Giuliani campaign has spent nearly $32 million (see the note below) in the first nine months of 2007 on items that include staff payrolls, travel, credit card payments, consulting, media etc. The top five states account for nearly 75% of the money spent that include more than 440 cities and over 870 zipcode areas in the lower 48 states. The five states ranked by the most money spent are:
1. NY $9.1 million
2. TX $8.4 million
3. FL $3.6 million
4. VA $2.4 million
5. CA $1.4 million
The first-in-the-nation-caucus state, Iowa ranks 13th ($237 thousand) while the first-in-the-nation primary state ranks 20th ($139 thousand) and the first-in-the-south primary state North Carolina ranks 15th ($199 thousand).

The top five services in terms of payments are:
1. Payroll $4.6 million
2. Travel $2.7 million
3. Credit card $2.1 million
4. Payroll service/inusrance $2.0 million
5. Finance Consulting $1.6 million

The top five cities with most money spent are:
1. New York, NY $8.5 million (payroll and other)
2. Austin, TX $4.3 million (Postage/Printing etc.)
3. Kingwood, TX $3.5 million (payroll taxes/insurance)
4. Fort Lauderdale, FL $2.1 million (mostly credit card payments)
5. Alexandria, VA $1.3 million (Media, Survey research, consulting etc.)

Giuliani has spent a little over $51 thousand in Des Moines, IA and $64 thousand in Manchester, NH.

Giuliani campaign spending: Jan-Sep, 2007

Explore campaign spending data/maps for Giuliani and other Presidential candidates from both parties on GeoCommons by using keywords Campaign Spending or Campaign Finance.

Note: Campaign spending $ amounts are based on Line SB23s from the quarterly campaign finance reports filed by each candidate with the Federal Election Commission where Line SB23 lists each and every item/service costing few pennies to hundreds of thousands of dollars. The data for this map was downloaded the week following 15th October when it was published by FEC. Campaigns are known to update their reports, for the latest report go to FEC website.

Popularity: 6% [?]

Romney campaign spent more than $56 million (see the note at the end) in the first 9 months of 2007 in nearly 1,300 zipcode area of more than 740 cities across the lower 48 states. By far they have outspent major candidates of either party. In the two crucial caucus/primary states of Iowa and New Hampshire, Romney campaign have spent substantially higher amounts, $3.1 million in New Hampshire and $ 2.4 million in Iowa.

The top five states ranked by the amount of spending
1. VA $17.5 million
2. MA $ 12.7 million
3. MD $4.3 million
4. CA $3.8 million
5. NH $3.1 million
These five states account for nearly 75% of the spending. The top five are followed by Florida ($2.5 million) and Iowa. That may be one of the reasons that Romney leads polls in the republican primary races in both these states.

The top five services for which Romney campaign paid nearly $29 million, account for more than half of total spending. The five services are:
1. Media $12.7 million (TV ads)
2. Payroll services/insurance $5.1
3. Printing $3.9 million
4. Credit card $3.8 million
5. Travel $3.4 million

Five cities where they have spent the most are:
1. Alexandria, VA $14 million (for media and other services)
2. Boston, MA $8.8 million (Office rent, salary and other services
3. Poolesville, MA $3.8 million (Payroll service/insurance)
4. Dublin, NH $2.7 million (printing and postage)
5. San Francisco, CA $2.4 million (Credit cards)

Des Moines, IA with more than $1.1 million ranks 9th while Concord, NH ($262 thousand) comes in at 23rd.

Romney campaign spending by zipcode: Jan-Sep, 2007

Explore campaign spending data/maps for Romney or for other Presidential candidates from both parties on GeoCommons by using keywords Campaign Spending or Campaign Finance.

Note: Campaign spending $ amounts are based on Line SB23s from the quarterly campaign finance reports filed by each candidate with the Federal Election Commission where Line SB23 lists each and every item/service costing few pennies to hundreds of thousands of dollars. The data for this map was downloaded the week following 15th October when it was published by FEC. Campaigns are known to update their reports, for the latest report go to FEC website.

Popularity: 9% [?]

