Picking A Candidate

The emails are coming fast and furious now.

A small group of tech execs are meeting with Obama. Bring $2100

Get on the Hillary bus while its still taking passengers.

Bill Richardson wants to meet with you.

John Edwards is coming to town and we are putting together a lunch.

I find the whole thing so distasteful. Raising money and giving money to political candidates is something the Gotham Gal and I have done for about ten years. We've never been bigshots. But when we get behind someone like we did with Claire and Sherrod last spring, we can help and we enjoy it.

But this 2008 election cycle is sick and getting sicker. I read somewhere that Hillary will raise and spend $500mm running for president this cycle (that is if she's the nominee, it would be less if she loses in the primaries). That's $750,000 per day to be raised and spent over the next 22 months.

Does anyone else think that is nuts? How exactly does someone raise $750,000 per day?

We talked it over this week as we were getting inundated with the invites. The Gotham Gal says we should sit this one out unless Bloomberg runs (he's already got the $500mm in his bank account). I'd love it if Mike did run. He's been the best Mayor New York City has had since I moved here in the early 80s. But what's the chance that happens?

I see that Steven Speilberg is doing fundraisers for Edwards, Obama, and Clinton. Hedging his bets I guess. That's smart politically but not something we want to do. We want to find someone to get behind.

We want to find someone who will shake the national scene up the way Spitzer is shaking up the NY scene. A reformer. A blogger would be great. A person whose name isn't Bush or Clinton.

Haven't found it yet. Probably won't.

UPDATE: Frank Rich has an excellent discussion of Hillary's struggle with the Iraq issue in today's New York Times (subscription required - ugh).

Comments

[Erik Schwartz]

If Hillary is the nominee the democrats are doomed.

If Hillary is the nominee the GOP doesn't even need to pretend to move to the center. Seriously who could Hillary beat on the GOP side in a national election?

[carl rahn griffith]

it's pretty much the same obscene levels of spending here in the uk (pro rata) - but at least in england those that make the biggest donations receive a peerage in-an-appropriately-discreet-period-of-time-later-due-course.

(allegedly, of course, eh, tony? ongoing police investigations notwithstanding, of course).

so, fancy becoming lord wilson? the labour party over here needs the funds pretty bad if it comes to seeking re-election with gordon brown as blair's successor ... ;-)

[jackson]

I guess you really mean 'buying representation', which is as old as it is unfortunate. This very political mechanism led to a dictator in Rome, can't wait to see where it gets us.

[fewquid]

I think it's an obscene amount of money that could be put to much better use pretty much anywhere else. What's more, I've don't believe I've even seen good correlation between crazy spending and election results...

I'm a big fan of the idea of having set amounts of TV time that each candidate is entitled to and then capping their ability to raise or spend more than a certain amount.

But how about this... Imagine a candidate that was offered that kind of money to run but instead used the net to run an inexpensive and smart campaign and then used all that money to solve a real problem...

It wouldn't even have to be some crazy tree-hugging money-pit of an idea. Imagine how many small businesses could be funded with $500mm, and imagine what that would do for the economy of the US...

Of course, that will never happen. So I still say Fred for President :-)

[David Dalka]

It's a shame legitimate vaporware phase business ideas aren't getting the attention they deserve due to your inbox being filed with stuff like this.

I got an idea though Fred. Why not reply and tell them to listen to what voters want instead of raising the mountains of cash. As I pointed out recently the candidates certainly are not listening to the blogsphere. :(

http://www.daviddalka.com/createvalue/2007/01/17/john-edwards-campaign-disagrees-with-my-campaign-is-not-listening-statement/

[Doug Karr]

What people fail to understand is that the money spent on the election is an investment. The sickening part is that there is a return on that investment on that $500mm.

As the amount of money skyrockets, keep in mind that many of the people 'donating' money have absolute expectations of getting something in return.

It's an absolute investment in corruption.

[Chris]

[Insert acknowledgment here around how crazy the money being raised for '08 will be...]

Irony: It will not matter.

Following the money is easy because it offers a scorecard, but coffers' sizes will neither determine the primary nor general elections' winners.

Anyone "leading" among current candidates will get all the money they need, even if we don't like the amounts they raise. And they will not be "leading" because they can raise money, their "lead" will be far more based on what they've done or what they say they have to offer.

GWB's "Rangers" and their ilk were well-documented in '04 for their machine-like fundraising execution, but Kerry's team had all the cash (if not the organization) it needed to win. It ultimately did not matter.

So every time I feel "sickened," I discount that feeling by reminding myself that it doesn't (and won't) matter in '08.

As to the "shake the national scene up" viability of candidates, I'd give that nod to Sen. Obama -- even he's viewed as the lesser among evils. My recent read of "Audacity of Hope" confirms he's plan-spoken, introspective, self-deprecating and hopeful -- that's tantamount to "shake it up," even if it's very well-scripted.

