Zack Matheny's pre-election campaign finance report

I've now analyzed Zack Matheny's pre-election campaign finance report. We've discussed what appears to be a reporting error that Matheny attributes to the NC Board of Election's software.

• Money raised: $21,835
• Money spent: $11,909
• Cash on hand: $10,416
• Major donors: Lenwood Dennis, Roberts & Dennis Insurance, $500 and Randall Dixon, Dixon Properties, $500

Notable contributions:

• Robert Long Jr., Granville Capital, $1,000

Apparent reporting error: The field for "election sum to date" under Long's entry states $5,000, indicating that Long has contributed $5,000 to the Matheny campaign during this election cycle. State campaign finance law limits candidates to accepting no more than $4,000 from any individual per election. In fact, the contributions appear to be perfectly legal. The Matheny campaign accepted $1,000 from Long in Oct. 7, 2009, and $4,000 on Oct. 9, 2007. The first contribution was made during the candidate's 2007 campaign.

"The state needs to upgrade or change their electronic methods or forms to make them appear to be correct, because the way that it shows is not correct," Matheny told me in a phone conversation today.

• Seth Marshall, Lindbrook Development Services, $500

Background: Matheny voted in favor of a $100,000 economic development incentives grant to Lindbrook Development Services in February to build a new mixed-use building on the 300 block of South Elm Street. Matheny helped assuage company president Jim Marshall when he threatened to walk away from the table, and organized a meeting of neighboring business owners who were opposed to the project to address their concerns about parking.

• Major expenditure: The Rhinoceros Times for advertising, $3,475

ADDENDUM: I should note that the Guilford County Board of Election has not had an opportunity to vet Matheny's campaign finance report yet.

UPDATE: Matheny tells me the total for expenditures on Rhino Times ads is incorrect and that, again, the totals have carried over from a previous election cycle. With that mind, many of the other totals I've published may be similarly incorrect.

UPDATE 2: I'm retroactively revising the donor and expenditure figures to reflect only payments in the latest reporting period considering that the "election sum to date" figures may or may not reflect totals for the current election period. Sorry for the confusion. And thanks to Zack Matheny for working with me on this.

Election '09