During an election, fundraising numbers are always important to individual campaigns. A campaign must be properly capitalized in order to hire staff; develop advertisements; stage events and provide adequate transportation. Essentially, the candidate has helped develop a temporary business. Their product, whether revolutionary or bland, needs a strong support system and without adequate funding or proper organization, a campaign will quickly falter. But how much money does such an electoral vehicle require to mount a viable challenge?
In a national race, these numbers advance each election cycle. The $2 billion spent in last year’s congressional elections and the $1 billion spent in the presidential race of 20008, will increase exponentially come 2012. Miscellaneous travel costs and robust advertisement strategies seem to be the reason behind such astronomical numbers, but even in gubernatorial and mayoral elections such copious amounts of cash have become the new norm.
In the Washington D.C.’s mayoral race of 2010 former Mayor Adrian Fenty spent some $5 million, far outpacing his opponent, the current mayor, by nearly 2:1. New York City saw the ridiculous, and largely self- funded, $100 million war chest of Mayor Michael Bloomberg in 2009. However, of the 1.15 million votes cast, Bloomberg spent nearly $90 on every voter compared to his opponent who spent $17. Bloomberg only won by four points. In Chicago, the picture is not any better. Rahm Emanuel’s $12 million in receipts is leading the fundraising push, with Gery Chico in second with a relatively modest $2.5 million.
In any case, mayoral races do not require satellite offices in Boise or cross-country air travel. There are no hotel stays or massive outdoor rallies from state to state. In local politics, especially in the city of Chicago, the race is about the people. Voters often talk to one another about the candidates. If they have the chance to meet one face-to-face, they relay their impressions to their friends and neighbors and express their likes and dislikes without shame. Advertisements are a great help, but they also act as a shortcut for hard word and pounding the pavement. Such ads do not build coalitions or fortify organizations. When disparate voters have no personal connection to the candidate, there is not an enduring loyalty in the next election cycle unless they personally deliver.
Ultimately, these campaign fundraising numbers have becomes races in themselves. Generally, the press prioritizes the candidate who has the greatest amount of financial support. For many, money acts as a testament to ones connections and/or persuasiveness. Oddly enough, it is also a gauge of persistence because the sentiment is, if a candidate could raise that much cash they must be hungry for the job. Such reasoning has some merit, but significant monetary reserves imply that candidates focus on money rather than spending time on the trail to learn from the people.
Rarely, do elected officials get a chance to have frank and candid conversations with their constituents. Schedules prevent them sleeping without prior approval. In a world where staffers stringently control the daily activity of their charge, every decision is meant to control the floodgates for their own benefit. A politician is isolated from their constituents because their new position has elevated them to a higher plane, one where they talk at the people and not with them.
A non-incumbent politician; however, does not face such burdens. Their job is to go out and learn about the issues that plague the voters; hone their platform to become a better candidate and find out if their community is heading in the proper direction. They are ultimately the students in a progressive electoral classroom.
Yet, in these fundraising times, the goal is not to listen and learn, but convince people to part with their hard-earned savings as a testament of support. A strong political conviction is not as valuable as a fat wallet.
Unfortunately, with Illinois’ recent campaign finance reform, the cap on fundraising ($5,000 individuals, $10,000 unions and $ 50,000 PAC’s) will further hinder candidates as they must dedicate more time toward fundraising. Even though the millions of dollars that flow into campaigns from clout heavy donors are somewhat underhanded, candidates are free to focus on the race itself and have more leeway with their time and tactics.
The precedent has now been set. In Chicago, every individual running for mayor after 2011 must have access to similar amounts of currency in a restricted atmosphere. In other words, the competition will heighten as the pool of nearly limitless cash becomes smaller and smaller. Even as “the machine” looses power, the change will significantly affect the freewheeling ways of the next mayor and their council; who, despite corruption and cronyism, get things done.
Money and politics go hand in hand, that will never change. However, politics is part of the fabric of this city. Money has played a key role but the work of the politician and the support they have from their organization or community is vital to their tenure. The candidate, or soon to be elected official, cannot rely on money to pull them through these arduous races, and voters cannot pay attention to such superficial barometers. Think of it this way, Patricia van Pelt Watkins has outraised Carol Moseley Braun by nearly $50,000 but who has a better chance of being in a run-off election come April? As they say, money isn’t everything.
Comments