Lembrich outspent primary opponents 5 to 1

So far, Lembrich has raised more than $27,000 in his campaign while fellow Democratic primary candidates JerryRyan and Nancy Adams have brought in less than $5,000 in combined contributions for their joint campaign, according to the latest campaign disclosure reports filed last week.

http://joestrupp.blogspot.com/2015/07/lembrich-outspent-primary-opponents-5.html

Democracy is great. Being able to invest in candidate. Even corporations can do that.

So his supporters have found it worthwhile to invest five times as much in his candidacy as Jerry or Nancy managed to get. Quite a feat.

it was repurposed money.

Good for him

and the GOP candidate plans to spend virtually nothing on the campaign. I wonder if it's too early to call Lembrich and Adams and concede.

As you can read, he loaned himself $10,000 and got more than $3,000 in kind from Profeta. That accounts for almost half his loot, but that means another $14,000 elsewhere, which is a pretty good sign of widespread support.

Well, over $10k of it was his own money in the form of a loan. He got just shy of $3,700 of in-kind contributions from the Profetas, and a few $500 donations from lawyers in the City.

eta: He received 5 $500 donations, only one of which came from a Maplewood family. No way of telling the sources of the under $300 donations (and, I wonder, if someone made multiple donations that totaled more than $300, if they should have been reported). Therefore, at least $16k of the $27k came from the candidate, the Profetas, and out of state.

Of course, this doesn't count the value of the Village Keepers' lawn signs onto which the campaign slapped bumper stickers. Wonder if that value should be reported as an in-kind contribution. I also find it odd that the Profetas must not have made any monetary contributions as, I believe, they would have been reportable given the value of the in-kind contribution and the requirement to aggregate for reporting purposes. I'd love to see the schedule of contributors and see how widespread the financial support really was.

Lastly, @luvmaplewood, shouldn't you disclose that the campaign paid you, I mean the Maplewoodian, for advertising? I thought journalists disclosed things like that.

ice said:
Can it be confirmed that lawyers from the city were sizable contributors to Lembrich's campaign? Of course it's legal, but boy is it ever inconsistent with the spirit of "keeping the village a village".

Yes, look at the filings. One was at Pillsbury Winthrop, two were at Columbia Law School, and the fourth was with a firm on Park Avenue.

Steve said:

ice said:
Can it be confirmed that lawyers from the city were sizable contributors to Lembrich's campaign? Of course it's legal, but boy is it ever inconsistent with the spirit of "keeping the village a village".

Yes, look at the filings. One was at Pillsbury Winthrop, two were at Columbia Law School, and the fourth was with a firm on Park Avenue.

Maybe these donors want to preserve our cultural heritage of quaint little small towns.

Dickens Village will have a court house this year

hankzona said:
Dickens Village will have a court house this year

Then I can file suit against the Old Curiosity Shop. There's nothing curious about it. And you can't shop there. Total fraud as far as I'm concerned.

ml1 said:

hankzona said:
Dickens Village will have a court house this year

Then I can file suit against the Old Curiosity Shop. There's nothing curious about it. And you can't shop there. Total fraud as far as I'm concerned.

I guess somebody lost the Scrabble board.

Historically Law firms have been under-represented in our township governance.

I for one am glad to see this injustice remedied without a regrettable need for litigation.

hankzona said:
Dickens Village will have a court house this year

At least one building should be named Bleak House.

one of the ideas floated for the PO was law offices. maybe some of these firms want to open a Maplewood branch, now that we've gotten so litigious.

ml1 said:
one of the ideas floated for the PO was law offices. maybe some of these firms want to open a Maplewood branch, now that we've gotten so litigious.

I think Id prefer more nail salons.

hankzona said:

ml1 said:
one of the ideas floated for the PO was law offices. maybe some of these firms want to open a Maplewood branch, now that we've gotten so litigious.

I think Id prefer more nail salons.

lol!

Given the estimated high rents you may get them

With the balance Realtors Offices.

author said:
Given the estimated high rents you may get them
With the balance Realtors Offices.

The estimated high rents. Another line of FUD, I suppose.

tjohn said:

author said:
Given the estimated high rents you may get them
With the balance Realtors Offices.

The estimated high rents. Another line of FUD, I suppose.

somehow adding 5 more retail spaces is going to drive rents UP

Breaking News: JMF Pulls Out of P.O. Site, Instead Buys Village Coffee Building and Doubles Rents

(kidding)

(but possible)

i am not maplewoodian.com., just a supporter. I believe he had ads from all three candidates.

Steve said:
Of course, this doesn't count the value of the Village Keepers' lawn signs onto which the campaign slapped bumper stickers. Wonder if that value should be reported as an in-kind contribution. I also find it odd that the Profetas must not have made any monetary contributions as, I believe, they would have been reportable given the value of the in-kind contribution and the requirement to aggregate for reporting purposes. I'd love to see the schedule of contributors and see how widespread the financial support really was.
Lastly, @luvmaplewood, shouldn't you disclose that the campaign paid you, I mean the Maplewoodian, for advertising? I thought journalists disclosed things like that.

luvmaplewood said:
i am not maplewoodian.com., just a supporter. I believe he had ads from all three candidates.

Steve said:
Of course, this doesn't count the value of the Village Keepers' lawn signs onto which the campaign slapped bumper stickers. Wonder if that value should be reported as an in-kind contribution. I also find it odd that the Profetas must not have made any monetary contributions as, I believe, they would have been reportable given the value of the in-kind contribution and the requirement to aggregate for reporting purposes. I'd love to see the schedule of contributors and see how widespread the financial support really was.
Lastly, @luvmaplewood, shouldn't you disclose that the campaign paid you, I mean the Maplewoodian, for advertising? I thought journalists disclosed things like that.

This is my recollection as well. I think both Maplewoodian and Village Green had ads from all 3 candidates (Adams/Ryan together and Lembrich alone). In any event, I did not see any bias in election coverage from any local news source. Has anyone made such an allegation against Maplewoodian (or others)?

What about the cookies at the train station? Are they considered a campaign contribution?

No because the evidence mysteriously disappeared.

My point was only that the Maplewoodian, when "reporting" on expenditures should note that some of them were to it (it could also note that it received advertising dollars from each of the candidates)