Hat tip to Ted at Rum, romanism and rebellion for this one.
It seems as though the RNC has finally gotten honest about one thing-- who their donors are and how to reach them.
Politico reports they have obtained an RNC document focused on fundraising in which they essentially dismiss their own donors as
“ego-driven” wealthy donors [who] can be tapped with offers of access and “tchochkes.”
And how else besides 'tchochkes' do you get ego-driven, wealthy donors to open up their pocketbooks to the RNC? Well, the document addresses that too:
The presentation explains the Republican fundraising in simple terms.
"What can you sell when you do not have the White House, the House, or the Senate...?" it asks.
The answer: "Save the country from trending toward Socialism!”
Here is the most amazing part:
The most unusual section of the presentation is a set of six slides headed “RNC Marketing 101.” The presentation divides fundraising into two traditional categories, direct marketing and major donors, and lays out the details of how to approach each group.
The small donors who are the targets of direct marketing are described under the heading “Visceral Giving.” Their motivations are listed as “fear;” “Extreme negative feelings toward existing Administration;” and “Reactionary.”
Major donors, by contrast, are treated in a column headed “Calculated Giving.”
Their motivations include: “Peer to Peer Pressure”; “access”; and “Ego-Driven.”
We all know the GOP has long based much of their fundraising and other appeals on fear, 'access,' ego, etc. But rarely have we gotten such a direct look at it.
Showing posts with label fundraising. Show all posts
Showing posts with label fundraising. Show all posts
Thursday, March 04, 2010
Saturday, July 04, 2009
WaPo was wrong to cancel fundraiser
On this 233rd birthday of America, I'm going to come clean about something that's been bothering me about freedom of the press.
It has to do with the recent brouhaha about the Washington Post's plan to have the equivalent of a political fundraiser, in which big wigs and fat cats could pay up to $250,000 per plate to mix with reporters, editors, owners and other important people who influence what goes into one of the nation's most prestigious newspapers.
No, I'm not angry because they thought of the idea as a way to raise some money.
No, I'm not angry because presumably it would give rich people an opportunity the poor won't get.
No, I'm not angry at the idea of wealthy contributors trying to buy influence to help get their story into (or for that matter keep their story out of) the paper.
I'm angry because they canceled the event.
Somebody at the Post thought of a unique way to raise money from private sources. And given that the Post lost $20 million last quarter, clearly they do need to do something.
The fear that the contributors at the event would cause the news to be biased is absurd on the face of it. If that were true then why would a newspaper even accept advertising? As Lyndon Johnson, the most worldly of politicians used to love saying about the Senate, "you have to be able to take their money, eat at their table, drink their wine, screw their women and vote against the bastards anyway or else you don't belong here." News professionals can do their job just as well as politicians can (better, I hope) and should be willing to cover a story no matter who is featured-- or they should go find a day job doing something else and write a blog at night. Heck, even Rush Limbaugh, the king of the radio blowhards, recently was able to lambaste the government bailout that saved General Motors even while acknowleging that GM has been a long time sponsor of his show. In canceling the event, is the Post suggesting that they aren't sure they can operate with even as much journalistic integrity as Rush Limbaugh!? Heck, I gave 35 bucks to national public radio last year (which was all I could afford.) Does that mean I should expect that if I'm ever in the news NPR will give me favorable coverage? No, and if I did I'd be delusional. True that $250,000 is a lot more than $35, but the same principle applies.
Besides, if a story is worth telling it will get out there (especially today in the face of all manner of alternative media crowding the airwaves, the internet and even streaming around the world through outer space.) The days when a newspaper could bury a story are gone. Sooner or later it will get out and the only thing the newspaper will bury is its own opportunity for a scoop.
OK, so what if it's not actual influence peddling they were worried about but the appearance of influence peddling?
The critics of papers like the Post (and they are legion) claim that they are losing money because people don't read them as much anymore because the news is biased. And they jumped all over the Post for this story, suggesting that now the bias was up for auction.
If only that were the reason people don't read the paper. Then presumably the paper could just hire a conservative editor and the subscriptions would start rolling in. But newspapers all over the country are facing similar tough economic circumstances. And it's because the demographic of print readers-- mostly older, less web savvy, is declining in numbers. I know this personally-- I moonlight with a delivery route for the Arizona Republic and just since I took over the route in 2007 the number of subscribers on it has declined by probably 25%. The recession has something to do with it, but even when the recession is over expect that newspapers will continue to struggle. Just over a year ago (before the recession really got going) my own 'hometown' paper, the Winslow Mail, a paper so old that its early editions were full of pioneers, cattle rustlers and gunfighters, shut down.
