Breaking News: There Is Too Much Money In Politics

According to common sense and this Demos report.

This is another case where I don't have much to add but I wanted to share the facts and figures presented because they are startling.

Candidates for the U.S. Senate must raise an average of $3,300 every day for six years to match the contributions collected by median 2014 winner; House candidates must raise $1,800 every day of their two-year cycle.
Relying exclusively on small donors, Senate candidates would have to secure at least 17 contributions every day and House candidates at least nine in order to keep up.

In 25 targeted 2014 congressional races, successful candidates and their closest competitors received more than 86 percent of the funds they raised from individuals in contributions totaling $200 or more.
Only two of 50 candidates in these competitive races raised less than 70 percent of their individual funds from large donors, while seven relied on big donors for more than 95 percent of their individual contributions.

This big money system filters out qualified, credible candidates who lack access to large donors. Four of these candidates are profiled in the pages below.
Kelly Westlund, lost WI-7 general election: “The current system makes sure that from start to finish our political process is dominated by the people with the most money…it’s no wonder that there is no voice for working class people in Congress.”

Rev. Michael Walrond, lost NY-13 Democratic primary: “You find out very quickly this is not about who has the best ideas; this is about who has the most money.”
David A. Smith, lost FL-7 Republican primary: “It’s very difficult for a first-time candidate, unless you’re personally prepared to write a big check to break into it.”

Amanda Renteria, lost CA-21 general election: “Given my network, where I come from, where I’m running, I expected that I wasn’t going to have huge donors. You have to ask folks for help that have been in your network and that understand where you’re running and why it’s important. That for me ended up being a small donor base.”

A federal program matching small contributions with limited public funds would have helped the profiled candidates compete more effectively against their big money-backed opponents by substantially narrowing the fundraising gap. One candidate would have raised significantly more money than her opponent if a matching fund program were available. The other three candidates would have narrowed the fundraising gap by an average of more than 40 percentage points. More importantly, they would have had significantly more resources to get their messages out and hit the minimum threshold for running a competitive campaign. And, they would have been able to do so raising two or three small contributions each day as opposed to the nine or more they currently need to keep up.

No, No Limits (So Reach For the Sky?)

Finally my CNN Breaking News alert pays off:

The U.S. Supreme Court today struck down limits on the total amount a person can donate to various political campaigns in a single election season. However, the court left intact the limit on how much an individual can give to any single candidate.

"We conclude that the aggregate limits on contributions do not further the only governmental interest this court accepted as legitimate," said Chief Justice John Roberts, referring to a 1976 ruling. "They instead intrude without justification on a citizen's ability to express the most fundamental First Amendment activities."

The divided 5-4 ruling could have an immediate impact on November's congressional midterm elections, and add another layer of high-stakes spending in the crowded political arena.

What do we think?


PS. Support Campaignsick: http://www.patreon.com/campaignsick

FEC Raises Federal Contribution Limit

In case you missed it. Washington Post:

The Federal Election Commission has raised the amount that individuals can give to political candidates from $2,500 per election to $2,600 per election and the amount they can give to party committees from $30,800 per year to $32,400 per year.

Where's the Money?

Thanks to the National Journal you can see who's spending the most money in ads in battleground states where and the latest thing they've put on TV. (See one of my fav's above.) Pretty cool!

Ridiculous Bedfellows

Hat Tip to The New Republic for pointing out this amazing wayward tale of FEC glory in which the Republican members of the FEC side with union bosses and Democratic members side against them. Here's what happened:

"In a little-noticed ruling last week... the three Republican commissioners on the FEC found that it was acceptable for a union in Hawaii to force its members to campaign on behalf of Colleen Hanabusa, a Democratic candidate in the special congressional election in Hawaii in May 2010. Two members of United Public Workers had filed a complaint stating they had lost their jobs when they refused to hold signs and canvass on behalf of Hanabusa. This might seem like just the sort of thing that Republicans would seize on as proof of union bosses wielding undue power over their minions—but no. The Democratic appointees on the FEC found the coercion illegal, but the Republican appointees did not—instead, they cited the 2010 Citizens United ruling as permitting the union’s compulsion.

