Jesse--

I'm very, very glad you have posted this. Both Salvador and I have been working to get campaign finance reform into the progressive discussion for almost a year now. We see it as vital for progress. I can't do a lengthy reply right now--I have to get up at 3:45 for the drive back to Salem--but I promise to respond more on Monday. In the meantime, I hope it is O.K. for me to paste this article from the Oregonian from this weekend below to begin to make the case. See what you think.

Article below.

Thanks & Onward, Rep. Buckley ~~~~ Oregon Anti-smoking bills all but snuffed out

SALEM (AP) -- Bills pushed by anti-smoking advocates to ban smoking in bars and taverns, reinstate a 10-cent-a-pack cigarette tax and allow only "fire-safe" cigarettes to be sold in the state have been all but snuffed out by Oregon lawmakers this year.

The measures drew opposition from tobacco and restaurant industry interests who contribute heavily to legislative campaigns as well as from lawmakers who are loathe to approve additional taxes or impose more regulation on business.

With the 2005 session moving into its final weeks, the Tobacco-Free Coalition of Oregon says it appears the Legislature isn't going to deal with "the state's No. 1 public health issue" -- tobacco use that causes more than 7,000 premature deaths in Oregon each year and exposes thousands of others to second-hand smoke.

John Valley of the American Heart Association, one of the leading groups involved with the coalition, says anti-smoking and health care advocates might try to take one or more of the issues directly to Oregon voters next year.

"I would be surprised if there wasn't an effort to put a cigarette tax on the 2006 ballot if the Legislature does nothing," he said.

Valley and other advocates aren't giving up on the Legislature just yet, but they are facing some well-heeled opponents.

Tobacco companies, for example, contributed about $130,000 to legislative candidates last year, including $15,000 to Republican House Speaker Karen Minnis, according to figures compiled by the Money in Politics Research Action Project, a campaign finance watchdog group.

Minnis has been instrumental in blocking efforts by health care activists and anti-smoking groups to reinstate a 10-cent-a-pack cigarette tax that was extinguished when voters rejected the Legislature's $800 million tax hike in February 2004.

The groups say raising the cigarette tax would discourage smoking among young people by making cigarettes more expensive and provide more money to cover thousands of low-income people who are being kicked off the Oregon Health Plan because of the state's money squeeze.

But the move is opposed by Minnis and other House Republicans who say Oregonians have made it clear they don't want higher taxes and by tobacco industry officials who say it's not fair to raise taxes just on smokers to pay for health care for all.

Minnis also opposes a Senate-passed "fire-safe" cigarettes bill requiring that cigarettes be made of paper that will extinguish if the cigarette is not being smoked, which supporters say would cut down on thousands of fires across the country caused by unattended cigarettes.

The Republican House speaker agrees with the tobacco industry's argument that the federal government should set uniform standards for fire-safe cigarettes to prevent 50 different state requirements.

Among the other top recipients of campaign dollars from tobacco companies is Senate Majority Leader Kate Brown, D-Portland, who got $10,500, according to the Money in Politics group.

As part of the Senate leadership team, Brown helped make the decision to not have the Senate vote on a bill to extend the state's workplace tobacco ban to the smokers' last indoor business refuge -- bars and taverns.

In 2001, the Legislature passed a measure that outlawed smoking in businesses but exempted bars, taverns, bowling alleys and bingo halls in most places.

Now anti-smoking activists are seeking to extend the smoking ban to those remaining businesses, a move that's opposed by the tobacco industry as well as by the powerful Oregon Resturant Association, which contributed $228,000 to legislative candidates last year.

Brown said the campaign money didn't sway her decision and that she wanted to spare her Senate colleagues from having to vote on the bill when it would face certain defeat in the Republican-controlled House.

Valley, the Heart Association spokesman, said he thinks it's an open question about how much lawmakers were influenced by campaign contributions from groups who opposed the anti-smoking bills.

"I don't think it's mere coincidence" that all three bills are languishing, he said. "My feeling is that there is some connection between campaign contributions and how lawmakers look at issues."

Anyone who has doubts about limits and how they work and what the effect is should talk to Ryan Deckert. I seem to recall a report on Ch. 2 (kept it on videotape for a long time) where reporter Mark Hass did a story on how Ryan was able to win a House election under Measure 9 campaign finance reform. As I recall, Ryan's opponent in that election was someone with ties to the timber industry, Oregonians in Action and had been a GOP state chair at one time in his life.

It is important to have all the details of the plan clear. But just as McCain-Feingold broke the connection between large donors and parties, and just as Tom Potter won with contribution limits (didn't Russ Feingold do that for his re-election?)it seems to be time to try to pass some sort of limits. The power of money is getting out of hand.

Yes, we need to do something about 527s, but as I understand the current system there is a "Wild West" atmosphere where little real time auditing of C & E's is done, too much is legal, and there has to be a complaint filed by someone in order to investigate anything. And then when there is a complaint, the press makes a big deal about whether the complainant was put up to it by a candidate. Are random mandatory audits or something else which could touch any campaign really that scary--is our system that messed up? I fear we have gone a long ways downhill since Barbara Roberts delivered the vote at the 1984 Democratic Convention by saying "Oregon, the land of clean air, clean water, and clean politics casts......."

And some people may not like me for saying this, but I think the time has come to have money go directly from donors to legislative candidates, not the 3 step process from donor to caucus to candidate. Why use a middleman, or is that question too threatening to the status quo? If we see the direct contribution from donor to candidate, that would tell us who is funding which campaign (to use Peter's example, tobacco money going to a candidate who might be running on health issues). Who on earth is threatened by fire-safe cigarettes, or is that just a power play?

Direct contributions would make it less likely that people play games behind the scenes. Yes, yes, I know the screams about "freedom of assembly" for PACs and such. But does that mean any individual must belong to a group in order to express a political opinion?

This legislative session should be enough to convince anyone it is time to stop the games and be more straightforward so that trust in the process which has eroded can be built back up.

No, that is not what I am proposing. Are you seriously arguing that we should ban all contributions except those from individuals? Wouldn't that just empower rich people - who can give in $1000 and $5000 increments, at the expense of activists and working people whose only hope for power is to bind their contributions together in lump sums (with the requisite spokespersons to describe why they are giving in large numbers)?

What I am saying is that if the C & E for a legislative candidate showed contributions from PACs, individuals, unions, businesses, whatever that would show who was contributing to that candidate. But if a contribution shows, for instance, that a certain amount of money came from a caucus campaign operation, people have no way of knowing where the caucus got the money. As I recall, there was at least one House race last year where the private unions (carpenters, auto workers, etc.) supported one general election candidate and the public unions (OEA, SEIU, etc.) supported the other. As long as that is clearly disclosed, that's fine. Then people who, for instance, thought the private sector unions had more sense (for any number of reasons incl. maybe they're members of a private sector union)could support the candidate supported by the private sector union.

But if unions contribute to a caucus and one needs to look at the caucus C & E to discover that, there is no way of knowing if (in this example)what (if any) unions contributed to the organization which contributed to a particular candidate.

The same could be said about any type of group--AOI vs. that Oregon Business group Lynn Lundquist lobbies for, environmental groups being on opposite sides of something, etc.

I've been in these debates for a long time. I remember when individual campaigns were replaced by coordinated campaigns, and old campaign hands saw waste in the new system as well as coordination.

