If defeated District 5 City Councilor Michael Cadigan had taken public financing, he could have had a lot more money to spend on the  race this year. About twice as much.

Anti-Cadigan mailers sent out by Moving Albuquerque Forward, a measure finance committee formed by SunCal Corporation among others.

Anti-Cadigan mailers sent out by Moving Albuquerque Forward, a measure finance committee formed by SunCal Corporation, among others.

Albuquerque’s public financing system was designed to level the playing field if privately-raised money gave one candidate an advantange over his or her opponents. But the system is only designed to protect candidates who accept public financing.

Incumbent city councilor Michael Cadigan did not opt into the public financing system while his challenger, Daniel Lewis, did.

According to financial reports on the city’s Web site, Cadigan raised $28,014 and spent $31,988.

Lewis received $42,482 in public funds from the city, plus in-kind donations of $4,686. He spent $47,688.

Cadigan gambled that he could raise as much money as Lewis would receive from the city. But on top of the public funds given to Lewis, his campaign benefited from at least two measure finance committees. One, called ABQCC5, spent $3,719 in support of Lewis.

Another, Moving Albuquerque Forward, spent $23,678—95 percent of which was spent “to oppose Cadigan’s record,” according to the financial report filed with the city.

Moving Albuquerque Forward, by the way, received $10,000 from Westland Development Corporation, also known as SunCal Corporation. Other donors of lesser amounts were Walmart, Klinger Construction, State Rep. Joni Gutierrez, Franklin Earthmoving, Centurion Pacific, Caballero Farms and Atlas Resources.

In the mayor’s race, all candidates were publicly financed and there was no measure finance committee activity reported that would have generated matching funds.