Friday, July 02, 2004
Kerry Continues to Rake It In
There have been tons of stories this election year about the amount of money pouring into the presidential race. As reported here, John Kerry's campaign has now raised $180 million, almost $150 million of it coming after he clinched the nomination.
One hundred and fifty million bucks, all to win a nomination that he has already won. Bush is the same - he had no competition, yet he still raised nearly $220 million to win his party's nomination. We all know it's Kerry versus Bush, and yet the cash continues to flow. It's an end-run around election law, which was pretty weak to begin with.
Both Kerry and Bush are exploiting a law which was designed to be exploited - yet another example of politicians passing toothless campaign finance laws whose principal goal is to maintain their and their parties' addiction to money.
Have a great 4th of July.
There have been tons of stories this election year about the amount of money pouring into the presidential race. As reported here, John Kerry's campaign has now raised $180 million, almost $150 million of it coming after he clinched the nomination.
One hundred and fifty million bucks, all to win a nomination that he has already won. Bush is the same - he had no competition, yet he still raised nearly $220 million to win his party's nomination. We all know it's Kerry versus Bush, and yet the cash continues to flow. It's an end-run around election law, which was pretty weak to begin with.
Both Kerry and Bush are exploiting a law which was designed to be exploited - yet another example of politicians passing toothless campaign finance laws whose principal goal is to maintain their and their parties' addiction to money.
Have a great 4th of July.
Thursday, July 01, 2004
Voter Turnout Reaches New Lows
Ok, we all know things are bad, but could you imagine that they would get this bad? This Tuesday, in Bay Minette Alabama, just two out of 926 registered voters in one particular district showed up for a runoff election for County Commissioner. There were literally more poll workers than voters. (see details here in the Mobile Register.)
That was a particularly bad precinct, but countywide the turnout was just 5%.
Although it may be the case that the candidates aren't too exciting, and folks don't always pay that much attention to local elections, part of the problem here is that it was a runoff election. Runoffs are good because they pare the field down to 2 candidates and this then ensures that the winner gets a majority of votes. Otherwise, when you have 3 or more candidates, someone can win with just a plurality.
But, the trouble with runoffs is that the main excitement is often with the regular election, and voter interest trails off for the runoff. They also cost a lot of money.
One solution, noted in the article, would be to go to a system called "instant runoffs." Voters simply rank their choices of all candidates on the ballot. Then, if their votes can be redistributed to the top two who would make a runoff. This saves people the extra step of having to return to the polls for a runoff, often for just one race. It also saves money in avoiding a whole other election. San Francisco adopted this system recently and will use it for the first time this fall.
Ok, we all know things are bad, but could you imagine that they would get this bad? This Tuesday, in Bay Minette Alabama, just two out of 926 registered voters in one particular district showed up for a runoff election for County Commissioner. There were literally more poll workers than voters. (see details here in the Mobile Register.)
That was a particularly bad precinct, but countywide the turnout was just 5%.
Although it may be the case that the candidates aren't too exciting, and folks don't always pay that much attention to local elections, part of the problem here is that it was a runoff election. Runoffs are good because they pare the field down to 2 candidates and this then ensures that the winner gets a majority of votes. Otherwise, when you have 3 or more candidates, someone can win with just a plurality.
But, the trouble with runoffs is that the main excitement is often with the regular election, and voter interest trails off for the runoff. They also cost a lot of money.
One solution, noted in the article, would be to go to a system called "instant runoffs." Voters simply rank their choices of all candidates on the ballot. Then, if their votes can be redistributed to the top two who would make a runoff. This saves people the extra step of having to return to the polls for a runoff, often for just one race. It also saves money in avoiding a whole other election. San Francisco adopted this system recently and will use it for the first time this fall.
Wednesday, June 30, 2004
Ohh, It's a Vicious Circle!
Paul Fahri reports in The Washington Post on the effect of media expansion on the media strategy of political campaigns. Media strategy in most political campaigns is now governed by the law of diminishing returns.
Where Nixon's advisors dealt with NBC, CBS, and ABC, today's political consultants confront a choice of over 100 television channels through which to broadcast their candidate's message. One strategist reports using a simple rule of thumb for ad buys in the 1990's: run an ad five times to get the message across. In 2004, he's upped that number to twelve.
