http://www.moodys.com/researchandratings/viewall/north-america/-/004003/4294965746/4294967230/0/3/-/0/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/en/global/pdf/-/rra?kw=oh

So one of the main culprits in the 2007-2008 financial crisis, whose monopoly (tri-opoly?) is legally sanctioned, is once again undervaluing municipal debt?

"Get those stupid cities outta here, we want to lend money to Forest Fair so that it can attempt a fourth comeback."

Pension liabilities are the elephant in the room. Municipalities need to get out of that business as much as possible.

 

So one of the main culprits in the 2007-2008 financial crisis, whose monopoly (tri-opoly?) is legally sanctioned, is once again undervaluing municipal debt?

 

40% of the city's unfunded liability is because of the financial crisis. About 12% is because of under funding.

^Exactly.  Compared with other bond instruments these guys rate, municipal debt is extremely safe, yet quite often rated far lower.  If you don't think that's due to the ratings agencies and private debt issuers getting cozy in order to market toilet paper to pension funds etc. that are required to buy AAA rated stuff, then you're kidding only yourself.

So one of the main culprits in the 2007-2008 financial crisis, whose monopoly (tri-opoly?) is legally sanctioned, is once again undervaluing municipal debt?

 

40% of the city's unfunded liability is because of the financial crisis. About 12% is because of under funding.

 

But if the city handed out 401ks instead of pensions, they wouldn't have any unfunded liability. If that were the case, everyone would share the burden of the recession.  Instead, a select few lucky enough to have pensions are immune to it, while Cincinnati residents will either end up paying higher taxes or receiving less back from our current taxes.

 

Pensions can bankrupt a private company (which is why most have stopped offering them), but the pensions are insured.  It is as of yet unforeseen whether or not cities can even legally shed pension debt in bankruptcy.

The whole notion of a pension is indeed left over from the days when we were the world's only fully functional economy and there weren't robots and computers all over the place.

The whole notion of a pension is indeed left over from the days when we were the world's only fully functional economy and there weren't robots and computers all over the place.

 

You know, back when people weren't a disposable commodity.

You can thank the techno-narcissists who jizz their brains out every time some technology comes along that reduces the value of human labor, and therefore humans, for that one.

Wow....  :-o

Wow....  :-o

 

Are you shocked by the metaphor or by the phenomenon it describes? I know which one I find more vulgar.

You can thank the techno-narcissists who jizz their brains out every time some technology comes along that reduces the value of human labor, and therefore humans, for that one.

 

It doesn't reduce the value of the labor, it merely increases the efficiency of that labor.  If capital would actually share the productivity gains instead of hoarding it we could probably have something approaching a post-scarcity economy within a century.  They misperceive surplus labor as worthless, when really it is surplus and untapped wealth.

 

/Anyway, this is a pretty big thread-jack since there are no Communist or Socialist candidates for Council

40% of the city's unfunded liability is because of the financial crisis. About 12% is because of under funding.

 

But if the city handed out 401ks instead of pensions, they wouldn't have any unfunded liability. If that were the case, everyone would share the burden of the recession.  Instead, a select few lucky enough to have pensions are immune to it, while Cincinnati residents will either end up paying higher taxes or receiving less back from our current taxes.

 

Pensions can bankrupt a private company (which is why most have stopped offering them), but the pensions are insured.  It is as of yet unforeseen whether or not cities can even legally shed pension debt in bankruptcy.

 

This "solution" to the financial crisis is hilarious- basically, "If we just made more people's retirement less secure we wouldn't be in this situation."  That's obviously not the answer.  The answer is to fix unemployment.

40% of the city's unfunded liability is because of the financial crisis. About 12% is because of under funding.

 

But if the city handed out 401ks instead of pensions, they wouldn't have any unfunded liability. If that were the case, everyone would share the burden of the recession.  Instead, a select few lucky enough to have pensions are immune to it, while Cincinnati residents will either end up paying higher taxes or receiving less back from our current taxes.

