. . . because much of the content relates both to Washington, D.C., and "outside the beltway" -- the heartland, specifically Iowa -- and because after going from Iowa to Washington via Texas and California I subsequently returned, From DC 2 Iowa.
Showing posts with label campaign finance. Show all posts
Showing posts with label campaign finance. Show all posts
Introduction
This site is intended to be an entertaining conversation starter for those who enjoy and follow politics and have maintained enough civility to continue to speak about such matters with friends and family.
I have not endorsed any candidate, and am not now working in any candidate's campaign. (If and when that changes I will post a notice to that effect.)
Moreover, this blog post does not engage in the foolishness of forecasting -- especially this early in the campaign. Plenty of "unknown unknowns" will be encountered along the road to November 3, 2020, any one of which can change the outcome during a single news cycle.
This is simply one approach to the question, "Where are we now?"
The Ranking
As of today (April 15) Ballotpedia.org reports there are 227 Democratic Party candidates, 84 Republicans, 24 Libertarians and 14 from the Green Party.
Update April 23, 2019: As one would expect, the number of candidates remains relatively steady: Democrats up 2 to 229, Libertarians up 1 to 25, Republicans and Greens steady at 84 and 14. Ballotpedia (a site full of additional interesting and useful data as well).
We will be reporting on the top three or four Democrats, as measured by four criteria: popularity with voters, money raised, number of donors, and weighted endorsements.
My judgment as to the top four at this time, considering all four criteria, are: Bernie Sanders, Kamala Harris, Beto O'Rourke and Cory Booker (pictured below in that order; first three from Wikimedia, no Wikimedia of Booker so used selfie he took). Here's how they rank:
Popularity (from Real Clear Politics): Sanders, 21.7%; O'Rourke, 8.3%; Harris, 7.8%, Booker, 3.7%. (Biden, at 31.2%, is excluded from this ranking because he has not yet entered the race.) Rolling Stone, presumably also measuring popularity, changes rankings each week. This week they are consistent with Real Clear Politics' findings. Currently, Rolling Stone's rankings for this and last week were: Sanders (1, 1), Harris (2, 2), O'Rourke (4, 3), Booker (7, 6).
Update April 23, 2019: This week we expand the leaders' group from 4 to 6: At the top, Biden (30%) and Sanders (22.5%); in the next cluster O'Rourke (8.8%), Harris (8.5%), with Buttigieg and Warren tied at (6.0%). Real Clear Politics. The latest single poll, Monmouth, April 23, reports (name; percentage): Biden 27; Sanders 20; Harris 8; Buttigieg 8; Warren 6. Rolling Stone changed slightly to Real Clear Politics' 5: Sanders, Harris, Warren, O'Rourke, and Buttigieg (in that order).
Joe Biden. Of course, with Biden at 30%, and predictions he'll announce this Wednesday (April 24), that's a game-changer for the current front runners. April 25: It finally occurred this morning, rather than yesterday. It will be a couple of weeks before we can gather and update info on his money, number of donors, endorsements -- and whether his announcement will increase, or decrease, his support percentage.
April 26: Biden's announcement April 25 produced little news and less enthusiasm from most media. Many stories led with a list of reasons why Democrats should not, and will not, select him as their candidate, along with reporting President Trump's disparaging nickname for him: "Sleepy Joe." Here's an example: Jonathan Martin and Alexander Burns, "5 Questions That Will Determine if Joe Biden Can Succeed,"The New York Times, April 25, 2019, p. A17. No candidate among the 20 now considered serious candidates has the range and depth of experience essential to a president's competence on Day One (though all have more than the current incumbent). But as limited as even Biden's is (U.S. senator, vice president, two prior presidential primaries, some international), his experience exceeds that of any of the others. His pre-announcement popularity with voters (30%) also put him at the head of the pack. Kind words seemed relegated to the opinion pages. Here's Republican David Brooks, "Your Average Joe,"The New York Times, April 25, 2019 [Photo: Joe Biden, World Economic Forum, 2005; Credit: wikimedia commons.]
Money Raised (in total dollars and dollars per day; from PBS Newshour): Sanders ($18.2M; $444,000/day); Harris ($12M; $171,000/day); O'Rourke ($9.4M; $520,000/day); Booker ($5M; $84,745/day). Note the consistency in the Money Raised ranking and the Popularity ranking.
Update April 23, 2019: PBS Newshour reports no changes from last week for Sanders, Harris and O'Rourke. But we should probabaly now note that Buttigieg has raised $7 million ($107,000/day) and Klobuchar $5.2 million ($104,000 per day), both ahead of Booker, last week and this, at $5 million.
Number of Donors (from New York Times, Feb. 9, 2019): Given that the first primary is "the money primary" (discussed in Commentary, below) the total donated to each candidate is a relevant measure of their strength for a variety of reasons, including popularity. But because it can be so significantly affected by the receipt, or rejection, of PAC money and other large contributions it can be deceiving. (And because candidates can solicit and count their $1.00 and $5.00 contributions, their "average" (i.e., mean) contribution can also be deceiving.)
Therefore, the number of donors is data worth considering. (Bear in mind, these numbers are significantly affected by how long the candidate has been in the race, and change daily if not hourly, but the calculation on any given day provides some useful information. The following ranking was reported by the Times on Feb. 9 of this year.) Our current four candidates (Sanders, O'Rourke, Harris, Booker) are ranked 1, 2, 5, 8. Sanders, 1.2 million; O'Rourke, 743,000; Harris, 239,000; Booker, 56,000. (Those ranked 3, 4, 6, 7 are Elizabeth Warren (343,000), Kirsten Gillibrand (272,000), Sherrod Brown (114,000), and Jeff Merkley (105,000).
Update April 23, 2019: Some candidates report number of donors, others don't (e.g., Cory Booker). Some indication of numbers can be gathered from data regarding average contributions. Here's a CBS News report as of April 15. Emily Tillett, "2020 Democratic Presidential Candidates Reveal First Quarter Fundraising Efforts," CBS News, April 15, 2019.
Sanders - 900,000 donors (includes 100,000 Independents, 20,000 Republicans) - 99.5% of donors gave less than $100, 88% of money came in $200 or less amounts - average donation $20
Harris - 218,000 donors - 98% less than $200 - average $28
O'Rourke - 218,000 donors - 98% less than $200 - average $43
Buttigieg - ($7,000,000) - 158,550 donors - 64% less than $200 - average $36.35
Warren - 135,000 donors - 99% less than $200 - average $28
Endorsements (from 538's points allocation system, from one to ten based on prestige/influence of the endorser): Booker (57), Harris (55), Sanders (21), O'Rourke (14).
Update April 23, 2019: Booker, Harris and O'Rourke are unchanged (57, 55, 14). Sanders is up one (to 22). And there are three additions for us this week: Klobuchar, who leaped to third place at 44; Biden, who is now being included, at 21; and Warren at 18. (Buttigieg is ranked ninth with 8 endorsement points.) FiveThirtyEight.