This phenomenon is not limited to television. Direct mail guru Richard Viguerie states that despite costs increasing fourfold since he's been in the biz, the response rate has remained flat:
No kidding. The American people is tuning out the white noise which is political advertising. Maybe if candidates said anything that we found worthwhile, we'd listen. Instead, we get bombarded with canned over-produced music videos that are so far removed from political discourse as to be laughable.
More:
By the end of June, Bush and Kerry will have spent over $140 million on television ads, 80% of which has been in the 18 or so 'swing states' that the campaigns have been targeting.
Wa-a-a-ait a minute. These ads, directed at only a third of the country, as ridiculous and uninformative and as belittling to democracy and the minds of voters as they are, are the main argument used by opponents of spending limits in political campaigns.
Political Consultant: We must communicate our message to the people! Everybody watches television, so we must use television to reach the people!
Common Sense: Even though nobody pays any attention to your crappy ads anymore?
That just means we have to show them more! More!
How democratic of you.
Yes. And television is expensive, so we must raise hundreds of millions of dollars!
To show your music videos.
Ye- No. To communicate our message!
Those things are your message to the American people?
Yes! So we need unlimited amounts of money!
To communicate your 'message'.
Yes!
Because the television companies charge so much.
Yes!
Right. Let me see if I got this straight. You (candidates, politicians, political parties, committees, etc.) need to raise huge sums of money in order to pay the television companies huge sums of money to air these ads which the public doesn't really pay any attention to, in large part because they are turned off by the huge amounts of money in politics.
Right.
What? Did my head just unscrew from my neck? You know the companies that own the television networks don't actually own the airwaves - the people do?
The people?
Those people you're trying to 'communicate' to?
(puzzled expression) . . . Oh. Right!
You know, if the big media companies lived up to their agreement/responsibility to provide some public interest programming (maybe some candidate debates or position papers or speeches) in return for their making BILLIONS OF DOLLARS off our airwaves, political campaigns wouldn't have to raise and spend so much damn money.
What?
It might even raise the level of political discourse to a level where the American public once more gives a damn about your so-called 'message'.
(in wonder)You mean they'll watch our videos?
Noo, not your videos. Real speeches. Real policy discussions. Real debates. No more thirty-second soundbytes to hide behind.
(cowering)Nooo! It's too bright! Too much opportunity for truth!
Take these shades. It'll be O.K. You'll get used to it.
--
A more cynical person than myself might suggest that the main reason money plays such a huge role in politics is that it suits politicians and folks with money. Seems to me like the media companies that make money off the public airwaves could pretty easily grant some free airtime to candidates for debates, position statements, discussions, all of which would be more informative than the ads whose volume we turn down, or the direct mail that we crumple and toss in the trash.
Really, when you get down to it, it seems like all those excuses for allowing so much money into our elections are really just a way to allow rich folks to buy themselves a government.
Paul Fahri reports in The Washington Post on the effect of media expansion on the media strategy of political campaigns. Media strategy in most political campaigns is now governed by the law of diminishing returns.
Where Nixon's advisors dealt with NBC, CBS, and ABC, today's political consultants confront a choice of over 100 television channels through which to broadcast their candidate's message. One strategist reports using a simple rule of thumb for ad buys in the 1990's: run an ad five times to get the message across. In 2004, he's upped that number to twelve.
This phenomenon is not limited to television. Direct mail guru Richard Viguerie states that despite costs increasing fourfold since he's been in the biz, the response rate has remained flat:
People used to go to their mailboxes and get maybe one or two appeals. Now it's five or 10 a day. . . . When I first got started, people complained about getting so much mail. That was a fraction of what they get now.
No kidding. The American people is tuning out the white noise which is political advertising. Maybe if candidates said anything that we found worthwhile, we'd listen. Instead, we get bombarded with canned over-produced music videos that are so far removed from political discourse as to be laughable.
More:
By the end of June, Bush and Kerry will have spent over $140 million on television ads, 80% of which has been in the 18 or so 'swing states' that the campaigns have been targeting.