But as for this remark Direct contributions would make it less likely that people play games behind the scenes. Yes, yes, I know the screams about "freedom of assembly" for PACs and such. But does that mean any individual must belong to a group in order to express a political opinion? PACs have been a subject of debate for a long time, and some candidates refuse PAC money. Candidates have the right to make such decisions. What bothers me is the old "people can all kick in $5-10 and have an effect they can't have alone". That may have been true in the last century.

Recently I heard Joe Trippi being interviewed on a technology show, and the host said "Tell the story of the Cheney Challenge". Long story short, the Dean people heard Cheney was going to have a fundraiser in maybe 2003 where he would host a luncheon someplace like Texas and the tickets were maybe $2000 each. The Dean campaign put Howard in front of a laptop and webcam or whatever eating a turkey sandwich, and challenged supporters to send in $20 or whatever they could afford to see if the Dean campaign could raise more money than Cheney. I don't recall the numbers, but Dean and his turkey sandwich outraised Cheney and his high roller luncheon, and the people at the Dean campaign said "WHOA! We may really be on to something here!".

My reference was to something completely different--the old phenomenon where members a union or other group with a PAC would contribute money (maybe a few dollars a month, but over time that can add up)without knowing what candidates the union would contribute to. Then there would be an endorsement convention where a ballroom full of people would choose how to spend the money from members all over the state. What if the contributors didn't like the result? Is that just their tough luck? No, I am not talking about the old anti-union "paycheck protection" laws Sizemore et. al were talking about, but something I heard about much earlier. When database software became available, someone I knew was involved in Common Cause, and a database was being prepared out of C & E reports. A retired union man was a volunteer. Remember this is back in the days when not everyone had computer experience, and WAY before the Internet. The man preparing the database does a sort and says to the retired union man "See, I can make it sort who your union contributed to". This was something the retiree had never seen before, and he was unhappy to discover that his union had contributed to people he had voted against.

There is a reason this turn of the century period is called the Information Age--information is now readily available in ways our parents could never have imagined. As Joe Trippi titled his book, The Revolution Will Not Be Televised. In the old days, people who wanted PAC status quo would say things like "You want to take away the right of people to voluntarily assemble! How Dare You?" No, what we wanted was an honest debate about the role of PACs. And some people tried to tell us campaign reform advocates that we had a lot of gall to even want to have that discussion. I believe it is progressive to have open debates on such topics--healthy for the process to openly air differing viewpoints. I think that IS progressive in the best sense of the word. Except that it was decades ago and within the Democratic Party, the debate over PACs and campaign finance reform was no less intense than Minnis and Scott not wanting to publicly discuss bills passed overwhelmingly by the Senate.

I still remember the victory of campaign finance reform Measure 9 and a conversation with the Democratic Chair of a neighboring county. He was totally taken aback---had not predicted it. He wanted to know why I thought it had passed. I said, "You and I know there are people who are very colorful characters to the point of having folklore told about them. Yet someone in a caucus or some other organization tells them they started on Jan.1 with ZERO name familiarity, and they need to raise money just like a newcomer--- and that raising money is more important than being out talking to voters. Imagine those candidates and their campaign managers were offended by that attitude, and each told their 5 closest friends. And then they told 2 friends and they told 2 friends and they told 2 friends, and so on. All of a sudden you have very fertile ground for this kind of measure ".

And that was more than a decade ago--before Dean revolutionized individual fundraising and reminded us of the importance of grass roots politics, before Tom Potter (with contribution limits and appearances at every community event he could fit on his schedule) got elected Mayor over the guy with all the money and supposedly lots of connections.

If people want to contribute to PACs, let us have the discussion about whether that is a good idea and how those should be regulated. But the Dean supporters had an impact on campaign finance as individuals without joining a PAC or changing a law. All I'm saying is that they have the right to be individuals and not to be told only membership in a group is allowed, not individual thought activism, donations.

My point is that all the people who responded to Internet appeals like Dean's did not have to join an organization to do that, just use a secure website to make a contribution. If they also happen to belong to a union, Planned Parenthood, Sierra Club, their church, and 3 other organizations, that is fine. But people no longer have to be rich or part of a PAC to have an impact on politics.

Effective CFR is not easy. That is no reason to give up on controlling the most heinous anti-democratic force in politics: big money. Public financing - as in Portland - can help, and so can contribution limits. It is true that wealthy interests will look for other ways to influence elections, but these more indirect routes lessen the connection between contributor and candidate. That is a good thing.

Chuck is correct that initiative campaigns deserve attention too. We will not run out of CFR projects for quite some time.

Democracy's Edge and FairElections Oregon are doing important work and deserve our support.

Anne,

Elected officials being visibly in someone's pocket has had almost zero deterent to the purchase of policy. Are the US and Oregon governments unduly influenced by big pharma, alcohol and tobacco providers, privately owned utilities, developers, the insurance industry, banks, weapon manufacturers [at the federal level] and other deep pockets, or not? That some of us know about it does not prevent it at all.

Of course those with money will always try to use it to set up things so they can make even more money. That is a weak reason for not trying to protect democratic governance. Some people will always try to exploit others. Is that a good reason to repeal laws against robbery, rape and murder?

Time out.

"Money in politics" and "campaign finance reform" – these are the 6 substantive words that have been used thus far in a discussion about whether or not Oregonians ought to take a very serious step on a very specific proposal.

The 3 words "campaign finance reform" can mean many different things, with infinite permutations on how one might regulate the way campaigns and elections are financed.

But before folks jump to the conclusion that the efforts of DemEdge or FairElections “should be supported”, perhaps we might talk about what Petition 37 (a very complicated* 16-page proposal to regulate the way campaigns are financed in Oregon) or Petition 8 (an amendment to Oregon’s constitution that would prevent proposals like 37 from being thrown out by Oregon's Supreme Court) would actually do and if that “actually do” part is desirable.

Now, it wouldn't take very long sitting outside my office to hear me on the phone saying something like: "These Republicans are bought and paid for by the payday loan industry, and that's why they killed SB 408" or "This is just the latest example of Karen Minnis and her sellout to the big drug companies who fund her campaigns."

But Representative Peter Buckley -- who is a great public servant, a rising star in Oregon Democratic politics, and for whom I personally have an immense amount of respect -- suggests the article on anti-smoking bills serves to "make the case" for “campaign finance reform.”

If “campaign finance reform” means Petitions 37 and 8, I would respectfully suggest it does not.

What we have is a discussion about “money in politics” and the status quo. What we don’t have – whether by intention or oversight – is a discussion about what people are suggesting we do about it.

Perhaps we should start a thread about Petitions 37 and 8...

-KS

*Please don’t take the use of “complicated” to be pejorative – I know the authors were very deliberative and I believe its supporters to be well-meaning.

Kelly--

Thanks for the kind words AND the critique. As mentioned way up at the top, we've been trying to get this discussion going for a good length of time now.

Measure 8 is a one line Constitutional Amendment that states the right of the people through the initiative process or the legislature through a 3/4 majority vote to place limits on contributions concerning candidate campaigns. Pretty straightforward. The reason we are going for 3/4 majority is that we don't want it to be easy for the legislature to gut the limits. In state after state, including Dem states like Mass., the legislature has found it to be in their own interests to open up the spigots again after limits are passed if they find the spigots they are used to closed. I sincerely believe that the people are the ones who need to "regulate" the political industry, not the members of the industry itself.