Update April 29, 2019: Big news, but no surprise: following Biden's declaration of candidacy he arrived on FiveThirtyEight's endorsement chart at number one, with 75 points. Booker (2), Harris (3), Sanders (6), and O'Rourke (7) still unchanged (at 57, 55, 22 and 14 points each). Klobuchar (4) has dropped from 44 to 39 points. Warren (5) is up from 18 to 23; Buttigieg (9) has risen from 8 to 11 points.
Commentary.
In terms of the concerns I've expressed regarding attacks on our democracy (Columns of Democracy), the Popularity ranking (Sanders, (O'Rourke, Harris, or Harris, O'Rourke), Booker), though both imperfect and clearly premature, comes the closest to "the people's choice." Money Raised, which produced the same ranking, and Number of Donors, which produced a similar ranking, are similar measures -- in this instance not just of the donor's marginal preference of one candidate over others, but of enough commitment to part with their money. (This is especially-to-only true if the candidate has refused PAC money and is relying on small contributions. To the extent money is coming from the 1%, PACs, and corporate bundling of checks we have a preliminary primary that Larry Lessig has called "the money primary," from which the surviving candidates are picked by the major donors who usually expect something in return. Voters are then left with choices from among only those candidates who have been cleared and "nominated" by America's most wealthy to run in the second primary.)
Endorsements raise separate, but related issues to those raised by "the money primary" -- as Bernie Sanders discovered in 2016. As the FiveThirtyEight site explains, "Party elites use endorsements to influence not only voters but also each other, hoping to get other powerful party members to rally behind the candidate they think would be most acceptable." In other words, just as there is "the money primary" there is also the "Democratic Party elites primary." Just as the major donors tend to have their own reasons for favoring one candidate over another, so do the Democratic Party elites.
Note that Booker and Kobuchar, who rank number one and three respectively with endorsements, rank 5 and 6 in fundraising, 7 and 8 in popularity, and 8 and 10 in number of donors.
Experience.
So far this blog has focused on candidates. There is another factor that should be relevant to voters, but is often overlooked. That is: if your candidate were to win the general election, and become president, which of their past experiences and skills give you some confidence they will be able to not only win election as president but be able to function with competence as president? That is the subject of the blog post "Presidential Experience," April 28, 2019.
Issues
Am I interested in "the issues," the new (and old) ideas being put forth by the candidates? You bet I am. I love to learn about new public policy ideas, research and write about them, and think up new ones of my own. I've spent much of my life doing just that.
Candidate Andrew Yang has a "platform" (scroll down his "policies" page) that looks like it has about 100 such proposals. I'll probably look through all of them at some point.
There will be something connected to this blog post about policy if this post becomes an ongoing project.
I care about a candidate's intelligence, their curiosity, their creativity. But more than their creative ideas, what I want to know is their understanding of the processes that can transform those ideas into a reality that has a positive impact on people's lives.
As I have put the question to every presidential candidate I have talked to during the past 40 years or so, "Why are coal miners going to be safer in the mines with you in the White House?" along with similar questions. In other words, "I like your proposals, but how are you going to make them happen when they will be so strongly opposed by the major donors to the House and Senate members whom you'll have to persuade to vote for them?"
It's relatively easy to come up with new ideas, even very popular new ideas -- especially if you have a research team to write them and they're tested with polling and focus groups before you reveal what they are, and you're able to follow the advice to "be sincere, even if you don't mean it." What's far from easy is having a Lyndon Johnson's knowledge of what it takes to translate those ideas into legislation that one can get through the House and Senate and still win reelection. Get your candidate to talk about that.
Meanwhile, I'll inform myself regarding what the candidates are proposing. It may reveal something about their background, values, process and focus. I just won't, ultimately, end up endorsing anyone based on their stump speeches alone.
Donald Trump says we don't understand him. “These politicians, they don’t know me. They don’t understand me." He's right. Politicians, reporters and voters have had little to go on beyond speculation about his motives.
Some armchair psychiatrists think he displays evidence of classic narcissism. Others believe he's just naturally mean-spirited and crude when he disparages captured military personnel, women, people with disabilities, Muslims, Gold Star families — whoever’s in view when his mouth opens.
There's speculation he’s never been serious about running, surprised he won the nomination, and is already preparing for a loss — blaming a hostile media ("the lowest form of life") and "rigged" voting.
But wait; there's more.
There are at least three ways to get the goods and services for a political campaign: pay for them yourself, solicit and spend others’ campaign contributions or get what you need without paying.
Given the proportion of campaign advertising dollars spent on radio and TV (80 percent) getting it free is the preferred option.
So how has Donald Trump made out with free media? Like a bandit! Two billion dollars’ worth by March this year.
Which brings us to a possible understanding of Trump.
One of his wildest and most recent assertions is that ISIS was created by President Barack Obama, its “founder.”
Many, including myself, have noted that our entry into Iraq, exit, and then re-entry have increased recruitment of terrorists and attacks on American military. When Trump appeared on conservative talk radio host Hugh Hewitt’s program, Hewitt tried to use this analysis to help Trump. Trump was having none of it:
Hugh Hewitt: You said the President was the founder of ISIS. I know what you meant. You meant that he created the vacuum, he lost the peace.
Donald Trump: No, I meant he’s the founder of ISIS.
HH: But he’s not sympathetic to them. He hates them. He’s trying to kill them.
DT: I don’t care. He was the founder.
HH: But by using the term "founder," they’re hitting you on this again. Mistake?
DT: No, it’s no mistake. Everyone’s liking it. Do you not like that?
HH: I don’t. I think I would say they created the vacuum into which ISIS came, but they didn’t create ISIS. That’s what I would say...I’d just use different language to communicate it.
DT: But they wouldn’t talk about your language, and they do talk about my language, right?
HH: Well, good point.
"They do talk about my language." Trump’s six words tell the tale. Maybe Trump’s strategy is that there’s no bad publicity — especially when it’s a $2 billion value for free.
And recall his brag Fortune reported, “I could be the first presidential candidate to run and make money on it.” Already roughly 20 percent of his campaign expenditures involve payments to his own companies.
Plus, since much of his "property" is his brand, his name, he will continue to make money post-election — not to mention larger royalties for ghost-written books, lecture fees and a higher rated TV show.
His is a win-win strategy. If his loyal followers deliver 270 electoral votes, he’s president. If not, the value of his brand, his name on his properties, will have increased by hundreds of millions, if not billions, of dollars.
And all because, as he says, "they do talk about my language, right?"