Because if the union in this instance is allowed to compel its members to campaign on behalf of a favored candidate, that means that a corporation is allowed to do so, too. And just as the lifting of spending restrictions ends up meaning much more for corporations than for unions—since corporations have a lot more money to spend—any lifting of restrictions on compelled political activity would mean more for corporations as well, since there are a lot more people working at big companies than in the shrinking ranks of unionized workers."

The commission is deadlocked and the case remains unsettled, but the potential implications are harrowing. No one should be forced to campaign on behalf of a candidate by anyone especially her employer. That seems completely contrary to the whole free and fair elections thing. Could you imagine Walmart deciding to make its employees campaign on behalf of Mitt Romney at peril of losing their jobs? That is some Orwellian noise right there.

Happy Labor Day Everybody! (No but seriously, in general you should thank a union member today if you like weekends and safe working conditions.) But still, wow.

Ask An Election Nerd: From Field to Finance

Hello Nancy,

I am writing because I was wondering if you had advice for folks who were looking to make the jump from field to fundraising. I've used NGP before, and I'm having a finance friend of mine teach me the in's and out's of the program again. I have a lot of friends in campaigns, and I think that I could make the transition. I've always been fascinated by fundraising, I enjoy planning events, and I love working with and meeting new people. I know that field offers the same opportunities on some level, but I'm thinking long term. I love it, but 80 hours a week is too much at this point. I like to work a lot, but I'm 25 and I want to see what life has to offer outside of work too.

Any suggestions?
_______________________________________________________________________________________

Honestly? No. The one time I put the Nance in fi-nance it was on a very backwards campaign and I sort of just fell into it. Luckily, I am a huge proponent of delegating and I have an entire network at my disposal! Tumblr followers, remember when I said I know your bosses? I wasn't just whistling Dixie. Below are responses from two senior level Democratic operatives who have made the transition from field to finance. Looks like you can kiss your dreams of a shorter work week goodbye. I can tell you, they are both friends of mine and they've both made incredible social sacrifices to the campaign lifestyle, even/especially since moving over to finance.

They've asked to remain anonymous since they are involved in campaigns this cycle. Big thanks to them and I hope you find their advice useful!

-Nance
_____________________________________________________________________________________
Response 1:

First and foremost I would say that moving from field to finance doesn’t mean the 80 hour week goes away, it just means you cannot wear jeans and a t-shirt to work anymore. Like field you’re still hustling but you’re not working towards GOTV. Finance has different deadlines similar to field but the deadlines occur every three months at the end of the quarter with a lot of late night. There are a lot of similarities between field and finance, which a finance person will never truly admit to a field person’s face. Simply put asking for a “vote” is similar to asking for “money.” There’s targeting and research involved and understanding who you’re asking and what you’re asking for is a big part of fundraising.

If you’re serious about moving into fundraising I would recommend looking for a finance assistant or call time manager position on a campaign. These positions are base level but key to any good fundraising operation and you’ll learn a lot in either of these positions. Check the usual list serves and pay close attention to the ones that focus on fundraising (like EMILY’s List). After the election cycle is over I would also recommend attending fundraising trainings that groups like the DCCC, EMILY’s List, and so on offer. It’s a great way to not only network within the finance campaign world but the trainings also offers volumes of information that help create winning campaigns with strong money behind them.

Best of luck from an original field organizer who’s still trying to a have a life outside of work, that’s a goal I think we all strive for.

_____________________________________________________________________________________

Response 2:

All of us that have come up through field have all said it, “this is going to be my last phone call.” And some of you may think you need to get out of field so you can leave the office while the sun is still out. I hate to disappoint you, but it only gets tougher.

Field makes you tough and ready for anything, that’s why a vast majority of the better operatives and consultants I know have a field background, but eventually it comes time to move on and try something else. Some readers have asked advice about moving on from field, and to be quite honest some think that leaving field means you can explore opportunities outside of work. I hate to disappoint you, but you work on a campaign you have to make sacrifices.