As for the limits proposed in Measure 37, it is complex. The statute has gone through over thirty drafts, and input from a wide variety of people was instrumental in the development. We've tried to address each specific route for funding campaigns (candidate committtees, PACs, political parties, personal loans, c4s, independent expenditures, and our proposed Small Donor Committees inspired by both the Dean campaign and the Colorado system now in place) in a balanced way, and it would be great for people to check out the statute, ponder the proposed limits, and let us know what they think. Are the limits on PACs too high or too low? Since the Small Donor Committees have no limits, will they possibly beomce too powerful? Since a national membership organization such as the DNC could register a Small Donor Committee in Oregon and send $50 from every Democratic contributor in the nation for Oregon use, will this change the way the parties operate?

Each part of the statute is there for a reason, and when one is changed, it's like dominos on the others. But I do encourage people to check it out and ask questions about it--and suggest different and better reforms if they come up for you.

As with any attempt to take on a complex issue, there are angles after angles after angles. Even with the time spent on drafting the statute, I can't claim that every angle has been considered, and I'd welcome the observations. It is complex enough to need a lot of questioning and clarification to make sure it will work.

Bottom line for me: large donor contributors control our politial process in Oregon. Proposal after proposal in the legislature is killed or turned inside out by big donor pressure. Even when we take the majority in 2006, we will need to be able to govern without the constant threat of an onslaught of big money to opponents in 2008....

The statute is designed to bring small donors onto something resembling a level playing field, to promote democracy.

And Jeez, Pat!

Thanks for the words of support, but did you have to promise to break wind at progressive gatherings at the same time?!?

It's hard enough to get people to focus on this as it is!

Onward, PB

Thank you Pat, for saying this better than anyone I can remember:

Notice that I said really deep pockets. My wife and I are members of Housebuilders at the Architect level, and you can rest assured that anyone speaking up at these donor meetings to do anything beyond cheerleading, is looked at as an embarassment by "The Professionals" like Kari, Ivo, and Jon. (BTW The typical donor suggestions tend to be policy ideas rather than requests for favors). These guys are convinced that no good can come from listening to amateurs, a term that seems to be interchangeable with dilettante in their worldview.

I have been involved in campaign finance reform for a long time. Some things will be solved if the measures Peter Buckley talks about get on the ballot and pass. But some need a change of mentality.

Suppose some friends live in a "purple" House district where no legislator of either party has won by a large margin in recent years.
These folks want "regime change" in the legislature and they want to throw out their state rep., a Republican who has told them that leadership makes all the decisions, and they are just voters. Suppose they don't live in the Portland area where there are large media markets but in an area where they get their TV from a big city but there might be local radio stations.

This is what I mean by a change of mentality: should those friends and neighbors talk to Sam the school board member (or Jane the local businesswoman) and suggest that person run for House? Is there someone among them who could be the campaign manager? Is there a retired bookkeeper or someone with similar background who could learn to be campaign treasurer? Can they build on the experience of those who have run for legislative office before? Maybe one of them could work up a schedule of neighborhood coffees, and make sure their candidate attends all local civic gatherings. Legislators have been elected that way in the past, long before "The Professionals" like Kari, Ivo, and Jon were ever involved in Oregon politics.

There is a lot of experience and talent in communities, which could help win elections. But I think Pat hit the nail on the head about what frustrates many of those people: "These guys are convinced that no good can come from listening to amateurs, a term that seems to be interchangeable with dilettante in their worldview."

So yes, let's help the initiative drive --I'm all for it. But we don't need to have any measures pass to do the other important work.

First, admit that "The Professionals" like Kari, Ivo, and Jon did not succeed in electing a House majority in 2004. So why would we turn the whole process over to them again and say "we trust you will win next time so we will not question what you do"? In what way is that different from Billy Dalto saying "the leadership decides what is done"? What is the goal? Is the primary goal to win a majority, or is that secondary to the caucus telling candidates how to run their campaigns?

Most important, let's look at what worked. Reps. Buckley, Komp, Galizio, Roblan are freshmen, which means they won their House elections. What specific steps/ actions resulted in those wins? How on earth did Rob Brading come so close to toppling a Speaker? Has there ever been a Speaker who came that close to losing?

Is it possible that the residents of Jackson County, Marion County, Coos County, Washington County know what is best for their districts? Or is politics no longer a participation activity for neighbors because the "professionals" have taken over? If so, when did that happen, and who decided they should have more power than local neighbors? What have they done to earn that power?

The title of Howard Dean's book is "You Have The Power". Is that true in Oregon House Democratic campaigns, or are we to believe the caucus has the power and we are just supposed to take orders from them because they know all?

It would be great to see the campaign finance reform measures on the ballot. But at this point I think it is more important to know the answer to the above question, and to this one as well: Who supervises Jon, Ivo and the other employees of the House caucus? Is it the members like Rep. Buckley? Is it a small campaign committee whose membership is not known to the general public? It shouldn't be that difficult to get an answer to that question if Democrats are the party of the people.

As I recall, Buckley was a Dean Dozen candidate as was Mayor Tom Potter. From what I could see, they ran campaigns responsive to their local area, rather than having to follow orders from DFA on all matter of details. Both Tom and Peter won. The Oregon Bus Project and other efforts also helped elect candidates.

It will be awhile before we will know if the measures make the ballot. But, given the title of this post, let's start a rumble now. Let's talk about all aspects of the process. Why isn't a local campaign manager better than someone chosen by the caucus? Shouldn't all candidates patronize local suppliers whenever possible? Might that be a way to earn a few votes, "I'm voting for my customer who is running for office" or does that violate some code of professional campaigning? We now have a DNC member with Dean and rural ties. Shouldn't there also be a local decision on whether all literature must have a "union bug", esp. in these times of desktop publishing? If "professionals" could choose between all literature bearing a union bug or winning the majority in 2006, is there anyone who would reject winning the majority after the session we are living through? Should campaigns in all 60 districts follow a written list of procedures, or is Steve B. right that things which work in urban areas don't necessarily work in rural areas?

There hasn't been a widespread discussion of such topics in at least 10 years. How did the Senate go Democratic--by every Senate candidate following caucus orders, or with help from grass roots organizations like the Oregon Bus Project?

I have told this story before about a mid-1980s State Central Committee meeting. The guest speaker was a former governor from what we would now call a "red" state. I'd become part of the State Central Committee after people I worked with on a presidential campaign nominated me at our county meeting. I figured out over the years that between that volunteer party work and various campaigns, I had contributed over a thousand hours of my time to Democratic politics. I really liked that Governor's speech, but what I heard in the seats around me convinced me that my time in active party politics would be for a finite amount of time. The Governor said "The purpose of the Democratic Party is to win elections" and some in the audience around me weren't sure they agreed.

Let me make it clear right now. I signed both the Measure 8 and Measure 37 petitions. If I have the spare time next year I would love to work on a volunteer-oriented House campaign for a qualified candidate, esp. one in a district now held by a Republican.

But I believe strongly in those "radical words" at the beginning of the Oregon Constitution, "We the people of the State of Oregon...". It does NOT say "they the people of the legislative caucuses".

I have been angry about all this for a long time but not sure how to put it into words. So Thank You Pat for providing the springboard! And even if my questions are not answered here, they are now out on the blog for all to see. And maybe they will stimulate some debate among people who discuss politics with each other.