_______________
Nicholas Johnson, a former FCC commissioner and media law professor, lives in Iowa City. Contact: mailbox@nicholasjohnson.org
[NOTE: Since writing this, the Web site Support Progressives has been brought to my attention. It creatively addresses many of the questions and concerns about Our Revolution discussed, below, in the sections on "Candidate Selection" and "Coalitions." -- N.J., Sept. 1, 2016]
[Senator Bernie Sanders' campaign] was a campaign about doing, not about being [president]. Indeed, he would reject his crowds' chants of "Bernie! Bernie!" from the beginning of the campaign through his Santa Monica rally two nights ago [June 7, 2016], by telling them that it is they, not just he, who are "part of the political revolution."
Yes, Senator Bernie Sanders made it clear from the beginning of his campaign for the the Democratic Party's nomination for president. He was in this race for many reasons but, win or lose the Party's presidential nomination, the overriding reason was the creation of an ongoing organization, a political revolution to bring about the populist programs he had been advocating for at least 30 years. That organization now bears the name, "Our Revolution."
I had been involved in some way with every presidential election since 1948, but never before with the emotional and financial support I gave to the Bernie campaign. As some evidence, here's a list of some 14 blog essays I wrote, starting in June of 2015.
Now the primaries and caucuses -- and the Bernie Sanders for President campaign -- are over. On July 26, 2016, the Democratic National Convention delegates selected Hillary Clinton as their nominee for president of the United States. Notwithstanding his having run against Hillary -- with speeches noting the disparity between what each of them has chosen to fight for, and against, during the past 30 years -- Senator Sanders made the motion for her nomination at the Convention, endorsed her, and indicated he would campaign for her.
Our Revolution is by now, among other things, a Web page: http://OurRevolution.com. I would have preferred it was an "org" (as I am: nicholasjohnson.org) rather than a "com." But a superficial search suggests "OurRevolution.org" may already be held by someone else. Hopefully, that's someone affiliated with OurRevolution.com, and confusion between the two can be controlled.
At the moment -- from July 26 through November 8 -- Our Revolution is in a kind of limbo. Bernie's enthusiastic throngs have nothing further they can do to get him elected. Many may end up voting for Hillary, but may feel that they never signed up to campaign for her. Moreover, 20 months into a 22-month presidential campaign season (Jan. 2015-Oct. 2016) most Americans inclined to political action have long since committed their time and other resources to presidential and other candidates for public office they probably want to stick with through election day.
After the votes have been counted in the national election on November 8th, and a presumptive president selected, Our Revolution's participants and programs can be more specifically self-selected.
Make no mistake, Our Revolution already has my support; it doesn't have to earn it, it just has to keep from losing it. I certainly want to give it a chance. But I do have some questions for which I will be seeking answers.
What Can Be Learned From the Web Site? The Web site opens with an invitation to "join," "Watch the Launch Event" (which occurred August 24) and to "Help five of our candidates win" with an option to click on "Take Action." Scrolling down further is an "In the News" section with three stories, including the August 29th announcement of an 11-person "board" chaired by Larry Cohen, former CWA President, 2005-15. Although at the "Launch Event" Senator Sanders named the organization's president (Jeff Weaver, formerly Sanders' campaign chair) and an executive director (whose name I can't find or recall), I was unable to find their names, descriptions -- or how and by whom they were chosen -- anywhere on the Web site. (That information may very well be there; it's just that I didn't see it.)
There are four locations on the Web site: About, Take Action, Issues, and Candidates -- along with a number of suggestions that we donate money.
"About" provides three general aspirations: "Revitalize American Democracy," "Empower Progressive Leaders," and "Elevate Political Consciousness."
"Take Action" promotes an anti-TPP project urging us to call and register our opposition with members of Congress. If you think to scroll down there are 7 state ballot initiatives for which a click will take you to the sponsoring organization's Web page or other information.
"Issues" reads like a party platform, itemizing and describing 18 policy areas familiar to Bernie supporters.
"Candidates" lists, with pictures, 62 presumably progressive individuals running for office (primarily state legislatures). A click on a candidate takes you to more information about each.
"Who's on first; What's on second." I'm sure things will become clearer with time, but at this point I'm reminded of the story of the city cousin who visited his country cousin's farm. Leaning against the fence, but wanting to be helpful, the city cousin inquires, "What can I do to help?" He's told, "Just grab a plow and start plowing."
That's about as much specific instruction as is provided those who "join" Our Revolution. Maybe that's enough. Look over the ballot initiatives; if there's one in your state, or elsewhere, that interests you check out its Web site and contribute money or other efforts to assist. Ditto for the candidates. Look 'em over. If you're willing to support one or more on the basis of the information provided, have at it.
But I would think there would be some reason to have a way of reporting back to someone what you did. With the links going directly to the Web sites of the ballot initiatives' organizations and candidates it would appear that's not going to happen. Even if one wished to report what was going on in one's hometown, or another location chosen for action, it's not clear to whom they would report or how.
God or Mammon, that is the Question. A more serious, fundamental question is the core heart and purpose of this organization. As California's Big Daddy Unruh was credited with observing, "Money is the mother's milk of politics." To run multiple local and statewide campaigns all across the country is going to require enormous sums of money. Will Bernie's followers be capable and inclined to provide it?
There's a big difference between an individual contributing money for a single candidate -- especially a presidential candidate, and more especially one like Bernie Sanders -- and contributing money to a fund diversified among 100 or more individuals running for everything from school board to U.S. Senate, candidates from distant cities whom one does not know and had no role in selecting.
The Web site shouts that Our Revolution is a Section 501(c)(4) organization (ineligible to provide donors a tax deduction). Is what is envisioned, in effect, just another PAC for millionaires and billionaires with progressive inclinations to give money subsequently distributed by Our Revolution staff members to candidates of their choosing? If so, I don't see that there is much role for the participation of at least most of what were once Bernie's enthusiastic followers.
I once asked Senator Hubert Humphrey what he told new U.S. Senators when they arrived. He said, "Nick, I tell 'em they have to give four years to the Lord, and then two years to get re-elected; four more years to the Lord, and then another two years to get re-elected."
Today's new senators are told, from their first day on the job, that it's six years of fund raising and campaigning to get re-elected, and then another six years to do it again. To make sure this happens, they are provided with targets for hours on the phone each day and week, and the sums they are expected to raise.
The question for Our Revolution is whether God and Mammon can co-exist; whether wealthy donors, and their large contributions, can co-exist with a progressive grassroots organization; and if not, whether either can bring about Our, or anyone else's, Revolution all by itself.
Governance involves all stakeholders thinking through, agreeing upon, and putting in writing, the assignment of responsibilities, delegations, and the relationships between Senator Sanders, the Board chair Larry Cohen, other Board members, President Jeff Weaver, other administrative persons, staff, and Our Revolution "members."
For example, will board members be limited to providing direction, determining mission and goals, and overseeing a management information reporting system regularly disclosing accomplishments along a timeline toward measurable goals, or may they also involve themselves in some administrative decisions? Must all board statements and actions come from the entire board, acting as the board (including accompanying concurring or dissenting opinions), or can the chair -- or any individual member of the board -- speak on their own, whether to the president, a staff member, or the public?
