 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
|
Election Watch Self-financing Campaigns: New to Michigan You can feel a bit sorry for Steve Westly. The e-Bay executive who cleared about $100 million when the company went public and California State Controller just spent $37 million of his own wealth in a losing bid to become the Democratic nominee against Republican Arnold Schwarzenegger. Westly lost the Democratic primary to California State Treasurer Phil Angelides. [One hopes that California has a rationale for electing both a state controller and state treasurer.] Eight years ago, Al Checchi (former co-chairman of Northwest Airlines) blew $40 million in his checking account for a similarly unsuccessful bid for California’s Democratic gubernatorial nomination. He lost to Gray Davis. Dick DeVos may not spend that much money to become Michigan’s governor--or he could spend the same or more or much more. Surely, no other person in this state’s modern history has put at risk so much of his pocketbook to win elective office. In recent times, Michigan has had a mix of wealthy, pretty well off, and distinctly middle class political figures. Governors Williams and Romney and U.S. senators Hart and Riegle were wealthy. Governor Milliken had some wealth. Governors Blanchard, Engler, and Granholm and U.S. senators Levin, Abraham, and Stabenow came from the middle class. Michigan has not seen a contemporary politician who is not only rich, but also willing to dig into that wealth and largely self-finance a campaign. Coast-to-coast, millionaires and billionaires have not been ashamed to bankroll their forays into politics in huge personal investments. Jon Corzine spent $60 million in his successful campaign last year to win the governorship of New Jersey. That followed a similar investment in 2000 to win a seat in the U.S. Senate. Corzine’s Republican opponent in 2005, Doug Forrester, spent nearly $40 million in unsuccessful bids to win a U.S. Senate seat (2002) and the governorship (2005). [Politics must constitute a good chunk of the Garden State’s domestic product.] Mike Bloomberg tapped his wallet to the tune of $75 million to become mayor of New York City in 2001. To win reelection in 2005, he spent $78 million. In 1994, Michael Huffington peeled off $30 million in a losing bid for a California U.S. Senate seat. Herb Kohl in Wisconsin, Mark Dayton in Minnesota, and Maria Cantwell in Washington successfully captured Senate seats. Kohl contributed $7 million to his 1988 campaign and $5 million in his reelection bid in 2000. Dayton spent $12 million in 2000. The same year, Cantwell coughed up $10 million. The poster child of bad returns on investment must be James Humphreys. The Democrat spent $6 million in 2000 and another $8 million in 2002 in losing bids for a U.S. House of Representatives’ seat in West Virginia’s 2nd congressional district. Whether you’re an e-Bay executive, Wall Street financier, department store chain owner, oil baron, or another self-made or inherited multi-millionaire, you defend your personal self-financing of political bids. Corzine tagged his 2000 U.S. senate campaign with the phrase “Unbought and Unbossed.” Opponents, of course, argue that the rich are trying to purchase their seats. Both claims are true. In early 2005, DeVos made it quite clear that he would run for governor. Democratic friends pronounced him toast--a rightwing zealot, heeled in a fortune from a pyramid-scheme business, unknown and unacceptable to Southeast Michigan, and a political novice. I offered a note of caution: Nobody had ever seen in Michigan a $70 million campaign (purely a guess what DeVos and Republican allies would spend). Already and certainly in months to come, Democrats will run out the theme that DeVos is a rich guy trying to buy the governorship. The DeVos campaign no doubt will take from the mouths of Democrats like Corzine, Kohl, Cantwell, and Dayton, defense of self-financing. His campaign has argued that Granholm spent on her 2002 primary about what DeVos has spent on his campaign to date, so what’s the big deal? Big bucks buy many hours of TV and radio time. They buy, too, a great ground game of identifying and organizing supporters and getting them to the polls. Both dimensions contribute mightily to success. Paraphrasing Damon Runyon, the race doesn’t always go the higher spender, but that’s the way to bet. Until the last decade, voters in Minnesota, New Jersey, and West Virginia’s 2nd congressional district never saw an avalanche of self-funded ad buys. Now the public is debating the merits and drawbacks of self-financing. Is it more palatable to the public that a Democrat--representing the “little guy”--self-fund a campaign than a Republican--representing the rich? In these and other places, a few deep pockets have lost and most have won. My pragmatism finds good reasons for and against personal wealth being thrown into elections. I do not like special interests, rather than altruistic partisans, buying ad time and serving as venture capitalists for many candidates. I am not chagrined that more TV commercials get devoted to political issues than car deals. I am no more suspicious of rich people spending a lot on political speech than their donating big bucks to charitable causes. Yet, I don’t care for the level of ad buys exceeding in-depth news coverage as a factor that motivates voters. I don’t think the very rich should dominate political institutions, like the millionaires’ club known as the U.S. Senate, but I would not want to deny them the right to run. The dam has broken in other states and now in
Michigan. Self-financed campaigns may be good or bad but are now
pretty much inevitable. View other Michigan
Policy Circle documents |
