In honor of Labor Day I wanted to take a moment to put my two cents in about the
Beltway Boyz, the Consultant Circus, and the selling of the Democratic Party as businesses to unsuspecting candidates to turn a profit.
All of this while also addressing the wonderful world of fundraising - who is good at it - who sucks at it - and who can't hold onto his/her money to save a campaign.
And how proper staffing matters. How does money make a difference, what does money get you? Does it guarantee a win?
HERE WE GO!
Democrats get a bad rap for having large staffs primarily in their 20's and one or two well scholared locals who have done every campaign in that area for the last 20+ years and who often stand around campaign offices and say things like "That ain't how we did it back in `76" or "We tried that back in the 80's ... didn't get us nowhere." Or "Ask Roger.. he'll give you money" or "get Sally to do an event for you" .... Clearly, these folks are around for moral. (that said there are also many folks who actually do serve as experts in this kind of thing - the problem is that they are snatched up but reelection campaigns for whatever other Rep, Sen, or Gov that is running and challengers only get a smidgen of them)
BUT - notorious for having big staffs. Lots of labor folks in call centers. Lost of money raised - lost of money spent. Tons of high priced political consultants - media buys - radio, tv, print, direct mail, signage, field programs....
Granted the regular every day incumbent doesn't have this as an issue - he/she generally is entrenched enough to use the budget to send out federally funded direct mail to the voters of the district, travel, PAC money, connections to businesses, not to mention previous supporters who they continue to raise money from in the off season... incumbents aren't what I'm talking about.
It's the challengers. The folks who are the new blood. The state parties. How often have we seen our every day community members, maybe local or state officials stand up and sacrifice themselves on the alter of possibility? How many challenger races actually win each election year? Is it because they aren't as well funded? Or do they just piss it away on fancy things like TV and direct mail?
This year I've been watching tons of races. Top targets and no-so top targets. And when looking at races I often look at what they are banking - but too - I'm fascinated to look at how they are spending it. Many times it takes some serious digging through the FEC site to find disbursement records - but they are there. Disbursments fascinate me. It is essentially a psychological glimps into a candidate. What will make them spend money? What do they think they need to buy to win their election? Let's take two races I'm quite interested in. Both challengers:
Congressional candidate Nancy Boyda (KS-02) is doing this the 2nd time around. First time she raised just under $1.2 million not to mention the amount of independent expenditures from the state party. She is fighting a battle in a district that has both urban and rurals and is a fairly medium sized district. She is going after Rep. Jim Ryun the Olympic miler and 10 year congressman who you might remember bought a house that Abromoff Built.
Congressional Candidate Bill Durston (CA-03) is doing this for the first time and essentially is going after a life-long politician who worked for republicans, then was in Congress in a district in So. Cal, then was the AG, then ran again for his Congressional seat from Sacramento. This district like Boyda's has rurals and some of Sacramento and isn't as big as the CA-02 or the CA-01 but not as small as say Pelosi's district. Durston is one of the many Veterans that are running on the democratic ticket this year.
Both districts have a remarkably similar Democratic Performances. And both of them don't have an enormous amount of money, though, comparatively Boyda is stomping Durston. Boyda has about $160k to Ryuns $421k as of the last filing. Durston has about $50k to Lungren's $450k. But the compelling thing is to look at how much they have raised and spent.
Boyda, for example has raised $300k - but only has half of it left. Durston has raised $75k and has 2/3 of it left.
At this rate - Durston only needs to raise $500k and he will retain 2/3 for an impressive ad buy and direct mail program. Boyda at this point needs to raise twice as much money as she needs for her buy because its going out the door just as fast as its coming in.
So when you're running for office what do you need to buy and pay for? Ahhh the age old question.
According to Durston a website is essential. Durston has paid a bundle for his website development and design - enough that I recommend visiting it here so that he gets his money's worth http://www.durstonforcongress.com - now Nancy had her website from last time so while it has revamped and modernized she doesn't appear to have spent any money on it. Both are spending a little on postage and office supplies.
So where is the divide? Why is it that Boyda is spending more?
Consulting. Yep - that's it.