 

Pensions can bankrupt a private company (which is why most have stopped offering them), but the pensions are insured.  It is as of yet unforeseen whether or not cities can even legally shed pension debt in bankruptcy.

 

This "solution" to the financial crisis is hilarious- basically, "If we just made more people's retirement less secure we wouldn't be in this situation."  That's obviously not the answer.  The answer is to fix unemployment.

 

My solution would solve the unfunded pension issue by not giving special, preferential treatment to city employees.  Solving unemployment would also help but that's another discussion altogother. My only point is that pensions are a horrible investment for a city to be making.  401k is matching is much less risky for the city and lets people control their own destiny.

40% of the city's unfunded liability is because of the financial crisis. About 12% is because of under funding.

 

But if the city handed out 401ks instead of pensions, they wouldn't have any unfunded liability. If that were the case, everyone would share the burden of the recession.  Instead, a select few lucky enough to have pensions are immune to it, while Cincinnati residents will either end up paying higher taxes or receiving less back from our current taxes.

 

Pensions can bankrupt a private company (which is why most have stopped offering them), but the pensions are insured.  It is as of yet unforeseen whether or not cities can even legally shed pension debt in bankruptcy.

 

This "solution" to the financial crisis is hilarious- basically, "If we just made more people's retirement less secure we wouldn't be in this situation."  That's obviously not the answer.  The answer is to fix unemployment.

 

My solution would solve the unfunded pension issue by not giving special, preferential treatment to city employees.  Solving unemployment would also help but that's another discussion altogother. My only point is that pensions are a horrible investment for a city to be making.  401k is matching is much less risky for the city and lets people control their own destiny.

 

It doesn't let you control your destiny when you're set to retire after a lifetime of doing everything right and the market crashes leaving your 401k worth far less than you had planned.  Defined benefit pensions don't do that.  And pensions aren't meant to be an investment for the company or municipality.

 

It doesn't let you control your destiny when you're set to retire after a lifetime of doing everything right and the market crashes leaving your 401k worth far less than you had planned.  Defined benefit pensions don't do that.  And pensions aren't meant to be an investment for the company or municipality.

 

A couple of points: 1. A 401k should move to far safer investments as retirement approaches.  By the time someone is in their 50s they should mostly be invested in bonds rather than risky stocks - but again, it's about controlling your own destiny.  Want to play it risky? Then you risk not being able to retire on time.

 

2. Someone has to pay for pensions when/if the market crashes, and it ends up being a lot of people paying for a lucky few.  There's an inherit unfairness, and as a taxpayer I don't like paying for it - I'd rather my tax dollars go towards a more modern and efficient retirement system that shifts the burden to wise investments rather than tax dollars. 

>1. A 401k should move to far safer investments as retirement approaches.

 

The huge problems with 401k's are:

1. when people run into financial trouble, they take loans against their account or even cash them out completely

2. most people just plain don't and can't understand stocks, interest, retirement, etc. 

 

True story: 50 year-old truck driver who has been working at my company for 19 years opens his 401k statement last Friday.  Balance?  $7,500.  He declares he's going to close it because he lost $90 since the last statement.  I didn't even attempt to talk sense into this guy, because he absolutely does not and cannot understand what is at stake. 

 

 

 

>1. A 401k should move to far safer investments as retirement approaches.

 

The huge problems with 401k's are:

1. when people run into financial trouble, they take loans against their account or even cash them out completely

2. most people just plain don't and can't understand stocks, interest, retirement, etc. 

 

True story: 50 year-old truck driver who has been working at my company for 19 years opens his 401k statement last Friday.  Balance?  $7,500.  He declares he's going to close it because he lost $90 since the last statement.  I didn't even attempt to talk sense into this guy, because he absolutely does not and cannot understand what is at stake. 

 

 

 

 

And let me guess... he probably makes comments about how he's getting "screwed" by the government and/or his employer, despite the fact that it's no one's problem but his own?

40% of the city's unfunded liability is because of the financial crisis. About 12% is because of under funding.