1 = 100? It is according to the Drug Quantity Table, where 1 gram of crack cocaine equals 100 grams of powder cocaine; part of the drug equivalency formulae born out of the 80s overblown media hype and of mandatory minimum sentencing law passed by the Congress in 1986. Although prison sentence for trafficking/possession of 10 gram of crack cocaine is not 100 times that for 1 Kilo of powder cocaine, it can still lead to a jail sentence that is nearly 10 times longer. However, that is not the only problem with the sentence that is partly determined by the Sentencing Guidelines and a so called Base Offense Level (BOL) table. It so happens that trafficking in small amount of cocaine occurs mainly in inner-city neighborhoods and by relatively young African-Americans. And yes, they form the bulk (85%) of prison population that is serving very long jail sentences.

The U.S. Sentencing Commission (USSC), an independent body within Justice dept that is charged with developing prison sentencing guidelines, is trying to address the disparity between the longer jail sentences for crack cocaine offense and those for other illegal drugs such as powder cocaine. The USSC decided to decrease crack cocaine related BOL by two. For eg., a formerly level 16 BOL (with a mandatory prison term of 2 years) is now 14 and thus could lead to zero jail-time. This has been widely commented and welcomed by Federal Public and Community Defenders, NAACP, ACLU and other civic groups.

However, that is not what has riled up the Administration’s Justice Dept., it is the USSC’s proposal to make the changes in BOL retroactive. They object vehemently to many findings from the USCC’s report titled Analysis of the Impact of the Crack Cocaine Amendment If Made Retroactive, especially they argue that it would lead to overburdening of the district courts with the petitions from thousands of inmates who are eligible to reduction in prison sentence and other issues such as overcrowding of half-way houses, increase of workload for the U.S. Martials, and release of violent criminals into localities that could suffer from renewed drug trade and violence associated with that, especially in the light of the FBI statistics showing increasing rates of violent crimes over the last three years.

It is not clear when the USSC is likely to vote on the issue of retroactive reduction of crack cocaine sentences, whenever that happens, it would lead to release of large number of inmates. Therefore we at FortiusOne thought that the public may want to discover the geographic dimension of the possible early release of the crack cocaine inmates…Below is a heat map of crack prisoners who are eligible for release after one year. Explore on GeoCommons data for other time periods along with number of defendants by the type drug offenses and the average/median prison sentences by federal district courts for drug crimes.

Crack offenders eligible for early release within a year

Popularity: 31% [?]

The Utility of Maps in Hazard Forecasting

The recent wildfires in Southern California remind of us of just how important hazard forecasting has become in helping to ensure the safety and welfare of the public and the role that mapping can play in the process. Short-term forecasts of fire direction and intensity were pivotal in containment and evacuation efforts; Mapping played a prominent role in generating forecasts and in disseminating and sharing information about potential risk.

The usefulness of maps in visualizing and and generating forecasts extends well beyond the California fire event. In the area of climate prediction, numerous sites provide regularly updated maps of long-term and short-term forecasts of a variety of conditions and in some cases, valuable watches and warnings to the public based on the forecasts.

Some Points for Discussion

While the information that is currently out there provides great utility, there are some limitations in the way that the information is is disseminated and formatted that are worth noting. The points are intended to be food for thought and to get us thinking about how we can increase the value of forecasting even further - particularly in an interactive, web-based mapping environment.

First, forecasts are scattered across multiple websites and even within websites, requiring some effort and time on the part of the consumer to find, extract and process information. The sites and links vary in terms of the information they provide. In terms of fire forecasting, some sites focus on drought conditions, others on smoke generation and yet others on combinations of factors to characteristic future fire potential. The forecasting horizons also vary considerably from site to site.

Second, much of the maps provided on the web are in a “hard copy” format and not in an interactive mode where the user can pan, zoom and perform other functions. Some sites do have map viewers however, they are currently limited in the amount and type of data that can be displayed.

Third, and related to the second point, is that the possibility for “layering” data to create custom maps with richer information relevant to the needs of the user is limited. For example, someone may be interested in seeing if an environmentally sensitive or protected area is in the path of a projected wildfire.