Pat and LT,

As someone who might be considered a “professional” I take offence to your characterization of Jon, Ivo and Kari.

We have all become “professionals” because we started out as locals helping our friends, neighbors and family members get elected to school boards and other elected posts. The only difference between us is that we make a living working hundreds of thousands of hours helping elect people like representatives like Peter Buckley and Larry Galizio at the same time. And I would point the great work that Jon and others at the house caucus are doing as a reason we picked up seats and are forcing the republicans to talk about things like fully funding education.

Now on to Measure 8 and 37. What has not been discussed in this post is who these measures would really help and who it would really hurt.

In the help list put Loren Parks, Oregon Right to Life, the rich people over at Jeld Wen, and any other rich right winger. Because the portion of these measures that outlaw large donors from spending unlimited amounts of money on independent expenditures is unconstitutional (US Constitution). A case in point, supporters of this measure point to Colorado as a place where this type of campaign finance reform worked, but what they leave out is that 5 liberal Billionaires financed a huge statewide IE.. Well I would bet that in Oregon their Billionaires out number our Billionaires.

On the who it hurts list put Planned Parenthood, NARAL, BRO, and any C4 that does political advocacy including Democracy’s Edge. C4’s would no longer be able to participate in the political process. And groups like PP, NARAL and BRO raise a lot of there money in $500 - $1000 contributions while groups like Oregon Right to Life raise 90% of there money in $50 or smaller contributions.

In the words of a professional consultant that I have to work against “I love campaign finance reform, because each time they pass it, I find a way to make more money.”

Jon and All--

Great comments throughout. Working backwards, one reason the constitutional amendment is so important, in my view, is that we need to have a way to protect Portland's experiment with public financed elections. If the "clean money" candidate is up against candidates with no limits, it is going to be hard going. With the amendment in place, the people of Portland can pass limits on their campaigns if they decide to in order to make the system work.

I do agree on the impact of lobbyists, but without the huge carrots and sticks they carry in terms of possible campaign funding, they are advocates for positions, not power brokers. I respectfully disagree with Jon on this--I think removing the funding ability from lobbyists would make a huge difference.

I share the concern about losing control of message, and I'm still trying to figure out the best path on that, as well as for the reality of media costs, etc. I do know it is possible to raise large sums in a grassroots way--Dean has proved it, and my own campaign raised $70,000 for a non-targeted state rep seat through a significant number of small donations.

And as a sidenote: I fully believe that FuturePac is going to be tremendously successful in 2006, and I look forward to doing my part to get us to majority.

As a political campaign veteran with over 25 years of election-combat experience mostly on underfunded yet victorious campaigns, I couldn't pass this posting up without putting in my modest two-cents.

I have always found that any solution that addresses campaign finance reform actually misses the point and the reason why political campaigns are always such a mess, at least among those of us who have been at this for a while.

This point is summarized in a very simple question to answer, but few actually get it:

How much money do you need to spend to win an election?

In other words, what is the maximum amount necessary to ensure victory.

Most would respond "whatever it takes." "Buzz!" Ooh, I am sorry. Wrong answer!

Folks, we Democrats spend gazillions on campaigns for House and Senate. We usually outspend the Republicans, who do not have the volunteer base and group support we already enjoy, and we usually raise more from a larger base. In most contested races we truly do spend "whatever it takes."

So why do we not control both houses in the Legislature? Why did it take ten years to regain the Senate? Why, under three Democratic redistricting plans do we continue to lose races to GOP candidates whose campaign plans are predictable, whose politics is right-wing extrmism, and who spend about as much money on key races as we do, all without the volunteer and organizational base that we command?

Could it be that the one size fits all philosophy and strategy of "spend whatever it takes," the same strategy fostered on us by DLCC leadership and jackhammered into our heads by our out-of-state consultants, pollsters and managers, is failing us?

The fact is that no amount of money will get you elected to office or win an initiative if you do not have a message that really works.

I have said it before and I will continue to say it again: There is an absolute maximum amount of money you need to spend to win an election. Anyone with a basik knowledge in marketing amn management can figure that one out. It is a quantifiable number, easy to calculate, and a hell of a lot less than we spend on our historically futile attempts to regain the House (or hold the Senate).

That in itself is reason enough to fire all of the campaign consultants this party has used in the past.

Campaign finance reform begins not with limiting contributions. Campaign finance reform begins with eliminating the need to raise such astronomical sums of money. It means eliminating the high-cost and low-delivery consultants whose income is based on the commissions they sell us in advertising and mailing (the more they get you to spend, the more they make). It means hiring Oregon campaign managers and local consultants who actually know the districts first-hand, and keeping them employed and working hard for your campaign. It means eliminating costly and unnecessary (not to mention unreliable) issue polling and going back to past election results to find out how voters think (the only poll that counts is the one at election time). It means developing a message that has meaning for the voters in the district, not one that was developed according to what works in Rhode Island or California or Washington DC. It means delivering that message in the most economical and effective way possible, not one that delivers the most of your money to the pockets of media consultants and advertisers for expensive and ineffective shotgun-like mass media.

It means going back to effective grass-roots campaigning that worked flawlessly for us before political campaigns became a big-business industry and voters became a commodity.

Until we recognize that we have a spending problem that puts symbolism ahead of substance and has not given us any appreciable result in a decade and a half, all of the campaign finance reform schemes proposed won't have any effect on voter outcome.

One difference between those who achieve politically and those who don’t is often found in their reaction to this statement: “It can’t be done.”

Some, like Peter, and thousands of others, react by continuing to try until they succeed. Others fall into the comfortable and risk-free position of substituting late criticism for solutions. Those who now champion reform but failed to mention it last election should be wary of lecturing those of us who begged for support and were told, ironically, “You haven’t raised enough money.” Some of us even tried to get attention on the corruption in our own races, but to no avail. Some then went out on their own and, well, continued to try until they succeeded.

Chris Matson is absolutely right, there is way too much money being spent on these campaigns. It is right and just for us to address that. Do we, however, wait for a more perfect effort? Of course not. I support, for example, the campaign finance effort now in conference committee. Is the bill perfect? No, it needs, among other things, linkage between actual bank and campaign accounts, but it’s a start.

Why don’t we, without giving up our support or objections, try to rephrase and start with an attitude of how can it be done instead of how it can’t be done.

Jon,

You are correct that on the key House races you mentioned Republicans did outspend Democrats. The same may be true with one or more of the key Senate races.

However, Democrats have outraised Republicans, as an aggregate, in every election cycle for House and Senate seats in four out of the last five election cycles. In 2004, we did it by a quarter of a million dollars. In 2002 they did beat us, but we raised 95% of their eventual total.

Plus, for every volunteer they could muster in 2004, we turned out five to ten.

The question that we all need to ask, and it seldom is, is how did the campaigns spend their money?

Did they spend it on targeted mailers and narrow media support, or did they blow it all on daily mass mailings and television media buys to the tune of $2k a pop?

Did they invest in a well paid local campaign staff and support for volunteer canvassers and phoners, or did the money go to pad media consultants and pollsters pockets?

Did they develop local messages that resonate with the public by utilizing past election results and face-to-face contact, or did they pay some out-of-state consultant to run polls and focus groups to develop the message for them?

How a campaign spends it's money is more important than how much it raises. Looking at our C&E's is a real eye-opening experience, one that every advocate for campaign finance reform should see for themselves.

