Can big ideas still trump big money in elections?

Changes in campaign finance and media have created the train wreck that is the Republican primary. But social media could actually create room for ideas in campaigns, too.

President Barack Obama tweets during the Twitter Town Hall in the East Room of the White House on July 6. Twitter co-founder and Executive Chairman Jack Dorsey, who served as the town hall moderator, is pictured at left.

Pete Souza/White House

President Barack Obama tweets during the Twitter Town Hall in the East Room of the White House on July 6. Twitter co-founder and Executive Chairman Jack Dorsey, who served as the town hall moderator, is pictured at left.

Mike O'Brien

Seattle City Council

Mike O'Brien

The same democratization of media that killed the Seattle Post-Intelligencer, fueled revolution in North Africa and the Middle East, and relentlessly and virally hounds hypocrisy, is also changing the way we govern ourselves in ways we don’t yet understand. Candidates and consultants are gearing up for a Brave New World that is shattering the status quo and giving power to ideas over convention.

Elections over the next two years will tell us much about political and social directions. And much like the Arab Spring, the road will be bumpy.

First, let’s consider the Republican nomination process. What went wrong?

The Republicans are relentlessly hammering their inevitable candidate, Mitt Romney. In past years, there is no way Newt Gingrich, Rick Santorum, and Ron Paul would have made it this far. They are, by any measure, unelectable.

Romney's rivals have survived due to an avalanche of debates —which has been a disaster for the party — by earned media driven by those sometimes crazy debates, and by social media. They have also survived by the new phenomena ushered in by our U.S. Supreme Court and its Citizens United case — the Super PACs. Rick Santorum even appears on stage with his Super PAC's leading donor, Foster Friess.

And even though they’re not supposed to coordinate, somebody told Sugar Daddy Friess where to stand and what to say. And maybe they shared a bottle of water in the greenroom. But they probably don’t talk about campaign strategy. Right.

Imagine if Bob Dole was put through this in 1996? Much like Romney, he was the establishment choice. There was no Tea Party to pressure him although there was the Moral Majority. But there wasn’t decentralized access to mass media that was free. That is now and it is real.

Consider the revolution in Egypt. The government controlled all media outlets except for Facebook and Twitter. Iran is now trying to create a Halal internet to control information. The fear of democracy in the Middle East is real, and the application of those same tools right here in America and Washington state is creating uncertainty and excitement about the possibilities for greater public involvement in our political processes.

Even before Youtube created outrage and inspiration for the Arab Spring, it had begun to change politics in this country. Recall how videos of Sen. George Allen and his "Macaca" comments brought him down in a tough campaign.   

Our local consultants are trying to adjust and keep on top of all these changes. One big problem for them is how these new lines of communication and organization are impacting their economic bread and butter, the mail houses. They want candidates to raise money and spend it on the production of mail pieces.

The standard campaign here is for the candidate to spend every waking hour asking for money which goes to the production of as many of these pieces as possible. As a former candidate (for Seattle City Council), I bear witness to the feeling that you are a beast of burden for an industry that creates much heat and very little light. Mail pieces are either glossy vanilla expressions of the obvious or exaggerated cartoons of an opponent guilty of callous disregard for old people and the poor.

It would be wrong to say this game makes people do things that are wrong. Most often it makes people do things that are inconsequential. The winners are the consultants, the mail houses, fundraisers, and the media. The losers are everyone else.

But what is a candidate to do? There are limited ways in which to reach voters with your message: Doorbelling is by far the best way to reach voters. The problem with doorbelling is that you can’t do it very effectively citywide or statewide. Candidates generally do it to get out of call time which makes consultants crazy. The other ways are through direct mail, TV, and cable buys.

The problem with mail pieces is that many people don’t read their mail anymore and it is getting harder and harder to get the timing right on when the pieces land. In a back and forth fight timing can be everything. And, ironically, all mail-in elections have made the timing harder still. While older voters still read the mail, generational shifts are continuing. Just as younger voters don’t watch the evening news anymore. Witness the advertising for pharmaceuticals and laxatives: They consider snail mail an artifact.

The sea changes in communication since 2009, when I ran for Council, have been fast and relentless.

The good news for candidates and the public — and the somewhat bad news for consultants — is that social media affords the possibility that good ideas, as well as bad, depending on your perspective, can become viral and drive earned media for the political debate. This is why we’re still talking about Santorum, Gingrich, and Paul. It would be unheard of in years past for these guys to be hanging around given Romney’s huge delegate lead.

And although Gingrich hasn’t had the Big Idea, he knows that everyone is just one Big Viral Idea away from success. Unfortunately for him, his ideas lately seem more nutty than viral.

So, who will find the Big Idea to drive the debate in Washington State? In the Gubernatorial race Inslee and McKenna are so far running pretty conventional campaigns, shoring up constituency groups and trying not to offend. This also means that most people couldn’t really say what they are for or against. They are for good schools, a strong economy, handsome children, puppies and kittens, blah, blah, blah.

In Seattle, one candidate is trying something new. City Councilman Mike O’Brien is making campaign finance reform the centerpiece of his 2013 re-election campaign. He is only accepting $10 donations until he reaches $10,000. Will it catch on? It’s hard to say but I bet he’s having more fun and spending less time dialing for dollars. This sort of thing makes consultants cringe so I say: Good on you, Mike!

I don’t think campaign finance reform will be the big issue in the next few years. But it is obvious that the same forces that have democratized information, transformed journalism, and overthrown dictatorships is at play in our politics at the national, state, and local levels. What will be the Big Idea? Somebody will figure it out, and just like a comedian can make us laugh at something we didn’t realize we knew, we will scratch our head and wonder why we didn’t think of it first. And we’ll know it all at the same time.


