By Adam Pagnucco.
When analyzing campaign finance reports, total receipts and total expenditures are factors that warrant obvious attention. But here is another one that counts a lot, especially now: burn rate. A candidate who raises lots of money can be easily sabotaged by a high burn rate and go on to lose a race they would otherwise win.
I define burn rate as expenditures divided by receipts. Essentially, it’s the amount of money raised by a candidate that has already been spent. Well-managed campaigns focus on raising a lot and spending as little as possible in the beginning in order to build a cash mountain. That mountain then gets spent on mail, digital, field and (if applicable) TV to contact voters soon before the election.
Back in 2022, I wrote about the doomed council at-large campaign of Brandy Brooks. Brooks had run a credible but ultimately losing at-large campaign in 2018. Four years later, she came back a stronger candidate, with more experience, more endorsements and more name recognition. But she had two problems. First, a sexual harassment scandal cost her some key endorsements and got her bad press. Second, Brooks spent money almost as quickly as she raised it, leaving with her less than $25,000 a month out from the primary. She ultimately finished seventh in a field of eight. Her campaign should be a lesson for all future campaigns.
Once again, I am seeing burn rate prove to be a differentiator between candidates. I will be looking for Brooks-like examples when the next wave of reports comes out. For now, consider Council Members Evan Glass and Will Jawando. Both are council at-large incumbents running for county executive. Since they are in public financing, they file campaign finance reports whenever they apply for public matching funds. Glass’s last filing covers activity through April 27 while Jawando’s last filing covers activity through May 4.
The table below shows receipts, expenditures, pending matching funds requests and burn rates. Raw burn rate applies just to actual receipts and expenditures. Pending burn rate includes pending matching funds requests as receipts. Note: I made these calculations from downloading spreadsheets of their activity since summary sheets released by the State Board of Elections this cycle are frequently inaccurate.
The first thing to notice is that Glass and Jawando have raised similar amounts of money. That makes sense since both are second term at-large incumbents who are proven candidates.
However, Jawando has spent a lot more money ($169k) than Glass ($106k). In terms of cash balance, Glass could have nearly a hundred grand more than Jawando that’s available for the final push. Accordingly, Jawando’s burn rate is significantly higher than Glass’s whether pending matching funds requests are included or not.
Glass’s cash management is helping him keep pace with Jawando even though the latter has benefited from $49k in outside spending by the CASA in Action PAC. Also, Jawando’s possession of the Apple Ballot will help him a lot. That said, if these burn rates were reversed, Jawando would have clear superiority over Glass. But to the extent that he ultimately will, it will be because of outside group activity rather than the activity of the two campaign committees themselves. Meanwhile, Council Member Andrew Friedson enjoys a huge financial advantage over both of them.
I expect to see even bigger differences in the county council campaigns. One at-large candidate in particular has been doing a decent job in fundraising but, because of a high burn rate, will struggle to finance even one countywide mailer.
We shall have more about that candidate and others when the next batch of campaign finance reports is released!