Westmoreland commissioners better funded than GOP challengers, reports show | TribLIVE.com
Westmoreland

Westmoreland commissioners better funded than GOP challengers, reports show

Rich Cholodofsky
1322928_web1_ptr-GinaCerilli
Westmoreland County Commissioner Gina Cerilli
1322928_web1_gtr-candiates-052319
Sean Kertes (left) and Douglas Chew

When it comes to cash available to spend in the months leading up to the November race for Westmoreland County Commissioner, Republicans Sean Kertes and Doug Chew are behind two Democratic incumbents.

According to latest finance reports that detail contributions and spending through the May primary, the Republicans’ bank rolls don’t compare to campaign war chests for Commissioners Gina Cerilli and Ted Kopas.

Chew’s report, filed a day late last week and and subjected to a $20 fine, showed no money on hand following his successful campaign for one of two Republican nominations in the spring primary. According to his filing, Chew raised just more than $1,200 through donations and self-funded the bulk of his primary campaign through personal loans that totaled nearly $60,000.

Kertes, chief of staff to retiring Republican Commissioner Charles Anderson, spent a similar amount during the primary season, including more than $28,000 in the final two weeks of the campaign. Kertes has just $2,680 available in his campaign fund heading into the next phase of the race for county commissioner.

They were the top two vote-getters among a field of six GOP candidates this spring. They also topped the Republican field in spending. Candidate John Ventre, who like Chew self-funded the majority of his campaign, spent more than $47,000 in the primary.

“Money is a necessary evil when it comes to politics. My plan is to have close to $100,000 in the bank by September,” Kertes said.

Kertes was able to raise funds for the primary campaign as he received donations more than $55,000 from private contributors during late 2018 and through this spring. He also collected another $5,200 during the final two weeks ahead of the primary.

Chew did not seek donations in the spring but said he will hold several fundraisers to bolster his campaign account for the general election.

“I want to watch where the money comes from, and I’m not taking money from no-bid vendors, but I need money for advertising,” Chew said, noting that he will also use his own money for the campaign. “I will continue to invest in myself through the general election.”

Kertes and Chew did not campaign together in the spring and, so far, there no plans for them to consolidate efforts in the fall. Cerilli and Kopas also are expected to run independent campaigns.

Both incumbents were unopposed for Democratic nominations this spring.

Kopas will enter the general election campaign with more than $98,000 in the bank. Cerilli will have $40,000 at the start of the general election season.

“The majority of my expenses have already been made besides media. I’m anticipating to spend $75,000 on media and raising an additional $50,000 more,” Cerilli said.

According to her campaign reports, Cerilli spent more than $158,000 during the primary.

Kopas spent considerably less but still listed more than $43,000 in expenses through May.

“These races are getting increasingly more expensive as the demands for advertising is significant,” Kopas said. He declined to reveal any fundraising goals for the race.

This year’s spending is in line with what the candidates spent in 2015. Cerilli, then making her first bid for public office, spent nearly $300,000 and finished as the top vote-getter. Kopas that year won his second term in office, spending more than $235,000 during the race.

Rich Cholodofsky is a Tribune-Review staff writer. You can contact Rich at 724-830-6293, [email protected] or via Twitter .

Categories: Local | Westmoreland
TribLIVE commenting policy

You are solely responsible for your comments and by using TribLive.com you agree to our Terms of Service.

We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.

While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.

We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers

We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.

We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.

We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.

We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.