Let's say, just as a fer-instance, that you're one of those people who can't stand the way presidential campaigns are financed in this country. McCain-Feingold doesn't go nearly far enough! you huff. Money is not speech! you grouse. Why, it turns the most important political race in the United States into a game of crass money-grubbing!
Well, you're right. It's crass, it's undignified, it's just plain weird. And when the Weekly first decided to do a special election feature about the money the candidates had raised here, timed a couple of weeks before the Feb. 5 California primary, we thought we were going to make it all about the money and let the ridiculous dollar figures—mostly on the GOP side—sort of speak for themselves.
A couple of things changed our minds. First, the numbers we've got right now—thanks to the good folks at the Center for Responsive Politics—though huge (more than $4.6 million), are out of date. The last mandatory disclosure forms were filed with the Federal Election Commission (FEC) at the end of October; the next won't be available until the end of this month, right before the primary. So these figures don't reflect things like Huckabee's Iowa win making him the darling of the Christian Right, Obama's Iowa win turning the Dem side into a two-person race, and McCain's victories in New Hampshire and South Carolina.
Second, as we looked over the names of the big individual local donors (candidates only need to disclose the names of those who donate $200 or more), we were intrigued by the mix of familiar and obscure names, and we decided to build our story around them. Who the hell are these people, and why did they decide to pay up when the little metal elephant (or donkey) landed on their property?
Some of them blew us off, but enough answered to offer a fascinating glimpse into the minds of OC's political players. So grab your top hat and cane, and join us for a spin around the board of what remains (housing crisis notwithstanding) some of the richest political real estate in the country.