I could be wrong here, but I can't see how much more than fifty cents out of every dollar spent in a typical targeted House race went to staff and direct voter contact. The rest seems to have went to huge untargeted media buys, mail campaigns that spun out of control in their frequency, and our ever-demanding media consultants. In targeted Senate races, it's less than 25-cents out of every dollar spent on what clearly works.

No matter how rich you are, you can only use so many jars of mayonnaise. The rest is a waste. The same goes for effective political campaigns: No matter how much you raise, you can only buy so many effective voter contacts. More than that and you either saturate the media (diminishing returns i.e. too many mailers) or you waste it on hugely expensive and overly broad media (killing flies with a shotgun i.e. television).

We Democrats spend campaign money like a drunken sailer in a house of ill repute, with little concern for the morning after.

And we always want more.

It means developing a message that has meaning for the voters in the district, not one that was developed according to what works in Rhode Island or California or Washington DC. It means delivering that message in the most economical and effective way possible, not one that delivers the most of your money to the pockets of media consultants and advertisers for expensive and ineffective shotgun-like mass media.

It means going back to effective grass-roots campaigning that worked flawlessly for us before political campaigns became a big-business industry and voters became a commodity.

Chris, you and I have never met. But what you said is what my friends and I have been saying to each other for years, and what my friends on State Central Committee believed when I was there.

Also, Bravo to Brian and Salvador.

While I can't comment on dollars spent, Chris Matson is absolutely correct in that all the money in the world won't win an election if you're busy shooting yourself in the foot with your "message." If you're pushing people into voting against their own interests to protect a single issue, you cannot win. Add into that problem, poor language usage and you've truly fixed yourself.

What sort of effect will campaign finance reform have on DPO? Is there a real possibility of making the Party that Rep John Doe - D is supposed to belong to totally irrelevant? I don't think that belonging to a social club that Legislator - D only notices when he wants doors knocked on is particularly appealing.

You bet money is difficult in a rural Oregon Democratic campaign, but there are other problems that are a lot bigger and taking away 90% of the Republican's financing wouldn't solve them and the process might hurt the Democrats even more, considering where they start from.

Kudos to Chris Matson. Bravo to Rep. Buckley. Thanks to Jon Isaacs and others for engaging, but it does seem as though we have strayed from the original thread. Here's my question--that others also seem to be asking in a different way.

How come vendors get to determine how many pieces of mail (and TV spots played for that matter) need to be sent in each race, the demographics, and the frequency--when they make a commission on each piece of mail sent (and each TV spot played)? Seems to be an inherent conflict of interest and predestined to waste money. It’s not about raising MORE money; it’s about spending money smarter. If Democrats on the issue of government accountably and efficiency truly want to have legitimacy when they are office holders, then they should start spending money accountably and efficiently during campaigns.

What are the caucus doing to remove the inherent conflict of interest of vendors in campaigns so that donors and funders dollars are used as accountably and efficiently as possible?

Joe, there is no plot. I actually had to call a friend at the capitol and say "Do I know Chris and am just not connecting name and face?" and was informed who he is. Chris and I have talked and debated many times, but without the face I didn't realize it was him. So I just called him and said "Hey! I agreed with you without knowing it was you!" and we had a nice talk.

And BRAVO to JTT for this: How come vendors get to determine how many pieces of mail (and TV spots played for that matter) need to be sent in each race, the demographics, and the frequency--when they make a commission on each piece of mail sent (and each TV spot played)? Seems to be an inherent conflict of interest and predestined to waste money. It’s not about raising MORE money; it’s about spending money smarter. If Democrats on the issue of government accountably and efficiency truly want to have legitimacy when they are office holders, then they should start spending money accountably and efficiently during campaigns. What are the caucus doing to remove the inherent conflict of interest of vendors in campaigns so that donors and funders dollars are used as accountably and efficiently as possible?

I also agree with the sentiment that people who vote for the person they like. Years ago someone running for office the first time expressed amazement that "they won't listen to you if they don't like you". As my brother would say, "From the DUH file!".

The decision needs to be made: is the goal to win elections or to employ vendors? Sure it is easier to spend money with a unified "message" and harder work to go to the community events and the neighborhood coffees and answer questions. But the vote for "the guy who lives down the street" or "the woman in our office watched him grow up and if she thinks he is a nice young man I will vote for him" or "now you have told me that about him, I'll be sure to vote for him" (word of mouth is the oldest form of advertising and sometimes the most effective) is counted just the same as the vote by someone who has gotten 3 mailers, 2 robo calls, and seen more ads than they care to remember. But is that vote for or against the mailers and robo calls?

Sure I would like campaign finance reform to succeed, but HOW the money is spent is also important. More money does NOT always win, regardless of what the "professionals" say. It is possible to win a grass roots campaign where the candidate is well known locally. I have worked on such campaigns. More importantly, regardless of what the law says, those who value volunteer effort have a great talking point: "The 3 words which worry consultants most are Mayor Tom Potter". He had his own limit on contributions and he went to as many community events as humanly possible.

<h1></h1>

Jesse, I agree at the end, limiting contributions limits little; now rumble rumble jab: Just real quick, ban broadcast political ads.

I have to sneak that in before your common-sense immune system can block and reject it, like a gag reflex. By now -- the third sentence, the typical high-dosage, thought-designer innoculation for immunity has already triggered, and brain cells are furiously blocking common sense detected in new ideas -- ideas which reach your consciousness without having been pre-analyzed, shaped, categorized, and neutralized to remain inert after ingestion with no nutritional benefit as food for growing strong thought-muscles. And the third sentence itself headed out of sight into low earth orbit and left heads turned around of whoever had at least been willing to look at the idea.

Let me start over. Rep. Buckley, if we were in the same district, I would vote for you. Here's why: Because you wrote in English, here on Blue Oregon, in your own words, composed by yourself, what you think -- your position, so to speak, on the CFR issue. I didn't even go over what you wrote in fine detail and I don't even know if our positions agree. I vote for your fluid form over your solid content. A form in which, (theoretically) someone's else's written response could conceivably change your mind, adjust your position, prompt you to write amendments to your thinking.

It is all about the linkage -- there is one -- between rational thought and linear language, (either speaking or writing, but for now just focussing on writing). And it is about that being in contrast with the linkage -- there is not one -- between rational thought and radio and tv special effects (language).

Take a breath. Here's a second of comic relief. Did you see the research results last week which found tv watchers can't read? In fact, are illiterate -- tv watchers can't write, either. Can't spell. Can't think -- critically, logically, bilingually, epistemologically, or ... politically.

Rep. Buckley, when you write your thoughts I can read through them at my own pace, on my own time. I can re-read jerky passages. I can isolate on the point where I lost you. I can appreciate witty turns of phrase, wit itself, or tellingly-trite, background-revealing, choices of cliche, (where you're repeating something some way someone else said it, or putting it in your own words holding your own understanding). In expressing one's political points, there's more than one way to skin a cat.

In contrast, broadcast programming content pulls attention along at its pace, in its time slot regardless of my situation, and offers no review. One of the silliest wastes of ink is where newspapers offer an analysis of a broadcast political ad. Analyze this: Greg Clapper (or whatever his name is).

