I have the most reliable friend you can have in American politics, and that is ready money.
–Phil Gramm, losing Presidential candidate, 1995
So, this blog is just goin’ ballistic over Gabrieli’s declaration that essentially he will spend whatever it takes to win the nomination and the election. “He’s buying the election!”, we’re hearing.
I have pretty strong ideas about campaign finance. I think monetary campaign donations are all a form of legal bribe. Public service at a high level is now almost exclusively a rich person’s game. Look at our Senators, Governor, and Lieutenant Governor: Millionaires, every single one. I think it’s terribly unfortunate that four of the five candidates for governor are extremely rich.
All that being said, money does not absolutely determine electoral results. Gabrieli himself is exhibit A: He spent $5 million+ in 1998 for Congress, and lost; and almost $5 million again in 2002, and lost.
Other examples:
And I’d have to think that in his first run for senator, John Corzine in NJ actually spent too much — a bewildering $63 million — bombarding the state with nasty, negative advertising that may well have cost him votes.
The list goes on.
A campaign is a vehicle, and money is the fuel: Some campaigns sip fuel, and get maximum results for their dollar; some are gas guzzlers. The quality of the candidate, quality of advertising, and quality of organization at the top and at the grassroots all affect the relative “fuel economy”.
Spending tons and tons of money on blanket advertising is the most risk-averse strategy candidates can take; but sometimes even that doesn’t work out. Gabrieli’s ads were everywhere before the convention — but were they really that good? Sure, he got the result he wanted — his 15% at the convention — but did he really get his money’s worth?
Gabrieli doesn’t have a good history of dollar-efficiency on this front; what’s going to be different this time?
…but it helps. I do agree with your premise and there are many other examples of well-funded campaign failures.
<
p>
It is all about engaging voters with a powerful message. Certainly the Gabber had no message when he ran for Congress except–I’ve proven myself in business and now I’ll do good in Congress. His message was not much different in the LG race 4 years ago. The reason he won the LG primary and got clobbered for Congress was there were other strong candidates in the Congressional race– with good messages and a ground game (which in a Congressional race is still important)–and he had weak LG competition. His weak message overwhelmed the other other weak messages with is money.
<
p>
There is evidence that Gab has learned and while he’ll be using his money, he’s also developing a strong message machine that will make things different this year.
<
p>
No longer are his ads long on style (music, powerful voice overs) and short on substance. He first highlighted his work in education and then grabbed headlines with a Stem Cell investment proposal.
<
p>
If Gab continues to spend his money touting bold ideas, he as a very good shot at winning the primary. But if he runs out of things to say and just runs ads, he’ll lose again.
<
p>
It ain’t the money, it’s the motion…er, ah..I mean, it’s the message.
Even if it didn’t cost a dime in fundraising — that is, even if every candidate had to use public funds exclusively (First Ammendment be damned) — you’d still only see millionaires in high public offices.
<
p>
Why?
<
p>
I just don’t see Joe Plumber with the cash to not work for nine+ months while campaigning and still paying the mortgage on his house. I don’t see Nancy Research-Scientist with the confidence that she could take almost a year off, and then get her old job back if she fails to win. I have a hard time imagining Suzie Busdriver choosing to walk away from a job and the savings for her kids to go to college so she can work hard at solving other peoples problems.
<
p>
Most people are risk averse, particularly with their homes, their families, and their childrens’ futures. “Regular” folks simply can’t afford to risk running and losing. You’ve got to either (a) have enough of a nest egg and a guarantee of your old job if you lose, or (b) have little in the way of responsibility to others in your family in order to take the risk, or (c) be rich enough to afford to lose.
<
p>
Few people qualify for (a) or (b), and thats why you’d see so much (c), even if it didn’t have to do with fundraising.
for a paycheck if I am not mistaken. Meaning you are able to take some of your fundraising and pay yourself which helps. Of course it doesn’t help your campaign’s bank account! So while a person cannot get his or her job back at least there are some ways to make it less financially hard on the candidate. That said I agree with most of your assessment.