[steve]

the public financing system is totally outdated and irrelevent.

but simply going to a "free market" for private financing of elections is a nausea inducing thought

what ideas are out there for a new way to finance elections?

the number of dollars raised is not a barometer of anything -- its justa refelction of how miuch it costs in media to launch a new product on a national level in a highly competitive space. and there is no way to elect a president in our modern era without buying media saturation.

so the question isn't, how do we get the money genie back in the bottle? it's, how do we get the candidates and parties the money they need without corrupting the whole process?

[Mike]

Obviously you are looking for a Democrat, but you should take a long look at former VC and PE guy- Mitt Romney:

http://www2.nationalreview.com/nrisummit/romney256K.mov

Interesting speach last night.

[Jerry]

Can't I simply refuse to think about '08 until at least the fall?
Sheesh.

[Erik Schwartz]

Hell will freeze over before the evangelical right supports a mormon.

LDS is heresy from their perspective.

Plus there's the attack ads about his underwear... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Temple_garment

[Stephen L. McKay]

Fred,

Give it some time. We will have more of it than we have in past election cycles to figure out who is who, and who we can feel good about backing.

Also, we may very well find out who will be who’s running mate long before the conventions. With the role of the V.P. taking on much more responsibility now than ever before, I will be looking for the best “team” for the job.

[Stephen L. McKay]

PS

Yes the money is ridiculous, but the law allows it. It really is, as I mentioned the other day, “old boy” stuff.

[Charlie Crystle]

Public financing of elections, frequent, required debates, televised.

I get the same invites; Cuomo shared his list with Spitzer, who shares his list with Clinton, etc, etc. So now I get them all. I supported Obama when he came around the city in his first campaign. Wellstone would have been my candidate, tehn Feingold, but Edwards and Obama look good. But I think his entry came at the behest of the Clintons: a deal was made. Clinton-Obama 08.

[Paul Lightfoot]

1. The huge money doesn't need to be that way, but focusing on the supply is the wrong way to think about it. Why is the money needed? TV. The airwaves belong to the federal government, and the government could easily (like many sensible countries) require a certain percentage of air time - as part of the FCC licenses - to be dedicated for candidates (at no cost to candidates) that meet certain requirements (like the matching guidelines) during election seasons.

2. I've never actively supported a republican before, but I agree with Fred. I'll give money and contribute my time to supporting Bloomberg in a run for president. He is extremely effective and not susceptible to the crap that brings down the rest.

[Nik Cubrilovic]

Well I guess that the $500mm will get spent *somewhere*, with the entourage stopping in many small towns and helping out the economy.

Though I suspect that much of it will be spent on airtime - even though most of us either aren't tuned in to TV anymore or fast-foward the ads.

There are a few ways that spending could be controlled, the most obvious is to put a cap in place. The other way is for the public to vote for somebody who is worthy of the Presidency, not somebody who fundraised, spent and spun their way to the oval office.

[eileen alden]

i read Barack Obama's autobiography back when he was running for Senate. I was totally overwhelmed with the feeling that he is a *true* leader and decided then and there that i would help campaign for him if/when he decided to run for president. i couldn't care less about party politics, i am just all about supporting the folks i genuinely admire.

i recommend you put all preconceived notions aside, forget about electability, and make an effort to get a real feeling for each of the candidates, even the 3rd party candidates. you don't owe your vote or your dollars to anyone, just find someone you like and get behind them. that's the most satisfying way (i think) to engage in politics.

[eileen alden]

i read Barack Obama's autobiography back when he was running for Senate. I was totally overwhelmed with the feeling that he is a *true* leader and decided then and there that i would help campaign for him if/when he decided to run for president. i couldn't care less about party politics, i am just all about supporting the folks i genuinely admire.

i recommend you put all preconceived notions aside, forget about electability, and make an effort to get a real feeling for each of the candidates, even the 3rd party candidates. you don't owe your vote or your dollars to anyone, just find someone you like and get behind them. that's the most satisfying way (i think) to engage in politics.

[james alonso]

I'll second the Romney comment. Looking at either party, he's the one with the most impressive accomplishments and the one who appears most fit for the job. He was able to get a lot done in MA even though his party didn't control the legislature, and that sort of consensus building ability seems particularly important after our experience with the current administration.

[Andy Freeman]

Only one of you asked why being president is worth $500M.

The easiest way to stop people from spending $500M to be president is to make being president worth less than $500M.

And no, anti-corruption laws won't do the trick. As long as there's money controlled by the US govt, money will be spent to control the US govt. (Return on Investment doesn't just apply on term sheets.)

http://www.fbi.gov/libref/historic/famcases/sutton/sutton.htm

[richullman]

I really wish Bloomberg would run. He's about the only one with the $$, credibility and guts to tell both sides what they need to hear. Hey, Perot got 18%... and he was nuts. I don't think Perot ultimately wanted to win, but the only way Bloomberg does run, is if he believes he CAN win.
Hopefully all those invites you're getting would say, "a group of execs is meeting with Bloomberg, bring your brains."