Will the Board members create their own meeting agenda, or will "board meetings" become in effect "president's meetings" to which Board members are invited to attend for purposes of listening to reports from the president and other members of the staff? Will the president sit in on all board meetings, or are they just for board members -- and whomever else the board may invite to discuss a specific item at a single meeting?
What will be the day-to-day role of Senator Sanders with Our Revolution, given his responsibilities to his Vermont constituents and his Senate colleagues?
There is no one "right" way to answer these, and dozens of other challenging questions regarding governance. The only truly "wrong" way to proceed is to fail to identify, address, and resolve them as the board's very first order of business.
Candidate Selection. If the, or at least a, major purpose and strategy of Our Revolution involves the election of populist, progressive candidates "from school boards to the White House," a central process question is the way, the process, and the standards for Our Revolution's selection of those candidates. There is then the process question of what resources (whether campaign worker hours or money) will be provided these candidates, how much will be accorded each (and the standards for making those decisions), and what kind of oversight and regular reporting will be used.
Will the final decisions be made by Senator Sanders, the Board, its chair, the president, a staff group, a referendum of the members? How heavily will the decisions be influenced by major donors (if any)? Or will there be no such decisions? Will Our Revolution simply accept nominations from any of the above, put together a little information about each, post them on the Web site (as now), and leave it to members and donors to do the due diligence, and then put their time and money wherever they choose?
Or will there be a consensus as to who will receive Our Revolution's support, and will the goal be to limit the number of candidates to a number that can be supported (with workers and money) sufficiently to make a real difference in the outcome of their election? Will there be a preference for first-time candidates -- or for progressive incumbents in close races?
Will there be a preference for candidates whose polling numbers and other evidence indicate a real chance of winning, or is the goal to provide at least some token support and encouragement to as many first-time progressives as possible?
What are the standards for deciding who is a "true progressive" worthy of Our Revolution's support?
Coalitions. Is it the goal of Our Revolution to be recognized as the single, preeminent, progressive policy and political organization in America? Or is the goal to bring some order and focus (on, say, electing progressive candidates) to the sometime chaos of America's progressive individuals, organizations, and media?
As the old saying has it, "There's no limit to what you can accomplish if you're willing to let others take the credit." Will Our Revolution be willing to stand by while "others take the credit"?
We've seen what splintered, underfunded, off-again-on-again efforts produce. What might a true coalition, a United Nations-style effort, be able to produce? What goals might be shared across all progressive organizations -- as was sort of the case with the coming together that was the Senator Sanders' presidential campaign -- while still leaving each organization to pursue its own other issues and strategic choices? (See, e.g., Nicholas Johnson, "Bernie's Extraordinary, Unacknowledged Accomplishment," February 3, 2016.)
The Money. I would be stunned if there was anything even mildly inappropriate, let alone illegal, in the way the money was handled in the Bernie Sanders campaign. But I also think transparency is even more important for Our Revolution. So I ask the following questions:
One of the most valuable assets of the campaign, and could be for Our Revolution, is the campaign's mailing list of donors, volunteers, and supporters. Has it been made available to the DNC, Hillary Clinton's campaign, other candidates? Are there plans to do so in the future? Who now has access to copies of this list? Will it become the main list for Our Revolution?
How much campaign money was left on July 26 -- the formal end of the Bernie for President campaign? What has happened to it? Has any gone to the Clinton campaign? The DNC, or other groups funding Democratic candidates (chosen by someone other than Senator Sanders)? How much has gone to candidates Senator Sanders supports? Is any used for his expenses while campaigning for Clinton? How much (if any) will ultimately be transferred into Our Revolution's resources?
Transparency. Transparency is important for any organization that requires the trust and support of its stakeholders. This is especially true for non-profit, progressive organizations. Members (and the public) need to know where Our Revolution's money is coming from, and what it's going to. Our Revolution needs to comply with the standards used by those evaluating non-profits. (A Google search on "evaluations of non-profit organizations' fundraising and salary expenses" brings up over 3.5 million hits.)
How do the salaries of Our Revolution administrators and staff, and expenses for Board meetings, compare with organizations of similar size? How do its expenses for fundraising, as a percentage of money raised, compare?
For Our Revolution, salaries and benefit packages are relevant to stakeholders not only because some may consider them "too high," but more likely because they might be thought to be "too low" -- given our "Issues" that focus on "Income Inequality," "A Living Wage," and "Creating Decent Paying Jobs."
And of course, Our Revolution being what it is, there will be member and public interest in the organization's employment practices with regard to gender equality, LGBT rights, and diversity of all kinds within the workforce.
Conclusion. There could be more, but there need not be. I'll simply close as I began: "Make no mistake, Our Revolution already has my support; it doesn't have to earn it, it just has to keep from losing it. I certainly want to give it a chance. But I do have some questions for which I will be seeking answers." What is spelled out above are some, illustrative, examples of those questions. Whether I hear from any Our Revolution administrators or staff or not, I'll keep looking for answers as I weigh whether Our Revolution has retained, or has lost, my support. (And see Roots Action's email and petition, "If It's Our Revolution, Let's Make It Better," Roots Action, August 31, 2016.)
Donald Trump says we don't understand him. He's right. Politicians, reporters, and voters have had little to go on beyond their own speculations.
Some professional, and many armchair, psychiatrists think he displays classic, textbook narcissism and varieties of mental illness. Others believe he's just naturally mean-spirited, unthinking, crude, and lacking in empathy when he attacks military personnel who are captured, women, people with disabilities, Muslims, Gold Star families, and whoever else happens to be in his sights when his mouth opens.
There's speculation that he never has been serious about running, was surprised to have won the Republican nomination, and is preparing himself and us for his general election loss -- already blaming such an outcome on a hostile media ("the lowest form of life") and the "rigged" voting that will require his army of poll watchers.
So he can make money while running for president. Moreover, since much of his "property" is his brand, his name, he will be able to continue to make money as someone who ran for president -- not to mention larger royalties for ghost-written books, speaking fees for lectures, and a possible future TV show.
But wait; there's more.
There are at least three ways to get the goods and services one needs for a political campaign: (1) pay for them yourself (including the Trump option of paying your own companies), (2) get campaign contributions from donors used to pay for what you need, or (3) obtain what you need without having anyone pay for it.
Given the proportion of campaign funds for advertising that go (mostly) to the purchase of radio and television time (80%), option (3), above -- getting it for free -- is clearly the best approach. "In 2012, fundraising for various campaigns reached $6.5 billion. Of that, an estimated $5.2 billion [or 80%] was spent on advertising." This year one estimate puts total contributions at $7.5 billion with, again, 80% going to advertising. Meg James, "Political Ad Spending Estimated At $6 Billion in 2016,"Los Angeles Times, November 18, 2015.