Now before I go after consultants let me say that I truly believe that 80% of the people who workin Washington and do this for a living are actually brilliant. They are smart folks who get politics - they just don't have any idea what is going on in the districts they are helping. And most prioritize those that they learn about the district based on money and party targeting.
Either way, Durston doesn't have a consultant. He's paid a little in website consulting fees but that's it.
Boyda has spent something like $50k so far in consulting fees for a marketing firm and I lost count at how much she has paid them in reimbursements for things like postage and printing. Durston doesn't have any marketing.
Boyda has made huge statements publicly comparing her last campaign and this one
she would turn down any help from Washington consultants, and she wouldn't spend time talking about GOP campaign finance scandals.
Instead, she said she would focus on health care, closing tax loopholes that currently benefit "mega corporations," and getting the money-changers out of Congress.Lawrence Journal World
Interestingly, Boyda seems to now be taking on something that has nothing to do with health care, taxes, but rather the SuperHighway issue, which is what prompted me to note what is going on in her campaign to begin with.
Regardless - Boyda made the papers when she announced because she was standing up against the Washington DC Political Consulting Beltway Machine that many of us believe isn't exactly the best way to be a person of the people. Rather than hiring a DC firm Boyda went local with a marketing firm who is the guiding hand to the tune of $50k so far. Consulting fees from her 2004 race aren't evident - as they were done as part of a block payment for a media buy. And I have no idea how much these kinds of firms get for doing the buy - lets assume its 20% could be 30 could be 15 - 20 sounds good. With a $200k media buy the firm would bank about $40k from the commission. So... about even. The question seems to be - do you want to pay for your consulting now or later.
Durston on the other hand doesn't seem to have enough for television. And TV in California is very expensive vs. in Kansas it seems to be fairly inexpensive - But Durston would probably have to do a buy out of Sacramento and Reno to properly saturate his district where he could run saturation much more effectively through mail. So, lets say Durston does a $200k mail program - he's got $150k left to raise - and he can saturate the district $.59 a piece targeting 150k people go after women and senior unaffiliateds. That's a really respectable campaign for very little money.
So what the heck is the difference? Why can't Boyda raise and keep - why can't Durston raise?
The answer dear friends - its labor. Its staff. The adage is that you have to spend money to make money. Does that mean hiring an experience and aggressive fundraiser to come in and help organize things like telemarketing and fundraisers? We've all gotten the letters from the DNC, the Southern Poverty Law Center, ACLU - asking for our money - who writes those? Then who stuffs the letters? If its volunteers who stuff the letters then who calls them and organizes them? So there is another staff position. After all is said and done you've got 4 staffers, and you need someone to manage the staff - a chief of staff as it were - so you hire a manager - making it an even five - and then your money is gone.
So at what point does money stop being worth it? Can a candidate raise money without a staff? Without consultants?
Are consultants more time and money efficient?
The downfall to the experience and organization of many consulting groups is just as Boyda put it - they are in Washington DC. I for one question to what extent these people have any clue as to what is going on in red states or locally. Local consulting firms - of which there are very few (lacking demand I assume) might be less expensive and more informed on the issues that face the basic area - but does their lack of political experience and the national political scheme become a factor?
And when is it more beneficial to hire a consulting firm than to hire a top notch staff?
Issue 2:
Let's look at the staffing issue. I've always said that democratic campaigns seem to have tons of staffers. People on the ground, managers, fundraisers, volunteer coordinators, house party managers, and a whole slew of volunteers, phone bankers, canvassers and the like. Many are local kids who were/are active in their college party organizations or student senate who will work hard for cheap through an internship or on the lower level of a campaign. Management and department folk are harder to find. Job banks are filled with campaigns asking for people who have had 2+ years of campaign experience. Democratic GAIN is a good example of job postings and offers for training programs. DFA offers training - EMILY's List - the DCCC - everyone seems to be in the business of building a coalition of campaign staffers to fill this drastic need for experienced and well trained staffers.
And yet, time and time again, I see the same thing - youngsters coordinating volunteers, youngsters organizing fundraisers. Why is everyone so young??
