Measure B Campaign Spending Details

Many votes for the June 5 election have already been cast by absentee ballots, but the push to pass Measure B will continue up through Tuesday.

Campaign disclosure forms for “San Jose Fiscal Reforms, Yes on Measure B, Mayor Reed, Chamber PAC and Issues Mobilization PAC Proponents” show that while the first few months of the year in fundraising went well, fundraising during the last reporting period was excellent. Between March 18 and May 19, the PAC received $435,664 in contributions, bringing the total for the calendar year to $637,919.

In just this latest filing period, the PAC spent $352,592.32. While we’ve already profiled some of the people and companies that have supported Measure B with contributions, here’s a look at the way the PAC has spent its money:

• The PAC spent $99,364.94 on mailers to the Advertisers Mailing Service in Santa Clara.

• The PAC Spent $130,004 on ad buys with Comcast, which also produced ads. That could explain why all of the pro-Measure B ads look like this. And this. And this. (Side note: On that last campaign ad, could putting Julie Constant in a Measure B ad signal an interest on her part to run for her husband’s termed-out council seat in 2014?)

• Other media buys include:
$5,540 — Election Digest
$14,615.66 — Autumn Press
$2,678 — California Voter Guide
$14,322 — Budget Watchdog Newsletter
$7,297 — Cops Voter Guide

• The PAC paid $1,000 to the California Republican Taxpayers Association.

• The PAC paid Eagle Communications, which is operated by political consultant Vic Ajlouny, $15,240.51 during this two-month period. While many political consultants design their pay structure to get a percentage of media buys (mailers, TV ads, signs, etc.) in the range of 15 percent, Ajlouny tells San Jose Inside he doesn’t get a percent of the gross. “I never want to be accused of making a buying decision based on money,” he said.

• And finally, the PAC paid Strategy Research Institute $37,500.

Josh Koehn is a former managing editor for San Jose Inside and Metro Silicon Valley.

15 Comments

  1. Thank you Josh for what looks like some facts. That’s really all the free thinking public should need. And ya know what? It didn’t cost you a cent to write them.

    • And then:

      (Side note: On that last campaign ad, could putting Julie Constant in a Measure B ad signal an interest on her part to run for her husband’s termed-out council seat in 2014?)

      Her “save the kids” comment regarding Measure B shows she has the brains of her husband.  NONE, just what we need another Contstant on the city council.  But you know Pete will run for Chuck’s spot when he his termed out.  Better yet hope he runs for a county seat.

    • I think there is a good point (for discourse) about this.

      The anti-b folks spent almost as much to oust and villanize Rose as the pro-b folks paid without resorting to sleazy (rhymes with my last name) tactics.

      Whoever the anti-b political consultant was should be fired.  I’m saying this because focusing to oust one candidate wasn’t nearly as effective as educating the public would have been.

      It took Ash Kalra(a man I really trust) less than 15 minutes to give me the straight, sensable points.  If the anti-b/Rose folks had asked him to do a tv spot instead of attacking Rose, it would have been a lot more effective.

      No on B. 

      /me waits for the anti-b folks to start attacking him now.

  2. Mercury news, I’m sorry Josh, but then you are one and the same.  Tell us how many millions of tax payer money this will cost us in a illegal ballot measure that will be over turned by the courts.  Long after Chuck and his 5 cronies are gone.

    • Wow, you must be worried that I posted a comment about Pete Comstant’e wife.  After all you suggested she may run for his seat on the council.

      The fact she did a commercial stating “save the kids” as a result of measure B is total misleading because the measure has nothing to do with children.

  3. If Measure B passes, there will be, with no uncertainty, a mass exodus of hundreds of San Jose police officers. San Francisco, as well as other cities, have shoulder tapped San Jose officers to lateral to their cities. San Francisco alone wants to hire several hundred lateral police officers. San Jose Police Department is already vastly understaffed, and is one of the lowest paid departments in the bay area after voluntarily giving a 10% paycut and agreeing to huge increases in their medical deductibles and retirement contributions. If you are a citizen of San Jose, and vote in favor of Measure B, you will be destroying what is left of this once great police department.

    • Politics make strange bedfellows, as the old adage states. After a lifetime of management positions, I am joining the unions in blocking Measure B.

      However, my reasons are different than most on the side against Measure B.

      Mayor Reed, Vice-Mayor Madison Nguyen and others on the city council kept quoting cost as their concern in whacking benefits to cops, fire fighters and others. Yet, I see no effort on cost control on another out-of-control budget drain: illegal immigration.

