Part of the Bay Area News Group

Tom Torlakson outspent Larry Aceves 5-to-1

By Josh Richman
Tuesday, February 1st, 2011 at 2:03 pm in 2010 election, campaign finance, Larry Aceves, Tom Torlakson.

Superintendent of Public Instruction Tom Torlakson‘s 2010 campaign outraised and outspent his rival’s in last year’s election by about 5-to-1, according to campaign finance reports filed last night.

Larry AcevesThe longtime lawmaker from Antioch raised about $2.47 million and spent about $2.49 million in 2009-10, while the campaign of Larry Aceves, a former school administrator from Fremont, raised about $504,000 and spent about $501,000.

The candidates’ campaign committees don’t tell the whole story, however – each had substantial independent expenditures made on his behalf.

The Association of California School Administrators funded an independent expenditure committee supporting Aceves to the tune of almost $2.46 million in 2009-10.

Still, Torlakson had the money advantage: An IE committee created in May by the California Federation of Teachers, the California Teachers Association and the California School Employees Association spent about $3.95 million in 2010 on his behalf.

Torlakson and Aceves were the top two vote-getters in a crowded field of 12 candidates in June’s primary; Aceves actually finished on top with 19.2 percent of the vote to Torlakson’s 18.6 percent. But in November’s runoff for the nonpartisan seat, Torlakson dominated with 54.6 percent of the vote to Aceves’ 44.9 percent (as a write-in candidate drew off 0.5 percent of the vote).

[You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.]

  • John W

    Torlakson is the one Dem I voted against. We’ll get more education reform from D.C. than Sacramento.

  • Bobby

    This only goes to show how much better the teachers unions are than the administrators in organizing and winning. To any interested observer, that has been obvious as the unions have completely run the show in Sacramento by co-opting the administrators and the school boards association through the “education coalition”. One might presume if locally elected school board officials and school district administrators knew how poorly their dues are used by the unions through the “coalition”, they would stop sending them to their respective organizations. Then again, since the taxpayers (not the individual members) pay those dues, there is a high likelihood that they would continue to pay them anyhow. Does anyone know where the golf tournament will be at the next annual meeting?