« Sigur Ros | Main | Richmond is Taking Us for a Ride »
October 10, 2006
The False Promises of Campaign Finance Reform
A frequent refrain of many people is “get the money out of politics”. On the surface, this seems like a great idea – people will govern with only the best interests of the people in mind. There is an unfortunate reality that bites this bit of naivety right in the ass.
Coming up this weekend we will see the latest finance reports from most campaigns in the country – all federal filers and many state filers. And all one has to do is read the Disbursement Schedule on ANY competitive campaign’s report to see one absolute truth – running for office costs a LOT of money. You have to hire staff, pay for mail, pay for TV, pay for little pieces of literature, pay for yard signs (which if you looked at the way people get crazy over yard signs you’d think that each yard sign equals an additional vote), pay for legal teams, pay for consultants – it’s like setting up a major business with the sole purpose of going completely broke by a specific deadline.
I once ran a campaign on next to no money – it was not a pleasant experience. When I tell my friends that I wrote strategy for a campaign that got 40% on $63000, they are outright shocked. Do we pay for signs or lit? Do we buy a couple of drive time radio spots, or a lot of non-peak air? In which newspapers do we buy ads? And yet it was a combination of a bit of earned media, heavy ethnic targeting, and trying to ride the coattails of a Presidential campaign (with the associated turnout) and we managed to get 40%. But 40% is not 50% + 1 vote, which is what we actually needed to win. To get there – you need the cash.
The fact that elections cost money will not change. TV time costs money – if some were provided for free, both sides would try to buy more. Literature costs money – ink, paper, labor. There is nothing for free. Should it be the job of the government to pay for these campaigns? I don’t think so – I think my money should be going to schools and roads, not political campaigns. So where is this money going to come from?
Furthermore, the more we limit the amount of money a campaign can raise – the more we make it so only the wealthy can afford to run for office. In 2004 Democrat Melissa Bean defeated incumbent Philip Crane 52% to 48% - 9000 votes. In order to do this, Bean had to raise $1578192.99 according to her Post General Report from 2004. An extreme example from last cycle is the Frost/Sessions race – Frost raised $4630761.91 and LOST to Pete Sessions who raised $4343194.97!!
If we remove the ability for candidates to raise real sums of money, who will be able to afford to run? Only the wealthiest amongst us can afford this – and that’s not representative of the interests of the majority of people in this country.
The costs will not disappear, so why are we limiting our fundraising? This hurts us as Democrats more than it hurts the Republicans – the rich are a lot more likely to have rich friends than those of us who have to work for a living. The wealthiest in this country vote disproportionally for conservative candidates – that way they get their tax cuts and can protect their billion dollar oil profits. But it’s not the wealthiest who swing these elections – it’s what I would call the “middle millionaires”. The young tech gurus/stock market mavens/hotel heiresses who made a bit of money in business, but still hold progressive views on the world. Why not relax the caps but increase the regulation? Require all groups to publish their fundraising sources! Make the senate file electronically! And for us, let the mid-size donors max out a little bit higher – they’re on our side!
Money in politics will never go away – the best we can do to ensure our interests are being best represented is to shine a giant flashlight onto the process. If we attempt to eliminate money from politics, human nature dictates it won’t go away – it’ll just be unchecked and unregulated.
For more information:
FEC Website
Posted by MikeSager at October 10, 2006 7:45 PM
Trackback Pings
To send a Trackback, please use:
http://www.carpetblogger.com/cgi-bin/mt-whattocheck.cgi/231
Comments
I think we have already gotten to the point where only those with money - or access to it - can run for office. But I don't know what the answer is to the problem. There are no spending limits in Virginia, yet we still see how difficult it can be to raise enough money in order to run a race. (Of course, probably the worst thing about Virginia is the every-year elections.)
At the federal level, I'm loathe to do away with the limits. But we need to do something about the 527s.
I am less concerned about the federal offices than I am the local and state level ones. I think it is a difficult task to build a bench in the current environment.
Posted by: Vivian J. Paige at October 10, 2006 11:04 PM
I think that the every year factor does contribute to the difficulty of fundraising, but even year campaigns do raise money year round. Also look at how much money Kaine raised.
At the federal level, I don't want to see limits disappear. But I do think we could loosen the regulations some on the candidates, while tightening on the 527s.
We can build our bench - I think this is one of the most promising environments for our party in Virginia in a long time. We have an incrediably solid state party structure, rapidly developing metro areas that are trending blue, and a renewed hope amongst us Virginia Dems. I'm proud to be a Democrat right now.
Posted by: Mike Sager at October 10, 2006 11:13 PM
Post a comment