 

But if the city handed out 401ks instead of pensions, they wouldn't have any unfunded liability. If that were the case, everyone would share the burden of the recession.  Instead, a select few lucky enough to have pensions are immune to it, while Cincinnati residents will either end up paying higher taxes or receiving less back from our current taxes.

 

Pensions can bankrupt a private company (which is why most have stopped offering them), but the pensions are insured.  It is as of yet unforeseen whether or not cities can even legally shed pension debt in bankruptcy.

 

This "solution" to the financial crisis is hilarious- basically, "If we just made more people's retirement less secure we wouldn't be in this situation."  That's obviously not the answer.  The answer is to fix unemployment.

 

My solution would solve the unfunded pension issue by not giving special, preferential treatment to city employees.  Solving unemployment would also help but that's another discussion altogother. My only point is that pensions are a horrible investment for a city to be making.  401k is matching is much less risky for the city and lets people control their own destiny.

 

It doesn't let you control your destiny when you're set to retire after a lifetime of doing everything right and the market crashes leaving your 401k worth far less than you had planned.  Defined benefit pensions don't do that.  And pensions aren't meant to be an investment for the company or municipality.

A retirement plan/account should have many different kinds of savings vehicles to spread your risk, and those risk categories and percentages of your balance in each risk level should be fluid and change based upon your years to retirement. You need to occasionally rebalance your account to maintain those percentages....Are you aware that a 401 k can contain many other accounts besides Mutual Funds (Stocks)?

>1. A 401k should move to far safer investments as retirement approaches.

 

The huge problems with 401k's are:

1. when people run into financial trouble, they take loans against their account or even cash them out completely

2. most people just plain don't and can't understand stocks, interest, retirement, etc. 

 

True story: 50 year-old truck driver who has been working at my company for 19 years opens his 401k statement last Friday.  Balance?  $7,500.  He declares he's going to close it because he lost $90 since the last statement.  I didn't even attempt to talk sense into this guy, because he absolutely does not and cannot understand what is at stake. 

 

I always thought to myself that a rudimentary personal finance class offered by the state or local government would provide more benefits than increasing welfare benefits, etc.

Camp council calls for “Coney Conference”

 

As Hamilton County commissioners and Cincinnati City Councilmembers continue to work to resolve differences over MSD regulations, Camp Washington Community Council members have offered to mediate with a “Coney Caucus” at Camp Washington Chili to “break bread and hash out differences.”

 

http://cincinnati.com/blogs/politics/2013/07/30/camp-council-calls-for-coney-conference/

Cincinnati City Council to reverse all layoffs, fund minority business accelerator

 

Citing an increase in revenue from 2013, six Cincinnati City Council members said Tuesday they will restore funding for all positions that had been eliminated in the May budget.

 

http://www.bizjournals.com/cincinnati/news/2013/07/30/cincinnati-city-council-to-reverse-all.html

 

---

 

So the question now is how much of the budget crunch we had a few months ago was real, and how much was just politics?

I have no reason not to believe that the budget issues we experienced a few months ago were real. It certainly isn't the first time the city has seen higher than anticipated revenues. Even the county has in the past.

It appears that the city takes in about $239,600,000 from the income tax. A $10,000,000 increase is a 4.17% increase if my numbers are correct.

 

I suppose this doesn't mean that income taxes increased by that amount, just that it was that much more than anticipated. I don't know if income taxes were expected to increase, decrease, or remain constant from the previous budget/year.

The budgeting process done at the beginning of the year is based on estimates. If people make more, bonuses are bigger, or more people are employed than estimated, that would easily explain the discrepancy.

 

Also, I'm sure the City's budgeting team tends to err on the conservative side when estimate/projecting revenues.

Same thing happens in the Federal government, they just have smaller deficits or even a surplus that quarter.

I have no reason not to believe that the budget issues we experienced a few months ago were real. It certainly isn't the first time the city has seen higher than anticipated revenues. Even the county has in the past.

 

I'm surprised people on this forum dontnunderstand what happened here. Council had to pass a budget in late May, about 5 weeks prior to the date of the fiscal year, because Cincinnati lost the emergency clause.