I, along with others who, unlike me are actually informed on the issues, have noted that our entry into Iraq -- as well as our exit, and re-entry -- have contributed to the recruitment of terrorists and more attacks on Americans, as the organizations have evolved and changed names over time. When Trump appeared on the program of conservative talk radio host Hugh Hewitt, Hewitt tried to use this analysis to help Trump out of his absurd assertion regarding Obama as "founder of ISIS." Trump was having none of it:
Hugh Hewitt (HH): I’ve got two more questions. Last night, you said the President was the founder of ISIS. I know what you meant. You meant that he created the vacuum, he lost the peace.
Donald Trump (DT): No, I meant he’s the founder of ISIS. I do. He was the most valuable player. I give him the most valuable player award. I give her, too, by the way, Hillary Clinton.
HH: But he’s not sympathetic to them. He hates them. He’s trying to kill them.
HH: You don’t get any argument from me. But by using the term "founder," they’re hitting with you on this again. Mistake?
DT: No, it’s no mistake. Everyone’s liking it. I think they’re liking it. I give him the most valuable player award. And I give it to him, and I give it to, I gave the co-founder to Hillary. I don’t know if you heard that.
HH: I did. I did. I played it.
DT: I gave her the co-founder.
HH: I know what you’re arguing…
DT: You’re not, and let me ask you, do you not like that?
HH: I don’t. I think I would say they created, they lost the peace. They created the Libyan vacuum, they created the vacuum into which ISIS came, but they didn’t create ISIS. That’s what I would say.
DT: Well, I disagree.
HH: All right, that’s okay. . . . I’d just use different language to communicate it . . ..
DT: But they wouldn’t talk about your language, and they do talk about my language, right?
HH: Well, good point. Good point.
"They do talk about my language." Those six words of Trump's really tell the tale. Trump's playbook is a variant of the old line, "Say anything you want about me as long as you spell my name right;" the belief that there is no such thing as bad publicity -- especially when the price tag would have been $2 billion for that much publicity.
The media is talking about Trump. You and I are talking about Trump. I'm sitting here writing about Trump. It all helps to fire up his supporters -- even, perhaps especially, the perceived criticism of Trump. Whether or not those loyal followers are of sufficient numbers to deliver him 270 electoral votes, I wonder how much he even cares. He can't "lose" -- regardless of what happens November 8. The value of his brand, his name on his properties, will have increased by hundreds of millions, if not billions, of dollars.
And all because, as he says, "they do talk about my language, right?"
January 18, 2012, 5:00 a.m.; added item January 22.
Connecting the Dots Everybody knows that the dice are loaded Everybody rolls with their fingers crossed Everybody knows that the war is over Everybody knows the good guys lost Everybody knows the fight was fixed The poor stay poor, the rich get rich That's how it goes Everybody knows
Everybody knows our political process, and thus ultimately our government, is corrupted with the influence of money. (See, "More Support for Going Communist Than Congress," November 16, 2011.) Sometimes it's illegal bribery. More often it's perfectly legal "campaign contributions." As I've often said, "The problem is not so much that corporations violate the law. It's that they write the law."
There's no little pill we can take to solve this problem. Even if there were, Big Pharma would patent it and then raise the price beyond the ability of any but the top 1% to pay for it. And those folks would have no reason to take it. They are not suffering from this political disease; they're profiting from it.
What we can do, by way of baby steps toward a solution, is to publicize the data that will enable the media and the people to connect the dots. We need to see, not just that politicians get money from special interests, not just that government largess tends to be squandered on those least in need of it. We need to see the unmistakable direct connection between the contributions and the return on that "investment."
Fifteen years ago I wrote a column in the Des Moines Register making this connection. A little research disclosed the "rate of return" on political "contributions." It turned out to be 1000 to one. That is, those who gave $1 million (say, in soft money for a political party's national convention) could expect to receive $1 billion in return. This online reproduction of that column actually provides the footnotes of verification: Nicholas Johnson, "Campaigns: You Pay $4 or $4000," Des Moines Register, July 21, 1996, p. C2. (The "$4 or $4000" reference was the contrast between what citizens would pay for public financing of campaigns ($4 each) compared with the additional amounts we have to pay as consumers and taxpayers when they are funded by corporations and the wealthy ($4000).)
Earlier that year this blog commented, "Unfortunately, . . . investigative reporting of money in Iowa politics and governing is all too rare. Occasionally there will be stories regarding which legislators have raised how much money. There may even be a reference to where some of that money came from. Very rarely is there an effort to investigate the extent to which there is a relationship between the sources of campaign funds and the votes of the recipients -- let alone a routine reporting of these relationships for every single member of the Iowa legislature." Nicholas Johnson, "Golden Rules & Revolutions: A Series, Part VIII: Money and Lobbyists in Iowa: Smoke and Mirrors," April 19, 2008.
This was an extraordinary bit of research and reporting, certainly warranting another "Hat's Off" for the Register and, in this instance, Lee Rood.
But while the nursing home story concentrated on receipt of campaign contributions, Rood's story concentrates on the distribution of taxpayers' money to the wealthy.
We have still not connected the dots. We need to know not only how much legislators receive in "contributions" (and from whom), we need to know not only how much they give away (and to whom). We need to know the relationship between what each individual legislator (or member of Congress) received from a given special interest (or its lobbyists) and how that individual legislator voted on the subsequent largess to that contributor.
By Monday [Jan. 16] we finally had an example of what I've been calling for. The New York Times focused on former Senator Rick Santorum, now a candidate for president in the Republican primaries. Michael Luo and Mike McIntire, "Donors Gave as Santorum Won Earmarks," New York Times, January 16, 2012, p. A1.
As Luo and McIntire report, "The announcements flowed out of Rick Santorum’s Senate office: a $3.5 million federal grant to Piasecki Aircraft to help it test a new helicopter propeller technology; another $3.5 million to JLG Industries to bolster its bid to build all-terrain forklifts for the military; $1.4 million to Medico Industries to upgrade equipment for its munitions work. . . . A review of some of his earmarks, viewed alongside his political donations, suggests that the river of federal money Mr. Santorum helped direct to Pennsylvania paid off handsomely in the form of campaign cash."
That's what I mean.
It's hard work connecting those dots. Those who have such information are reluctant to share it. But our democracy demands no less -- from the media, the academic and research communities, the government, indeed all of us.
As my favorite school superintendent's wall sign had it: "In God we trust; all others must bring data" (attributed to W. Edwards Deming).
In short, it's not enough that "everybody knows."
Without data, without connecting the dots, what everybody knows is unlikely to ever become what everybody does.
Now that the 2008 general election for president appears to be taking on the qualities of a conventional, "old politics" contest, modeled on the ones in 2000 and 2004, barring some dramatic turn of events I think I've said everything I have to say about it. I'm really sorry it's turned out the way it has, but that's the reality, and so now there's little left but to watch it run its course.
The blog will continue, but after today my daily comments about the candidates and their strategies and fund raising will not. (See links to prior political blog entries, below.)
