Andrew says I'm half-right about money not buying elections, saying that I'm correct but that you need enough money to be credible.
Well, yes. I don't disagree with this at all. I have long believed--and there have been studies on this which more or less confirm it--that to mount a serious political campaign, there is a certain threshold of money you must achieve in order to get your message out.
Beyond that, though, more money is merely a luxury. You can afford nicer offices, prettier campaign posters, better travel and hotel arrangements, a bigger staff, and so on. You spend less time pinching pennies and more time concentrating on your message. Although, even then, there's a pitfall. I've talked to campaign workers who'll tell you that too much money is often a death sentence for a campaign, for it leads to laziness or arrogance--as it did to Howard Dean's campaign.
Andrew notes that political guru Dick Morris says that to mount a credible Senate campaign in a mid-sized state--say, Iowa--you need about $2.5 million. That sounds about right to me. While the average person might balk at that $2.5 million figure, I've worked for a small startup company that had more money than that in startup capital, with less than two dozen employees--and we went bust in about a year.
Where I differ from Andrew is in his belief that companies and individuals who put money into a candidate "want a return on their investment." Actually, I don't even disagree with that, because it's quite true, but there's a subtlety to it that I'm quite certain most people miss. The "return on investment" that most contributors can expect is really much smaller than most people realize.
It's important to remember that political candidates do not get to pocket campaign donations. At one time, they could, but reforms of earlier generations made that entirely illegal. The money has to go into a campaign fund. There are some minor loopholes--a candidate may pay himself a reasonable salary from his warchest, for example, and may give some of his funds to the warchest of another candidate--but on the whole, the laws are so tight that the games you can play with your donations are quite limited.
Furthermore, political contributors cannot expect their money back. Once you give money to a campaign, it belongs to that campaign. Which means that you can give my campaign forty million dollars, and I can simply say, "thanks, sucker!" and betray everything I told you I would do.
In short, calling campaign contributions "bribes," which some people are wont to do, is utterly inappropriate.
In addition, one of the most ingenious aspects of our system of elections is our first-past-the-post, winner-take-all system, along with the enormous power we grant our executive branches of government (Governors and Presidents). It makes having two parties an absolute inevitability, but it also means they wind up acting as watchdogs against each other.
Whatever its flaws, one of the great benefits of doing things this way is that it greatly limits how much return-on-investment any campaign contributor can expect. For, to win, a candidate must be able to win over a majority of voters (or a plurality in a three-way race). Furthermore, there is a fundamental truth which too many people fail to grasp:
On the whole, in the aggregate, voters are not idiots, and are not sheep.
Indeed, the first sign of moonbatry is the notion that voters have "had the wool pulled over their eyes," that all that advertising has "tricked" voters into believing the wrong things. "If only the evil nasty fatcats hadn't paid for all that slick advertising, surely we would have won! The voters don't know what's in their best interests, but we do, if only they would listen!"
I urge you to pause and think just how arrogant and elitist and condescending such sentiments really are.
The truth is that whenever a political candidate is looking at a large campaign donation, he must be able to look at his contributor and tell him, square in the face, "this money is very helpful, but if I do not have a message that resonates with voters, I will not win. Furthermore, if I betray my constituents, I am not going to be re-elected. Therefore, the best you can expect from me is that I will carefully consider your point of view when I make my decisions once in office. Ultimately, you are donating to me because you believe I will be faithful to the platform I'm running on."
This is all why most corporations wind up contributing to both political parties, by the way. It's also why incumbents generally receive more campaign contributions than challengers. History shows that an incumbent has proven that he can win an election and is likely to win again, so people are more willing to give him money--because no one wants to throw away money on a loser.
You can see that last dynamic playing out in the current race for the Democratic nomination. He started out practically broke, but now that John Kerry looks like he might just win this thing, money is flowing into his campaign coffers. Donors see a very credible candidate, one who just might win, and are willing to give him money because they fundamentally believe in his message. Not all of it, not everything, but they think he'll be better than Bush and has a shot at winning. So the checkbooks come out.
Thus leading to what I think of as Dean's Rule For Understanding Campaign Contributions: In elections, money follows the likely winner, not the other way around.
Corrolary: Unless most of the money comes from politically unsavvy moonbats.
One of many reasons the Dean campaign fizzled out is that almost all of his money came from politically unsavvy people with no real experience in politics, who confused intensity of feeling with the ability to convince and persuade voters.
Here's a clue: if the Coca-Cola company started bottling horse urine and sold it as "Yellow Coke," it would not matter how many billions in advertising they put into convincing you to drink the stuff. One taste--maybe two or three if you're a sucker--and you'd never buy another bottle again..