This discourse on written (linear) expression surrounds the reason to ban broadcast political ads. The split-second rejection of the proposal is reflexive for the "professionals," (named above), because it instantly means they are out of a job, as media consultants, where 'media' is limited in vernacular usage to mean "broadcast programming." Banning broadcast political ads means candidates (and initiative spokespersons) would be advised to write, well. Think, logically. Consider, perspectively. And might mean I, writer, would be in a job, ("well?": maybe not). The essence of the idea is so simple: Writers think, programmers trick.

Ban trickery. As a couple of voices (above) point out, 'Look what broadcast media have gotten us: Corrupt politics.'

Take a breath. Another second of comic relief: I go sometimes to middle schools on Career Day as a representative of The Computer Industry to coach kids on their lessons planning toward being a choice employable applicant. It is funny (to me) to see their faces (and the teachers') when I write on the blackboard in one word what they should study that leads to the most and best success in 'in computers:' Typing. The girls hide smiles, the boys blink and gape, I stand pat on what I know from experience. (I know from experience that, whatever I say, they're only going to remember one word.) (That reminds me of the time I heard a story about Wyoming's one-shot antelope hunt ....) Funny that there's not much comedy in my comic reliefs.

Beyond the rational essence intrinsic in the idea of banning broadcast political ads, let's turn to considering the mechanics of enactment. There are various aspects. I choose first, to mention the main politics of it. Across a decade of not entirely unscientific polling, I have consistently found that the idea of banning broadcast political ads is 100 percent dissapproved of by politicians, political operatives, and the political 'class' -- the 'pros;' and is 100 percent approved of by voters. No other 'idea' I've 'polled' has ever scored 100 percent so determinedly. (Comic belief: I'll never forget siding up to Tom Bruggere at the time and place he was announcing his candidacy opposing Gordon Smith, where I posed the idea to Tom: the man literally turned ashen, all the blood drained from his face, he looked at me eye-to-eye and his mouth moved with no sounds coming out, then his body jerked into motion, turned and took several rapid steps away. I took it as a 'No.')

But you don't have to take my polling for it. Poll for yourself. If you find what I've found, it might suggest a person could get elected on the one single-issue campaign promise to ban broadcast political ads, especially if that person's campaign walked the talk. In effect, Tom Potter did.

Which is segue to a second looking at enactment: Engagement. I bumped into Potter about 15 months ago when he attended one of the monthly meetings of the CFR drafting committee which Secretary Bradbury convened. Some of you here might recall me from there. I was the unallied self-described 'loose cannon,' self-selected to occupy the seat at the table I called the "public representative's." As a stranger in a self-recognized group, I tried to be personable and forthcoming by offering an unprompted anecdote to Barbara Roberts seated beside me, about Barbara Roberts, spoken so others could hear without the embarrassment of straining to eavesdrop ... and she looked at me like I was goofy. At the same time, the information in the anecdote, (the only Barbara Roberts anecdote that I had), was quite personal and warm and her eyes and words in reply showed gratitude for my 'sharing.' A respectful likeable goofy. Others nearby kept on pretending they hadn't been listening.

So Potter walks in during one session, sits down where the afternoon sun was heating, leans his chin down on his chest, and takes a nap. I thought, 'this is a candidate I would vote for. He's human.' (For that matter, I believe I voted for Roberts once, as well.) I can't imagine a thing his campaign manager / handler / communications director could have done at that point to get me to be more committed to voting for Potter. Nor less committed. After personal contact with a candidate, enough that I feel decided in my vote, the campaign framers become irrelevant. I don't know if I'm so odd in that, and I suspect it happens and decides votes more often than is seen or discussed. Maybe that's just me.

[But if personal contact cannot affect media-made votes, why don't they let Bush, or blank, go among "we, the people"? And if personal contact can set votes, and get someone elected once, why wouldn't they do the same for re-election and dispense with 'message handlers'? Conversely, if personality, (character, eye-contact, whatever you want to call it), does not get a person elected one time, then isn't retaining 'message handlers' tantamount to trying to 'trick' or 'fool' voters, (or fool oneself to avoid facing being unelectable)? Candidates lack time for personal contact with every voter, and in lieu of it, the intimacy in written composition and thoughts spelled out seems stronger, more telling, than broadcast ads that use abstraction or surrogacy. Eh?]

Anyway, in many (hundreds of) polled-voter responses to banning broadcast political ads, when the surprising question gets understood to mean no 'interruption' of 'their' programming, the frequent initial word is "Yes," overwhelmingly yes. Some think to ask, secondly, how they would learn the issues and candidates and positions and, true quotes: "How others are going to vote?" (Only 'some' ask, perhaps accurately counted as the same percentage who know who their representative even is, or the percentage who can recall who they voted for last time -- a dismal percentage.) And none I've met show any cognizance at all, (of the candidates' most frequent first response), that a ban denies any rights of freedom of speech. It's never what 'they' lose, it's always what I, voter, gain.

I came, then, to participate in and contribute to the secretary of state's committee drafting CFR language, bringing my ban proposal forward. Since that's how the system is supposed to work and it's the work the system requires of citizens. Ha. I'll bet every reader here already knows how this story turns out.

In good order, my turn to propose and give testimony came, and I did, formally, delivering each member a copy in writing in advance and then reading it, "A proposal to ban broadcast political ads ..." *Ka-DUNG" the sound of ten jaws dropping on tables. (A dozen were absent, but could have phoned it in, same, same.) All did quietly, if not so politely, listen. Or maybe too politely.

After reading, I solicited questions. Furtive giggly glances flew around, and finally, seeming reluctant to embarrass me with a question so obvious to all it could suggest I was stupid, Madam Chair fulfilled her duty and said, "Is that legal?" And I said something like, "Is it legal to ban broadcast tobacco ads?"

Then there were exchanges I've lost the order of. "But tobacco is different." "Not obviously, if advertising partisan politics is seen as 1) psychologically addictive, and 2) harmful to public health -- the two winning arguments when the ban of broadcast tobacco ads was enacted."

"But it is a loss of freedom of speech." "Or gain of printed speech, and wider political-entry opportunity, and strengthened reasoning."

"But candidates could never completely reach as many voters as the mass audience of broadcasting." "Surely they could still be on tv, they just couldn't buy the time. They have to give a public speech or make a public appearance, kiss some babies, and broadcast microphones and cameras could carry a report on the evening news."

"But broadcasters might not report it on the news." "They don't report politics now -- they don't give away their time inventory free, if they can sell it instead; it couldn't be any worse."

"But there's no other way to reach voters." "Sure: Buy space on the door of a race car, like cigarettes do, or rent a billboard at the ballpark. Buy newspaper ads. Write position papers and editorials on issues -- the newspapers would freely cooperate to print what candidates have to say. And you could make audio and video ads, if you like, and play them on the internet; the only difference that way is the voter has to choose to come listen and watch, instead of being interrupted while tuned in to something else."