Senator Barack Obama may think the Second Amendment forbids the Washington, D.C.'s, efforts to reduce handgun deaths, but the only thing he's shot so far is his own foot. Suzanne Goldenberg and Elana Schor, "Obama supports supreme court reversal of gun ban; Candidate's stance at odds with former position,"The Guardian, June 27, 2008 ("In the latest in a series of policy reversals for the Democratic presidential candidate, Obama came out in support of yesterday's supreme court decision overturning a gun ban in the city of Washington that had been a model for fighting urban crime.").
I'm not going to say "I told you so" in the offensive, colloquial sense, because (1) I may be (and may have been) wrong, and (2) many others were making the same observations and providing the same advice I was during the last three weeks.
But I will note my earlier predictions that Senator Obama's change of heart, mind, and brand would prove to be a very serious strategic error (in addition to whatever else one might say about its ethics and what was owed to those who gained the nomination for him).
As I wrote last March, in comparing the range of experience of Senators Clinton, McCain and Obama -- that is to say, the breadth of experience, relevant to the presidency, that might warrant a candidate campaigning on the assertion that they were more qualified than their opponents:
None has served as mayor or governor; none has headed a cabinet department; none has helped administer the Pentagon or CIA; none has worked for international organizations, been ambassador to the United Nations or a foreign country; none has been a union officer or corporate CEO. None has headed delegations negotiating with foreign governments over trade agreements, release of hostages or treaties.
Each has the “legislative experience” of making speeches and signing bills, though none as House speaker or Senate leader. McCain has 25 years in the U.S. House and Senate, Obama 12 years in the Illinois and U.S. senates and Clinton the least with eight years in the U.S. Senate.
In short, if Senator Obama is to win in November, his advantage, his potential winning "brand," must be found elsewhere than in his "experience," his "record" -- as commendable as they may be. Senator McCain's experience that is relevant to the presidency, as I wrote earlier, is not that much better -- it's virtually all legislative. But it spans more years, and he does have that military hero's aura as a POW, did have a bit of administrative experience as a squadron commander, and he's older -- so many voters would probably give him the nod on the experience factor (whether warranted or not).
Sadly, Obama did once have the advantage in the form of a unique and winning "brand" -- not just "change," but change "we can believe in," hope, a willingness to "turn the page," to take our government back from the lobbyists and special interests, a real concern for the poor, working class and middle class.
His Web site still leads with the quote, "I'm asking you to believe. Not just in my ability to bring about real change in Washington. . . . I'm asking you to believe in yours."
It was a winning brand. It enabled him to amass millions of dollars in contributions from 1.6 million supporters, and the volunteer hours, enthusiasm, and primary votes of millions more. What is more, it enabled him to win the nomination over eight very attractive and worthy competitors -- most especially, in Senator Hillary Clinton (Obama's last standing competitor), one of the most powerful, well-connected, and well-funded political organizations in the United States in recent years.
Having become the "presumptive nominee" the first week of June, prior to the Democratic National Convention actually nominating him in August, he switched into "general election" mode. He and his advisers apparently drank the inside-the-beltway Kool Aid that presumes Democrats must reverse field on some positions (e.g., public financing of campaigns, FISA and telephone company immunity (i.e., "terrorism" and fear), and The War), bring some others out of the closet (e.g., gun ownership, death penalty, federal funding of religions engaged in community programs), and be seen to be publicly turning his back on his "liberal/progressive" enthusiastic supporters and some portions of the African-American community.
It's not where he is now; it's where he is compared with where he should be that is troubling.
This year should be the Democrats' year -- from the courthouse to the White House.
Democrats have an almost unprecedented 10-point lead among voters who claim affiliation with the Democratic Party compared with those who are card-carrying Republicans. Something like 70% of the American people are other than registered Republicans.
President Bush now has the highest disapproval ratings of any president in American history.
Something like 80% of the people think the country is going in the wrong direction. Gasoline prices are over $4.00 a gallon and seemingly headed north -- inflating the prices of every product dependent on transportation. The War in Afghanistan is going even worse than the War in Iraq. Our balance of trade deficit approaches one trillion dollars a year -- in part because the dollar is now worth one-half to two-thirds of what it once was. And this week we learn that we've just had the second largest bank collapse in history, along with "financial troubles" with the two organizations that, between them, hold $5 trillion in (one-half of all) U.S. mortgages and have just seen a 50% drop in their stock prices.
All of which, politically, helps the Democrats even more (as a McCain spokesperson noted another terrorist attack would help McCain) as voters think Democrats can do a better job with the economy than Republicans. Since one of the consequences of permitting financial institutions to reach such size is that we can't permit them to go belly up, the likelihood is that this "little problem" will ultimately be "solved" by adding more trillions to the $40 trillion in unfunded future obligations our government has already created for our great-grandchildren.
Not only has Senator Obama had the fact that he is a Democrat going for him, his branding in the primary resulted in his stunning 48-to-36 percent lead over McCain among independents (whose past reputation as a maverick formerly made McCain popular with independents).
Switching brands.
When Obama's formerly enthusiastic young supporters became bitter as he "turned the page" back to the old politics he'd promised he'd change, he dismissed them with a casual "you just haven't been listening."
It turned out that they had been listening, and so had the rest of the American people -- 53% of whom now believe that he's just another old-style politician who not only did change positions, but did so merely to "gain political advantage." The result is that, at this point in the campaign, he has deliberately demolished his old, quite dramatically successful brand, and put nothing in its place, by adopting the losing strategies of Gore in 2000 and Kerry in 2004.
The high cost of switching brands.
As a result (or at a minimum, at least in part as a result) of what I have earlier characterized as this strategic error, Obama's one-time 15% lead over McCain has now shrunk to 3%.
In June Obama had the support of independents, by a staggering 48-to-36 percent; today McCain has their votes, by a nearly reversed 41-to-34 percent.
Contributions to Senator Obama's campaign have dropped month by month February through May: from $55 million in February, to $41, $31, and $22 million in May. Now he's acknowledging he wants nearly a half-billion-dollars by election day, and is turning to $30,000-a-plate dinners and those who can "bundle" $250,000 each from their wealthy friends. This from a candidate who based his primary campaign, in part, on the boast of a dramatic use of the Internet to fund politics, getting away from the control by lobbyists, PACs, and special interests -- and the proportion of his funds coming from those giving $200 or less. This from the candidate who promised to control extravagant campaign spending by funding his general election campaign with the $85 million in public financing -- and then "changed his mind." -- thereby further contributing to the public perception that his "new-style politics" was coming to look more and more like the "old-style politics." See, Nicholas Johnson, "The Money Game -- And Rove's Advice for Obama," July 11, 2008.
Can Senator Obama recover from these self-inflicted wounds? Probably not completely, even under the best of circumstances. Even the most idealistic voters have by now learned the line, "Fool me once, shame on you; fool me twice, shame on me." Whatever one may think of Karl Rove, it's difficult to argue with his political savvy or his observation that, in politics, "A candidate's credibility, once lost, is very hard to restore, regardless of how fine an organization he has built." (Quoted in Nicholas Johnson, "The Money Game -- And Rove's Advice for Obama," July 11, 2008.)
