Blogging Bayport Alameda

November 7, 2016

Stacking money, money everywhere they go

Filed under: Alameda — Lauren Do @ 6:07 am

A big winner in these campaigns are, of course, printing companies who make the endless campaign mailers that take up so much room in our collective recycling bins.  The second big winner in our local Alameda election is, the Alameda Sun, who probably hasn’t seen this much advertising space action since, well, since the last election.

In a piece that no one wanted to put their byline on, the Alameda Sun reported information that is easily uncovered by looking at the campaign expenditure reports with this, very telling, twitter summary:

The Alameda Sun certainly knows what red meat their base of readers want to see because it’s unsurprising which candidates diverted the most significant amounts of money to the Alameda Sun during the election season.

Tony Daysog: $5188.61 + $1375 = $6563

The Kevins: $2473 (I divided the initial expenditure by thirds to get a rough estimate of direct cost to Alameda Sun) + $9461.76 = $11,934.76

Jennifer Roloff: $1350 + $1122.50 = $2472.50

Yes on L1: $1660 + $4041 = $5701

Marilyn Ezzy Ashcraft: $330

Matt Hettich: $495

Lena Tam: $1525.50












So the Kevins have spent the most money on newspaper ads, with Tony Daysog coming in at second place.  But, as I said initially, however everything shapes out on Tuesday, the Alameda Sun will emerge as a big winner given the number of dollars that have been pumped through in a very short amount of time for the struggling publication.

Oh and since were on the subject of expenditures, Mike McMahon has helpfully listed in table form the total contributions and expenditures for every campaign and committee this election cycle. The two campaigns that have spent more than they’ve taken in are: (1) Jennifer Roloff and (2) the Kevins.

Irony really is dead this election cycle.



  1. Ahhh- Mcmahon’s table shows a tremendous expenditure of funds by unions for their candidates, whether it went to them directly or not. Ironic to compare the fundraising of two first timers-Vella and Roloff-one a self-funded local campaign, and the other a union backed candidate.

    Comment by Captain Obvious — November 7, 2016 @ 6:54 am

  2. Just to be clear my table shows the contributions and expenditures from 460s filed with the Alameda City Clerk. A few campaigns ( Yes and NO on Measure K1 and Dennis Popalardo) have only filed 497s and yet to file 460s with the City Clerk.

    BTW a sign of election fatigue both on the both Presidential and local level, only two dozen entries in the Election Predication contest for 2016. In 2014, there were over 60.

    Comment by Mike McMahon — November 7, 2016 @ 7:05 am

  3. Here is the link to the Election Prediction contest:

    Comment by Mike McMahon — November 7, 2016 @ 7:08 am

    • Entry count is up to 40. The deadline for making for making your choices is 7pm November 8th. I would post a recap of guesses around 8pm tomorrow night. Once again this contest is very non-scientific since the entrants are self selected.

      Comment by Mike McMahon — November 7, 2016 @ 5:02 pm

  4. So what’s the insinuation here? Local newspapers struggle to stay afloat. They rely on advertising and they can’t afford to be picky about whose ads they accept, nor should they be. Candidates spend as much as they can on ads especially if they are not well known or believe they need to for some other reason. If they spend more than they take in, it’s their own money they’re spending so what’s the issue with that? The lack of byline on the Sun article indicates that several people worked on the article or the data came from various sources not that anyone was ashamed of it. As long as you’ve lived in Alameda, it’s amazing how little understanding you have of how some things work. You’ve often said you prefer not to do your investigations in person but maybe if you actually got to know some of the people you throw shade on you would better understand their situations. Over the years this blog has gone beyond Bayport in subject matter but not so much in perspective. In the aftermath of what has proved to be a divisive and harrowing election season, it should be clear that little is gained by demonizing people and sowing discord, in fact, it may be the most destructive force in our society today. Criticism is fine but it should be based on more than gut feelings,rumors, and drawing conclusions based on a narrow outlook. No matter what happens tomorrow, we are all resonsible for what happens going forward. We all need to do better.

