This will be a great educational odyssey into how confusing campaign finance reporting can be.
We have a choice to make, as to the canonical source of our raised/spent/cash numbers. Do we:
Use the raw filings, which are made available immediately on filing nights, have not been vetted by the FEC, and calculate cycle-to-date totals using one particular criteria? Or:
Use the FEC-vetted totals, which appear online a day or two after the raw ones, are generally a bit cleaner, but calculate cycle-to-date totals using a slightly different criteria.
The key issue is that the FEC's new website defines a cycle based on slightly different criteria than the official forms, which affects the totals it displays.
2017-2018 cycle-to-date totals in the official forms are composed of: the post-election period after the 2016 general (basically December) + money raised in 2017 + money raised so far in 2018.
On the website, the cycle is defined as just: money raised in 2017 + money raised in 2018. The post-election period is not counted.
Neither choice is right or wrong. But there are a few considerations to keep in mind:
Speed: Raw filings are available 48 hours before the FEC-vetted filings are.
Consistency: Reporters are more likely to use the FEC-vetted filings in their stories. Normal humans are also more likely to use the FEC-vetted filings because that's what the FEC website promotes and displays.
Explainability: Whatever we choose should be on purpose, and we should be able to explain it to anyone who asks.
"What does this even mean?" you ask. For one example, behold Tom Emmer's fund-raising totals:
In his raw report, hi cycle-to-date receipts are $1,416,630.26.
But on the FEC's website, his total receipts are listed as $1,368,309.28. That's because it doesn't include his total from this post-election report covering 11/29/2016 through 12/31/2016.
This will be a great educational odyssey into how confusing campaign finance reporting can be.
We have a choice to make, as to the canonical source of our raised/spent/cash numbers. Do we:
Use the raw filings, which are made available immediately on filing nights, have not been vetted by the FEC, and calculate cycle-to-date totals using one particular criteria? Or:
Use the FEC-vetted totals, which appear online a day or two after the raw ones, are generally a bit cleaner, but calculate cycle-to-date totals using a slightly different criteria.
The key issue is that the FEC's new website defines a cycle based on slightly different criteria than the official forms, which affects the totals it displays.
2017-2018 cycle-to-date totals in the official forms are composed of: the post-election period after the 2016 general (basically December) + money raised in 2017 + money raised so far in 2018.
On the website, the cycle is defined as just: money raised in 2017 + money raised in 2018. The post-election period is not counted.
Neither choice is right or wrong. But there are a few considerations to keep in mind:
Speed: Raw filings are available 48 hours before the FEC-vetted filings are.
Consistency: Reporters are more likely to use the FEC-vetted filings in their stories. Normal humans are also more likely to use the FEC-vetted filings because that's what the FEC website promotes and displays.
Explainability: Whatever we choose should be on purpose, and we should be able to explain it to anyone who asks.
"What does this even mean?" you ask. For one example, behold Tom Emmer's fund-raising totals:
In his raw report, hi cycle-to-date receipts are $1,416,630.26.
SO MUCH FUN!