Finance. You think dealing with volunteers was difficult? Say hello to donors. Finance staff all over the country can tell you stories. Though we do love them because they keep us in a certain luxury we campaign staffers are accustomed to, there are things you are asked to do for donors that you have to do, whereas can simply tell a volunteer no. Oh, and if you think the VAN was trouble, say hello to NGP (or NGP/VAN, or NGP/VAN with Facebook or whatever it is now). NGP is a great database, and they do have great customer service (especially come reporting deadline time), but it has so many bells and whistles sometimes you just don’t know what to do with it.

I've also worked in research. Coming from field, research can be an interesting transition. In field you interact with voters, volunteers, kids, seniors, and every day Americans otherwise known as “folks.” In research, you spend most of your time on a computer reading documents, or in a library reading documents, or in a courthouse reading documents, or sometimes in hostile Republican territory with a camera (always fun times). Research can have kind of a nerdy spy feel to it in that you don’t really interact much with other departments because the stuff you are looking it can be quite damaging (not just to your opponent).

That being said, I love what I have been able to do on campaigns, and I love that field is where I got it all started, and I encourage all the young, upstart organizers to broaden their horizons and try other departments, just don’t think you will be working any less than you did as an organizer.

There you have it, straight from the finance staff's mouth! Thanks again to my friends who took time out of their busy actual-campaign-working schedules to offer us their insight!

Pro-Tip for Candidates: Seven Sentences You Should Never Say to Your Campaign Manager

Although I usually write for campaign staff, a phone call from a very frustrated friend combined with some meetings I've taken lately motivated me to write a set of guidelines for candidates employing a staff, especially on local races. Like a first date, there are some things a candidate should know will be an immediate turn-off to a veteran campaign staffer and conversely some sentences that should raise a major red flag if uttered by your candidate. What's worse, I think most candidates have no idea what message they're really sending with these seemingly innocuous phrases. It all has to do with setting boundaries and reasonable expectations. Think of the following as a tough-love version of the "The Rules" for candidate-campaign manager relationships. Seven sentences a candidate should never say:


1)"I am the candidate, you work for me."

This is one of the most frustrating sentences a campaign manager can hear because what you're essentially saying is "I'm not willing to let you do your job."

This can be a confusing issue. On the one hand, the candidate hires and (her campaign) pays the campaign manager. On the other hand, the campaign manager spends all day telling the candidate what to do. Who's the boss? Think of a campaign manager like a doctor. You don't have to listen to what she says, but if you don't you might die... or you know, lose an election. This is your campaign and you need to feel comfortable with how it's run. That is why it is so important to find consultants and campaign staff who you trust and who you feel understand you. Once you've done that, let them do their jobs. After all they are the experts, which is why you hired them.

That's not to say you can never question a decision or that you should take a stance with which you disagree, but if this is the norm rather than the exception, then you need to examine what's wrong. Are you pushing back against professional campaign advice because it requires you to do things that are uncomfortable for you? In that case are you really willing to do the work it takes to run office? Do you not have faith in your campaign team? What can you do to change that?

Even at the inevitable times in the best candidate-manager relationships when you disagree, I implore you never to say this sentence. Just as in any relationship, at the end of the day you want the other person to feel appreciated and saying this sentence devalues the very important and probably difficult role that your campaign manager plays in your campaign.


2)"I don't want to annoy people."

Too bad. Running for office means that you will annoy people. You will badger people who pledged endorse you. You will beg people for money, repeatedly, even when they have donated before. You will knock the doors of people you met just a week before only to hear them reaffirm that they are undecided. People will complain. They will tell you they hate getting political mail. They will tell you that if you call again they won't vote for you (if that's the case they were never going to support you in the first place.) They will write op-eds lamenting negative campaigning... and in the end you will win because you were willing to do it and your opponent was not.

When you ask people to support you either with their time or financially, you are implicitly promising that you will work as hard as you possibly can to get elected. Doing these things that annoy voters but will help you win in the long run is how you keep your end of that bargain.


3) "It's like the Obama campaign."

No, it's not. When I hear this from a candidate it immediately makes me think "this person has unrealistic expectations about what it means to run for office."

