The high-stakes contest for Attorney General in Pennsylvania has seen considerable investments from unions, special interest groups, and the state’s wealthiest individual. However, the races for other significant offices like auditor general and treasurer have caught fewer financial eyes. Notably, in 2020, lesser-known Republicans rose to victory over their more well-financed Democrat rivals in these pivotal, albeit low-profile, races. This year, the Democrats are eager to regain these positions, but are coming up short in fund-raising against the incumbent Republicans.
The Democratic hopeful for Attorney General managed to consolidate millions of dollars during the summer—a venture unachieved by his Republican competitor. However, his lack of fund raising hasn’t deterred him. Instead, political action committees and high-net-worth individuals have stepped in, financing TV ads to strengthen his position in the race. Indeed, it’s a testament to the power of public opinion over monetary muscle.
Contrary to this trend, the Democratic contender for treasurer has found difficulty in amassing a significant war chest. However, the Republican incumbent has successfully courted financial contributions from labor unions—a demographic usually rallying behind the Democrats. While her opponent advocates for worker’s rights, these unions have cast their financial support behind a candidate who champions economic prosperity and opportunities for all.
In the race for Auditor General, the Democratic nominee has emerged as the financial frontrunner, bolstered by labour unions and well-off donors. Curiously, the Republican incumbent’s fund raising total falls significantly short. Yet, perhaps what truly matters is not the money they have, but the ways they intend to serve the public.
Shifting focus to the Democratic attorney general candidate, Eugene DePasquale, he collected approximately $3.3 million from May 14 to Sept. 16, marking the most recent campaign financing cycle. Contrarily, Republican challenger, Dave Sunday, acquired a meager sum of less than $1.4 million. However, Sunday, despite raising less, has been able to maximise the impact of wealthy donors, with nearly $12 million dedicated to TV ads promoting his campaign.
Unreported in their latest financial document, Sunday’s campaign seems to have further benefited from another political action committee expenditure of $5.4 million on supplementary ads. The Democrat nominee, DePasquale, launched accusations of ‘hiding the association’ at Sunday’s campaign. However, his campaign justified the omission by explaining the value of these ads was understood too late to include in their recent finance disclosure.
Both candidates, despite their financial discrepancies, continue marketing their names and messages across the state, illustrating that financial donations are merely a piece of the political puzzle. DePasquale, the Democrat nominee, has resorted to traditional Democrat fundraising techniques, like lobbying the organized labor and trial lawyers. As such, unions donated over $680,000 to his campaign. Meanwhile, attorneys extended their support in the form of individual contributions and PAC contributions – amounting to more than $300,000.
Much of DePasquale’s spending bankrolled media purchases. He funneled nearly $3 million into ad campaigns, promoting his candidacy from June to November. Conversely, Sunday’s spending appeared frugal, with the largest expenditure for ‘reimbursements’ recorded at $10,000.
In the auditor general’s race, the Democratic nominee, Malcolm Kenyatta, raked in more than $491,000. Meanwhile, the Republican incumbent, Tim DeFoor has managed to secure only $68,000. DeFoor’s fund is modest, with the greatest portion dedicated to campaign travels across the state and beyond.
The treasurer’s race presents a notably different financial landscape. Erin McClelland, the Democratic candidate, upset the party-endorsed candidate to clinch her primary, raising close to $90,000 this cycle. Even so, her Republican adversary, the current treasurer Stacy Garrity, overwhelmingly outperforms her by raising nearly $450,000, demonstrating strong intra-party support as well as generous donations from powerful party figures.
Garrity disbursed nearly $280,000 of her funds, with around $120,000 directed to three Pennsylvania-based consultant groups. The most sizable payment was of $60,000 to a GOP consulting firm, ColdSpark, for a plethora of services, ranging from fundraising assistance to yard signs. An additional $37,000 was extended to another consulting firm, McKean Strategies.
McClelland’s campaign adjusted their previous financial report to reflect the deposit date of a donation, rather than its reception date. Swirling rumors of incorrect financial filings during her primary were dismissed by the Department of State, who affirmed no violation. Yet, perhaps this accusation by Garrity’s campaign – baseless though it was – belies a deeper issue about their focus on petty squabbling rather than tackling real problems.
Their focus seems to be on deflection rather than addressal of the race’s actual issues. In conclusion, the financial dynamics in Pennsylvania’s political arena illuminates the crucial role of funds, intelligent campaign strategies and public perception. Despite the generally expected advantage of well-funded campaigns, Republicans have shown resilience, depending more on effective strategies and public opinion rather than overflowing war chests.