The latest public-disclosure forms for the finances of King County Prosecuting Attorney Dan Satterberg (top) and Bill Sherman.
By
Chris Vance
Conventional wisdom says there is too much money in politics. In many cases, conventional wisdom is flat-out wrong. Quite often there is far too little money in politics, and this lack of funding prevents the proper functioning of our adversarial political system.
Take, for example, the race for King County prosecutor. The election to replace the late Norm Maleng is the marquee Seattle-area contest of this political season. Prosecutor is a vital public office. The voters, however, are likely going to cast their votes knowing very little about these two candidates. Neither the campaign of Republican Dan Satterberg nor that of Democrat Bill Sherman have raised enough money to run a truly effective countywide campaign. As of the last reporting period, Satterberg had raised roughly $250,000, Sherman, $150,000. Not nearly enough in a county as enormous as King.
The candidates running for Port of Seattle commissioner face the same dilemma. Bill Bryant has raised $240,000, Gael Tarleton $203,000, Alec Fisken $131,000, and Bob Edwards $115,000.
Consider the tactical options a campaign has trying to run countywide. There are roughly 600,000 registered voter households in the county. To mail them all one piece of literature costs more than $200,000, and you really need to mail voters at least five times to make a difference.
Campaigns, therefore, are forced to turn to radio, and broadcast and cable TV. To do it right you need at least $1 million dollars for one sold month of Seattle broadcast advertising, but whatever cash you have, you throw it on the airwaves and hope for the best, right?
Wrong. Television and radio stations are required to offer candidates the lowest possible rate, and to accept advertising from federal candidates. But broadcasters are not required to take ads from candidates for state and local office, and often they don't. Stations can make more money from commercial customers, so important campaigns for key offices are often shut out. The Satterberg campaign, for instance, has tried to place ads on major Seattle TV and radio stations and been turned down.
Candidates for statewide offices other than governor and U.S. senator almost always find themselves in the same predicament. Major TV and radio stations often turn down their ads, and they struggle to raise enough money to mount a meaningful campaign. In the 2004 race for secretary of state, both parties fielded credible candidates; incumbent Sam Reed for the Republicans, and state Rep. Laura Ruderman for the Democrats. Each raised roughly $650,000. Contrast that with roughly $1.5 million to $2 million that are now spent in an average contested race for Congress, or the $1 million spent in one state Senate race - the 48th District contest between Republican Luke Esser and Democrat Rodney Tom.
Routinely, voters are forced to cast their ballots for candidates for judge, assessor, or state superintendent of public instruction without hearing much from either candidate, and certainly without the benefit of spirited back-and-forth debate.
Our campaign finance system is broken. Some elections attract ridiculous amounts of money while others are virtually ignored. Public financing has been debated for years. Perhaps we need to consider compelling TV and radio stations to accept ads from a broader range of candidates. A simple answer, however, is to raise or even eliminate the current contribution limits for some races.
Today the most any donor can contribute to Dan Satterberg or Bill Sherman or any candidate for county office is $1,400. That low limit makes it extremely difficult to raise enough money, and what public purpose does it serve? Why not allow campaigns for county and statewide state offices to take any amount from any legal source as long as those donations are publicly reported? That's how the system works with ballot-measure campaigns. Take the chains off; let the candidates raise money, and let the public decide if they are concerned about who is donating and how much is being given.
Campaigns and elections are the key to our democracy. Voters may say they hate campaign advertising, but our system is based on an informed electorate, and robust campaigns are indispensable to achieving that ideal. Money is the mother's milk of politics - and democracy.
Chris Vance is a public affairs consultant who lives in Auburn, Wash. He was chair of the Republican Party in Washington from 2001-06, a King County Council member from 1994-2001, and a state representative from 1991-93. He can be reached at cvapv@comcast.net.
Comments:
Posted Mon, Oct 22, 9:20 a.m. Inappropriate
The answer to getting the message out isn't to increase the cost of campaigning -- it's to improve the communication methods using more efficient means. King County is one of the most wired counties in the nation with a constituent base full of early adopters who time-shift their media and fast-forward through commercials with DVR's, etc. Instead of focusing on how to increase broadcast & direct mail budgets, campaigns should be thinking about how to move video & text messages over the internet & e-mail at a pittance of the cost. TV, phones & direct mail still have enormous value but audience behaviors are shifting and so should the campaign process.
Daytime is primetime on the Internet and it's time to follow the eyeballs.
The ease & low-cost ways to send e-mails and online advertisements only to residents of King County would offer impactful, inexpensive and measurable marketing tools.
The future is upon us. Let's use it.
Thanks to Crosscut for allowing me to post this message and bypassing the "letter to the editor" filter ;-)
Posted Mon, Oct 22, 9:46 a.m. Inappropriate
There was once a time when money wasn't nearly as important as having a network of grassroots workers to spread your message. For the past 50 years or so, however, money has been the key to a political campaign.
