For the 2008 cycle, the presidential candidates are expected to raise and spend a billion dollars in pursuit of the White House, and -- based on the recent numbers -- well more than half of that money will be spent by Democrats. While that number screams of the need to reform our system of elections, it also shows an unmatched opportunity to change the game in a more fundamental way. Democrats have already shown they're capable of making better use of the Internet than their counterparts on the right, but most of that money is likely to end up going into the bottomless maw of the traditional media .
Face it, there really is such a thing as media saturation. The second flyer from a candidate is less effective than the first. The third commercial less noticeable than the second. The fourth visit from volunteers is more irritation than enticement. The fifth phone call is more likely to generate rage than a positive response. There really is a point of diminishing returns, and it takes far less than the kind of numbers being tossed around this season to get there. A hundred million dollar campaign may be more effective than a ten million dollar effort, but it's far from ten times as effective. At some point, each dollar pushed into a traditional media effort is about as effective as construction funding in Iraq.
Besides, if the Democratic candidates spend their millions on traditional advertising, much of that money will be going back to media conglomerates who want their campaigns to fail. Democratic dollars will flow into the pockets of CEOs who will be on the "Ranger" list for the Republican candidates. Democratic funds donated by millions of contributors, will end up as commercials that pay the salaries of Bill O'Reilly, Glenn Beck, and Rush Limbaugh.
I'd like to propose that Democratic candidates for president demonstrate their boldness by taking a different approach to their campaign spending this year. I want them to give it away. Not all of it, mind you. Just 10%.
I'm asking every Democratic candidate for president to commit to donating 10% of all funds raised to charity.
The candidates can use their choice of charity to demonstrate their concerns. These kind of dollars could make a huge difference in funding for widespread problems like autism, or make possible cures for an "orphan" disease. A candidate might fund a "Meals on Wheels" program for a year, or after school programs for at-risk youth, or free clinics for those lacking health care. Heck, they could put their names across the back of every Little Leaguer in New Hampshire and it would still be better than paying millions for an ad firm to create another vacuous flag-waving sixty second spot and millions more to run it in the Tivo-bypassed wastelands.
Roll it into one big donation, or spread it around. Either way, I'm willing to bet that the media attention garnered from these donations will far exceed the effectiveness of any commercials that could have been made using the same funds. At the same time, the candidates will actually be helping people.
In addition to putting out the funds, candidates should send out the volunteers. I was not at the first Dean organizing meeting in my area, but I was there for the second. Within a couple of months, we went from a half-dozen people meeting in someone's living room, to more than a hundred people crammed into a banquet hall. If you were involved in a similar group, I don't have to tell you that the level of enthusiasm, the idea that we were going to change things was heady. But almost from the beginning, there was another note that circulated among all the hope and fervor -- frustration. One person after another came through the door with one question on their lips, "what can I do?"
In 2008, don't waste your volunteers making phone calls to people who have been called a hundred times before. Instead, put them in that "Obama" or "Richardson" or "Hillary" or "Edwards" shirt and send them out to work at a local charity.
Instead of a campaign being marked by a short term flood of reporters and roadsides cluttered with rain-soaked signs, you have it in your power to turn the 2008 campaign into an outpouring of good works. Instead of making the campaign into a massive expression of ego, it can be an explosion of compassion. Honestly, are people going to remember that spot you ran on the Pick a Box show, or are they going to remember that one of your volunteers was there when they needed help? Do this right, and people will be looking forward to campaign season as a time when each candidate rushes to demonstrate their values.
Ten percent. That's not much to ask. It doesn't take an act of congress, or a ruling from the FEC. It just takes a willingness to act.
And if you want to promise more than ten percent, if candidates want to get into a contest to see who is willing to give more... that's okay, too.