First, I started earlier -- a lot earlier-- early January versus nearly June. That meant I had raised over $45,000 before my nearest competitor got to $10,000. So the $30,000 I have in the bank going into the home stretch is roughly the head start I created for myself by committing early and fully to the campaign.
Secondly, I have more contributors. If I added correctly, I have 739 contributions and my nearest competitor less than one sixth that number (119). The large number of contributions reflects my county-wide grassroots support. People may suspect I am getting all the big $200 maximum contributions, but the fact is I have the lowest average contribution level of all three candidates ($43 less, on average than my nearest competitor). That lower average amount reflects the support of hundreds of citizens who believe in what I am trying to accomplish.
Third, I am working harder. Not only did I start earlier, but I took a half year's unpaid leave from my job to pursue this post. That means I am working every day, most of the day, on the campaign. That's a big campaign advantage (and a big hole in our family income) that results in more contributions.
Finally, there have been some raised eyebrows about "developers" and worse (apparently) "out of county developers". A recent blog stated: Though Mason’s campaign has tried to paint Miller as an anti-growth candidate, Miller has been receiving money from big name developers in the region. . .
Here's the deal (you may want to read this sitting down): Developers do not sit out county commission races. They pick candidates and back them. I hope I'm not shattering anyone's illusions when I point out that everyone sitting on the County Commission today has received significant money from developers. In fact, it is not clear someone can be elected without significant developer support. I have some, but by no means all, local developers supporting me. Read my Republican opponent's contributor lists and you'll find "big name" development interests. Read her website and find a list of endorsers that is conspicuous for its lack of any environmental support.
Here's what voters need to ask themselves: Would we rather have:
1) a leading environmentalist with the endorsement of the Sierra Club, a reputation for being "a voice of reason", and a three decade track record of consistent defense of the environment supported by some developers and hundreds of citizens,
2) candidates with no stated environmental credentials being supported by some other developers or having no significant grassroots support?