Wa-a-a-ait a minute. These ads, directed at only a third of the country, as ridiculous and uninformative and as belittling to democracy and the minds of voters as they are, are the main argument used by opponents of spending limits in political campaigns.
Political Consultant: We must communicate our message to the people! Everybody watches television, so we must use television to reach the people!
Common Sense: Even though nobody pays any attention to your crappy ads anymore?
That just means we have to show them more! More!
How democratic of you.
Yes. And television is expensive, so we must raise hundreds of millions of dollars!
To show your music videos.
Ye- No. To communicate our message!
Those things are your message to the American people?
Yes! So we need unlimited amounts of money!
To communicate your 'message'.
Yes!
Because the television companies charge so much.
Yes!
Right. Let me see if I got this straight. You (candidates, politicians, political parties, committees, etc.) need to raise huge sums of money in order to pay the television companies huge sums of money to air these ads which the public doesn't really pay any attention to, in large part because they are turned off by the huge amounts of money in politics.
Right.
What? Did my head just unscrew from my neck? You know the companies that own the television networks don't actually own the airwaves - the people do?
The people?
Those people you're trying to 'communicate' to?
(puzzled expression) . . . Oh. Right!
You know, if the big media companies lived up to their agreement/responsibility to provide some public interest programming (maybe some candidate debates or position papers or speeches) in return for their making BILLIONS OF DOLLARS off our airwaves, political campaigns wouldn't have to raise and spend so much damn money.
What?
It might even raise the level of political discourse to a level where the American public once more gives a damn about your so-called 'message'.
(in wonder)You mean they'll watch our videos?
Noo, not your videos. Real speeches. Real policy discussions. Real debates. No more thirty-second soundbytes to hide behind.
(cowering)Nooo! It's too bright! Too much opportunity for truth!
Take these shades. It'll be O.K. You'll get used to it.
--
A more cynical person than myself might suggest that the main reason money plays such a huge role in politics is that it suits politicians and folks with money. Seems to me like the media companies that make money off the public airwaves could pretty easily grant some free airtime to candidates for debates, position statements, discussions, all of which would be more informative than the ads whose volume we turn down, or the direct mail that we crumple and toss in the trash.
Really, when you get down to it, it seems like all those excuses for allowing so much money into our elections are really just a way to allow rich folks to buy themselves a government.
Tuesday, June 29, 2004
Passing the Buck(s) in Hawaii
On June 25, Governor Linda Lingle sent notice to the Hawaii Legislature of her intent to veto campaign finance bill SB459. Among its provisions, the bill barred campaign contributions from contractors with more than $25,000 in aggregate contracts with the state and prohibited contributions from out-of-state corporations or unions.
Lingle's reasoning: the bill had "very serious technical errors" which might have affected its constitutionality and led to "large attorney fee awards" against the state.
Well, mebbe so and mebbe not. The Alaska Supreme Court has upheld a ban on out-of-state contributions, while courts in Vermont have struck them down. So at the very least, the out-of-state part is on the table.
As to prohibiting corporate contributions, lots of states have done it, and lots of courts have upheld it.
So what's in the way of Lingle signing the bill? Huge attorney's fees? C'mon. Pass the bill. It goes into effect. If some out-of-state corporation wants to go against the wishes of the elected representatives of Hawaii and challenge a Hawaii law in Hawaii state courts, there are still plenty of points along the way for the state of Hawaii to avoid judgment.
If Lingle isn't just making excuses, but is actually serious about keeping big money out of Hawaii politics, maybe next time she should think about working with the legislature in the crafting of a reform bill and not wait until the last second to make a lame argument to avoid taking what is a pretty piddly step in the first place.
Maybe that's too much to ask.
If it isn't, and you want to let Governor Lingle know that you think it would be a great idea for her to work with the legislature on providing a level playing field for candidates in Hawaii, you can drop her a line at:
http://www.hawaii.gov/gov/gov/email
On June 25, Governor Linda Lingle sent notice to the Hawaii Legislature of her intent to veto campaign finance bill SB459. Among its provisions, the bill barred campaign contributions from contractors with more than $25,000 in aggregate contracts with the state and prohibited contributions from out-of-state corporations or unions.