Consumers aren't sheep, and they aren't idiots, and neither are voters.
Good post Dean. I cannot refute what you're saying (not that I want to but it makes for a livelier day when there's a debate) except to say that Coca-Cola already did that, in Canada and Belgium anyway, they called it Sprite Ice.
I tried it. Two or three times, call me a sucker. Yuck.
For a free market guy you sure are naive. Not only that, your analyses overlook fundamental human nature.
First of all, the reason there is ever more money in campaigns is because the candidate is compelled to get more than his opponent. Plain and simple. Elections are about winning. Winning the battles; winning the war.
Fund-raising is the first battle you fight because nothing else can happen until the candidate gets the cash. It's like that in business -- Nothing happens until the sale is made.
Is fund-raising the most important thing about a campaign? Not exactly. Yet, as in business, nothing happens until you have the cash. It has to come first.
In a similar vein, your thoughtful analysis of campaign income and expense overlooks a fundamental fact of running any business: "Profit is an opinion, cash is a fact." This is so obvious that it's become a cliche, yet not much over the millenia has disproved it.
So...how much money is enough?
Great question and I'll give you credit for asking it because it's the same question McCain-Feingold asked; yet you have so fundamentally misread human nature that your conclusion is completely wrong.
Here's why:
Let's do a thought experiment. For those of you that have followed me so far, Dean and I have conducted this experiment on at least one other occasion. Now you all try it and see what you think:
Imagine that we're running for the Senate from Iowa. Imagine that Dick Morris is your senior campaign consultant if you like. [shiver]
Now, imagine that you are standing in a room where there are two stacks of money on two tables. One table holds a stack of money totaling $2.5 million. The other table holds a stack of money totaling $5 million. You are free to choose whichever pile on one condition: your opponent will get the stack you leave behind.
So, which one do you choose?
In fact, riddle me this: which one will Dick Morris choose?
I have to catch a plane. Let's discuss this further at a later time.
For the "return on investment" that most contributors can expect is really much smaller than most people realize.
In short, calling campaign contributions "bribes," which some people are wont to do, is utterly inappropriate.
And yet, in over 1000 words, you fail to even mention the quid pro quo involved when a palitician does a legislative favour for a campaign contributer. Its potentially a very lucrative return on investment. That's what people mean when they talk about bribery and corruption in politics. I'm sure you're not this naive.
Nick Smith, allegedly, doesn't like being bribed. Take it away, Nick.
The first offer I got was from the pharmaceutical business groups that are pushing for this bill, an offer of substantial campaign support for my son Brad in his run for Congress.
Ara: More money is a nice convenience, so I'll take the bigger pile of cash. That way I can have nicer offices and a bigger staff and better travel arrangement and spend less time pinching pennies.
But it's got not a prayer in hell of buying me the election. Just ask Senator Huffington or President Forbes.
Max: Tell me what's in the bill that's so bad, first. And tell me why the voters won't be angry with with him if they don't like what's in the bill.
There's nothing naive in what I'm saying at all. The problem is that your view is ridiculously oversimplified.
Here's how it really works: "Okay, if I vote this way, I'll have an easier time raising enough cash to win the election. Now I have to balance that out against what voters will think, and whether there are others who might help me out if I vote the other way."
There usually are others, you know, and in any case, he know he's not going to win if his constituents don't like what he does.
He cannot pocket the money. The only thing the money can do is help him have an easier time while he's campaigning.
Now, personally? I'd rather have laws which ban all corporate and union donations, and only allow individuals to donate. But Democrats--those in control of the party, that is--don't want that. So we're stuck where we're at right now.
The bottom line remains: voters aren't sheep, and politicians answer to them.
Oh, by the way, Max? Note that Nick Smith considered the offer. He didn't merely take it. Why? He knew perfectly well he had other options.
Which that article you linked to proves.
Money is helpful. It's not a bribe, and it guarantees nothing. As Nick Smith has so obviously discovered.
Spot on.
Come on Dean. He's being offered $100,000 donation to his son's political campaign from pharmaceutical groups in return for voting yes on the medicare bill.
It is a bribe
I find your refusal to acknowledge this to be baffling if not downright perverse. Money is helpful but its not a bribe? Come on now.
Tell me what's in the bill that's so bad, first.
It gives too many subsidies to pharaseuticals, basicly. Come one Dean, try and tell me the pharma guys weren't lobbying furiously for this one.
