May 25, 2004
Irrelevancy, On Sale To The Highest Bidder
Money And Character In The Mayoral Election
Today in the Portland Tribune, media columnist Pete Schulberg offers his views on campaign advertisements, advising local candidates that "[w]hoever uses TV and radio the best is going to win," but reminding readers that "[t]he candidate who spends more ... doesn't always beat the candidate who spends zero."
We pass this along because it plays into something about which we've been thinking ever since the May 18 primary, and it has to do with campaign finance.
During this past primary campaign, the City Council began the process of considering a campaign finance reform proposal from City Auditor Gary Blackmer and Commissioner Erik Sten -- which when combined with the various stories on the fundraising mismatch between Jim Francesconi and Tom Potter kept the matter somewhat in the public eye.
But we've come to realize that this primary campaign demosntrates yet another reason why ungodly amounts of cash distort the political process, and it's led us to create Portland Communique's First Law Of Campaign Finance.
Our newly-coined law goes something like this: Candidates rise to the level of irrelevancy their fundraising affords them.
This isn't merely about Francesconi's utterly ineffective and overly-polished television ads. Think of some of his other expenditures -- polling voters about possible negatives which could be used against his main opponent, or trying to smear Potter's fundraising methods, for example.
When a candidate raises large and unseemly amounts of cash, he hires consultants and other alleged experts who tend to lean more on the expensive side than not. And those consultants and experts invariably advise the candidate to spend that unseemly amount of money doing unseemly things that have no actual bearing to the realities on the ground. Things that have more to do with entrenched campaign philosophies and the movement of money than they do with the place in which the candidate lives or the people whom the candidate claims a desire to serve.
The problem with money in politics -- especially very local politics such as City elections -- is not merely that it so obviously creates impropriety or its appearance. Rather, it also places the candidate in a bubble where their reality is determined not by the lives of the voters but by the advice of people whose work primarily involves determining what the candidate's money will buy.
Now, when it comes to this particular candidate and his campaign's behavior, we've previously expressed our opinion that there are only two possibilities: Either Francesconi approved of his campaign's tactics and strategies, or he was entirely unaware of them. Both possibilities, of course, reflect rather less than well upon his fitness to be Mayor.
Factoring in our First Law Of Campaign Finance, we find that what also seems to have happened is that Francesconi allowed his campaign to be hijacked by consultants and experts whose perspectives and advice had little to no bearing on the real world.
If he's willing to front a political campaign that promotes an image out of touch with the real world, a campaign that tries to smear his opponent, and a campaign that push polls negative ideas about his opponent -- in other words, a campaign that was more about what means his money could buy rather than about what ends he was trying to achieve -- it's no stretch of the imagination to ask voters to consider what that might mean for a Francesconi-led City government.
As cliche as the phrase has become -- and no pun intended, although we'll gladly accept it -- the buck indeed stops with the man in charge.
After the results of the May 18 primary were clear, Francesconi himself (of all people) questioned Potter's commitment to campaign finance reform because his opponent dared to raise his self-imposed contribution limits from $25 per person to $100 per person. Sadly, this indicates one thing: That the ugly mess of Francesconi's primary campaign was not some fluke or aberration caused by his staff, but instead reflects the way the candidate himself actually views the world.
Comments (16)
freddy on 25 May 2004
I'm not at all surprised that when you hire out-of-state "campaign experts" for your business-driven, sell-out, top-down campaign, you don't get the efficiency and drive of campaign staff and volunteers who are working on your campaign because they believe in what you're working for and who you are.
Sally on 25 May 2004
Unfortunately, Mr. b!X, the Francesconi case is one of the few exceptions that proves the larger rule. The money may buy irrelevance to the "voters,' if that fairly encapsulates your First Law, but beyond their brief action on the ballot, voters are largely irrelevant to politicians.
At any rate, Francesconi's heavily moneyed campaign did not to my (far less educated than your) eyes change him but only amplified what he has always seemed to be.
He did buy himself a right nice run-off, didn't he? Forced Potter right into one! :)
Publicly financed elections are probably the only way out. And that seems as "unAmerican" as ... green Moon cheese?
Anonymous Coward on 26 May 2004
In general, I think I might agree with your assessment. However, it assumes that the problem with the Francesconi campaign was the machinery of the campaign; the staff, the tactical decisions, the ads.
Instead, I'd argue that the problem with the Francesconi campaign was... Francesconi.
The man just isn't particularly likable, inspirational, or even very visible. When he is visible, he's irascible.
The One True b!X on 26 May 2004
Which is what it says at the very end of the original post:
That the ugly mess of Francesconi's primary campaign was not some fluke or aberration caused by his staff, but instead reflects the way the candidate himself actually views the world.
Erik Sten on 26 May 2004
b!x,
Since the election,an editorial writer at the Oregonian has made the argument to me that Potter's success shows that there is no need for campaign finance reform. I argued, predictably, that it might also be read as a vote of support for a better system.
As you can imagine, I think there are many benefits to campaign finance reform -- better debate, more diverse candidates, less silly advertising and maybe a step towards larger state and national reform. But the point of this post is not my opinion.
I would be interested, if there's interest on the site, on some feedback on that question: What does this election mean for campaign finance reform, and where should we take the effort next?
Gary and I plan to bring a full proposal back to the Council in July. At this point, I think a November election may be too fast as this needs more public debate, but we'll see.