 

Usually budgets end up passed the night before (slight exaggeration) and they have some pretty good estimates. 5 weeks early meant there was lots of money they couldn't legitimately budget for.

 

That being said, the city does seem budget extremely conservatively which leads to large announced deficits followed by big carryovers. Pretty annoying

I have no reason not to believe that the budget issues we experienced a few months ago were real. It certainly isn't the first time the city has seen higher than anticipated revenues. Even the county has in the past.

 

I'm surprised people on this forum dontnunderstand what happened here. Council had to pass a budget in late May, about 5 weeks prior to the date of the fiscal year, because Cincinnati lost the emergency clause.

 

Usually budgets end up passed the night before (slight exaggeration) and they have some pretty good estimates. 5 weeks early meant there was lots of money they couldn't legitimately budget for.

 

That being said, the city does seem budget extremely conservatively which leads to large announced deficits followed by big carryovers. Pretty annoying

 

Who doesn't understand it? My point was that it was politics as usual, and I have a feeling the doomsday budget proposed by the city manager was part of a greater agenda that including forcing the parking deal through. The fact that even without parking monies there's no deficit and no need for cuts is further proof of this. Firing hundreds from the police and fire departments and closing most of the parks was absolute hyperbole spoon fed to us by the city administration. 

That being said, the city does seem budget extremely conservatively which leads to large announced deficits followed by big carryovers. Pretty annoying

 

It would be more annoying if council announced a big deficit, made the appropriate cuts, and then a month later announced more cuts need to be made.

Council cut $20 million in May. They just restored 3.8 million.  Lets not exaggerate that there was 0 deficit.

Also, the property tax was raised by about 1 mil. 

Long time reader. Never had much to contribute but I just created an account.

 

Greg Landsman was door-knocking in my neighborhood this weekend and I had the chance to talk with him. I figured I'd post what he had to say here since there doesn't seem to be too much info about him.

 

- My first question was obviously about the streetcar. He IS a supporter. He said that he will never vote to repave streets or kill the project. He wants to see it get done, and get done well. He is, however, disappointed with the leadership of the project and says that the city and council have not been pro-active about selling the project to the city.

 

- He is working with many of the current incumbents to secure a plan for the Uptown Extension by January 1, 2014. He says we must keep progressing and capitalizing on momentum. By the time the first phase opens in 2016, shovels should already be in the ground to take it up the hill.

 

- I read somewhere that some people think he's like P.G. That was my initial thought until I met him. Unlike P.G., he has a great background (he worked for Strickland, I think, and now runs a non-profit in town). He also answered every policy question I threw at him and didn't dodge or equivocate. I didn't agree with him on every single thing, but I appreciate his candor and honesty.

 

- I rarely use my compliment of 9 votes, but Landsman earned one of my votes. He seems to have a great leadership dynamic that seems to be missing from council. He seems like a humble guy and a hard worker. I don't think we can have too many of those.

 

 

I'll go back to lurking now!

^thanks for the update. I haven't had a chance to speak with him yet, though this seems promising. I'll make sure to poke his brain a bit before the election because he is on my maybe list right now.

Long time reader. Never had much to contribute but I just created an account.

 

Greg Landsman was door-knocking in my neighborhood this weekend and I had the chance to talk with him. I figured I'd post what he had to say here since there doesn't seem to be too much info about him.

 

- My first question was obviously about the streetcar. He IS a supporter. He said that he will never vote to repave streets or kill the project. He wants to see it get done, and get done well. He is, however, disappointed with the leadership of the project and says that the city and council have not been pro-active about selling the project to the city.

 

- He is working with many of the current incumbents to secure a plan for the Uptown Extension by January 1, 2014. He says we must keep progressing and capitalizing on momentum. By the time the first phase opens in 2016, shovels should already be in the ground to take it up the hill.

 

- I read somewhere that some people think he's like P.G. That was my initial thought until I met him. Unlike P.G., he has a great background (he worked for Strickland, I think, and now runs a non-profit in town). He also answered every policy question I threw at him and didn't dodge or equivocate. I didn't agree with him on every single thing, but I appreciate his candor and honesty.