To be sure, I'm not suggesting that newspapers aren't biased. Nothing of the kind. And it's not like they weren't biased in the days of the founding fathers either-- I mean (since I'm writing this post on July 4), can you imagine the Boston Gazette in the days leading up to the Revolution including an editorial written by the British Governor extolling the virtues of King George just to keep things 'balanced?' If anything, newspapers today are far more even handed in giving voice to divergent views than they have been historically, either 233 years ago or even fifty years ago. Look up the term, 'yellow journalism' if you think that media bias is somehow a bigger dragon today than it has been in the past. Quite the opposite, in fact.
A free press is not the same thing as a fair press, and the founding fathers knew that. Instead of pushing for a balanced through the Constitution or through legislation, they figured out that if the press was biased then people who did not share that mindset would challenge it with a different point of view. The only difference today is that instead of merely a different point of view, it is likely to be a different format or technology-- so that conservative talk radio challenged liberal television news, and then the mostly liberal blogosphere challenged talk radio, but is now being challenged itself by twitter-- a medium that conservatives love. What we can see from these examples is that a free press, when left alone, evolves into a fair press.
So to those who argue that the Post is biased I'd answer, "what if it is?" Without saying it is or it is not, I'd answer they have the right to be biased if they want to, and alleged bias is not why they are losing readers. So what about the appearance that people who can afford a quarter million dollar lunch ticket can now get access to reporters and editors and so influence the way that certain facts are presented in a particular story (or maybe even kill the story)?
The idea that the rich and powerful will have undue access to writers and staff because of this is also silly. Let's be honest-- if a billionaire (someone who can afford to spring for a quarter million for lunch) who is a mover and shaker in a community walks into the office of most major dailies and says (s)he wants to talk to a reporter my hunch is that it will happen a lot quicker than if you or I walk in and make the same request. The access is already there. Why not charge for it?
In this extremely challenging environment, someone came up with an idea that is increasingly being used in other areas where funding is tight: corporate sponsorship. The City College of San Francisco is looking at letting individuals and corporations sponsor a class. The Phoenix Mercury of the WNBA is removing their team name from their jerseys and will replace it with a corporate sponsorship. Why can't a newspaper do this? Aren't their critics on the right always suggesting that private funds are better than government ones?
And that brings us to the real reason why I wish they had gone ahead with their fundraiser. If the Post and other newspapers don't come up with innovative ideas soon then you will see one of two things happen. They might go bankrupt (leaving 'news' to radio and cable television talking heads and bloggers like me-- sorry, but we don't qualify as 'news.') Or, they might get a 'sponsorship' (a.k.a. bailout) from the one entity which it is absolutely essential that newspapers remain out from under its influence-- the government.
So, shame on the Post. Shame for not being willing to stand up and defend their innovation and then for not carrying it through as a money earning idea. They've already gotten lots of bad press out of it just for their intent to hold the event-- how much more could they get if they actually do hold it (and most of that would come from implacable enemies anyway.)
They should re-schedule the event right away and this time go through with it.
It has to do with the recent brouhaha about the Washington Post's plan to have the equivalent of a political fundraiser, in which big wigs and fat cats could pay up to $250,000 per plate to mix with reporters, editors, owners and other important people who influence what goes into one of the nation's most prestigious newspapers.
No, I'm not angry because they thought of the idea as a way to raise some money.
No, I'm not angry because presumably it would give rich people an opportunity the poor won't get.
No, I'm not angry at the idea of wealthy contributors trying to buy influence to help get their story into (or for that matter keep their story out of) the paper.
I'm angry because they canceled the event.
Somebody at the Post thought of a unique way to raise money from private sources. And given that the Post lost $20 million last quarter, clearly they do need to do something.
The fear that the contributors at the event would cause the news to be biased is absurd on the face of it. If that were true then why would a newspaper even accept advertising? As Lyndon Johnson, the most worldly of politicians used to love saying about the Senate, "you have to be able to take their money, eat at their table, drink their wine, screw their women and vote against the bastards anyway or else you don't belong here." News professionals can do their job just as well as politicians can (better, I hope) and should be willing to cover a story no matter who is featured-- or they should go find a day job doing something else and write a blog at night. Heck, even Rush Limbaugh, the king of the radio blowhards, recently was able to lambaste the government bailout that saved General Motors even while acknowleging that GM has been a long time sponsor of his show. In canceling the event, is the Post suggesting that they aren't sure they can operate with even as much journalistic integrity as Rush Limbaugh!? Heck, I gave 35 bucks to national public radio last year (which was all I could afford.) Does that mean I should expect that if I'm ever in the news NPR will give me favorable coverage? No, and if I did I'd be delusional. True that $250,000 is a lot more than $35, but the same principle applies.