And tell me why the voters won't be angry with with him if they don't like what's in the bill. What sort of tortured logic is this? I have to explain to you how a politician gets away with quid-pro-quo to prove that quid-pro-quo is being offered, when the guy is on tape saying that this was the case? Maybe he wouldn't get away with it, maybe he'd miscalculat or maybe he just wouldn't care because he's retiring. I don't know.
Here's how it really works: "Okay, if I vote this way, I'll have an easier time raising enough cash to win the election. Now I have to balance that out against what voters will think, and whether there are others who might help me out if I vote the other way."
Uh.. Dean? That's what I'm saying. The possibility of getting campaign contributions influences their vote. Whereas your thesis seems to be that money follows the winner and the winner is the guy who has the best campaign, not that money follows the guy who'll vote how you want him to. The corrupting influence of money in politics. It is difficult to argue with you when you agree and disagree with me at the same time, Dean.
The bottom line remains: voters aren't sheep, and politicians answer to them.
And maybe they'll vote for politicians with dubious ties to industry. Guess what? They do. Doesn't make it a good thing.
Note that Nick Smith considered the offer. He didn't merely take it. Why? He knew perfectly well he had other options.
Maybe he's not a corrupt politician. I'm sorry, what are these 'other options' and how do they disprove my point which is that corporate money doesn't necessarily 'follow the leader' but the guy who you can count on to legislate for you?
ok i take back the 'perverse' bit...
/toning down rhetoric these days
No, it is not a bribe. First, because he can't pocket the money, and second, because there are other sources of donations he can seek. In fact, the very article you linked made it very clear: he did get donations from other sources.
That's how the system works, guy. It's not corrupt, and it's not broken, and the Nick Smith example illustrates it better than anything I've seen yet.
As for what's in the pharmaceutical bill: You think it gives the companies too much. Would everyone agree with you? I might not. The pharmaceutical companies represent employees and stockholders whose interests are involved here. As a citizen, I am also involved, as the research they do on developing drugs may well save my life.
I see nothing corrupting whatsoever about a pharmaceutical company saying, "We want your support on this bill, and if you help us out, we'll help in your re-election effort. If you don't, we won't." So what?
Clearly, money isn't what wins campaigns anyway, and other sources of funding are available.
As for what the other sources of funding are? There are thousands of lobbying groups on capital hill. There are also the everyday voters themselves. The very article you link on Nick Smith makes it clear that he refused the contribution, and that he's having no trouble raising money anyway. How are you missing that?
I'm glad to hear that the NEA and other unions, who give so disproportionately if not exclusively to the Democrats, are "politically unsavvy moonbats".
We've got two fundametal disagreements, Dean - one over what bribery is and one over what corruption is.
No, it is not a bribe.
Yes, Dean, it is a bribe.
It meets the statutory definition of a bribe under United States Code, Title 18, Section 201, which (linked above) says
Whoever -
(1)
directly or indirectly, corruptly gives, offers or promises anything of value to any public official or person who has been selected to be a public official, or offers or promises any public official or any person who has been selected to be a public official to give anything of value to any other person or entity, with intent -
(A) to influence any official act;
is guilty of accepting a bribe.
The fact that he wasn't getting the money 'in pocket' is immaterial to the charge of attempted bribery. The fact that other people wanted to give him money is immaterial to the charge of attempted bribery. I can't spell it out any clearer than that.
I see nothing corrupting whatsoever about a pharmaceutical company saying, "We want your support on this bill, and if you help us out, we'll help in your re-election effort. If you don't, we won't." So what?
The guy was elected to represent the interests of the people who voted for him. If he is instead representing the interest of campaign contributers because they donate money to his campaign (or, say his son's), he placing money over the interests of his constituents. I view that as fundamentally corrupt.
Your definition of bribery and corruption, frankly, are astonishing.
The very article you link on Nick Smith makes it clear that he refused the contribution, and that he's having no trouble raising money anyway. How are you missing that?
Read from the beginning of the series. Nick Smith is retiring. They were offering money to his son's campaign to replace him.
Clearly, money isn't what wins campaigns anyway
Money isn't the only thing that wins campaigns. It is undoubtably one of them.
You think it gives the companies too much. Would everyone agree with you? I might not. The pharmaceutical companies represent employees and stockholders whose interests are involved here. As a citizen, I am also involved, as the research they do on developing drugs may well save my life.
Which is what Nick Smith, had he accepted the money, would undoubtably argue. Its irrelevant. If it was the perfect bill, the utopian bill that nobody could argue against, it would still be illegal to accept the money for voting to enact the legislation. It would still be corrupt. End. Of. Story.