Here's the Newsweek report, followed by "Obama's Other Problems" and some additional data regarding the American electorate.
A month after emerging victorious from the bruising Democratic nominating contest, some of Barack Obama's glow may be fading. In the latest NEWSWEEK Poll, the Illinois senator leads Republican nominee John McCain by just 3 percentage points, 44 percent to 41 percent. The statistical dead heat is a marked change from last month's NEWSWEEK Poll, where Obama led McCain by 15 points, 51 percent to 36 percent.
Obama's rapid drop comes at a strategically challenging moment for the Democratic candidate. Having vanquished Hillary Clinton in early June, Obama quickly went about repositioning himself for a general-election audience--an unpleasant task for any nominee emerging from the pander-heavy primary contests and particularly for a candidate who'd slogged through a vigorous primary challenge in most every contest from January until June. Obama's reversal on FISA legislation, his support of faith-based initiatives and his decision to opt out of the campaign public-financing system left him open to charges he was a flip-flopper. In the new poll, 53 percent of voters (and 50 percent of former Hillary Clinton supporters) believe that Obama has changed his position on key issues in order to gain political advantage.
More seriously, some Obama supporters worry that the spectacle of their candidate eagerly embracing his old rival, Hillary Clinton, and traveling the country courting big donors at lavish fund-raisers, may have done lasting damage to his image as an arbiter of a new kind of politics. This is a major concern since Obama's outsider credentials, have, in the past, played a large part in his appeal to moderate, swing voters. In the new poll, McCain leads Obama among independents 41 percent to 34 percent, with 25 percent favoring neither candidate. In June's NEWSWEEK Poll, Obama bested McCain among independent voters, 48 percent to 36 percent.
Nor does Obama have an edge over McCain in favorable-unfavorable ratings. The author notes, "McCain's biography still appears to be his greatest asset, with 55 percent of voters saying they have a favorable opinion of the Arizona senator, compared to 32 percent who have an unfavorable opinion. (Obama's favorable/unfavorable gap is virtually identical at 56 to 32.)"
Senator McCain now has a 12-point lead with whites. Among Senator Clinton's supporters 30% are unwilling to say they'll support Obama. He never has, so far, done all that well with working class/high school-educated voters, or older women. And whatever else may be said of Jesse Jackson's inappropriate "off-mike" remarks last week, they do represent some disaffection among others in the African-American community as well.
The "FISA blog" on Obama's Web site has 23,000+ members -- clearly the largest -- and most of the comments range from disappointment, through a sense of betrayal, to real anger. And those enthusiastic youthful, first-time-voters who got him the nomination were something considerably more than just general election voters; they were the folks who would have been manning the phone banks, walking door-to-door, and otherwise spreading their enthusiasm. Casting them aside ("throwing them under the bus" as the current expression has it) was not a very smart move -- at least not until he can find an alternative source of equivalent energy.
Clearly, we still suffer under some vestiges of racism in America -- as virtually any African-American can confirm for you based on their own experiences. Polls can go only so far in predicting what voters will do with a secret ballot inside the voting booth on election day. But Geraldine Ferraro's views aside (she was quoted as saying Obama would not have been a serious candidate had he been white), there will be some who will vote against him because of his race(s).
Moreover, there are those who emphasize his middle name ("Hussein"), believe he is a Muslim, was sworn in on the Koran, educated in a madrasah, and uses a terrorist knuckle-greeting with his wife -- none of which is true, of course (except for his name).
The New Yorker hasn't helped on this one with its latest cover.
Among the sophisticated elites who write and read The New Yorker this may be seen as hilarious humor because of the contrast between the truth and the extremes to which political campaigns -- and ignorance -- can carry some Americans.
But insofar as pictures can re-enforce perceptions, even when known to be false, showing Michelle as a terrorist, Barack as a Muslim, Osama's picture on the wall of the Oval Office, and an American flag burning in the office fire place on the cover of one of America's most prestigeous publications has to rank as one of the magazine's more outrageous errors in judgment (at best).
Additional Supporting Sources and Voter Data
Rasmussen Reports' "Summary of Party Affiliation" indicates that the Democrats' margin of voters' affiliation over that of the Republicans from 2004 through the first half of 2006 has usually been in the range of 2-3%. But for June 2008 the figures were 31.5% affiliated Republican, 41.0% Democrat, and 27.5% independent -- a 9.5% margin for the Democrats. "Summary of Party Affiliation," Rasmussen Reports, July 1, 2008. And see, "Partisan Trends: Democrats Retain Huge Party ID Advantage," Rasumussen Reports, July 2, 2008.
Kelly Holder, "Voting and Registration in the Election of November 2004," U.S. Census Bureau Current Population Reports,", March 2006, goes into considerable detail about voter preferences among a number of demographic groups in terms of number of Americans over 18, number who are citizens, number who bother to register, and of those the number who bother to vote, along with the reasons given for not voting.
The source for President Bush's unpopularity is the following:
WASHINGTON DC (CNN) -- A new poll suggests that President Bush is the most unpopular president in modern American history.
A CNN/Opinion Research Corp. survey released Thursday indicates that 71 percent of the American public disapprove of how Bush is handling his job as president.
"No president has ever had a higher disapproval rating in any CNN or Gallup Poll; in fact, this is the first time that any president's disapproval rating has cracked the 70 percent mark," said Keating Holland, CNN's polling director.
"Bush's approval rating, which stands at 28 percent in our new poll, remains better than the all-time lows set by Harry Truman and Richard Nixon [22 percent and 24 percent, respectively], but even those two presidents never got a disapproval rating in the 70s," Holland said. "The previous all-time record in CNN or Gallup polling was set by Truman, 67 percent disapproval in January 1952."
Given that the Obama Campaign hopes to raise $450 million by Election Day, the trend lines in his contributions aren't encouraging. (Election Commission data, as charted by The Washington Post.)
What would really be revealing of the impact (if any) from the FISA bait-and-switch would be a comparison of the total contributions, by month, for contributions under $200, comparing those for June and July with those from prior months.
So much for a campaign funded by 1.6 million "small donors." The real money, as in times past, comes from the big money folks (who, the Wall Street Journal reports, brought the cash flow back up to something closer to $30 million in June). Mosk gives us a sense of what's now going on:
"Each of the hundreds of members of the senator's main fundraising team has been asked to raise at least $100,000 for the Victory Fund, which spreads money among Obama's general-election account, state party accounts and the DNC. Those joining the committee from the Clinton camp have been asked to raise another $250,000 in money Obama can continue to spend before the party's late-August nominating convention. And each finance committee member has been asked to collect checks from at least five donors to help Clinton retire more than $10 million of her campaign debt."