…maybe some promising elected officials would step up and run? Now running for Governor is out of the fundraising range of most state senators and county officials…hell, even Sec of State Galvin, who has $1.7 million in the bank (and a steady salary) thought the Governor’s race was to rich for him. And because Fed campaign dollars can’t be transfered to state accounts, folks like Meehan or Capauno (sp) need a couple of years of lead time to raise the $5 to 10 million to run.
<
p>
There are plenty of people of modest means (mostly elected officials) who would love torun for Governor–and make great Goveernors–who won’t run because they either can’t or do not want to raise all that money. They have the steady income. Yes, they may lose their current position if they lose–but they can find a good paying job if they lose. It’s the damn money they have to raise that stops them.
<
p>
In the long run it is the people of Massachusetts who lose, because there is a self-selected group of people who are able to even consider running for office.
Frank says “folks like Meehan or Capauno (sp) need a couple of years of lead time to raise the $5 to 10 million to run.”
<
p>
Why not let them raise the money in $100,000 bites, rather than $1,000 or $2,000. The current restrictions are absolutely silly. Only the wealthy or professional, life-long politicians can ever run for these offices. Tragic.
<
p>
Can you tell me eliminating the contribution restriction would be corrupting?
A lot of people get into politics starting with a run for local office. Many of those – even state reps – are part time jobs. In a lot of states, the entire state legislature meets only a very small part of the year, and all of them have other full time jobs. Certainly school board members and aldermen and even mayors of very small cities are part time. So you run for office while keeping your job, serve in office while keeping your job, and eventually, if you’re good at it and want to, make the transition to a higher office that pays well enough that you can start making it your career.
<
p>
But for many offices, running is your job. If you can raise the money, you can pay yourself from that. There’s a problem there, of course, because some people can be fairly confident of being able to raise the money, while others would be taking a risk they can’t afford to take. Public financing is the solution to that.
But your assessment doesn’t mean that you stop trying to get progressive ideas passed. Will wealthy people always have an advantage, if only because they don’t have to work? Yes. However, the advantage is much reduced and more quality, regular folks will sneak in.
<
p>
Futhermore, one of the things that public financing, etc. can allow people to do is run for smaller offices. You may have to campaign full time become the US Rep or Senator, but not to become a member of the city council. Heck, you probably could win Mayor in some smaller cities like Salem or New Bedford campaigning part time if you start early.
<
p>
Then, you can start to build a regular-folk, liberal, progressive bloc of politicians who can campaign full time, all the time and get lots of free press… and the best of the bunch will definately be able to compete with the wealthy for US Rep if they’re, for example, a Mayor of a fairly large city – even if they aren’t particularly wealthy.
<
p>
Just look at Tim Murray. I’m not sure if he’s independently wealthy or not (I haven’t looked closely at the LG race), but he’s used his base of support and is probably the front-runner to win the primary… and certainly well ahead of the very wealthy Deborah Goldberg.
<
p>
So, through progressive policies like public financing and a crack-down on Big Money in politics, you really can get regular folk into high positions…. even if Betty Busdriver can’t just say to herself “I think I’ll run for President today” and have a shot of winning.
You know, this raises an interesting question in my mind. Gabrieli has spent millions upon millions of his own wealth on trying to hold some position of power — Congress, LG, and now governor. Why? I’m not saying that his stated reasons are bogus (that he wants to “get results” for us all). It seems to me that he’s got to recognize there’s more than one way to have power, you don’t have to hold elected office. Why has he spent the past 8 years of his life (at least) working towards the goal of having some elected office when he’s already been a successful businessman that does a lot of good for the residents of MA? To drain that much money and not get the result you want… it just seems…I don’t know, obsessive?
<
p>
If I had one of those “meet Chris Gabrieli” breakfasts now, that’s probably what I’d ask him.
men who groomed and/or were grooming themselves for high office their whole lives.
<
p>
How about that “obsessive” photo of Clinton shaking JFK’s hand?