Besides, if a story is worth telling it will get out there (especially today in the face of all manner of alternative media crowding the airwaves, the internet and even streaming around the world through outer space.) The days when a newspaper could bury a story are gone. Sooner or later it will get out and the only thing the newspaper will bury is its own opportunity for a scoop.
OK, so what if it's not actual influence peddling they were worried about but the appearance of influence peddling?
The critics of papers like the Post (and they are legion) claim that they are losing money because people don't read them as much anymore because the news is biased. And they jumped all over the Post for this story, suggesting that now the bias was up for auction.
If only that were the reason people don't read the paper. Then presumably the paper could just hire a conservative editor and the subscriptions would start rolling in. But newspapers all over the country are facing similar tough economic circumstances. And it's because the demographic of print readers-- mostly older, less web savvy, is declining in numbers. I know this personally-- I moonlight with a delivery route for the Arizona Republic and just since I took over the route in 2007 the number of subscribers on it has declined by probably 25%. The recession has something to do with it, but even when the recession is over expect that newspapers will continue to struggle. Just over a year ago (before the recession really got going) my own 'hometown' paper, the Winslow Mail, a paper so old that its early editions were full of pioneers, cattle rustlers and gunfighters, shut down.
To be sure, I'm not suggesting that newspapers aren't biased. Nothing of the kind. And it's not like they weren't biased in the days of the founding fathers either-- I mean (since I'm writing this post on July 4), can you imagine the Boston Gazette in the days leading up to the Revolution including an editorial written by the British Governor extolling the virtues of King George just to keep things 'balanced?' If anything, newspapers today are far more even handed in giving voice to divergent views than they have been historically, either 233 years ago or even fifty years ago. Look up the term, 'yellow journalism' if you think that media bias is somehow a bigger dragon today than it has been in the past. Quite the opposite, in fact.
A free press is not the same thing as a fair press, and the founding fathers knew that. Instead of pushing for a balanced through the Constitution or through legislation, they figured out that if the press was biased then people who did not share that mindset would challenge it with a different point of view. The only difference today is that instead of merely a different point of view, it is likely to be a different format or technology-- so that conservative talk radio challenged liberal television news, and then the mostly liberal blogosphere challenged talk radio, but is now being challenged itself by twitter-- a medium that conservatives love. What we can see from these examples is that a free press, when left alone, evolves into a fair press.
So to those who argue that the Post is biased I'd answer, "what if it is?" Without saying it is or it is not, I'd answer they have the right to be biased if they want to, and alleged bias is not why they are losing readers. So what about the appearance that people who can afford a quarter million dollar lunch ticket can now get access to reporters and editors and so influence the way that certain facts are presented in a particular story (or maybe even kill the story)?
The idea that the rich and powerful will have undue access to writers and staff because of this is also silly. Let's be honest-- if a billionaire (someone who can afford to spring for a quarter million for lunch) who is a mover and shaker in a community walks into the office of most major dailies and says (s)he wants to talk to a reporter my hunch is that it will happen a lot quicker than if you or I walk in and make the same request. The access is already there. Why not charge for it?
In this extremely challenging environment, someone came up with an idea that is increasingly being used in other areas where funding is tight: corporate sponsorship. The City College of San Francisco is looking at letting individuals and corporations sponsor a class. The Phoenix Mercury of the WNBA is removing their team name from their jerseys and will replace it with a corporate sponsorship. Why can't a newspaper do this? Aren't their critics on the right always suggesting that private funds are better than government ones?
And that brings us to the real reason why I wish they had gone ahead with their fundraiser. If the Post and other newspapers don't come up with innovative ideas soon then you will see one of two things happen. They might go bankrupt (leaving 'news' to radio and cable television talking heads and bloggers like me-- sorry, but we don't qualify as 'news.') Or, they might get a 'sponsorship' (a.k.a. bailout) from the one entity which it is absolutely essential that newspapers remain out from under its influence-- the government.