 

- I rarely use my compliment of 9 votes, but Landsman earned one of my votes. He seems to have a great leadership dynamic that seems to be missing from council. He seems like a humble guy and a hard worker. I don't think we can have too many of those.

 

 

I'll go back to lurking now!

 

Greg wrote to tell me that he would not have voted for the $17.4 million needed to complete the project. That would have killed the project. On the other hand, he wrote that he would never vote to kill the project.

 

Until we read in a news account that he supports the streetcar, I'll continue to count him as a non-supporter.

One year Chris Monzel called me up just before an election to explain that he was a streetcar supporter and that I was misled into believing he was against the project.

 

I'm just saying that you should take what a politician says to you as an individual with a cellar of salt and vote more in line with their actions and public comments.

^ John, your above post says as much as anyone needs to know about Landsman.  Just another political-opportunist wearing a clown-mask, telling you any and every thing you wish to hear in order to win your vote.  Forget him and move on to someone's who's real (although probably not a politician).

Long time reader. Never had much to contribute but I just created an account.

 

Greg Landsman was door-knocking in my neighborhood this weekend and I had the chance to talk with him. I figured I'd post what he had to say here since there doesn't seem to be too much info about him.

 

- My first question was obviously about the streetcar. He IS a supporter. He said that he will never vote to repave streets or kill the project. He wants to see it get done, and get done well. He is, however, disappointed with the leadership of the project and says that the city and council have not been pro-active about selling the project to the city.

 

- He is working with many of the current incumbents to secure a plan for the Uptown Extension by January 1, 2014. He says we must keep progressing and capitalizing on momentum. By the time the first phase opens in 2016, shovels should already be in the ground to take it up the hill.

 

- I read somewhere that some people think he's like P.G. That was my initial thought until I met him. Unlike P.G., he has a great background (he worked for Strickland, I think, and now runs a non-profit in town). He also answered every policy question I threw at him and didn't dodge or equivocate. I didn't agree with him on every single thing, but I appreciate his candor and honesty.

 

- I rarely use my compliment of 9 votes, but Landsman earned one of my votes. He seems to have a great leadership dynamic that seems to be missing from council. He seems like a humble guy and a hard worker. I don't think we can have too many of those.

 

 

I'll go back to lurking now!

 

Greg wrote to tell me that he would not have voted for the $17.4 million needed to complete the project. That would have killed the project. On the other hand, he wrote that he would never vote to kill the project.

 

Until we read in a news account that he supports the streetcar, I'll continue to count him as a non-supporter.

 

I asked him about the $17.4mil. He told me he would have voted against it, as well so I don't think he's trying to play both sides of the coin. Rather, he says he would have looked for 4 other votes to place the money in escrow until an operating plan and plan to connect to Uptown was in place. I don't think it's fair to categorize him as a non-supporter. He's given us the same answer.

 

He'll primarily have my support because he seems like a leader. Regardless of the outcome of the mayoral election, council will need an 'adult' who will be able to pull people together and care about issues rather than just ideology. He doesn't seem to have aspirations to move up, it seems as though he just cares about Cincinnati.

 

He gave me his card and I emailed him for more information and he promptly responded with more information and his opinion which I believe to be thoughtful and rational. I've never had this happen with any of the candidate, which really impressed me.

 

Like you, I'll be eager to see what he says when the Enquirer and/or other outlets ask him the streetcar question. I have faith in him, though.

^ John, your above post says as much as anyone needs to know about Landsman.  Just another political-opportunist wearing a clown-mask, telling you any and every thing you wish to hear in order to win your vote.  Forget him and move on to someone's who's real (although probably not a politician).

 

Alright, we can save the ad hominem for those who really deserve it. Clearly Greg is not a die-hard, do whatever it takes, supporter of the streetcar (as illustrated by his email to John that he would not vote for the $17 million). If you want a member of council who wants to write a blank check for the streetcar, then don't vote for Greg. However, a candiate can be honest say that, if elected, he will do what he can to make sure the project is successful, while at the same time hesitant to vote for additional spending. Yes, as in the case of the recent vote, additional funds could be necessary to make the project a success. And certainly additional funds will be required for the extension to Uptown. We can't count on Greg to vote for either, and I am okay with that.