<
p>
And suspicions remain about Kerry’s Vietnam service — all of 4 months — and whether it was consciously a resume-building tour of duty with an early departure and dubious covert action stories built in. This was the Swift Boat accusation (and it stuck.)
<
p>
At least Gabrielli has “made payroll” in the private sector.
<
p>
How many MA politicians can say that? Let’s see, there’s Mitt, and then, then … ummm, someone help me out.
But you sort of make my point. In order to to run for the highest office you have to be very driven. I just want to know what really motivates somebody to drop around 12 million dollars to get to some sort of higher elected office. Just as I want to know what motivates Gabrieli, I think it’s worthwhile to study all politicians motivations–Clinton, Kerry and Gore’s all.
<
p>
I guess it’s that, to me, it almost seems like Gabrieli doesn’t really care which office it he’s elected to. When he lost his bid for Congress he ran for LG. Then when he lost that in 2002, he was primed to try again until the Reilly/St Fleur fiasco. Now he’s running for governor. All these campaigns take a whole lot of time, effort and, well, money. So, how did he get bitten by the political bug? This doesn’t really put into question his qualifications for the job, I guess it’s just a curiosity. How does he justify to himself spending $12 million?
Christy Mihos!
I am pretty sure Deval Patrick has made quite a bit of payroll in the private sector. As a matter of fact many people whine he made too much payroll.
‘Making Payroll’ means paying salaries to others. Which Gabrieli and Mihos have done.
<
p>
What has Patrick ever done to employ people instead of collect a paycheck?
Patrick’s work and his position at Coca Cola certainly constitute making payroll. He was part of the executive management team which made him at least partly responsible for the employment of quite a few people. Though it seems that you are suggesting only a CEO is responsible for payroll. If that is the case I think you are just narrowly defining the issue.
Kerry won a Silver Star, a Bronze Star, and 3 Purple Hearts. There are ample testimonials to his service and bravery, including from a guy for whom he braved enemy fire to pluck out of a river. Mitt, like Bush, Cheney, and the other chicken hawks, had other plans.
<
p>
It is SO appropriate that bostonshepherd cam be abbreviated BS.
I hear and agree with many of the concerns regarding the issue of campaign finance. I supported Clean Elections and even wished it could’ve been mandatory for all candidates. A pipe dream, indeed. Here in reality, I believe in standing for the candidate you agree with, regardless of cash on hand. I support Gabrieli for his plan and his record. If I didn’t agree with him, I wouldn’t support him no matter what his bank account looked like or how many ads he had on TV (like, say, Mitt?)
<
p>
As for Gabrieli’s “obsession” with running for office again and again, Gabrieli understands that it’s far easier to affect real positive change from within the halls of power than it is to be yet one more activist, lobbyist, or constituent on the outside. Sure, he’s spent gobs of money in an ill-fated run for Congress, and then as our nominee for LG in 2002, but he’s proven by his actions that he’s serious about being an elected official who will use his experience and ideals to promote progress.
<
p>
He’s used millions promoting education reform, longer school days, after schools programs, and used his loot to organize the education and lobbying campaign that overrode Romney’s veto of the legislature’s stem cell bill. Those are some results he achieved with his hard-earned (not inherited) money from the outside. But again, it’s easier to push an agenda for progress forward in office.
<
p>
I’m a pragmatist. While I highly doubt Chris will spend $15.36 million in the primary (maybe only a third of that, half at most), he believes he’ll make a great governor and he has a solid and credible plan for MA. It’s his money to spend.
<
p>
Another way of looking at it is that a side benefit of his campaign spending is job creation! ;P
…job creation? OK, there are a few campaign folks working 100 hours a week making decent wages (excellent wages for campaign work). But the real economic stimuli Gab is creating will help buy a second home for some Boston TV sales executives or new cars for some Washington political consultants.
<
p>
Maybe it’s time to buy stock in Viacom (Ch 4 and 38)–when the 3rd quarter corporate results are announced, profits and revenues maybe unexpectedly up because of a surge in revenue in their Boston operation. (Ch 7 and 5 are controlled by private companies)
Apparently, sense of humor is at a premium in some quarters. The sensitivity level for some on this blog is too damn high.
