« What I Am Learning About Running For Office | Main | CIRCULAR WARMING CONUNDRUM »
March 21, 2007
What I Am Learning About Running For Office - II
I talked with a professional campaign consultant in Sacramento today. In exchange for his candor, not to mention free advice, I won't use his company name. But, just know this was an actual conversation with a very highly respected Sacramento politican campaign advisor, not a fictionalized account of what one might say. He informed me that I would have an advantage as a Chicoan and having grown up in Marysville and Yuba City, along with my other credentials, but the bottom line in the race is the money. I have no track record for raising money and as repeated the money is most likely going to determine the outcome. That was his whole emphasis! Everything else like idealism, hard work, ideas, pales in comparison to the cash. If you've read any of my past articles about campaign finance reform, then you know how strongly I hate this idea that money can buy an election...it's repulsive and NOW I'm told I have to be a money raising machine or forget it? The latest FPPC stats say over 93% of elections are won by the candidate with the most money. I think this is obscene.
What's happened to our democracy when money means more than character or ideas?
This Assembly race could likely cost $350,000 and there's a good chance it could run as high as $500,000! My advisor pointed out in a race in SoCal, it went over a half million and the candidate was incredibly well endorsed and well known, but it took that much money just to keep ahead of her wealthy opponent.
To keep this election in perspective, it's for a seat in the California Assembly, it's not for a seat in Congress! It's a humble 1/80th vote from within the minority party! Why should it cost this much to run an assembly race? This professional said, in so many words, the only way to Sacramento is a path paved with money.
My fears about the runaway cost of running for election is coming true.
It gets worse...stay tuned.
Posted by Post Scripts at March 21, 2007 08:05 PM
Comments
Jack, Bless your BIG caring heart...the world has always been this way and will always be this way. Big ideas, big ambition, big races, big promotion...any big effort is going to cost money...that doesn't make it obscene or dirty...only the slimy "person" can make it "dirty". The cost of a trip to Yuba City is a heck of a lot less than the cost of a trip around the world. State level politics costs more than running for mayor. It's all a game. The game requires raising money, but it is the wise spending of it and of yourself that determines the outcome...just like monopoly.
George Soros tossed millions in the trash trying to get Kerry elected...obviously money couldn't buy that election.
People who lose elections fail to sell themselves. Obviously if you don't raise sufficient cash to give yourself a stage you can't possibly win. If your sphere of influence is already pretty big you have a good head start.
But if this issue is something you cannot get passed, don't run...it's not worth it and you will always have that discomfort in the space. People will sense something is wrong...you need to be clear of such considerations to win.
Posted by: Tina at March 21, 2007 09:38 PM
I agree that money is highly influential in elections...having said that, lets take a close look at when money flows into elections.
To say that the person with the most money wins the election is probably accurate. But that doesn't mean that they won the election BECAUSE they had the most money. More than likely they had the most money BECAUSE they were the most popular.
I refer back to "Freakenomics" where they explored the data on this. What they found was that money didn't really start flowing into a campaign until they were their parties clear front runner.
You could have given Dennis Kucinich a 100 billion dollar war chest and he wouldn't have won the election. You could give Ann Coulter a 100 billion dollar war chest and she wouldn't win an election. Which means that there is more to it than JUST money.
Posted by: Nick Freitas at March 22, 2007 08:04 AM
More than likely they had the most money BECAUSE they were the most popular.
Brilliant thinking! People in general are not willing to throw money at candidates frivilously.
Posted by: Tina at March 22, 2007 09:27 AM