Fourth, there lacks a mechanism for consumers and providers of the forecasts to interact and share information. Interaction could be very useful in understanding forecasts but also in terms of improving current predictive models. In the book Making Climate Forecasts Better, Stern and Easterling write: “The utility of forecasts can be increased by systematic efforts to bring scientific output and users’ needs closer together. These efforts may include both analytic efforts to identify the climatic parameters to which particular sectors or groups are highly sensitive or vulnerable and social processes that foster continual interaction between the producers and the consumers of forecasts.”

Fifth, not all information is publicly available and perhaps it should be? In climate forecasting, having access to the “best” information is in the national interest: it can save lives. And in some cases, the private sector is the keeper of such information. A recent study by ForecastWatch, found that in terms of recent historical forecasting of next day rain and snow, government sites had a 21% greater error rate than some of the private companies that do similar projections.

What Could the Future Hold?

The new web is fertile for the development of a system by which forecasts can be provided to the public in a more usable, digestible and efficient manner. Sites like Geocommons could be a one-stop location for viewing forecasts, such as those related to hazards and climatic conditions. In such an environment, visitors could interact with each other or the producers of the forecasts, discuss the validity of the forecasts or provide additional information to augment the projections, all through a wiki or blog-style environment. They could also create custom forecast maps with overlays of additional information that is of most useful to them for solving a problem, understanding a situation or simply planning ahead.

Popularity: 21% [?]

It’s almost 125 years ago that the first workingmen’s holiday was celebrated (Tuesday, September 5, 1882) in New York. Over the next dozen years nearly 27 states recognized this holiday and in 1894, the U.S. Congress enacted it as a Federal holiday.

Among many things, the holiday has come to symbolize the unofficial end of summer, the beginning of government budget battles, serious politicking and ever busy cycle of campaign fund raising

And talking of campaign fund raising, on this Labor day holiday, one may wonder the degree to which Labor Union's have any influence on today’s politics? According to Dept. of Labor the rate of union membership has declined steadily from 20.1% of total workforce in 1988 to just 12% in 2006 (15.4 million). With decreasing membership dues; can the Labor Unions, as special interest group PACs (Political Action Committee) have any sway over what happens on the Capitol? And how do they (318 PACs strong) measure against other special interest group PACs from the Corporate world (1,697 PACs) and Trade groups (1,033 PACs). Zoom in and pan to explore the maps below that show the spatial distribution, as on 2nd Sept, 2007, of political donations to Senators and Congressmen, from both parties, by these three special interest groups. The map data is available on Geocommons for downloads.

Spatial distribution of Labor donations by recipients

The top five recipients from Labor PACs are: Congresswoman Laura Richardson, (CA District 37;~$310k); Speaker Nancy Pelosi, (CA District 8; ~$194K); Congressman Joseph Sestak (PA District 7; ~$151K); Congressman Joseph Donnely (IN District 2; ~$140K); Congressman Steven Kagen (WI District 8; ~$133K)

What is surprising is that Democrats also do well with Trade Groups ($15 mill) and Corporate PACs ($19.3 mill).

Spatial distribution of Trade Groups donations by recipients

The top five recipients from Trade PACs are: House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer, (MD District 05; ~$347K); Senator Max Baucus (MT; ~$331K); House Ways and Means Chairman Charles Rangel (NY District 5; ~ $310K); Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, (KY; ~$273K); Senator Norm Coleman (MN; ~$242K)

Compare that to Republicans who have received 11.8 mill from Trade and $18.9 mill from Corporations so far.

Spatial distribution of Corporate donations by recipients

The top five recipients from Corporate PACs are: Senator Max Baucus (MT; ~$636K); Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (KY, ~$631K); House Ways and Means Chairman Charles Rangel (NY District 15; ~$576K); House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer (MD District 5; ~$562K); Senator Mark Pryor (AR; ~$459K)

Of the three groups, Labor has given the smallest share of campaign contributions ($13.5 mill); and overwhelmingly, by a ratio of 11 to 1, to Democrats. On the other hand the Corporate and Trade PACs appear to give to both parties in near equal proportions. The Corporate PAC contributions at $38.7 million is the highest, compare that to Trade Group PACs at $27.39 million. If campaign money is one way to measure political influence, Labor has much to worry about. What do you think?

FortiusOne

Popularity: 33% [?]