2004 Flagstaff City Council Election 
Campaign Finance Update and Summary
Posted Jan. 31, 2005

I have finally gotten around to updating my campaign finance chart for the 2004 Flagstaff City Council election with information culled from the final campaign finance reports filed after the election. The chart focuses on donations received by Citizens for Sensible Government, Rick Krug and Eldon Kramer. After recalculating the totals in my chart, I have come up with some interesting information. Here are a few highlights:

First, information previously posted about donors to CSG, Krug, and Kramer seriously overstated male-dominance. For CSG, I previously indicated 85 percent of donors were male. In fact, the actual figure is more like 53 percent. The percentage of male donors to the Krug and Kramer campaigns was also overstated. I am not sure how I made this error, but I deeply regret it, and I apologize to all concerned. However, it is worth noting that the apparent decrease in male dominance is likely due partly to increased sensitivity to the issue in the final reporting period. In CSG's final campaign finance report, 12 of 21 donors were said to be couples, with both names listed. In the report for the previous period, only 4 of 38 donors were shown as couples.

Another notable difference in the revised chart is that the amount of money donated by attorneys to CSG and to Krug increased dramatically in the final campaign period. Part of this increase is due to my decision to also count money donated by spouses and employees of attorneys. The net result of new donations, and altered criteria for totaling donations, is that 26 percent of donations to CSG can be seen as coming from attorneys by the end of the campaign. This is up from the 16 percent I had indicated earlier. Even more dramatic is the increase in donations by attorneys to Krug. This amount went from $150 as of April 28, to $1,990 by June 7. As a percentage of Krug's total donations, the percent from attorneys went from 1.6 percent to 16 percent. 

For the first time, I have also included information about the failure of donors to supply information about their occupation and place of employment. This information is required under Arizona State Law. The statute states that donors must supply identification. Identification of an individual is defined as, "his name and mailing address, his occupation and the name of his employer." (For more information about campaign finance rules in Arizona see ARS 16:6.) Despite the law, many donors provided no information at all about their occupation or employer. I felt that a donor who said they were "retired" or a "homemaker" was complying with the spirit of the law. I also decided not to count it against couples who only listed one employer or occupation (this was commonly the case). But I felt that a donor who merely said they were "self employed" or who said they were a "business owner" without giving the name of the business or even the type of business was not fully complying with the law. By this standard, 25 percent of CSG donors failed to properly identify themselves. The noncompliance figure for Krug and Kramer was 19 percent and 14 percent respectively.

Interestingly, there was a large disparity in the amounts donated to the campaigns of Rick Krug and Eldon Kramer during the final reporting period (April 29 to June 7). Kramer's campaign brought in just $575 in donations while Krug brought in $3,240. Nonetheless, the total amount donated to Kramer during the entire campaign season ($14,140) was more than the amount donated to Krug's campaign ($12,520). 

The revised chart continues to show heavy involvement in the campaign by the Nackards and by real estate and other development interests. As shown in the summary figures at the bottom of the chart, the Nackards contributed about 23 percent of all the money raised by CSG. Meanwhile, development interests contributed about 52 percent. However, on both scores, the proportion of total donations from each of these two segments of the community is down slightly from my previous report. The Nackards appear not to have made any donations during the final campaign period. 

Not clearly shown in my chart is the fact that Homeco employees donated a total of at least $5,460 to CSG. That's at least 7 percent of the organization's receipts, and the actual figure could be higher. After all, as noted above, 25 percent of CSG donors did not name their employers.

I would also like to note that in the final campaign period, CSG reported 21 donations including nine donations of $200. One of these was from a person reportedly employed by Andy's Auto Body. Another was from a person who apparently works for Sparkletts. Two of the nine donors were identified as Homeco employees (one of these donors was a couple). The final five $200 donations included no occupation or employer information, though one donor listed "sales" for occupation. Four of these five donors are listed as couples.  No information about four of these five donors could be obtained using Google, and the information available on the fifth was minimal (they may exist). I wonder who these five mystery donors are, and if it is merely a coincidence that they all donated $200 to CSG.

Finally, my revised chart includes the official tally of donations as shown on campaign finance reports. These amounts differ somewhat from my own totals. I have not yet figured out why there is a discrepancy, but I'm not too worried about it. The totals are reasonably close, and I'm sure that there is a reasonable explanation.

Dan R. Frazier

See the campaign finance chart discussed above.