Running for the Money
By George Karnezis of Portland, Oregon. George describes himself as a "semi-retired teacher, parent, reader, rhetorician trying to cope with infected discourse."
My wife Kristine and I have been working hard for some time on the Rob Brading campaign. He's running against Karen Minnis for State representative. Much time is spent canvassing and scheduling and organizing fund-raising house parties which we always attend to assist the hosts.
Such effort often has us wondering whether the skills needed to run an effective campaign, including the heavy demands of fund-raising, reveal the qualities needed to perform in the position being sought. Can we say, for instance, that running for office is like training for an athletic competition, or becoming trained/educated appropriately for one's profession?
We'd like to think that running for office works the same way --- that what's demanded of a candidate during a campaign calls on the appropriate qualities. Granted a candidate must speak well and, as they say, "relate" to people, and, of course, move them to donate time and money to the campaign.
Nevertheless, given the strain and the cost of campaigning, one wonders about the disconnects and whether campaigning needlessly exhausts candidates or, worse, actually summons talents --- like fund raising--- that are inappropriate to the office.
In the present "race," Rob's opponent has "raised" over a million dollars, an unheard of sum for an Oregon legislative seat.
Might it not be more healthy for our democracy if, instead of testing candidates by their fund-raising capacities, we insist on their holding several town meetings where they both appear and address specific issues? Rob is eager to do that, but Minnis has been reluctant, and the result of that is that fund raising rather than some real conversation and debate assumes center stage.
I believe Robert Scheer has written a book recently about this problem. A veteran reporter who's followed many Presidential campaigns, he notes that more recent campaigns have, regrettably, called on "talents" that are inappropriately transferred to the conduct of office.
He argues that whereas once candidates distinguished between behavior neeeded to achieve office and that needed in the office itself, that is no longer the case --- and George Bush is, of course, a case in point. It's as if he's still campaigning, which is one reason why people have come to recognize (according to the polls) that what "worked" during the campaign for the Presidency has been unpersuasive and even damaging as a Presidential practice.
Is it quixotic to hope for campaigns that treat public offices less as something to be purchased and more as an educational experience for voters?
Working on this campaign has taught me that perhaps the most important reform needed in the electoral process should be the public financing of campaigns as well as a self-imposed limit on the time of the campaign.
The first reform makes obvious sense: one thing any candidate should be able to do is spend wisely; therefore, give each candidate the same amount of money and test their separate abilities to use the money efficiently. That makes more sense than the plutocratic principles that now inform our campaign practices and the resulting "virtues" they sponsor.
After all, is it the case that the best fund raiser will make the best public servant? I suspect it is such phony "tests" of one's qualifications that keep so many well-qualified candidates from seeking public office.
|
Sept. 21, 2006
Posted in guest column. |
More Recent Posts | |
Albert Kaufman |
|
Guest Column |
|
Kari Chisholm |
|
Kari Chisholm |
Final pre-census estimate: Oregon's getting a sixth congressional seat |
Albert Kaufman |
Polluted by Money - How corporate cash corrupted one of the greenest states in America |
Guest Column |
|
Albert Kaufman |
Our Democrat Representatives in Action - What's on your wish list? |
Kari Chisholm |
|
Guest Column |
|
Kari Chisholm |
|
connect with blueoregon
12:56 p.m.
Sep 21, '06
OMG--now it costs a million bucks to 'win' (buy) a seat in the State of Oregon House of Representatives?
Sick and wrong.
It wasn't too long ago that a million bucks to campaign for a federal election raised eyebrows--we have come so far.
1:02 p.m.
Sep 21, '06
jimbo--
It should raise eyebrows in this race. Previously the most spent on a house race was around $300K.
Sep 21, '06
The reasons she is spending $1M are: 1) She can 2) She (feels) she needs to
The reason she can, is because she is an incumbent politician, with access to people who shovel cash her way.
The reason she (feels) she needs to is because she has been targeted for removal by the opposition party.
I think that Term Limits pretty much solves both 1 & 2. It both benefits (removing 'bad' opposition politicians) and penalizes (removing 'good' politicians from your own party) both parties equally. Now, do the benefits outweigh the penalties? Not sure.
Sep 21, '06
interesting questions.
I'd really like to know how the Brading campaign is going. Guess I'll have to come out and visit :) And write to the Gresham Outlook. And come canvas, and donate money. OK, I can do that :)
Sep 21, '06
Well we can all be happy that this situation will be moot after Measures 46 & 47 are passed.