"But isn't that unconstitutional, and if not, it should be." "The Constitution itself was only written, and voters elected it. Thousands of candidates successfully campaigned, were elected, and enacted law, before broadcasting was ever invented; not only is it precedented, it works and arguably works better in the interest of debate, and informed consideration, and political causality -- what many would call 'quality.' No one on Mt. Rushmore or any U.S. paper currency was ever elected by broadcast advertising. Besides, it is not a question of freedom of speech; it has to do with freedom of the press, and broadcasting is the only restricted media -- there are seven words broadcasting cannot broadcast whereas print is unconstrained. And it is likely broadcasting would never have been given press designation except, at the time, the applying radio and tv reporters were all accomplished and trained in the press tradition. Then, even at that, after the 1938 'War of the Worlds' radio broadcast that panicked a public riot with injuries and property damage, mass broadcasting was understood to be different and severable from print, requiring rules of 'equal time fairness,' and prior review, and FCC'ed civil regulation and licensing, and a host of distinctions going, I suppose, to inform the eventual decision to ban broadcast tobacco ads, which in its time, was fiercely fought by tobacco companies, naturally, but they were close-joined by broadcasters about to lose that ad revenue."

Forward to the present. Several notes in the tone of the entire discussion here dance around the elephantine ad spending issue that gets into living rooms in the boob tube brewage. And people are invested in it, so it's personal and those tones are heard.

I argue this is the time of abrupt bold and dramatic, even traumatizing changes. Plainly see what's been wrong and break with that past. Shoot the elephant.

I'm sorry how the cookie monster crumbles. Better it than Oregon, or than self-governance. It lives in clear-thinking citizens participating.

Imagining.

Imagine the money not needed to be donated, collected, and accounted. We know accounting of finances has two columns -- (spending) debits on the left, (income) credits on the right. Any true and honest discussion of Campaign Finance Reform must include campaign spending, on such as broadcast ads, whereas the insubstantial chit chat up till now has only gone into campaign revenue. And Reform means a New Form.

Imagine the sort of politician and politics begotten in written expression and logical thinking. Compare, perhaps.

Imagine it can be done.

Imagine the future.

Break away from this past. In 1987 the 50-year sunset clause on the 1937 Telecommunications Act expired, its renewal got blocked, and Limbaugh imbalance soon fell across the fruited plain tilled by McCarthy and Coughlin. More recently, election cycles were spiked with partisan-loaded video clips that weren't real news but they played it on tv -- stealthy, taxpayer-tapped, federal tv. And the broadcast political lies responsible in driving militarism into Iraq and mounting deaths into cemeteries, from state National Guard units, has gone unchecked by state laws for state-sized boom-boom broadcasts. The borders are blurry in today's ephemeral world of real media, until political extremism broadcasting drives citizens over an edge. Such as a pair of radio programmers using their daily airtime collecting petition signers -- no charge to the initiative campaign -- and losing this court ruling reported July 2, in Oregon's neighbor state: Thurston County (WA) Superior Court directed the critics to fully disclose..., and ordered that KVI-AM report the value of two talk show hosts' comments ... (concerning an) Initiative .... The critics' lawyers said the KVI ruling would have a chilling effect on political commentary and editorials in the media. They said an appeal is possible. KVI and Fisher Broadcasting executives were aghast at the ruling..

Existing Oregon statute already carries control and suppression of certain broadcast content for political campaigns. As existing statute which conditionally checks and can ban broadcast content, is constitutional and doable -- and it is, (however selectively enforced) -- so too must be an unconditional ban on broadcast political ads. And increasingly necessary.

If God had intended tv to have politics, Bush would be president for life. So ending with a little comic relief -- very little. Grumble grumble sad.

Jesse is correct. I am also not convinced that any of the campaign finance reform schemes I have seen will change the political landscape.

I keep hearing from some that the reason why we have to raise such obscene amounts of money is that we have to remain competitive with our Republican opponents. I refer to this as the "keeping up with the Jones's" philosophy for running political campaigns.

So, how has that philosophy worked out for us? Anyone?

Folks, we can blame big money for all of our failures in electing Democrats. However, that's just an excuse for failure and as we all know (or should know) there really is no excuse for failure. Period!

Blaming campaign financing does not explain how local Democrats pulled off impossible victories in such money-peddling states like Montana, Colorado and Nevada, nor does it account for the lackluster showing in states that have even limited controls over campaign financing.

Poor planning, lackluster candidates, bad management and a message that completely misses the voters...that's what kills us at the ballot box.

The truith is that campaign finaincing distracts us from the real culprits for losing...our repeated failure to develop a message that resonates with rank-and-file voters, and a natural ability to get that message out in the most effective manner with the least amount of waste. Populists who win, and win consistently, know this. Progressives have yet to figure that one out.

I can't make it any simpler than this:

It ain't what ya gets, it's what ya do with what ya gots!

I know that the supporters of campaign finance reform have good intentions. But then again, the road to hell...

Yea Chris! I keep hearing from some that the reason why we have to raise such obscene amounts of money is that we have to remain competitive with our Republican opponents. I refer to this as the "keeping up with the Jones's" philosophy for running political campaigns. So, how has that philosophy worked out for us? Anyone? Folks, we can blame big money for all of our failures in electing Democrats. However, that's just an excuse for failure and as we all know (or should know) there really is no excuse for failure. Period! It wasn't a campaign finance issue that caused House Democrats not to target Doyle (his district starts just blocks from my house and I knew people there didn't like him). Maybe it was someone looking at a spreadsheet somewhere and saying "why even bother with a Republican district like that?". People who actually live in this area know there was a wonderful Republican who was good on issues from clean water to treating all constituents (even those in high school) with respect. Doyle only got in because term limits forced that wonderful incumbent to leave.

This weekend was the Salem Art Fair. Democrats had a booth in the free speech area, and I talked to the folks working there. Then ran into one of them in the grocery store later. We talked about the influence of local people on politics. I said I had read somewhere that while Democrats were bussing people into Ohio to campaign, Republicans were organized to the point of "Oh, you live on Fir Street? Here are 10 households on Fir Street we would like you to contact".

Raising all the money in the world will not do any good as long as the people contacted say "I'm going to vote for the guy down the street whose kids are friends of my kids". Campaign finance reform is a useful discussion, but let's keep our eye on the ball. The goal is to win elections. And if it can be done by methods which don't cost anything (neighbors talking to neighbors) or where hard work is supported by funding (the cost of gas, postage, etc. for going door to door, having neighborhood coffees, going to community events, etc.) then votes won that way count just as much as votes won by expensive ads.

Democrats have to decide which is more important: winning elections, or being proud of the consultants they employ.

Personally, I'd rather have a House majority, even if some of the House Democrats were people I disagreed with.

Chris Matson wrote:

"Jesse is correct. I am also not convinced that any of the campaign finance reform schemes I have seen will change the political landscape."

You have the right, of course, to not be convinced. I cannot understand, however, an insightful and informed observer of Oregon, and all US politics not concluding that political contributions are subverting democratic governance and the well being of the majority of voters.

The issue is larger than Democrats winning elections. Democrats who win are tainted by the contributions THEY take. It matters little to many wealthy interests who is in power. They will be bought off or scared off. So, your argument about Democrats often running wasteful campaigns is beside the point, even if there is some truth to it [I think there is].

Jesse is unconvinced that contribution limits will ever decrease the influence of money in elections. He believes, it seems, that this is because money will be diverted to independent campign efforts. Petition 37 contains language to deal with that tendency. We will not know if the mechanism works until we try it. Politcal campaigning is much too complex to expect we can divine results by thought experiment.

Petition 37 is not a new creation. It has evolved from more than a decade of related plans. It relects experience in Oreogn and around the US. No one can guarantee it will work. The potential upside makes the effort well worth a try, in my estimation.

To frame this debate a little differently I ask the question,

"Why not?"