    Comment by Denise Shelton — November 7, 2016 @ 7:11 am

  5. myself I like unions because they represent working people, in Alameda they have been demonized. The phrase “special interest” when it comes to unions is used very negatively. Unions don’t represent one corporate entity,again they represent working people.

    Comment by John Piziali — November 7, 2016 @ 8:28 am

    • Exactly. I don’t know why people demonize organized labor, which has brought us sick leave, child labor laws, paid overtime, minimum wage, whistleblower laws, etc. There’s a direct correlation between the weakening of unions to the wage stagnation lots of non-unionized workers are stuck in now:

      Comment by Kristen — November 7, 2016 @ 8:55 am

      • I have not heard or read anyone “demonize” unions. Just criticize the undo influence the police and fire unions have over the electoral process in Alameda. The lesser paid unions and other entities in town do not stand a chance of decent wages or even a job, at the percentage rate those two unions take of the pubic dollar in Alameda.
        The rapid rate of residential development will just increase the demand for those two services, without development money paying for it, and so it goes.
        That is the criticism.

        Comment by Rob — November 7, 2016 @ 9:58 am

    • The primary union involved in Alameda politics is the IAFF, members of which have average compensation in ~$200,000 area. A fair number are over $300,000. That is several fold the median income of Alameda households (exact number varies depending on data source). They can retire in their 50’s with $200,000 pensions. To call them “working people” is a stretch, to say the least, and an insult to the taxpayers — who actually are “working people” — that pay these salaries despite being, on average, much less well off.

      To attain and then increase these pay packages they contribute significantly to politicians who then vote them more money. That is the very archetype of a special interest.

      Comment by dave — November 7, 2016 @ 8:58 am

      • so Dave, you usually are in favor of people making money, but somehow if they are in a union they are doing something wrong. Your quote “to call them working people is a stretch” is unfair. when you get your “ass” up on a ladder in the heat of a fire, or save my house, I will call you a “working person”. You sound kinda envious of them.

        Comment by John Piziali — November 7, 2016 @ 9:42 am

        • Very much in favor of private sector workers earning as much as they can.

          Not in favor of public sector workers buying politicians to rip off taxpayers.


          Comment by dave — November 7, 2016 @ 9:49 am

  6. I am very glad we have the Alameda Sun. The publishers, editors, and writers go to our meetings, hold office in our organizations, and their faces are familiar to anyone who wants to meet them.

    ‘Can’t say that about the Alameda Journal. or the Alameda Magazine.

    Comment by A Neighbor — November 7, 2016 @ 8:29 am

    • “hold office in our organizations…” Could be a conflict with holding office in local organizations and being impartial journalist. Elks or Demo Club etc. One could argue that even Elks Club lends a bias.

      Comment by MI — November 7, 2016 @ 9:59 am

      • I think the “organizations” would be art associations and the Alameda Museum, that sinister fiend…You never know what that museum may be plotting next…muah..ha..ah

        Comment by vigi — November 7, 2016 @ 7:16 pm

  7. I have had your editor hang up the phone on me because he didn’t agree with my opinion, so much for fairness. I guess if you agree with their stance on issues they will talk to you. I still like to read the Sun, but I know they are pretty biased.

    Comment by John Piziali — November 7, 2016 @ 9:46 am

  8. I was raised in a household by parents and grandparents that all held union values. My father and brothers are still members of non-public safety unions and believe in the same causes. We fight for all workers rights, union member or not. The members of L689 will stand with any worker that isn’t being treated right by their employer.