Sep 21, '06
How sad and disconcerting. But the wisdom of the Supremo's here and in DC is that money is Free Speech. The more bucks you got, the more freedom of speech you own.I have hoped over the many years I have been part of the democractic process some bright legal-beagles would find a way to circumvent this tragedy. When only charismatic and or rich folk can hold office, what results can you expect? Your comment, George, equating money raising to effective legislating is right on, no relationship at all.
3:30 p.m.
Sep 21, '06
Not to be contrarian, but before we all get our kickers in a twist, has anyone asked if the million bucks will really help?
Money to a political campaign is like water: you'll quickly die if you don't have enough. But there's another point to the analogy. You can drown in it as well. Especially in the small races where people actually know you, as opposed to thinking they know you from the slick ads you put on T.V.
And there is where Minnis falls down. She doesn't walk. And shoe leather is what will win or lose this race.
So I say the same thing about Florida Democrats are saying about Kathryne Harris. She wants to spend her cash? >>Make her spend it ALL<<
3:31 p.m.
Sep 21, '06
Agg. Preview is my friend. That should have been "So I say the same thing AS.. Forida Democrats"...
Sep 21, '06
Money to the tune of a million is only needed when there is a cold-war style arms race. When you have a more level playing field, then a new strategy is called for, namely, grass roots organizing.
I know that sounds cliche, but take a look at what Sal Peralta is up to over in McMinnville. He's running an tight and clean campaign door to door with volunteers and NO, I said, NO money from special interest groups. He's holding to the spirit of campaign finance reform in the face of big republican money.
I salute him for the guts to do that without mandatory restrictions, and look forward to a future under Msrs 46 and 47 where all campaigns will do the same.
Sep 21, '06
It's not just the demands of fundraising, or the money, that makes current campaigns test skills other than those required to be effective in office. Public financing is a necessary component of reform, but it can't be the only one. Meaningful debates, with all the candidates participating and adequate time to research questions beforehand, would also allow voters to assess candidates more usefully. So would more depth and space in the news media, covering issues rather than fluff or scandal.
We don't want to know who can best smile for the camera, give good soundbites at six whistlestop appearances every day, and promise the moon and stars. We need decision-makers who do their homework, listen to and collaborate with everyone in the community as well as with staff, speak the truth, and make honorable choices with the long-term public good as their primary goal.
Sep 21, '06
P.S. "Big Hair vs. Big Ideas", as the headline of the post two below this where no comments are being taken? What's up with that? The most salient problem with the Republican is her hairstyle?
Here's another idea to help make campaigns more meaningful and encourage well-qualified candidates to run: Never, ever, comment on the personal appearance of any candidate. Male or female, complimentary or derogatory.
Sep 21, '06
Amanda,
"Big Hair"...chalk it up to rabid partisanship, but (hopefully) not sexism from the blog headline writers. At least that is my hope. Reminds me of Carville's slam against Paula Jone's accusation against Clinton (something like "That's what you get when you drag a $100 bill through a trailer park!"). Shouldv'e settled with Paula, then nobody wouldv'e known who Monica ever was.
And I agree with you, comments on appearances instead of ideas is like commenting about MLK's afro (or lack of) instead of his ideas.
5:47 p.m.
Sep 21, '06
I think that Term Limits pretty much solves both 1 & 2. It both benefits (removing 'bad' opposition politicians) and penalizes (removing 'good' politicians from your own party) both parties equally. Now, do the benefits outweigh the penalties? Not sure.
Term Limits solves neither and in the meantime removes choices from the voters.
Those that will run for office post term limits will, for the most part, not be citizen legislators. They'll be people who are looking for a way to climb the ladder to higher political office. We've seen this happen in other states that enact Term Limits.
Colorado (one of the first states to do this) has seen as much corruption and money involved in the process as it ever has. Its not corrected by removing the choice for voters based on arbitrary time limits for service.
Sep 21, '06
Re: ladder climbers....did we see this in Oregon when we had term limits?
Sep 21, '06
In addition to term limits, we need limits on how lobbyists influence our (that would be all of us) government.
Sep 21, '06
Never, ever, comment on the personal appearance of any candidate.
Amanda's right; humor has no place in lefty politics or campaigns.
7:07 p.m.
Sep 21, '06
The most salient problem with the Republican is her hairstyle?