…maybe we’re both a little to dry with the humor today.
Economist Steven D. Leavitt’s Freakonomics is an absolute must-read for anyone who has not yet done so (and a terrific bathroom book if you, like me, can’t imagine using the can without reading material).
<
p>
In his introductory chapter The Hidden Side of Everything, Levitt debunks much of the common misapplied reasoning behind the assumption that money decides elections. He briefly examines the confusion of correlation with causation and cites notable big-spending losers like Huffington, Dean, Golisano and Forbes.
<
p>
I’ll let curious readers check out the details in his book, but one of his observations is worth quoting:
<
p>
<
p>
I was first introduced to a well-researched piece showing that money doesn’t decide elections, sometime in the early 90s, before I’d gotten involved in any campaigns. I’ve always thought it was a strawman. Those of us who argue for campaign finance reform don’t base our arguments on “the one who spends the most, wins” – as is explicitly obvious from some of the examples Jesse Gordon gave in his recent post. Read my post on money and campaigns and you’ll see I don’t base any of my reasoning on that claim, either.
<
p>
Money makes it possible to campaign, and money decides who will be credible candidates. Among those credible candidates, who have enough money to run effectively, which one spends more doesn’t decide the election, though it does influence it. Their message, their strategies, and the quality of the candidates, influence it as much, or more. A better candidate can still lose just from being severely outspent, but often, a better candidate with a better message will win even if outspent, as long as she has enough money to run a credible campaign.
<
p>
2. Elections are too highs-pending
<
p>
Here, the comparison with chewing gum is misframed. The number of people buying chewing gum is orders of magnitued more than the number of people running for office, or even working on or volunteering on campaigns. That the amount of money spent is about the same, illustrates just how shockingly much is spent on campaigns. But to make that illustration, to make actual sense of the numbers, you’d have to give us both sides of the data: How many people chew gum each year, how much of it on average they chew; how many people run for federal office in a federal election year? Then you have a meaningful comparison.
“Money makes it possible to campaign, and money decides who will be credible candidates”
<
p>
Exactly right. We see this in operation at the national level all the time — the DCCC doesn’t back a candidate based on how charismatic he or she is, how resonant with the concerns of average people his or her message is, or how excellent his or her campaign and field plan is. Instead, they back the candidate who has or is thought to be able to raise the most amount of money. Candidates don’t get “credibility” until they’ve proven themselves in fundraising. How screwed up is that? Shouldn’t credibility be based on message, resonance, campaign plan? Oy.
<
p>
In Illinois, Tammy Duckworth became an instant DCCC darling before she ever raised a penny and despite the pre-existing candidacy of Christine Cegelis, who got 44.2% against Henry Hyde in 2004 (Hyde’s worst showing ever in his 25 years).
<
p>
Why?
<
p>
Becuase Cegelis is a self-employed single mother and Duckworth is an Iraq War combat veteran who lost both legs in a missile strike on her helicopter. The DCCC believed Duckworth could attract major national media and thus have a better chance in the general election in this GOP-leaning district.
<
p>
It had nothing to do with Duckworth’s proven fundraising –since she had no fundraising track record and didn’t even live in the district. It had everything to do with her biography, which the DCCC and establishment Dem’s like John Kerry, Nancy Pelosi, Dick Durbin, Rahm Emanuel and Barack Obama used to raise her over $600,000 for the primary.
<
p>
This same group could have raised as much money for Cegelis and told their in-district supporters to vote for her like just as they did Duckworth.
<
p>
Still, Duckworth barely beat Cegelis 43.8 percent to 40.4 percent, or 1,124 votes (third candidate Lindy Scott took just under 16 percent).
<
p>
Sure, it’s better to be able to raise more money than less, but it takes a lot more than fundraising to make a candidate “credible” and more than just money to win. Heck, for years Republicans were ridiculed for how much they outspent Dem’s and still lost elections because of the Democrats’ superior GOTV and grassroots organizing.