 

I support candidates that think critically. I think many of us will agree that Chris Seelbach fits that profile. I appreciated the fact that he did not immediately commit to voting for the 17 million and sought more accountability. If Greg gets on council, perhaps he can be persuaded on such a vote, perhaps not. Either way, he will seek accountability and will make a reasoned and informed decision, based in no way on political opportunism. This is a man who has done solid work for the Strickland administration, and has shown true ability leading the Strive Partnership.

 

Perhaps I am biased because Greg is a friend. But I trust him implicitly to lead our city on council. I get that there is a fear that the loss of a pro-streetcar majority could endanger the project, but I implore anyone reading this to cut through the rhetoric and just talk to people who know Greg.

I think that's well said. If Greg replaces Smitherman or Pam Thomas or takes the empty seat I'm ok with that and think he'll be fine and in the end will support the streetcar.

^ I didn't say Greg Landsman was an opponent, just that he was a non-supporter. It's a distinction with a difference.

John, I can understand the distinction. Like many of you, I'm a supporter of Mike Moroski and when I reached out to him about Greg he seemed to support his candidacy and said they are friends. That's another reason I feel comfortable supporting him. To the previous poster's point, if we're able to replace two non-supporters with Greg and Mike, I think city council will be much better and more effective.

^ John, your above post says as much as anyone needs to know about Landsman.  Just another political-opportunist wearing a clown-mask, telling you any and every thing you wish to hear in order to win your vote.  Forget him and move on to someone's who's real (although probably not a politician).

 

Alright, we can save the ad hominem for those who really deserve it. Clearly Greg is not a die-hard, do whatever it takes, supporter of the streetcar (as illustrated by his email to John that he would not vote for the $17 million). If you want a member of council who wants to write a blank check for the streetcar, then don't vote for Greg. However, a candiate can be honest say that, if elected, he will do what he can to make sure the project is successful, while at the same time hesitant to vote for additional spending. Yes, as in the case of the recent vote, additional funds could be necessary to make the project a success. And certainly additional funds will be required for the extension to Uptown. We can't count on Greg to vote for either, and I am okay with that.

 

I support candidates that think critically. I think many of us will agree that Chris Seelbach fits that profile. I appreciated the fact that he did not immediately commit to voting for the 17 million and sought more accountability. If Greg gets on council, perhaps he can be persuaded on such a vote, perhaps not. Either way, he will seek accountability and will make a reasoned and informed decision, based in no way on political opportunism. This is a man who has done solid work for the Strickland administration, and has shown true ability leading the Strive Partnership.

 

Perhaps I am biased because Greg is a friend. But I trust him implicitly to lead our city on council. I get that there is a fear that the loss of a pro-streetcar majority could endanger the project, but I implore anyone reading this to cut through the rhetoric and just talk to people who know Greg.

 

No personal offense is intended to anyone, but it is perfectly reasonable to regard this as a weasely answer.  If your position is one where you claim to support the project but also say that you would have taken an action which would have killed the project, then a reasonable person can view this position as one which is designed to appeal to both the pro- and anti- streetcar constituencies.  It's also reasonable to say you trust the guy because of other stuff he's done.

 

If a politician wants to try to appeal to as many constituencies as possible to get elected, he's welcome to try.  If he wants to appeal to a narrow constituency to get elected, he's welcome to try that as well.  After all, that's how you get elected.  Frankly I don't care if a politician is taking a position I agree with as a cynical way to get my vote, or if he's doing it because he sincerely believes in the position.  The only thing I would care about is whether he would actually follow through on the position he takes.