I don't care how charismatic, well-connected or progressive you are, people are not going to be coming out of the woodwork to volunteer on or donate money to your campaign by sheer force of your personality. You need to earn it. Barack Obama had an historic candidacy. The kind of dedication and passion exhibited by his 2008 supporters just does not exist on a non-national level and most times not even then. This doesn't mean you won't also have passionate and dedicated supporters, but they are likely to be fewer in number and harder to earn. Even if you worked for Obama, you are not him. Most people will not tear up when they talk about why they support you. Tactics that Obama could rely on, like charging for yard signs, circulating youtube videos that get thousands of hits, and online fundraising drives are not going to be the bread and butter of your campaign. This is a local election about local issues and local people. This race is about you and the community you are running to represent. What will help you win is hard work; good old fashioned fundraising calls, an understanding of your district and lots of voter contact, which by the way Obama for America did plenty of.


4)"My wife/husband is my campaign manager/field director/communications person."

Bad idea. Other than Ben and Leslie, I have seen this work exactly once when my candidate's wife was the campaign treasurer and she was a) an exceptional person and b) able to perform that job in a few hours a week.

You do not want your spouse to play any role on the campaign where they have to tell you "no" or tell or be told "no" by other campaign staff. Why? Because running for office is hard. I don't just mean its difficult to run a good campaign, although it is, I mean emotionally. Your staff's job is to kick your butt a little and your spouse's job is to support you. Those two motives will inevitably come into conflict at some point. If your relationship and your campaign are intertwined, one or the other will suffer. You want your staff to be thinking about what's best for you as a candidate, not as a person, and believe me, you'll want someone to complain to about the rest of us at the end of the day. Do not do this to yourself or your campaign team.

5)"That may have worked in location X but it won't work here."

I have written/railed about this phenomenon before.

Here is where a kitchen cabinet of local supporters can either be very useful, or a thorn in a campaign manager's side. Thanks to local advisors, I now know that the Pine Beetle is killing Colorado's forests and that in Minnesota volunteers bring bars and hot dish to a potluck, not cookies and casserole. At the same time when an equally well meaning group of local activists told me that there are no campaign volunteers in the state of Connecticut, (None! In the entire state!) that wasn't gonna fly.

When it comes to local issues, jargon, and landscape, yes, you know more than your campaign staff. However when it comes to mainstays of running a campaign like voter contact, fundraising, and targeting, your campaign manager is still the expert and she knows what's necessary to win. In places like college towns where the voter list from three years ago may no longer be current or in New York City where it's harder to access big buildings, this may take a little creative thinking, which is another way in which your trusted local advisors are invaluable. In those cases, it is much more constructive to say "this is how we make that happen here" rather than undermine your staff by allowing your local supporters to write her off as outsider.


6)"There's too much money in politics, I'm going to win with grassroots support."

This is just a cop out way of saying "I'm not willing to do fundraising calls," in which case, don't run for office. I don't care if you're old school John McCain and Feingold and Bernie Sanders rolled into one piece of campaign finance legislation, you still need to raise money. As Barack Obama said when asked why he opposes Citizens United but not Democratic Super PACs, "We're not going to just unilateraly disarm." Call it using the master's tools to dismantle the master's house, call it whatever you like. If you want to get the money out of politics, you need to be elected and to do that you need to fundraise. Always. In every case. No exception.


7)"They haven't yet, but they should/will support me."

One of the hardest things about being a first time candidate is facing a lot of disappointment. When you run for office some people come through for you in ways you could have never imagined and some people...don't. You will have friends who just put a new wing on their house to house their vintage car collection who tell you they can't afford to max out on your campaign. You will have clubs in which you have been a loyal member for years refuse to endorse you for political reasons. It's not fair. It stinks. It's humbling and it's life.

Don't take anything for granted until the check is in your hand or the endorsement is in the paper. Then when it happens, you can be pleasantly surprised.


Look, running for office is tough. You're selling yourself and there's a chance that you might be rejected. You have to call people you haven't spoken to in years and ask them for money. There are times when it can feel downright humiliating. It's hard not to take the possibility of victory personally, and maybe even harder to hand that awesome responsibility to a twenty-something who you've never met before. I get it. That relationship can be difficult enough and I hope by putting this advice out there, I am saving you further strain. One thing I can promise you is that your staff wants you to succeed. Trust them and be a candidate worthy of their trust and the chances of success increase exponentially.

Text Change to 66639 (M-O-N-E-Y)

Thanks to a non-partisan effort, you may soon be able to text campaign contributions. Republican friends, fair warning, lock your iPhones!