So, shame on the Post. Shame for not being willing to stand up and defend their innovation and then for not carrying it through as a money earning idea. They've already gotten lots of bad press out of it just for their intent to hold the event-- how much more could they get if they actually do hold it (and most of that would come from implacable enemies anyway.)
They should re-schedule the event right away and this time go through with it.
Wednesday, May 13, 2009
Republican Senator even hides what state he is from for a buck.
I was just reading a CNN article on judicial nominees linked here when an ad at the bottom caught my attention.
It said, "Arlen Specter: A Democrat" and then under it, it said, "We need every conservative vote. Elect a conservative. Donate now." Under that it had a link to David Vitter's website.
David Vitter? He's claiming he is an alternative to Arlen Specter in this ad. Then if you follow the link it goes to a page that has the title "David Vitter|Arlen Specter" and soliticits donations.
A key piece of information is missing though. Namely, what state he is from. Reading the whole ad, it was hard to not assume that David Vitter was running against Arlen Specter. Only he's not, because Specter represents Pennsylvania in the Senate and Vitter is an incumbent Republican Senator from Louisiana. On top of that, most observers don't think that Democrats in Louisiana (one of the few states that is still trending Republican) are likely to find anyone to give a very serious challenge to Vitter next year. But if I were a conservative who was mad as heck at Arlen Specter I would read that ad and assume that the money actually would go to elect a conservative instead of Arlen Specter, not go to re-elect a conservative who is already sitting on a seat that is likely as safe as any in the Senate next year.
So what we have here is a conservative Republican, who is so sly he won't even say what state he is from, taking advantage of other conservative Republicans to raise money, money that will presumably then be unavailable for other conservative Republicans who are running in races where they probably need the money more than Vitter does (including Pat Toomey, a conservative Republican who actually is running in Pennsylvania against Arlen Specter.)
What will be funny is to find out if any conservatives actually fall for this little trick.
It said, "Arlen Specter: A Democrat" and then under it, it said, "We need every conservative vote. Elect a conservative. Donate now." Under that it had a link to David Vitter's website.
David Vitter? He's claiming he is an alternative to Arlen Specter in this ad. Then if you follow the link it goes to a page that has the title "David Vitter|Arlen Specter" and soliticits donations.
A key piece of information is missing though. Namely, what state he is from. Reading the whole ad, it was hard to not assume that David Vitter was running against Arlen Specter. Only he's not, because Specter represents Pennsylvania in the Senate and Vitter is an incumbent Republican Senator from Louisiana. On top of that, most observers don't think that Democrats in Louisiana (one of the few states that is still trending Republican) are likely to find anyone to give a very serious challenge to Vitter next year. But if I were a conservative who was mad as heck at Arlen Specter I would read that ad and assume that the money actually would go to elect a conservative instead of Arlen Specter, not go to re-elect a conservative who is already sitting on a seat that is likely as safe as any in the Senate next year.
So what we have here is a conservative Republican, who is so sly he won't even say what state he is from, taking advantage of other conservative Republicans to raise money, money that will presumably then be unavailable for other conservative Republicans who are running in races where they probably need the money more than Vitter does (including Pat Toomey, a conservative Republican who actually is running in Pennsylvania against Arlen Specter.)
What will be funny is to find out if any conservatives actually fall for this little trick.
Saturday, October 27, 2007
More than a fund source.
I recently received a call (in fact, several, based on the phone numbers of calls I had missed but which showed up on my caller ID so they really wanted to get hold of me) from an outfit which had evidently been hired by one of the leading Democratic campaigns (I will decline at this point to identify the campaign, other than to say it is one of the candidates presently ahead of Bill Richardson, who I support and who is presently running fourth). They got right to the quick of things and asked if I wanted to donate money to that campaign.
I told them I support Bill Richardson, so they thanked me and presumably will call again if their candidate ends up being the nominee.
Now, forget for a moment the fact that I'm not in any position to donate money, since I have kids who will be starting college in a few years, or that I am making two mortgage payments (my daughter and son in law rent from me and pay part, but not all, of what I would need to offset that mortgage payment). To be honest, whether I was in a position to donate money or not, I give what used to be considered much more useful than money.