Pay. The more I look through FEC reports the more I see that no one gets paid and there is a drastic difference between targeted races and non-target races. Target races like Linda Stender (NJ-07) is paying her staff top dollar $4-5k a month, where people like Durston doesn't retain a staff and Boyda is paying her only paid staffer a net of about $1,000 a month. Is it just a lower budget operation; is it the area, cost of living? I don't know. Is it that Stender needs the staff because she is a target where Boyda is doing her campaign as a consultant driven one?
Now let's take a look at state parties. These folks fall under the rubric of the DNC - each state party is like its own franchise of the national chapter and is supposed to coordinate democrats state wide to turn out in each election for all democratic candidates as well as build the party in off years. (Oddly there are not any pictures I could post here with the golden arches saying McDems (100,000,000 voters served) or something like that I wanted to post that picture here)
A year or so ago I attended a picnic where I had a conversation with a kid who interned with his local county folks during the 2004 election. He was in charge of getting advanced ballots and advanced voting. The kid sounded like a rock star. He came up with something like 75 advanced ballots in one day. Can you believe that? That is 75 people who have already voted and they don't have to count on for Election Day. He did it in part to learn the ropes, make connections, but also because the county party fundraised for this program to hire college students to get an advanced ballot $1 per ballot. Interesting approach, I thought. Innovative.
Someone who identified himself as a state party official was standing near us, over hearing the conversation the official said "Yeah, see that's a stupid idea" and proceeded to talk about how it costs too much money in the long run because the kid just goes to get his friends and family to fill out the ballots and makes money off of the party. Rudeness aside, his point was well taken.
Either way though - you're getting votes. And if its college kids - lets face it - college kids don't exactly get out and vote. So, anyone who works to get them to vote I say deserves the dough. The official said that the more efficient way of paying for it is to pay a staffer $7 an hour and assign the kid to get advanced ballots. To me that just screams inefficiency. Because if it were me - I'd still just go get my friends and relatives and take my time about it. Go by Grandma's have lunch... get an advanced ballot - at the end of the day turn in a couple and collect my $35 a day.
Generally speaking, it makes more sense to pay someone a salary than it does to pay them hourly - because they can end up working like mad and working tons of hours (or on the flip side they don't do anything at all and take their time about it and still bank - there are both sides but I prefer to view the positive and most people tend to work hard for the things they believe in) - but on salary you get the same hours without paying them quite as much. BUT here you'd be paying them by product not by hour and not by salary. You'd pay for the result.
Is this guy just as out of touch with organization, actual production, and efficiency as the rest of the losing paradigm of national politics?
*My two cents and ideas for success*
Build a coalition. Do what the DCCC, EMILY's List, DemocraticGAIN, and DFA are doing. Build battalions of well trained workers - and pay them what they are worth. We are a party that fights for a living wage - our campaigns should reflect that.
Make competition for the top jobs fierce - take the best of the best for your top jobs and then take the kids who aren't yet the best and put them at mid level positions and teach them. Help them grow - and help them become just as hot as their bosses.
The trouble now is that the people who are good at this - who are top notch campaign workers get snatched up by consulting firms, congressional offices, the national party, PACs, and Orgs in Washington because these peeps provide good pay, hot benefit packages, and maybe even a 401k.
There is no draw to saying in the field to help challengers who aren't top targets. There is no compensation for it. And the only people who can afford it are just out of college kids who would do anything for any amount of money to learn and gain enough experience on a resume to then get jobs in these various orgs. As such we are stuck in a consecutive cycle of hiring the same inexperienced workers, teaching them well, having them leave the state, and we start over again. It's the same vicious cycle of all jobs in our red states. And if Democrats can't even manage to retain folks in their campaigns or their state parties - how can we expect our democratic politicians to retain jobs in our states?
Please, note the irony of me posting this after I just did a post about whether or not we should trash talk our own party publicly. I am eager to hear what you guys think from the netroots perspective. What can we do to fix stuff like this??
Happy Labor Day!
For further reading:
Crashing the Gate: Netroots, Grassroots, and the Rise of People-Powered Politics
Run the Other Way: Fixing the Two-Party System, One Campaign at a Time