About the Author

Jordan Royer currently works for the Pacific Merchant Shipping Association, which represents marine terminal operators and container vessels that serve the West Coast. He previously worked on public safety issues in the Paul Schell and Greg Nickels mayoral administrations. He was a candidate for Seattle City Council in 2009. You can reach him in care of editor@crosscut.com.

Like what you just read? Support high quality local journalism. Become a member of Crosscut today!

Comments:

Posted Thu, Mar 15, 8:19 a.m. Inappropriate

Good analysis, Jordan. The big ideas should be about policy, not about campaigning tools or even money-raising. For instance, in Washington state, what economic and tax policies would create economic growth and jobs; nationally, what mix of policies will generate near-term growth but, at the same time, get us on a longer-term path toward debt reduction?
What is most maddening, in so-called policy debate, is diversion of attention to bicycle paths, marijuana laws, or contraception. Mass media are losing audience; alternative media can be off-the-wall, hyper-partisan, and/or focused on obscure or irrelevant subject matter. We've dumbed down on all fronts. Thoughful candidates, such as yourself, often just give up and opt out, leaving the field to wannabee hacks and unreasonable ideologues. Thank God for good people who hang in there, despite all.

Posted Thu, Mar 15, 9:58 a.m. Inappropriate

One quibble: It was not "democratization of media that killed the Seattle Post-Intelligencer," it was a calculated business decision by the Hearst Corp. They had plenty of resources to keep that paper going -- billions more than the Seattle Times -- but chose to invest elsewhere.

Posted Thu, Mar 15, 2:08 p.m. Inappropriate

A Big Idea that goes viral is not necessarily a good idea.

One of the paradoxes of the internet age is that the overall effect of an information explosion has been an impulse toward re-tribalization. When the glut of information becomes overwhelming, most folks retreat into symbolic safe havens populated by like-minded individuals. Psychological comfort thus equates to shutting out dissenting views.

So it appears that the much-anticipated utopia based on a completely open and unfettered exchange of ideas doesn't thrive in an environment of utter chaos. Absolute freedom turns out to be a myth; there is always a need to establish at least some orderly framework of referential boundaries. If the process itself fails to offer them, the individual human mind will fill the vacuum -- often with arbitrary and foolish results.

woofer

Posted Thu, Mar 15, 2:10 p.m. Inappropriate

I would agree with much of what Mr. Royer says. I would add a couple of notes.

One, the Legislature just passed a bill that would include Seattle School Board candidates into the fold of campaign contribution limits.

Two, Crosscut suggested, after two of the School Board incumbents got ousted, that maybe they needed more money and more consultants. This after two of the incumbents (the two who lost) raised and spent more money than in any other Board race. And, one of them did have a consultant.

Mr. Royer is right to think about other ways to reach voters. I write for an education blog and I like to think our little bully pulpit was a town square where parents and other community members came to discuss the pros and cons of each candidate. It's hard to do that at a debate or forum. People have questions and opinions and I think it was helpful for them to have a place to go for answers (from a variety of sources).

westello

Posted Thu, Mar 15, 7:30 p.m. Inappropriate

One step to help equalize the playing field in Seattle council elections is to adopt district elections, like every other big city in the US. An ambitious candidate can doorbell her district and directly reach a large percentage of the voters. Have a series of coffee hours (remember them...?) and invite all the voters.

Big money only becomes a necessity in city campaigns because such grassroots techniques don't work in a huge constituency, the size of a congressional district.

But incumbent councilmembers hate districts. None of them wants to spend every fourth summer and fall wearing out shoeleather fending off the next Bob Ferguson.

Posted Fri, Mar 16, 3:53 p.m. Inappropriate

Exactly right...currently the city council is a rubber stamp with 9 handles on it.

jmrolls

Posted Sun, Mar 18, 8:56 p.m. Inappropriate

This quote from the article is curious:
"I don’t think campaign finance reform will be the big issue in the next few years."

Jordan provides no explanation for why he thinks this which is a little disappointing. I'm hoping campaign finance reform will become an even BIGGER issue than it is now.

It's also disappointing the author mentioned the horribly corrupting effect of Citizens United where corporations (including foreign corporations) can spend unlimited billions on election messages, all anonymous. I don't know if it's naivete or just being 'Seattle nice' that allows the author to glance over this disastrous Supreme Court decision as if it has very little effect. This election season will most likely prove otherwise as Mr Corporate America Romney runs against Mr Community Organizer Obama. Romney has shown he's perfectly willing to run a 100% negative campaign and spend unlimited amounts of money to get the nomination. He'll be willing to do the same for the election.

One only needs to look at these 'Don't Re-Nig' bumper stickers to understand what a dirty, racist campaign season this is going to be.

‘Don’t Re-Nig,’ the racist anti-Obama bumper sticker, appears real
http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/sideshow/racist-don-t-nig-anti-obama-bumper-sticker-162917634.html

Posted Mon, Mar 19, 3:49 p.m. Inappropriate

The big money of the Republican Party has failed, it is a question not of if, but when. Demographic changes in this country assure it within 20 years. More to fear are the boomer Dems who believe every 'big idea' for progressive, crowdfunded, capitalism is obviously a plot of young punks - like, for example some of the City of Seattle funded racist/sexist tripe advanced by the Seattle School District not all that long ago.

Posted Thu, Mar 22, 11:15 p.m. Inappropriate

The big money of the Republicans hasn't failed. It has made Romney the frontrunner and it will assure the big media buys for every Reublican candidate for the foreseeable future.

sarah90

Login or register to add your voice to the conversation.

Join Crosscut now!
Subscribe to our Newsletter

Follow Us »