Latest PDC records show Earling receiving more support from individuals, Edmonds residents

487
10

The latest Public Disclosure Reports show that Edmonds mayoral challenger Dave Earling is drawing the majority of his financial support from individuals living in Edmonds, while less than half of incumbent Mayor Mike Cooper’s contributions are from Edmonds residents.

According to PDC reports filed through Aug. 22, 80 percent of Dave Earling’s dollars came from individuals and 67 percent of those donating to his campaign (113 total) live in Edmonds. Thirty-seven percent of Cooper’s contributions come from Edmonds (37 total) and his donors are nearly evenly split between labor unions (47 percent of total raised) and individuals (46 percent).

As of Aug. 22, Earling had received $34,750 in contributions compared to $11, 523 in donations to Cooper’s campaign.

In the latest returns from the Aug. 16 primary election, posted Aug.. 23, Earling received 53 percent of the vote to Cooper’s 39 percent.

10 COMMENTS

  1. The articles in My Edmonds News are generally of the highest quality and have greatly enriched my life. But this one establishes a new low. I don’t think I’ve ever criticized the objectivity of the writing here, but I can’t keep quiet about this article.

    At the risk of pigeonholing, It’s well known that Dave Earling is a conservative Republican and Mike Copper is a progressive Democrat. As for me, I think both parties have crazy ideas and good ones and I just can’t align myself with either one.

    This article sounds like it was written to support traditional Republican talking points. It seems to want us to conclude that Dave Earling has more support from Edmonds residents than Mike Cooper does. I have no reason to believe that any of the facts here are wrong, but I think the facts are being used selectively.

    Let’s do a little math. If you take 67% of 80% of the $34,750 Earling has received and divide it by the 113 donors who live in Edmonds, you’ll see that those 113 people contributed an average of over $164 each. If you think that a typical Edmonds resident can afford to contribute $164 to their favorite candidate, you really need to get out more. These 113 people represent the wealthiest people in Edmonds. Nothing wrong with being wealthy – God bless capitalism – but they are not representative.

    Let’s look at Cooper’s funding. We’re lacking good numbers here, but I think that it’s safe to say that those unions represent a lot of individuals living here in Edmonds. I think it’s safe to say that there are a lot more than 113 union members living here in Edmonds. To be fair, not all union members agree with the political decisions of their leadership. Nonetheless, I’m convinced that Mike Cooper’s money is coming from more Edmonds residents than Dave Earling’s. But there’s no reason to think Cooper’s donors are any more representative of the population than Earling’s.

    Having said all that, who cares? It’s sad that it takes so much money to get elected, but that’s what it takes. If any of these numbers sway your vote, or if any of the mailers, signs and other propaganda bought by this money sways your vote, then shame on you. Take the time to learn about these candidates and vote for the one who best represents your views. To do any less is an insult to the democracy we are blessed to live in.

    • Joe – thanks for your comment. I’m sure it is true that unions supporting Mayor Cooper have many members locally. I appreciate you pointing it out.

  2. Joe, I resent you charaterizing edmonds voters who donate to Earling as being the wealthiest people sounds like the same reteric put out by the democratic party and your getting into politics for a non partician office.

  3. Don, I agree that statistical conclusions are dangerous because there are always exceptions. There may be people who are just getting by who feel so strongly that Dave Earling is the right candidate that they make the necessary sacrifices to make a large donation. I would be naïve to think that my broad descriptions apply to every donor.

    I’ll further agree that my comments were slated to the left, albeit only slightly. This was intentional. I felt that slant was necessary to balance the slant of the original article.

    Sorry if you resent my talking politics. This was a political article and I stand by my analysis and the appropriateness of my comments.

  4. Joe re read my comminents I resent you saying only wealthist people donate to Earling. I see nothing political about the origional artical just reporting the facts. I make no judgement about who donates to which canadates.

  5. Don, please reread my comments. I never said that only the wealthiest people donate to Earling.

    As to whether the original article was political, perhaps we should just agree to disagree about that.

    I agree that we should not judge either candidate based on who donates to their campaigns. If nobody cared about that, there would be no point to the article. That gets right to the heart of why I thought my original comment was necessary.

  6. Ron, that’s a fair question, and a good one. I’d like to be able to answer yes, but it’s hard to be certain of any hypothetical question.

    I can say that I have not decided who will get my vote for mayor. I can also say that I responded to this article because it was written by Teresa. I think she is as fair and impartial as I could expect any journalist to be. That made it particularly important to point out the bias. Teresa is not someone who is likely to make the same mistake twice, so I doubt we’ll see an article that would settle the question you’ve asked.

    Like everyone, I have biases that affect when and how I respond. I’m probably not aware of all of those biases. So you and everyone else will have to decide for yourselves whether I’ve been fair.

LEAVE A REPLY