Left on the vine

Alice at the Pundits' Guide makes an interesting discovery about the federal leaders' riding expenses from the 2008 election:

The surprise for me was Green Party Leader Elizabeth May's return, inasmuch as ... for all the effort that was reportedly going in to getting her a seat in the Commons ... her campaign spent only 69% of the limit, in spite of having $80K (nearly the full amount of the spending limit) transferred to the campaign by the central party office, and of raising more than the other 3 party leaders during the campaign itself. Doing a quick eyeball comparison of her return to Layton's and Duceppe's, her campaign reported significantly less on salary costs than the other two. Her campaign account wound up with a considerable surplus, which will have to be transferred either to the Central Nova Green Party riding association or to the central party...

Now, there may be a few possible theories as to why May might have spent significantly less than the limit.

Remember during the campaign that the Libs mooted the possibility of cancelling some of their planned national ad buys as a "save the furniture" move if the campaign wasn't going their way. It would seem entirely possible that May's riding campaign may have done effectively the same thing on a riding level if they figured that the seat was likely out of reach anyway. (Though it's worth noting that the same incentives which would have made that decision questionable for the Libs would seem even stronger for a party pushing to win an all-important first elected seat in the House of Commons.)

Alternatively, it could be that May's campaign didn't focus on finding a way of making use of anything close to the maximum amount. That could be generously explained in part as a matter of her having enough volunteer support or central staff at her disposal to reduce the riding's staffing costs compared to those of most other leaders. But it's hard to see how an extra $25,000 couldn't have been of at least some use - which would suggest at least some failure in May's planning for the riding.

Meanwhile, it may bear watching what gets done with the surplus which the Greens managed to amass for May's riding campaign. If May is focused on taking another shot at Central Nova, then it would make sense for the money to stay within the riding. But if she plans to take another crack at any remotely promising by-elections or run elsewhere in the next election, then the funds would figure to go to the Greens' central office to support that effort and/or pay down general campaign debt. Which means that how the Central Nova surplus is handled may offer a strong hint as to the next step in the Greens' continued attempts to win a seat in the House of Commons.

Update: One more note which I forgot to mention earlier: note that even while she spent the least money overall among the party leaders, May nonetheless ended up spending the most per vote received. Which would appear to be another nail in the coffin of the theory that the Greens are particularly efficient in their electoral return on investment.