As I understand it, and I could be wrong, the traditional approach was for DCCC to stay out of primaries and only back candidates with fundraising success. In any event, my point was that the test of credibility should not be how much money you raise, it should be your ideas, your ability to articulate them, and your seriousness in how you plan to run your campaign.
Tonight ex-Republican Jim Webb won the Democratic primary for US Senate in Virginia; it was his first campaign for elective office, so he had no fundraising track-record.
<
p>
When Webb declared his candidacy for the Democratic nomination longtime Democrat Harris Miller was already in the race. Yet nine Democratic Senators and Senate Campaign Committee Chair Chuck Schumer openly endorsed Webb.
<
p>
As with Duckworth, the DCCC believed he had a more compelling biography and exceptional national security credentials that gave him better chance of defeating the incumbent Republican in November.
<
p>
Sure it’s unusual for the party to endorse declared candidates in an open primary, and I agree that fundraising shouldn’t be the only or even primary test of credibility.
<
p>
But it’s inaccurate to claim as you did that the DCCC automatically backs the person who is independently wealthy or has raised more money (not only in primaries, but when they recruit people to run as they did Duckworth). As we see, they genuinely try to pick the candidate most likely to win in their local race.
This practice of endorsing and supporting candidates in the primary is a relatively new one, I believe. And I agree that there seems to be a more complicated test of credibility now. But money, and the ability to raise it remains one of the key criteria. ANYway — the example was to illustrate a larger point, as I’ve said, that fundraising has traditionally been, and is now, one of THE key criteria for credibility. That’s the way it is now, and obviously the environment in which we now operate. And I don’t think that’s a good thing.
It may not be your own view, but certainly many campaign finance reform advocates argue that, indeed, money mostly determines who wins (And I’m not debating the need for certain reforms –I agree that the role of money is far too influenctial).
<
p>
The chewing gum comparison is meant as a perspective on values. Are elections really too “high-spending?” Even if more Americans chew gum than vote, elections are much more consequential to more Americans than gum-chewing. By comparison, America arguably ought to be spending much more on campaigning than purchasing gum…
<
p>
(One of my doctor friends makes a smiliar values argument concerning drug costs. Patients complain bitterly that prescription drugs are “too expensive” at the same time they gladly spend much more on SUVs, plasma TVs, iPods, and designer clothes)
<
p>
Leavitt –who is an economist interested in counter-intuitive incentives– looked at races where the same two candidates run against each other in consecutive elections (to keep appeal more or less constant):
<
p>
<
p>
Thus, high election spending may be driven more by a misplaced belief by campaigns that more spending determines success, rather than intrinsic requirements of politics. The remedy (if one is needed) may be greater sef-discpline by candidates, not legislation.
I found Leavitt’s analysis wanting. He treats elections as if they were discrete phenomena — not linked to the circumstances that preceded them. An open seat one year has an incumbent the next. To treat two consecutive elections the same, even though they have the same people running, does not make sense in a candidate’s first reelection campaign.
You’re right that the comparison with chewing gum is misguided. But your comparison, number of people who chew gum vs number of people who run for federal office, is also, I think, not quite right.
<
p>
Elections are, in essence, marketing campaigns. So the apt comparison is not gum-chewers (who are the customers) with candidates (who are the VP of Marketing in this scenario). This is still apples to oranges. We need to compare ad campaign $$$ with, well, ad campaign $$$.
<
p>
So, with the view that elections are marketing campaigns… I read recently somewhere, and unfortunately I can’t find it again… that Jell-O’s annual marketing budget is around $100 million dollars. (As a side note I can confirm that Jell-O’s parent company, Kraft, has an annual marketing budget of 1.7 billion dollars, so $100 million for Jell-O is not unreasonable.)
<
p>
So four years of Jell-O marketing costs roughly (in the same ballpark) as much as a presidential election.
<
p>
Now that’s what I consider a meaningful comparison.