(Her debt, it might be noted, is almost exactly the entire amount raised by Senator Obama during the month of May.) Since there is a limit of $2300 per person on campaign contributions, we must assume that these $30,000-a-plate dinners are in part raising "soft money" for the Democratic Party rather than money for Senator Obama's continuing pre-nominating-convention campaign.
Yet records show that in their presidential campaigns, neither has lived up to his promise to fully disclose the identities of his top money collectors who bundle millions of dollars in campaign contributions.
Since November, Mr. Obama had added just two new names to a list of 326 fund-raisers who have bundled contributions of $50,000 or more for him, despite the campaign’s taking in more than $180 million during that time.
After receiving an inquiry from The New York Times, the campaign scrambled on Thursday evening to update its list of bundlers, adding 181 names, a jump of more than 50 percent, and increasing the amounts some were credited with raising. The number of bundlers who have collected $200,000 or more increased to 138 from 78.
Notwithstanding the fact that these contributors -- the bundlers, the soft money underwriters, lobbyists, corporate CEOs, and the upper 1% of the wealthy -- are getting a 1000-to-2000-to-one return on these investments ("campaign contributions") (see, Nicholas Johnson, "Campaigns: You Pay $4 or $4000,"Des Moines Sunday Register, July 21, 1996, p. C2) the Onion News Network's "In the Know" reports that some lobbyists are complaining that they're not always getting everything the candidates have promised. "In the Know" calls the piece, "Are Politicians Failing Our Lobbyists?"
Whatever you may think of Karl Rove, you have to respect his success as a political strategist -- especially given the candidate/president he was handed
In order for Obama to run a better campaign than than Rove/Cheney/Bush he must first run one that is at least as good
Here's Rove's advice to Obama
Mr. Obama's biggest problem is that when it comes to substance, he's following the playbook of a Republican other than George W. Bush. In 2000, Mr. Bush won the general election on the same themes and positions as in the primaries, including compassionate conservatism, the faith-based initiative, tax cuts and Social Security reform. There was no repudiation of past positions, no chameleon-like shifts in positions.
Instead of consistency, Mr. Obama has followed Richard Nixon's advice, to cater to his party's extreme in the primaries and then move aggressively to the middle for the fall.
In the primary, Mr. Obama supported pulling out of Iraq within 16 months, called the D.C. gun ban constitutional, backed the subjection of telecom companies to expensive lawsuits for cooperating in the terror surveillance program, opposed welfare reform, pledged to renegotiate Nafta, disavowed free trade and was strongly against the death penalty in all cases. But in the past few weeks, Mr. Obama has reversed course on all of these, discarding fringe liberal views for relentlessly centrist positions. He also flip-flopped on accepting public financing and condemning negative ads from third party groups, like unions.
By taking Nixon's advice, Mr. Obama is assuming such dramatic reversals will somehow avoid voter scrutiny. But people are watching closely, and by setting a world indoor record for jettisoning past positions, Mr. Obama may be risking his reputation for truthfulness. A candidate's credibility, once lost, is very hard to restore, regardless of how fine an organization he has built.
And what if all this leaves you totally bored? The Onion News Network has some helpful hints in this piece from their morning "Today Now!" show they call, "Election '08: Pretending You Care":
The Register has done Iowans a favor this morning with its perusal of, and then reporting about, the "newly released state campaign finance disclosure reports for 2007." Jennifer Jacobs, "Democrat McCarthy Raises Most Money at $251,000,"Des Moines Regislter, January 24, 2008.
But it has only scratched the surface.
"Knowledge Management" literature (for which the linked document is but the first on Google's list) draws a distinction between "data," "information," "knowledge: and "wisdom."
The disclosure reports, and the Register's reporting, provide the "data" -- or at least some of it.
What we now need is the additional data, and discovery of relationships, that can turn that data into "information" and "knowledge."
(I'll save for the day that happens an exploration of what "wisdom" might be with regard to Iowa's needed campaign finance reform.)
For example, as one reader commented following the Register's online story, "Why is it McCarthy's biggest donors were from out of state? Does this not raise any questions with anyone? What pull, and on what project are these people looking for help on?" ("TheWizard," 1/24/2008 4:36:06 AM).
If the Register is still interested in Pulitzer Prizes (it was once the proud possessor of a collection of them second only to the New York Times) -- not to mention the very substantial community service of cleaning up Iowa politics -- here are some of the questions to which they might want to seek answers.
1. "Follow the money." That was "Deep Throat's" advice to Bob Woodward and Carl Bernstein as they investigated and exposed the Watergate scandal ultimately leading to President Nixon's resignation. And it's my first bit of advice to the Register. Who is giving what to whom and what do they do with it? Individual Iowa legislators tell their constituents they need money for re-election campaigns -- even when they're running unopposed. What do they do with it? Much is simply passed through to their party's leaders, or the state Democratic or Republican organizations. Why? What do they, what do their contributors, what do we, get for that money? To what extent is this pass-through procedure used to shield from public disclosure how much is really coming from special interests to party leaders? And, in reverse, what are party leaders (and the special interests they may be representing) gaining by passing out money to other members? Where do the major state parties get the (largely unregulated) money they have and how do they spend it?
2. Who are these donors and what are their interests? A name (of a donor) and amount (of a contribution) is data. "Knowledge" requires that we know the economic or other interests of that donor. Sometimes that's easy, when the donor is a registered lobbyist for a special interest, or the CEO of a corporation, or is known to be a highway contractor or major land owner. At other times it's more difficult, especially if the money is coming through employees (who have been given raises and are then asked for checks, which are bundled, donated and amount to little more than an illegal contribution from a corporation), spouses, children, relatives or friends of that individual.
3. What is being bought? Some special interests are regular donors. They are like the wealthy Texan, asked by the airline ticket agent where he wanted to go, who replied, "It makes no difference; I've got business everywhere." Some of those funding Iowa's campaigns always have some kind of business with the legislature or governor -- or know that they might. Others are primarily focused on a specific bill they want to defeat, or have enacted, or an earmark, tax break, or bit of "corporate welfare" cash they would like from the state's taxpayers. In any case, "knowledge" requires that we know the relationship between who is giving and what they are getting: what bills on their behalf were introduced by party leaders, or individual legislators, who benefited from their contributions? If they gave to the governor, or other executive branch officials, what agency decisions affected their economic interests? (The rule of thumb in Washington is that major contributors get at least a 1000-to-1 return on their money; contribute $1 million and get $1 billion of government largesse in return. For documentation see, e.g., Nicholas Johnson, "You Pay $4 or $4000,"Des Moines Register, July 21, 1996.)
There are lots more questions to ask and trails to follow, but hopefully these few illustrative examples will get our editors and reporters thinking about how their "data mining" these golden nuggets could end up providing some real "knowledge" -- and maybe someday even "wisdom" -- for their readers, and a few extra prizes to hang on the walls of the board room and news room.