"Two consulting firms -- one from each party -- are asking the Federal Election Commission for permission to accept political contributions via text messages, a move that could reshape the way many campaign donations are collected.

The idea has attracted support from campaign-finance watchdogs, who view it as a way to broaden participation in political campaigns and push back on the influence of interest groups funded by billionaires and corporations. The strategy would be limited to donations of $50 or less, which can be made anonymously under federal guidelines. If the FEC approves it, President Obama, Mitt Romney and other 2012 candidates could begin using the approach in time for the November elections."

Vote With Your Purse

Did you know, that "If women voters across parties give as little as $5 to one female candidate, it would be enough to run a female candidate in every House race with a budget of over $1 million each?" Neither did I. But I do now. Thanks to this excellent report from She Should Run, an awesome organization "dedicated to dramatically to increasing the number of women in public leadership by eliminating and overcoming barriers to success. Check it out here!

Citizens United Amendment?

I realized I haven't posted about a very important Constitutional amendment being proposed by Tom Udall (NM), Michael Bennett (CO), Tom Harkin (IA), Dick Durbin (IL), Chuck Schumer (NY), Sheldon Whitehouse (RI), and Jeff Merkely (OR), (all of whom were elected with the help of at least one of my amazing organizer friends, by the way) which would effectively overturn Citizens United.

The amendment as filed resolves that both Congress and individual states shall have the power to regulate both the amount of contributions made directly to candidates for elected office and “the amount of expenditures that may be made by, in support of, or in opposition to such candidates.”

Bernie Sanders was on the Colbert Report talking about the same thing.

Could it be? Meaningful campaign finance reform? Be still my little organizing heart.

No Public Funding for Presidential Elections

This would be huge news. Except there's no way anyone was going to win a Presidential with public financing anyway.

NGP VAN: A Match Made in Heaven

DID YOU GUYS KNOW ABOUT THIS?

Peanut butter and Jelly. Zack Morris and Kelly Kapowski. Beer and baseball. Some things just belong together.

For those of you less obsessed with the Voter Activation Network than me (ie everyone) let's take a step back. As it says in the press release, "VAN is the architect of the Democratic National Committee’s VoteBuilder database, which is distributed to thousands of Democratic campaigns across the nation. In 2008, VoteBuilder was used by Obama for America to manage the largest voter contact and volunteer program in campaign history." For the record, VAN (the actual product is called VoteBuidler and the company is VAN, but we use the two interchangeably) was around before the Obama campaign and it's basically a field organizer's best friend. Votebuilder is how we track and manage volunteer and voter contact data. If it's not in the VAN, it doesn't exist. It's what make us better at field campaigns than Republicans and frankly a large part of what made me good at my job. It can generate lists of volunteers or voters based on where they live, what events they've attended, even create a walklist complete with map and driving directions or a call list with phone numbers, sex, age and party registration. And this is just the tip of the iceberg. Without the VAN, I'd be useless.

The one drawback to Votebuilder has always been that it doesn't effectively track donor data. It's tools are set up for field, not finance. Consequently we have needed another tool to track donor data; who has gotten an ask, who we need to follow up with, who has maxed out, etc. Enter National Geographic and Political Software. From the press release, "NGP is used by the DNC, DSCC, DCCC, DGA, and DLCC; over 75 percent of the Democrats in the U.S. House and Senate; almost all the Democratic state parties; and in total over 1,700 Democrats, PACs, and other organizations and corporations. For 14 years, NGP has helped clients succeed and win by delivering a mix of products, political and technology expertise, and outstanding client services." NGP is the gold standard for tracking finance data.

The problem is, it's possible for field and finance to be working very similar lists at the same time and not know about it. Their asks are not coordinated. When I call to ask if you'll attend a fundraiser on Thursday, I don't know that you're scheduled for door knocking that day. If I make a persuasion call to a voter and she pledges a donation, I don't have the tools to enter it in the system. Or at least...not until now...

NGP and VAN are getting married! It's true, most campaign relationships don't last, but I think these two crazy kids are gonna make it!