      The San Jose Mercury News ran with a story titled “500,000 Illegal Immigrants in the Bay Area.” How much does this drain San Jose’s budget?

      I find it disheartening that San Jose laid off 66 police officers yet defies federal immigration laws by offering lenient “sanctuary city” policies to the “undocumented.”

      In my conscience, I can’t support Mayor Reed and Vice-Mayor Madison Nguyen’s efforts to demoralize the police force (and fire fighters) with their attacks on dedicated folks who protect and serve the public.

      I support Law & Order. I don’t favor laying off cops or fire fighters or cutting back their pensions, not until San Jose leaders fight the folks who don’t care about Law & Order, the ILLEGAL immigrants who make a mockery of our laws.

      City leaders take an oath of office to defend the constitution of the state of California and the United States Constitution. To me, it’s implied that these elected officers would support ALL the laws, including immigration laws.

      Yet, instead of saying “illegal immigration is a bad thing,” the city lays off cops.

      Mayor Reed and Vice-Mayor Madison Nguyen signed a resolution condemning Arizona’s tough immigration law. I don’t know if the city leaders realize they sent a message to every illegal immigrant that San Jose offers sanctuary to the “undocumented.”

      An Alabama illegal immigrant said Alabama’s new tough immigration law is causing her to move, and she said she “is moving to San Jose.”

      The city leaders should be using the bully pulpit to say the “undocumented” are not welcome here. We want the “best and the brightest” from around the globe to grow Silicon Valley, not just offer sanctuary to anyone that succeeded in jumping our border.

      I am not convinced that any of the city leaders (or county or state) would do anything to address illegal immigration other than to give amnesty to them, which will just draw in the “undocumented” by the millions.

      We taxpayers get to foot the bill for illegal immigration while our elected leaders play rotating musical chairs until they can draw their own fat pensions, in my opinion.

      Meanwhile, illegal immigration will only grow in San Jose. And every one of you that pays rent, rents are already climbing dramatically. Imagine what another couple hundred thousand illegals will do to rents…

      Take a stand. Fight Mayor Reed and Vice-Mayor Madison Nguyen: vote NO on Measure B.

    • San Jose should just look at it’s next door neighbor, Santa Clara, which pays substantially more to their police officers than San Jose, and had the foresight to build an incredible tax base rather than build a bunch of low income housing. Also, Santa Clara did not spend half a billion dollars on a city hall, but is content with a very modest city hall to do business. Do you seriously think business will look at San Jose as a stable place to do business when we become the next Oakland?

      • Santa Clara cut back on their library hours within a month of approving the 49ers Stadium.  With San Jose trying to be the next Oakland, I guess Santa Clara is trying to be the next San Jose.

  4. Wow, no surprise here,  Mecury News editorial is to pass B, but at the same time Chuck is bent on the property taxes due from the county.  So he wants to sue.  Great Chuck, more money for attorneys.  Lets see, let the voters decide, let the courts decide, now lets sue because your not getting what you want.  Poor excuse for a mayor.

    Had you not spent billions with RDA, and quit paying your part into pensions we would not be in this position.  Hope your proud having taken this once great city to spinning down the toilet.

    Short a few bucks, even the county gets it right, show us all the hidden money and quit blaming employees.

  5. BASICALLY VOTE NO ON ALL RECOMMENDATIONS BY MERCURY NEWS AND SAN JOSE INSIDE SINCE THEY SEEM TO BE CONNECTED AND AGREE ON ALL BALLOT MEASURES.

    THERE MUST BE A MAYOR CONNECTION HERE!

    I ENCOURAGE ALL TO AT LEAST STUDY EACH MEASURE AND NOT JUST DRINK THE COOL AID AND VOTE NO ON ALL.

    THIS IS WHAT CHUCK + 5 ARE HOPING FOR.  IF NOT WE ARE ALL IN FOR HE#% COMING TO SJ FOR MANY YEARS.

  6. From financial times article:

    If San Jose’s pension efforts fail, Mr Reed said he will have to cut services or propose raising taxes.
    “It’s a difficult time to be in all levels of government,” he said. “But I’m glad I’m not in Greece.”

    You’re sure you’re glad you’re not in Greece Chuck? Really? I see you and lil Sammy Liccardo having a helluva time getting all Greek with each other. You two will need extra olive oil when your constituents come looking for you because although they could afford to pay their electricity bill, someone will have stolen all their copper wiring from their street lights. You’re not going to be able to fix that with your law firm pals.