Some in this thread have said that it might not fix all the problems, but it might fix some of them, it might unite people into a movement to hold our representatives accountable, it might shed some light on dirty dealings, and for that I say go for it.

I challenge Jesse and others to make the case AGAINST this initiative. AGAINST building an organization that will remain after this effort to push progressive policy through the initiative process. Sal and Peter have laid out many examples of how big donors hurt the process and if those anecdotes don't convince you, why not do a little digging for yourself? I did, and I'm willing to try anything at this point.

So will you if you take a look.

Tom Civiletti writes:

...your argument about Democrats often running wasteful campaigns is beside the point, even if there is some truth to it [I think there is].

I think it is precisely the point. It's basic economics, which I will be happy to teach you:

Currently statewide and legislative candidates need to raise huge obscene sums of money to pay for the outrageously expensive campaigns because our normal campaign consultants, who only make money during election season, feed us the myth that we need to keep up with our opponents.

Those of us who have been in the business for a little more than a few years refer to that as the "Campaign Finance Arms Race."

Now, imagine if you actually applied basic marketing principles to campaign budgeting and spending. It would go a little something like this:

First, you figure out what works and what does not. Easy enough, considering no other industry is as well studied, analyzed, and researched as marketing (which is really what an election is all about). Ignore the usual consultants on this one, as they have an obvious inherent conflict of interest. Instead, seek out consultants and managers with strong marketing skills as opposed to our usual PR-based guys.

Second, you figure out at what point you reach market saturation, in which case the law of diminishing returns applies. You would be suprised how quickly that point is often reached and exceeded in political campaigns.

Third, you take that information and multiply it by what your per-unit cost would be, including production costs. That gives you your total advertising budget for an advertising campaign that marketers refer to as half a bell curve (with the peak at or just before elction day).

Finally add to that your staff requirements, incidentals and contingentcies, and, viola, you have an effective campaign budget.

This will give you an absolute maximum amount of money you will need to spend to win. Notice it did not involve estimating what the other guy will spend? Notice it did not involve the advice of others who always tell you you have to spend gazillions just to stay competitive with your opponent? Notice it didn't involve party advfisors in DC selling you a formula "guaranteed" to get you elected.

Hmmm.

Once you do the calcualtions yourself (and not rely on those who will pad those numbers to get you to finance their kid's college tuition), compare it to what we usually spend on elections. Wow, 40% or less on what is usually spent on competitive elections.

Now, and pay attention here, because this is the enlightening part of this whole discussion, standard economics theory says that if you reduce your costs, you lower the price and/or increase your profit. In political campaigns, that means if you lower the cost of winning an election, you don't have to raise as much in political contributions. The profit comes in having more free time to walk and talk and to raise funds from smaller donors, such as rank-and-file supporters. The profit also comes from not having to receive such a significant amount of contributions from those who peddle influence, perhaps even eliminating the need altogether.

Think Mayor Tom Potter in Portland and Mayor Kitty Piercy in Eugene. Yes, I can smell the wood burning already.

Now, this common-sense market approach does not guarantee a candidate will actually win. That requires other factors, such as a truly viable and hard-working candidate with a strong local message that resonates among the majority of rank-and-file voters who don't know that this discussion is taking place and really couldn't care less.

I also agree that this approach in and of itself does not apply to races for national office...yet. That will happen once enough local wins creates the critical mass needed to get those candidates to clean house, fire the entrenched consultants and advisors who hand us defeat after defeat, and bring the rest of us masses on board.

In economics, that's called a market driven economy. In political campaigning, it's called grass-roots based campaigning.

The inherent problem with many campaign finance reform schemes is that they are inherently top-down solutions, the campaign equivalent of "trickle-down economics." Furthermore, they only treat the symptoms of runaway campaign spending, not the cause.

And as we all kow in politics, if you do not eliminate the cause, the problem will not go away. Ever.

In 25 years of campaign involvement I have yet to see any observational or emperical data that supports the Progressive's claim that top-down campaign finance reform will get influence-peddlers out of campaign politics and get more progressive-minded paople and issues elected. I have, however, seen overwhelming evidence where low-funded grass roots campaigns were won and influence peddlers dollars were not needed or were wasted on the losing effort. Hell, I've even one a few myself.

I would be more than happy to sit down with anyone and expand on this real solution to our campaign finance problem.

Any takers?

Salvador writes:

Again, the problem is not the total amount of dollars in the system. The problem is how money flows into the system.

And you don't think curbing the campaign spending arms race will accomplish the same thing?

Easier to legislate than it is to initiate, I suppose.

Or is it?

I like what Chris wrote: Now, this common-sense market approach does not guarantee a candidate will actually win. That requires other factors, such as a truly viable and hard-working candidate with a strong local message that resonates among the majority of rank-and-file voters who don't know that this discussion is taking place and really couldn't care less.

Tom Potter didn't need to have campaign finance reform passed to run the kind of campaign he did. Francesconi had all the money and supposedly that plus connections was going to win it for him. But to tell an oft told story, there is no way all the money, connections, consultants, etc. can compete with people talking about the candidate at a family gathering because someone is a supporter, or with a young person who doesn't work in politics wearing in this case a Tom Potter button on a warm outer coat in February. That to me shows support that was earned and not bought--the sort of support that doesn't change with the winds of campaign ads.

I realize that drives some people nuts because they make a living as consultants, and there is little or no profit on the family discussion or the button worn on a coat. The term "Deaniac" didn't come from something dreamed up by a consultant, but by genuine enthusiasm.

It is like the debate about what Wm. S. U'Ren would have expected to see by the turn of the century: true citizen initiatives like the adult adoptee measure where the sponsors were never seen in initiative politics again because they attained their goal, or people making a living off the initiative industry by running one measure after another?

Years ago I read something (book or article?) written by a woman advising women running for office. It suggested hiring 2 different consultants. The first would write a business plan much like the one Chris outlined. The second would be hired to work the plan. That way there would be no vested interest putting making a living over the success of the campaign.

This is hard work, there is no magic bullet. But the formula is tried and true. If a quality candidate (knows the issues, knows how to work a room, can speak in public and answer questions, etc) works hard enough and there are no external surprises that change the situation, it shouldn't take all the money a consultant says it will take. A young man I met in 1991 (probably in his 30s by now) said he didn't care what party a candidate belonged to, but about 2 other things: What have they done with their lives? What have they done to inspire people?

Think of the politicians you know--how would they answer those questions? If they can't answer them in their own words, would a consultant designing ads really win over those like the young man?

Democrats have to decide if they are a grass roots party as Dean has written about or if they are the party of employing consultants. If they are the former, they are the party I loved being part of in the 1980s. If they are the latter, I'll register NAV after the primary and hope that the non-partisan bill becomes a ballot measure campaign I can be involved in.

Chris,

I am also a proponent of smarter, less capital intensive campaigns. In my 1998 campaign for HD 25, I came within 100 votes after being outspent 3:1, and much of my "1" was for a funder mandated poll that did me little good. But...

...the subversion of democracy by campaign funding is not limited to Democrats. Republicans are also beholden to their funders [I would argue more so], and the problem has continued from the earliest days of the Republic. It is not something that emerged with modern media dominated campaigning.

<h2>Smarter, more economical campaigning would be promoted by effective campaign finance reform. Smarter, more economical campaigning will not take the place of effective campaign finance reform.</h2>