    I live in Alameda not just when I’m off but also when I’m on-duty for the Alameda Fire Department. We have several members that live here and in neighboring cities. Lots of people live in Alameda and work in other cities because the Bay Area is made up of small communities. We have lots of off duty firefighters from surrounding cities that also live in Alameda. We spend our money here and we invest lots of time in this community on our days off. We work here not just during political season but throughout the year because we believe in giving back to our community. We also know that if we don’t have a voice in the political process our concerns won’t be represented. Our members believe deeply in social issues that plague not just this community but our surrounding communities. Whether it’s fair access to education or medical treatment, or rent, or time spent in traffic that takes away from family time. We know how important it is to have good, open minded policy makers that are collaborative rather than positional. All we expect is a voice at the table. Electeds should always put the community’s safety and the men and women of the AFD’s safety as one of their top priorities. We have partnered with the city to address all the important issues over the last several years. We know our work isn’t finished, but we will continue to collaborate with good partners. And that’s exactly what we are – PARTNERS – not the evil villains some want to make us out to be. I was born and raised in the Bay Area and I’ve never lived anywhere else. I look at the Bay Area as my community and I’m very proud to live here. Everyone that works for the AFD lives in Alameda a minimum of 240 hours a month. No matter what happens tomorrow night we will continue to partner and invest with our community. Alameda is a great town and all of us are very happy and proud to serve here. Please make sure you vote tomorrow!

    Comment by Jeff DelBono — November 7, 2016 @ 11:32 am

    • No, Jeff, you are actually a villain. You and your IAFF thugs are vastly overpaid because you bribe the City Council, time and time again. Stop pretending to be some humble servant of the people, and own up to what you are: a pig who is lining your pockets by bankrupting this city.

      Alameda is drowning in liabilities and corruption, and in typical fashion, you firefighters are standing on the beach collecting your huge pay and doing nothing to help.

      Comment by Voice of Reason — November 8, 2016 @ 11:24 am

      • wow. You are entitled to your opinions but picking “voice of reason” as moniker for your attack screed is a little much. I’d expect a little more reserve in a real voice of reason than somebody calling another a “pig”. Get a grip.

        Comment by MI — November 8, 2016 @ 11:41 am

        • “He who is not angry, whereas he has cause to be, sins. For unreasonable patience is the hotbed of many vices; it fosters negligence, and incites not only the wicked but the good to do wrong” (John Chrysostom

          Comment by Voice of Reason — November 8, 2016 @ 12:09 pm

  9. Not quite following meaning of ‘however everything shapes out on Tuesday, the Alameda Sun will emerge as a big winner given the number of dollars that have been pumped through’ it. Is the sun a special interest like developers or unions who put up well over a hudred thousand dollars, that’s hard to say. If money is the measure for ‘big winner’, then wouldn’t it be developers or unions instead?

    Comment by Anonymous — November 7, 2016 @ 1:48 pm

    • Or landlords, perhaps, who are spending up a storm. Including out-of-town ones.

      Comment by BC — November 7, 2016 @ 1:54 pm

    • if money is the measure for “big winner” then it would be landlords, with over $$189,000. 00 spent and a lot of it from “out of town special interests” Anonymous, how do you miss such simple information??

      Comment by John Piziali — November 7, 2016 @ 9:18 pm

  10. When all was spent and done, property owners and apartment owners’ interests like the California Apartment Association spent over $1,000,000 to oppose renters’ home-grown M1 initiative.
    The CAA brags in its brochure that it spent $1.68 million in the 2012 election cycle: do you feel like Alameda has been bought and paid for? I do, and I do not like it. (Remember Suncal in 2010?)

    “In the 2012 election cycle, CAA political action committees invested over $1.68 million to help elect state and local representatives who are sympathetic to rental housing industry issues. CAA political action committees rank in the top 5% of all business PACs in California, and over 92% of CAAPAC supported candidates won their races in 2012.” (from the CAA’s brochure

    –From the CAA’s brochure:

    Comment by Jon Spangler — November 17, 2016 @ 11:22 am

RSS feed for comments on this post.

Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.

Create a free website or blog at