I would welcome a day when the freedom of the internet would make raising large amounts of money unnecessary - but we're not there yet.
Posted Mon, Oct 22, 10:21 a.m. Inappropriate
I get more information from the voter's pamphlet than I do from 60 days of bombardment paid for by the campaign warchests that Mr. Vance sees sympathetically.
So I don't see more money as necessarily positive.
Posted Mon, Oct 22, 11:14 a.m. Inappropriate
Vote by mail, early, and negate advertising value: Animal Al here voted and mailed it in 2 days ago. All further advertising to me is wasted. I am waiting for a federal or state or local prosecutor to investigate the literally millions of alleged illegal dollars flowing into the Hillary2008 campaign. Is John McKay available as a 'special prosecutor'?
Posted Mon, Oct 22, 11:18 a.m. Inappropriate
Consultants get percentage of campaign advertising dollars: Perhaps Mr. Vance can discuss in detail the percentages of direct mail and electronic media advertising 'buys'. To wit, are consultants wining because their local election 'cut' is being shaved??
Posted Mon, Oct 22, 11:29 a.m. Inappropriate
And then he tells us that he/they need more money because people will not know the candidates because they can not afford to buy airtime. Not ok.
I know many people, not one of them I had to meet through the television or radio. It's true.
If you can not broadcast your message through the broadcast media, then go directly to the people, don't beg for more money.
If you really want to represent the people then go to where the people are and tell them in person. Sounds carzy, doesn't require giving people like Vance money, or media money, it does however require the candidate to work for the votes. As anybody not eating at the political feedbag can tell you, the ground support (door to door) is effective in big elections. That doesn't change for smaller elections. If you can not convince enough people to go door to door on your behalf, then maybe it's you, and not the money you didn't have.
Posted Mon, Oct 22, 11:35 a.m. Inappropriate
I am not a campaign consultant, and I am not working on any campaigns. Maybe I will someday, but I doubt it.
I do public affairs/issue management consulting. My current clients are unions and local governments. I have also worked for some business associations.
Posted Mon, Oct 22, 11:38 a.m. Inappropriate
Doorbelling: Rely on doobelling in a countywide election? Good luck with that! Yes, going door to door is something you do, but it can't take the place of money.
Posted Mon, Oct 22, 12:15 p.m. Inappropriate
What do you want, a handout?
It isn't luck, it's hard work involving people. If you can't get people to doorbell, how do you expect people to do much else for you? Maybe it's you, the candidate.
some of these races are so small that going door to door would have an impact, going to events and shaking hands has an effect, if you want something then go get it. It's called work. Dismiss means that take effort, for means that involve begging, good luck with that.
You consult for free?
Posted Mon, Oct 22, 12:52 p.m. Inappropriate
Current caps on campaign contributions prevent a handful of wealthy individuals or corporations from buying an election. Chris Vance says that it would be more fair if a few multi-billionaires could control the public dialog during election season, and I just don't see any logic in that. Democracy is not the same thing as capitalism, and having the support of many people is not the same thing as having a lot of money.
Yes, we want a level playing field for candidates, but Chris Vance is advocating for more tilt and not less. When corporate desire to maximize profits impede the democratic process (like media outlets refusing to give all campaign ads the preferred rate they give to Federal candidates), the answer is not to give more power to the corporations by reducing caps on political contributions, but to strengthen the democratic process by reforming the campaign finance and election laws.
Posted Mon, Oct 22, 1:20 p.m. Inappropriate
But consider...Procter & Gamble, all by itself, will spend in 2007 $3.5 billion on advertising with $2.5 billion of that earmarked for TV alone. One company spending well over twice the amount spent on all campaigns throughout the country...just to peddle soap and toothpaste!
Getting the word out costs money. Money is the mother's milk of politics. What else is new?
If someone objects not only to what's being spent, but also on what it's being spent, then let them factor that into a voting decision; another flyer in the mailbox is as legit a reason to vote against someone as any.
I'd much rather have too much information than not enough. Just think...in countries that don't have "free" elections (an admittedly oxymoronic term, given this conversation), there are no worries about campaign contributions, the cost of running for office, or getting one more piece of pre-recycle in the mail from Larry Phillips.
The simplest way to foster transparency in campaign finance laws is to require candidates and issue campaigns to immediately post the names of all individual donors and the amounts of their donations on the Internet, and to restrict contributions from any other than individual human beings who are citizens of the United States.
This really isn't rocket science...
The Piper
Posted Mon, Oct 22, 1:25 p.m. Inappropriate
I guess the commercial market is letting you down Chris.
Posted Mon, Oct 22, 2:16 p.m. Inappropriate
But what does this have to do with campaign advertising? Political ads are no more a reliable source of information than ads for laundry detergent or cars. The ones that influence votes typically do so through misinformation and lies. Are you saying there isn't enough money being spent on convincing the public that John McCain had a mixed-race baby with a black mistress? Or that the extensively documented events surrounding John Kerry's medal of honor never happened?