Thoughts, anyone?
Noah Brimhall on 26 May 2004
Erik,
I agree with you that the results of the mayor's primary should be read as a vote in support of campaign finance reform. The argument that there is suddenly no need for campaign finance reform because the lead candidate had voluntary restrictions seems a bit silly. If Francisconi had followed behind all three of the major candidates who had restricted there campaign fundraising, then there might be an arguement, but Francesconi came in a pretty close second and could still win in November. I think that Francesconi's success (limited as it was) is directly tied to his warchest.
Keep pushing on clean campaigns Erik. You will have my support.
Noah
Adrian Russell-Falla on 26 May 2004
Pete Schulberg's situational credibility on this topic is pretty thin.
no personal slight intended. in general, pronouncements of all newspaper, TV and radio editorialists are suspect on this topic.
their corporate employers are the primary beneficiaries of electoral spending -- the vast bulk of which is on advertising. their commentary on the necessity or otherwise of campaign finance reform can hardly be said to be disinterested.
aside from eroding objectivity, the other problem with unreformed campaign finance is that the numbing axiom of "greatest money = maximum electability" enables vacuous coverage.
it offers a seductive but illusory sense of determinism, since one dollar amount is arithmetically comparable to another. the numbers also change frequently, so it reliably generates episodic "stories". there's very low risk of "getting the story wrong". and it's **dirt cheap** to get money-raising stats -- now nothing more than cutting and pasting off a City web site.
so, "following the money" is great for keeping newsroom costs down, and profits up. but: the caliber of investigation suffers, becuase cut-and-paste journalism comes at the direct expense of any deeper assessment of other issues that might matter to the electorate.
yes, we need reform. the message of Big Money is that politics is a cartel, a rigged game only the wealthy can afford to participate in. it's no wonder voter turnout in this country is so utterly appalling.
and yes, it really is: see this international comparison. we're way at the bottom of the league table.
Adrian Russell-Falla
GoPotterGo!-PAC
Jack Bog on 26 May 2004
The city's web posting of the campaign finance reports -- and while the campaign was still on, for heaven's sake! -- was a major milestone in reform of the process. Thanks to Sten, Blackmer et al.
Now if we could just get the data in Excel files, we could really shake things up...
doretta on 26 May 2004
Erik,
My vote for Tom Potter was definitely a vote of support for a better system.
That Tom is willing to support a better way by putting his own chances on the line is a part of why I voted for him.
b!X is right when he points out that money can only take a clueless candidate so far. The fact that about one big-money candidate in 20 proves to be clue-challenged enough to lose an election hardly negates the need for better debate, more diverse candidates, more credible process, less mind-numbing advertising, etc.
I think Adrian is right to make the connection between the need for reform and abysmal voter registration and appalling voter turnout. Just imagine where we'd be without motor-voter and vote-by-mail propping things up.
The system is screaming for reform and you are right to be pursuing it.
The One True b!X on 26 May 2004
For what it's worth, here's one other thing all of Francesconi's money couldn't buy: Proofreaders. At the end of this third campaign ad (mpg), it provides a URL which didn't exist on the Web.
Jaimee Mackinnon on 27 May 2004
Please correct me if I am wrong- I do not state this to be argumentative or to claim to be an expert on the topic- but I have posted this point on this site before and received no feedback. What would stop J. Francesconi from accepting Tom Potters challenge to limit contributions to his campaign to $100.00 and then a PAC that becomes formed by an "outside party" and will take contributions up to $2500.00 can start campaigning on his behalf through the back door. Isn't this exactly what Potter has accomplished? He looks saintly- while J. Francesconi stands behind all of his contributions and reports them. Please I want to know why I am the only one who sees this as sneaky.
Jaimee Mackinnon
The One True b!X on 27 May 2004
The existence of the GoPotterGo! PAC, to anyone's knowledge anyway, isn't Potter's fault/responsibility, so it's hardly something that he "accomplished." On a personal level, I didn't particular like the fact that Potter supporters went off and created the PAC, but it's not something that can be directly pinned on the candidate.
doretta on 28 May 2004
Jaimee, I gave you feedback the last time you posted, just a little belatedly.
PAC money isn't hidden. PAC's have to file reports too. If you look at the city auditor's site, you'll see the the 2nd pre-election report has GoPotterGo! at $3250.
Tom was clear about not authorizing the PAC so the PAC collected very little money. That's the opposite of sneaky.
Jaimee Mackinnon on 28 May 2004
Thank you Doretta for teh reply- that is exactly the kind of info I was looking for. I did not knowthat the PAC also had to report their $$$ as I did not see any mention of those dollars in anything I was reading in the media. Do you know if the first elections total from GoPotterGo was published in any of the papers alongside the regular campaign reports or not?
Thanks again!
Jaimee
doretta on 28 May 2004
I don't recall having seen it reported anywhere. It's such a tiny amount of money most reporters aren't likely to bother.
Had it been significant compared to what Tom's campaign raised, it would have been a story and I've no doubt we'd have heard a lot about it.
The One True b!X on 28 May 2004
I'm fairly certian that Henry Stern at The Oregonian probably mentioned the PAC's bankroll at some point, although I couldn't swear to it. But my recollection is that I've seen it one story or another and I'm sort of assuming that he would have been the one to mention it.