Lingle's reasoning: the bill had "very serious technical errors" which might have affected its constitutionality and led to "large attorney fee awards" against the state.
Well, mebbe so and mebbe not. The Alaska Supreme Court has upheld a ban on out-of-state contributions, while courts in Vermont have struck them down. So at the very least, the out-of-state part is on the table.
As to prohibiting corporate contributions, lots of states have done it, and lots of courts have upheld it.
So what's in the way of Lingle signing the bill? Huge attorney's fees? C'mon. Pass the bill. It goes into effect. If some out-of-state corporation wants to go against the wishes of the elected representatives of Hawaii and challenge a Hawaii law in Hawaii state courts, there are still plenty of points along the way for the state of Hawaii to avoid judgment.
If Lingle isn't just making excuses, but is actually serious about keeping big money out of Hawaii politics, maybe next time she should think about working with the legislature in the crafting of a reform bill and not wait until the last second to make a lame argument to avoid taking what is a pretty piddly step in the first place.
Maybe that's too much to ask.
If it isn't, and you want to let Governor Lingle know that you think it would be a great idea for her to work with the legislature on providing a level playing field for candidates in Hawaii, you can drop her a line at:
http://www.hawaii.gov/gov/gov/email
Monday, June 28, 2004
Liars in Arizona
As we've posted before (here on Feb 9 and here on Dec 23), the wealthy interests who previously bankrolled most candidate campaigns in Arizona are now bankrolling a ballot initiative to repeal the campaign finance law that is reducing the influence of big money in Arizona politics.
They say they want voters to decide if they still like the law that they themselves passed at the ballot in 1998. OK, fair enough. But, they should at least tell people what they are voting on.
The law is widely known as the Clean Elections law. It allows a candidate to go cold turkey on big campaign money -- completely forgoing all private campaign contributions after proving their viability by raising a large number of $5 qualifying contributions. It has allowed some new faces to get into office, faces that look more like regular Arizonan's than career politicians.
Here is a video tape of a petitioner asking somebody if they want to sign a petition to qualify a measure for the ballot that would effectively repeal the Clean Elections law by prohibiting any state money from funding the clean elections system.
Now, set aside the fact that the petitioner sounds drunk. The first problem is that he is telling the person only half the truth -- "This would prevent politicians from using taxpayer money to fund their campaigns." This is correct, but what he's not saying is that politicians that do this are prohibited from taking any money from special interests. When told that, many people conclude it's worth it.
But the bigger problem is that the petitioner then tells an outright lie. The potential signer asks if this would repeal the Clean Elections law, which he likes. The petitioner tells him no, "this is FOR clean elections." The kicker comes in the very last line, where he says "I wouldn't lie to you."
Really?
As we've posted before (here on Feb 9 and here on Dec 23), the wealthy interests who previously bankrolled most candidate campaigns in Arizona are now bankrolling a ballot initiative to repeal the campaign finance law that is reducing the influence of big money in Arizona politics.
They say they want voters to decide if they still like the law that they themselves passed at the ballot in 1998. OK, fair enough. But, they should at least tell people what they are voting on.
The law is widely known as the Clean Elections law. It allows a candidate to go cold turkey on big campaign money -- completely forgoing all private campaign contributions after proving their viability by raising a large number of $5 qualifying contributions. It has allowed some new faces to get into office, faces that look more like regular Arizonan's than career politicians.
Here is a video tape of a petitioner asking somebody if they want to sign a petition to qualify a measure for the ballot that would effectively repeal the Clean Elections law by prohibiting any state money from funding the clean elections system.
Now, set aside the fact that the petitioner sounds drunk. The first problem is that he is telling the person only half the truth -- "This would prevent politicians from using taxpayer money to fund their campaigns." This is correct, but what he's not saying is that politicians that do this are prohibited from taking any money from special interests. When told that, many people conclude it's worth it.
But the bigger problem is that the petitioner then tells an outright lie. The potential signer asks if this would repeal the Clean Elections law, which he likes. The petitioner tells him no, "this is FOR clean elections." The kicker comes in the very last line, where he says "I wouldn't lie to you."
Really?