If so, then I have great news for you. You have been selected as a finalist to win $100,000,000 in our sweep stakes! Secure your position now by subscribing to 3 magazines of your choice!
Posted Mon, Oct 22, 2:40 p.m. Inappropriate
wasted money: bravo! Maybe if no campaign money were spent, the voters would pay more attention.
Posted Mon, Oct 22, 3:14 p.m. Inappropriate
In politics it works, too. Ask anyone who's been on the receiving end of a negative campaign, which is a legit technique in my opinion - if the other guy can run on his record, why can't I run on it, too? - or an outright lie campaign, the likes of which inundated my mailbox in the 45th Legislative District last year. Much of it not from the candidate favored by the organizations sending the ads, but all of it with that candidate's knowledge and tacit approval.
But that's politics...And the voters should be the ones to discern and decide.
The Piper
Posted Mon, Oct 22, 7:05 p.m. Inappropriate
thanks.
Posted Mon, Oct 22, 10:13 p.m. Inappropriate
Are you actually trying to say that you agree with Chris's claim that more political ads would somehow benefit our political process? Really?
Posted Mon, Oct 22, 10:35 p.m. Inappropriate
The recent Washington Supreme Court ruling on false political ads didn't hold that they were "OK." Rather, the Court held that ads couldn't constitutionally be regulated, which is radically different. The people are to be regarded as the ultimate arbiters of the truth or falsity of a candidate's claims. We live in a democracy, not a nanny state...yet, anyway.
It ought not to be anyone's business how much I contribute or to whom. But it is everyone's business how much a candidate receives and from whom. Let people give as they wish to whomever strikes their fancy, then require the candidate to disclose on the Internet who gave and how much was received. The information will be there for everyone to see. Transparent government in action.
Commercial speech and political speech are different. While there may be some - I repeat SOME - justification for limiting commercial speech, there should never, EVER be any limitation on political speech. After all, that was what the First Amendment was originally designed to protect.
That gross or ugly political speech goes unregulated is worth the freedom we have to both hear and say hated or unpopular speech. We're adults, we can take it.
So...chuck the limits, and open things up across the board. Nobody said you have to read or listen, but nobody should have the right to stifle or restrict.
The Piper
Posted Mon, Oct 22, 10:40 p.m. Inappropriate
People don't care: Money will not solve the problem until the public cares.
Posted Mon, Oct 22, 10:47 p.m. Inappropriate
I don't believe most advertsing misinforms people. Certainly, it seeks to persuade by presenting a product or service - or candidate or issue - in a light most favoable to it. Welcome to advocacy. You, as a consumer/voter, can then engage in independent research of your own before making a purchasing/voting decision. Welcome to freedom and responsibility.
But it borders on the seriously creepy to even consider restricting the free flow of information because you find it more than you can handle. What's next? Bring back the Alien and Sedition Act or the doctrine of prior restraint? What I see in all this are restrictions on the freedom of people to speak, and that, to me, is about as anathema as it gets.
Political types (candidates and consultants) aren't so stupid as to engage in exercises in diminishing returns; they know that there's a saturation point somewhere, and beyond that people will turn against you.
While I have the right to speak, you don't have the obligation to listen. Either turn off the ad or toss the flyer. That ain't rocket science either.
Again...we're adults, we can handle it!
The Piper
Posted Mon, Oct 29, 7:05 a.m. Inappropriate
RE: Not there yet: I notice that I get many more emails from friends and neighbors about initiatives and referenda. Are there no candidates that can learn from this to build grassroots networks to get their message out?
Posted Tue, Oct 30, 10:21 p.m. Inappropriate
Right. BS reiterated enough times, with enough volume will Win The Day. It works for Procter & Gamble- & it can work for You. As a society we've been reduced to Pavlovian canines by this approach (or, like the man said, they wouldn't bother- would they?)...
Re: "Political types (candidates and consultants) aren't so stupid as to engage in exercises in diminishing returns; they know that there's a saturation point somewhere, and beyond that people will turn against you..."
Saturation point? You mean "when the money runs out (or the bullhorn melts down, or...)? You mean Bush I woulda lost if Atwater had gotten the Willie Horton ad running every half-hour on every station across the country for a month? Or would we all have assumed that, of Course Willie is Gov. Dukakis' bastard love child? Money is the mother's milk of politics? Naaahhh, it's the cup of hemlock... and equating speech & greenbacks is a conflation for the ages- and ranks with Nix v. Hedden as lousy law. When politics moves from the Art of the Doable to the Art of the Believable- and $lander ROOLZ, we'll have the epitome of Piper Politics... ^..^
Login or register to add your voice to the conversation.