It should not be controversial to state that donors give money to candidates whose policies they agree with. Voters are not likely to find a candidate who is 100% on the same page as they are on everything, so a donor will focus on the policies most important to them when selecting a candidate to contribute to or work for. It does not matter if the donor is giving $10 or the maximum allowed, the same holds true. You donate in the hope of seeing a candidate elected that will fight for the policies most important to you.
Now let’s say you are David Cohen, Comcast’s senior executive vice president who leads the company’s lobbying efforts in Washington D.C. Comcast, the largest cable company in the world, has been a leading voice in the telecommunication industry’s efforts to oppose net neutrality. So it’s safe to say for Mr. Cohen and his company management killing Net Neutrality is priority #1 on their political agenda. They have already invested millions trying to kill it. The takeaway? If Comcast’s chief lobbyist holds a fundraiser for a candidate and if Net Neutrality is an important issue for you, you should not be supporting that candidate.
The same applies to any other issue you might care about, like M4A. If HMO execs and lobbyists think enough of a candidates positions to hold a fundraiser for them and the #1 issue for those donors is making sure that M4A never sees the light of day. Well then, if you support M4A, you should not be supporting that candidate.
Poetry vs Prose
It’s an old political saw that you campaign in poetry but govern in prose. It speaks to the challenges of turning your campaign rhetoric and promises into reality once elected and facing the many limitations and challenges of governing. So how do you predict what a candidate will prioritize, really fight for and expend political capital on? Look at who their most important funders are. Does that mean candidates are being bribed or changing votes for money? No. It just means those donors agree on policy with the candidates they gave money too.
Small donors choose who they send their money to based on what they can find in the media and an occasional live event. Wealthy donors before committing themselves and their network of bundlers and perhaps millions more in PAC money want face time with a candidate. They want to find out up close and personal how the candidate is going to fight for the issues that they care about. It’s all out of sight of cameras and the public, so all parties can speak frankly. Candidates and wealthy donors can dispense with the poetry and get down to what the prose is going too look like.
If you want to know what the prose is going to look like, look who a candidate is dependent on for funding.
Capital vs Labor
Millions of Americans work in healthcare, banking, telecom, energy, etc., so every candidate is taking money from every industry even if they are not holding swanky fundraisers. Yes, but that stat does not address where the money is coming from.
In House Financial Services Committee hearings Congresswoman Katie Porter of California asked JPMorgan Chase CEO Jamie Dimon for help with a math problem. Porter began by contrasting Jamie Dimon’s $31 million in compensation in 2018 against the $29,100 after-taxes paid to a bank teller who was a single mother.
Now are you going to tell me with a straight face that a contribution from billionaire Jamie Dimon is the same as a contribution from that bank teller that works for him? Do they have the same interests and are they seeking the same policies from a candidate? They both work in the banking industry but they are not equivalent in any way shape or form.
You won’t find healthcare workers walking the picket line at a healthcare executive sponsored fundraiser. I’m not supporting a candidate who wants what Mr. Dimon and the donors who control Wall Street, HMOs and Telecoms want. I want to support candidates who want what that bank teller needs and the workers on Wall Street, in HMOs and Telecom need.
Money vs People
The problem is not that a candidate wants to take money from those in control of Wall Street or Big Pharma or Telecoms. The problem is that those titans of those businesses want to donate to that candidate. What is it about the policies of that candidate that makes them attractive to the people who are screwing the majority of Americans? It is a question every voter should ask.
Traditionally candidates had to go hat in hand to the big money guys to be viable. That pretty much filtered out any politicians whose views did not align with big money. So the only candidates who got to run where almost all selected by a few rich guys. Crowd sourced funding from small donors is finally changing that and giving voters another option. For the first time it is allowing the many to have a shot at neutralizing the power of the wealthy few in politics. They have lots of money but we have lots of people.
Now you have choices. You can pick the candidate the guys who run Wall Street, Big Telecom, Big Oil and Big Pharma want or you can pick an alternative that they hate. Just follow the money to figure out who will be fighting for who if elected.