There's a possible invsestigation in the works, by the way, with someone in GOP House Leadership implicated - and Smith has implicated he'll spill the beans if he's under oath. The only thing stopping it is the possible hesitancy of Democrats to invoke the nuclear option of an ethics investigation for fear of reprisal. If the rules work as they should, someone is going down for this.
No, because constituents' interests are served by pharmaceutical companies. Unless you think none of the congressman's constituents have any stock in drug companies, or ever use their products? I'm sure I've got some in my 401(k), and we take a host of prescription drugs in this house.
I'm sorry, does the article state, or not state, that Nick Smith and son located alternate sources of donations?
As for the "attempted bribery"--which I see as "bribery" in a fairly formal legal sense at best, and which still appears to be hearsay to me--let's just say it happened exactly as described. Personally? I'm not upset, because it looks like some people stepped over a pretty fuzzy line. They should probably be slapped, but I'm not furious about it. Here's why:
It is normal, completely ethical, and completely proper, for someone to meet with a congressman and explain their position on an upcoming bill and urge him to support or oppose it.
It is also normal, completely ethical, and completely proper to offer a campaign contribution. The two are supposed to be kept separate, and an attempt to say they won't give him any more money if he votes a certain way does step over a line. But the laws and rules are so arcane, it's not surprising if things like this get said or implied and people aren't always clear where the line gets drawn. They should be punished, but it's not an outrage.
Again I repeat: it's entirely appropriate for a congressman to meet and talk to pharmaceutical companies to hear their views of upcoming legislation. And it is completely legitimate for them to contribute to his campaign. This is always done, has always been done, since long before you and I were born. Nothing illegal about any of that.
I remind you, however, that I do think it would be better if we stopped all corporate and union donations. But that's another matter.
But in any case, the congressman does not pocket the money, and alternative sources of funding are always available, so if it's a "bribe" you've certainly got to be pretty rigid in your definition of it.
J. Bowen:I'm glad to hear that the NEA and other unions, who give so disproportionately if not exclusively to the Democrats, are "politically unsavvy moonbats."
I think you misunderstood me.
The NEA are very savvy in who they give money to, and most of their money tends to follow whoever they think likely to win. And then whoever does win the nomination will get still more money from them. All in exchange for the understanding that he will support policies and legislation that they believe will help them. (Which I guess Max would also consider corrupt?)
My point is that when a candidate has lots of money that he gets from NON-STANDARD SOURCES, let's say a multimillionaire with no background in politics (the Libertarian Party had that one year--didn't help 'em much), or a bunch of internet blog-geeks, that money isn't coming from the normal, savvy folks who follow and watch politics and understand the system. Those non-standard sources tend to be True Believers and whatnot who make the mistake of thinking that having a lot of money will make them a credible candidate.
Dean wasn't. Still isn't. He raised more money than anyone and he's going down the tubes.
No, because constituents' interests are served by pharmaceutical companies.
Sometimes, sometimes not. Nick Smith obviously thought not - the point I've been making over and over again is that financial support shouldn't enter the equation because it biases the writing of the legislation and the decision of whether or not it is in the public interest. It makes it more likely that its not in the public interest. How are you missing this fundamental point Dean?
I'm sorry, does the article state, or not state, that Nick Smith and son located alternate sources of donations?
You keep saying this, and I keep telling you that if a bribe is offered the ability of the bribee to locate alternat sources has no effect, whatsoever, on the determination of whether or not a bribe was offered.
The two are supposed to be kept separate, and an attempt to say they won't give him any more money if he votes a certain way does step over a line.
It steps over a very very clear line - legally and ethically. Money should not influence decisionmaking. Its called bribery, and what you are apolagising for is bribery. It is neither confusing nor arcane. You may not find it outrageous and in the grand scheme of things there are probably a lot of worse things an elected official could do. Remember the robber-barons? Well, the rules are there for a very good reason.
Again I repeat: it's entirely appropriate for a congressman to meet and talk to pharmaceutical companies to hear their views of upcoming legislation. And it is completely legitimate for them to contribute to his campaign. This is always done...
But its not what we're talking about here and thus is irrelevant though the fact that it is legal doesn't mean it is a good thing. It isn't.
But in any case, the congressman does not pocket the money, and alternative sources of funding are always available, so if it's a "bribe" you've certainly got to be pretty rigid in your definition of it.
Alternat sources of funding: completely and utterly irrelevant. Doing a favour for a congressman in return for voting for a bill is a rigid definition of bribery? I'd try and drum some sense inta ya boy but it just ain' taking.