"NGP has focused on the financial side of campaigning (fundraising and compliance tools) and VAN on the field (voter contact and volunteer management). The combined company will offer an array of campaign technology services including systems to manage voter contact, volunteer management, fundraising and compliance, union organizing, membership management, and phone services. These services are complemented by a suite of new media tools: broadcast email, online contributions, website tools, all integrated with the VAN and NGP databases. "

Apparently this press released happened in November?! How is it possible that I didn't know about this? It would be like Perez Hilton missing a press release that Elton John got Lady Gaga pregnant. It's that big a deal. When I sent the link to an old bro-worker, amidst his shouts of glee he commented "If I had been waiting for a sign from God about something, I would have just assumed this was it." I suspect I will have to edit this post tomorrow, but I was too excited not to share. And seriously...if I found out you knew about this and didn't tell me...well...let's just say you will not be my plus one to the wedding. NationalField is gonna be so jealous!

Truth-bending in politics? Well, I never!

True, this article is from Fox News. But, seriously.

"In a case that could test the bounds of free speech, a former Democratic congressman has been allowed to proceed with his lawsuit against a prominent pro-life group that he claims contributed to his election defeat by spreading falsehoods about his record on abortion issues."

Basically, this Congressman (Steve Driehaus) voted for the health care bill, and this anti-choice group (Susan B Anthony List) used that vote to claim he supported government funded abortion. He lost the election and is suing them.

Okay, I agree, campaigns, PACs and outside groups should not spread lies about other politicians. When my politicians on my campaigns have been the victims of these lies, I have had the thought "There ought to be a law!!!" On the other hand, politicians or campaigns I support have been on the disseminating end of negative campaigning and I've thought "Well, people need to know." Our opponents have no doubt seen these attacks as unfair or out of context and that, my friends, is politics. So, what is "should"?

There is in fact a law, or a set of laws, but the bar is high. Driehaus would have to prove that what the group said about him was an out and out lie and that they knew it was. As the article puts it, "While libel and defamation law protects most speech when it comes to public officials, it does not necessarily protect false speech."

So much in politics is a matter of opinion. The claims that Susan B. Anthony List made about former Rep.Driehaus are pretty outrageous, but so are a lot of claims I've heard. How far is the leap from "Congresswoman X voted for a bill decriminalizing marijuana" to "Congresswoman X wants your children to be able to buy drugs?" I once worked on a campaign where our opponent claimed that my candidate was attacking his learning disabled child. (In reality, my candidate was campaigning on being the only public school parent in the race.) Was my candidate attacking our opponent's child by touting his own experience with public schools? Clearly, not. Did our opponent really think this was our candidate's intention? Doubtful. Did we sue the guy? Heck, no. Then again, we also won.

He also needs to prove that it caused him economic harm. As part of his complaint, Driehaus argues, "The First Amendment is not and never has been an invitation to concoct falsehoods aimed at depriving a person of his livelihood." This is the part that really gets me. This isn't about healthcare reform or election standards, it's about a sore loser. I don't see how Driehaus will be able to prove that this ad campaign definitively caused him to lose the election. Even if he does, so what? People have voted politicians out for less valid reasons. Voters have the right (frequently exercised) to vote stupid. When you choose electoral politics as your profession, you're signing on for a lack of job security. It comes with the territory. You might not like it, but you don't get to sue somebody. If you can't stand the heat, get outta the kitchen.

If "economic harm" didn't play such a large role in Driehaus' complaint, I would be way more sympathetic. The question of how or if we should regulate lying in campaigns is compelling. The people who tried to deny their fellow Americans health care by lying for political gain should be smacked, but Driehaus himself just makes me want to call the waaaahmbulance.

And who is representing the anti-choice group in question? None other than our friend, James Bopp.

I love when a conversation comes full circle.

Affectionately,

Nancy

Supreme Court Rules States Can't Offer Extra Public Funds to Encourage Spending Limit

The Supreme Court, sharply divided along ideological lines, struck down part of an Arizona campaign funding law, ruling that states and cities may not seek to "level the playing field" by giving extra public funds to candidates who agree to abide by spending limits.

Quite frankly, I'm too flu-y to comment right now, but I wanted to make sure I shared this since I think it brings up some interesting points. More later.

-Nance