No. Did you even read the post? And it's an "elsewhere" - which means you should comment elsewhere. Here at BlueOregon, unlike some blogs, we don't steal other people's comment traffic.
8:02 p.m.
Sep 21, '06
we need limits on how lobbyists influence our (that would be all of us) government.
Certainly, there are rules to put in place, and disclosures to be made, but generally speaking, lobbying is one of the few professions protected explicitly in the constitution. It's right there in the First Amendment:
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.
Sep 21, '06
and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.
Seems like there are plenty of laws that restrict petitioning and a lot more have been proposed and supported on this blog.
Sep 21, '06
Thank you George for raising the issue.
Is money speech? as the courts maintain. If so then speech is money as in: "Here landlord, I say fifteen hundred dollars, my rent is now paid."
I don't care what you smoke, or what robes you wear: When speech is money then money is speech. You can call a dog a horse, but you can't ride him to the round-up.
About spending a million. Isn't it about time we start funding elections with an Orwell Tax. It would have two elements.
A dollar for dollar tax on money paid to 'election consutants'.
Plus a salary and expense porportion of every lobbiest's cash flow to fund elections. A quarter the first year, a half the second, three quarters the third year and match the fourth. Double that every year thereafter, thus creating a system where the legislators have more institutional memory than the commercial interests.
Can you think of any more?
Sep 21, '06
One more item: The system.
The "Great Northwest" was the grandest part of the New World. It was not new, of course, it was kept like new. There was the system of potlatch, or gift economies. The cheif that could give the most was selected to be leader. Thus a person who could both give and maintain giving was chosen to guide the community.
What system do we have now. David Cay Johnston, NYTimes tax reporter says "There is one party, the Money Party.... it has two wings." I concur. The person who shakes down the most bling, gets to control the bling for the next 2, 4 or 6 years. Is there any wonder we now have 'leadership' we have.
Led into debt, we are. This fine nation is spending a Billion dollars a day.....
on interest.
But enought happy talk.
Sep 21, '06
One more item: The system.
The "Great Northwest" was the grandest part of the New World. It was not new, of course, it was kept like new. There was the system of potlatch, or gift economies. The cheif that could give the most was selected to be leader. Thus a person who could both give and maintain giving was chosen to guide the community.
What system do we have now. David Cay Johnston, NYTimes tax reporter says "There is one party, the Money Party.... it has two wings." I concur. The person who shakes down the most bling, gets to control the bling for the next 2, 4 or 6 years. Is there any wonder we now have 'leadership' we have.
Led into debt, we are. This fine nation is spending a Billion dollars a day.....
on interest.
But enough happy talk.
Sep 21, '06
Did you even read the post? And it's an "elsewhere" - which means you should comment elsewhere. ~ Kari
I read the post, and followed the link. I don't see any reference to Big Hair in the original, I see interesting factual information about the issues - so commenting there wouldn't exactly fit. Please be clear: is the Big Hair headline BlueOregon's, or by the author of the original? Contributing to this thread, my opinion remains that avoiding comments on personal appearance would promote better discussion of candidates' qualifications and positions.
11:13 p.m.
Sep 21, '06
I don't like the "Big Hair versus Big Ideas" headline.
I understand that it was intended as a joke, but imagine if you were in her place. It's the kind of unnecessary and hurtful remark that keeps good people from running for public office.
I may not agree with Rep. Nelson on some issues, but I respect her willingness to serve.
I'd rather be talking about the fact that she introduced legislation to lower the state's minimum wage by 30 percent, or the fact that she supports eliminating all functions of the Oregon State Police except for the crime lab.
Let's make this a campaign about ideas and issues that matter to Oregonians.
Sep 22, '06
Good for you, Sal.
I knew a Dem. staffer last session who always referred to Rep. Donna. That was a sign of respect, a sign that she is a unique individual, and also avoided confusion with Sen. Nelson. Tonite I heard a radio interview where my GOP state rep. was asked "if granted another term, why would you do a better job than your opponent?".
The response was civil (as one would hope it would be), "my opponent and anyone else who runs for office deserves respect for running, but this is her first campaign and I have more experience making difficult decisions".
Can't fault the graciousness of that answer.
The Big Hair thing sounds juvenile.
Sep 22, '06
"Please be clear: is the Big Hair headline BlueOregon's, or by the author of the original?"
Well, since you read the link, you probably already know the answer. Big Hair was not mentioned at all, even in the comments (although the comments did mention a 1978 Elizabeth Taylor snark).
<hr/>