 

Landsman might be the St. Francis of Cincinnati politics; he might have phenomenal ideas for City issues that I don't know anything about.  But I know plenty about the streetcar project; I pay a lot of attention to it and because of that I presume not to need Landsman's intellect for this issue.  He's probably a lot smarter than I am, but he's made the wrong choice here: 1) because the streetcar project is the best purely City project in decades (that definition allows me to remove setting up 3CDC from the list) and anyone who would waste the much greater than $17 million already spent on the project by not allocating the $17 million necessary to finish it is making an enormous and an obvious mistake.

 

I don't mind that he's tried the "cast the widest net" strategy.  But it's lost him one vote.

Here's how much Cincinnati city council candidates have raised: EXCLUSIVE

Chris Wetterich - Cincinnati Business Courier

 

Cincinnati City Councilman P.G. Sittenfeld believes he set a record for city council fundraising, hauling in $211,905 during the first six months of 2013, which, when added to the money he had sitting in his campaign account, brought his total to $274,450.

 

Sittenfeld, a Democrat, left his closest competitor in the money race, Councilman Charles Winburn, a Republican, well behind. Winburn raised $187,753, which included money raised as far back as 2011.

 

“Citizens want to invest in council members who get things done and make smart long-term decisions for our city,” Sittenfeld said. “I’m very encouraged to have support — especially so much grassroots support — from people across the political spectrum who have as much passion for Cincinnati as I do.”

 

Cont

 

Shawn Butler (D)

Raised in 2013: $11,540

2013 Expenses: $5,898

 

Pamula Thomas (D)

Raised in 2013: $12,500

2013 Expenses: $2,093

 

Vanessa White ©

Raised in 2013: $13,890

2013 Expenses: $6,466

 

Melissa Wegman ®

Raised in 2013: $15,850

2013 Expenses: $6,318

 

Sam Malone ®

Raised in 2013: $18,625

2013 Expenses: $7,632

 

Michelle Dillingham (D)

Raised in 2013: $27,515

2013 Expenses: $13,965

 

Mike Moroski (I)

Raised in 2013: $28,265

2013 Expenses: $22,903

 

Yvette Simpson (D)

Raised in 2013: $30,564

2013 Expenses: $13,328

 

Christopher Smitherman (I)

Raised in 2013: $47,165

2013 Expenses: $32,897

 

Kevin Flynn ©

Raised in 2013: $59,405*

2013 Expenses: $10,320

 

Laure Quinlivan (D)

Raised in 2013: $71,985

2013 Expenses: $13,366

 

Amy Murray ®

Raised in 2013: $92,875

2013 Expenses: $18,514

 

Chris Seelbach (D)

Raised in 2013: $103,564

2013 Expenses: $39,415

 

Charlie Winburn ®

Raised in 2013: $187,753

2013 Expenses: $77,739

 

P.G. Sittenfeld (D)

Raised in 2013: $274,450

2013 Expenses: $34,279

 

*Kevin Flynn loaned himself $50,000

 

What has Winburn spent so much on already? He's spent more than double what any other candidates have spent individually.

 

Maybe it was that horse he rides every year in the Northside 4th of July Parade

 

Windbag ®

^Fixed. Also, the Business Courier listed Smitherman as a Republican.

as well they should

Here's how much Cincinnati city council candidates have raised: EXCLUSIVE

Chris Wetterich - Cincinnati Business Courier

 

Cincinnati City Councilman P.G. Sittenfeld believes he set a record for city council fundraising, hauling in $211,905 during the first six months of 2013, which, when added to the money he had sitting in his campaign account, brought his total to $274,450.

 

“Citizens want to invest in council members who get things done and make smart long-term decisions for our city,” Sittenfeld said. “I’m very encouraged to have support — especially so much grassroots support — from people across the political spectrum who have as much passion for Cincinnati as I do.”

Cont

"Grassroots support" is hilarious.  Take a look at who is actually making those donations.  I bet he has twice as many out-of-state donors than all the other Council candidates combined.

 

What has Winburn spent so much on already? He's spent more than double what any other candidates have spent individually.

If he's smart he pre-purchased TV time.  Winburn always raises a ton from the people who own JTM, and usually the Lindner crowd as well.

Winburn and pg are pretty much the only two locks to be reelected to city council

 

Everyone else is up for grabs