to be a female union member. All the deceit and unethical behavior is on Lorri’s side, coming from her, or her puppets, number 8 definitely applies to YOU Dan.

  17. Publius
    February 2, 2010 at 9:19 pm

    I began commenting here as Publius when Mike Lawson still ran the blog.
    After getting to know him, he asked if I would like to write here. He told me that he required blog authors to write under their own full names. At first I declined. But after a while, I agreed to join. Continuing to use Publius when commenting was never a problem.
    At no time until I started writing and commenting criticisms of Galloway was I told of this rule that blog writers must also use their full names when commenting. To date, I do not see it anywhere in the blog archives. It’s recent enforcement seems arbitrary to me.
    In any case, I have been very careful not to use the identity of Publius to agree with or comment on blogs written by me under my true name. As I understand it, this sort of “sock puppetry” would violate Rule 8. I made this point clear in my last email to the google group, and Chris agreed with this point in his reply.
    I’ve been told that my occasional contributions have been of great interest to your readers. Insulting, threatening, and bullying those on your own blog team is not an effective way to recruit and retain team members.
    But let’s get back to the subject of this post, which is fundraising lies and the lying liars who tell (and repeat) them.

  18. February 2, 2010 at 9:35 pm

    Publius and Luke. Please stick to the point of the post please. Keep the blog management debate offline. It is of little interest to the majority of our readers.

  19. Publius
    February 2, 2010 at 9:52 pm

    I suggested as much at the end of my last comment.
    Since you’ve been fair with me to date, Chris, I’ll chalk up you directing the last comment at me and Luke (but curiously not to Dan) as a hasty error.

    • February 3, 2010 at 1:31 am

      Okay, all three of you, STOP IT!

      It is true that Lorri dropped $100K on her campaign to pump her numbers.

      It is true that reporting the total raised, including loans, is technically accurate.

      You guys are even.

      It is true that Lorri moved into the 4th District to run for Supervisor. If she doesn’t win, she may stay in the district, or she may move back up into the hills.

      It is true that Lorri has represented people living in the 4th district for the past 5 years.

      Again, EVEN!

      So what are the positives of the candidates you support? God knows, we’ve heard all the negatives.

Comments are closed.