I give time, effort and energy. I have taken the time to be elected as a precinct committeeman, and I work hard for the candidates who I work for. I also stay in with them until the end, whether that is a good end or a bad end. Several years ago I agreed to support a candidate who was running for Congress. It turned out that he was running his campaign pretty much alone out of the back room of his house; his (homemade) campaign literature listed 'campaign accomplishments' in lieu of any real accomplishments and talked about where he had gone to visit-- and in the end he got 1.8% of the vote to finish last in a field of unknowns in our oversized congressional district (the largest city in the district is about 50,000 people and it covers an area the size of the state of Illinois.) But I worked my tail off for him anyway, put in the time and the miles, and on the day of the primary although he didn't win, he did get votes in our county that I'm sure he (not having been here) would not have gotten, and at least in my precinct he did get more votes than the person who actually won the primary district-wide. So if I don't have money to give, I believe I have a lot to give that is not money.
However, by not asking whether I would be willing to volunteer first, I believe that the campaign of that candidate is missing a step (even though in my case, my answer would be identical, that I am committed to working for Governor Richardson.)
Paul Tsongas once said while running for President in 1992 but scraping by for funds, "Money is the mother's milk of politics." And in fact, that year I felt inspired to give $20 to Tsongas, and later it turned out that many of his contributions were embezzled by a campaign worker. That disillusioned me on giving any campaign donations at all for a long time, at least a decade (well, I worked hard for that twenty bucks, and I gave it to Paul Tsongas so he could get his message out, not to buy some crook a Mercedes.)
Nobody wants to be thought of as nothing more than a source of free cash, and that is the message I got from the call. Further, if they asked if the people they contacted wanted to volunteer first, they could still ask for cash later in the call (either, 'Great! Thank you for agreeing to volunteer! Would you like to also make a donation today?' or, 'I'm sorry you're too busy, would you be able to show your support with a monetary donation instead?') Doing it that way would get you a local volunteer list, still give you a chance to ask everyone who isn't otherwise committed for money, and make people feel like you want them to do more than just write a check to your campaign.
I am also volunteering for another candidate who is running for another office. Recently I asked about whether that candidate had some literature available for an event I was working at. When I called, the phone representative answered that they didn't have any literature yet, or really any well developed campaign, because at this point in the campaign, they were focusing on raising money. Well, I'm glad they are raising money, but was it really worth missing a chance to get your name and information out to hundreds or even thousands of potential voters? The whole point of a campaign organization is that you can have some people raising money while other people are out there organizing, canvassing and talking to voters-- it is possible to do both at the same time.
One guy I will mention that I worked for (and for that matter gave a few dollars to) is Paul Babbitt, in 2004. He raised $2 million, and never really got his message out (but at the end of the campaign, there were boxes and boxes of unopened Babbitt literature). So he got thumped by 22 points. He could just as easily have done that with no money, and frankly if the focus had been on getting him out there more, Rick Renzi's misleading attack ads might not have been as effective.
Republicans have for a long time held a significant edge in fundraising (they after all have a lot more wealthy donors, who can simply write a check for the max, and then go get the same from all of their friends.) One of their problems during the past few years is that Democrats have become more effective at raising funds, and the GOP was so addicted to simply getting a bigger megaphone by spending more on ads than Democrats that they didn't know as well how to campaign when they were behind in the cash totals. Now, that can be a good thing for Democrats, but only if we make sure we don't fall into the same trap as Republicans did. We can't disconnect with our own base and volunteer network simply for the blind pursuit of funds.
I told them I support Bill Richardson, so they thanked me and presumably will call again if their candidate ends up being the nominee.
Now, forget for a moment the fact that I'm not in any position to donate money, since I have kids who will be starting college in a few years, or that I am making two mortgage payments (my daughter and son in law rent from me and pay part, but not all, of what I would need to offset that mortgage payment). To be honest, whether I was in a position to donate money or not, I give what used to be considered much more useful than money.
I give time, effort and energy. I have taken the time to be elected as a precinct committeeman, and I work hard for the candidates who I work for. I also stay in with them until the end, whether that is a good end or a bad end. Several years ago I agreed to support a candidate who was running for Congress. It turned out that he was running his campaign pretty much alone out of the back room of his house; his (homemade) campaign literature listed 'campaign accomplishments' in lieu of any real accomplishments and talked about where he had gone to visit-- and in the end he got 1.8% of the vote to finish last in a field of unknowns in our oversized congressional district (the largest city in the district is about 50,000 people and it covers an area the size of the state of Illinois.) But I worked my tail off for him anyway, put in the time and the miles, and on the day of the primary although he didn't win, he did get votes in our county that I'm sure he (not having been here) would not have gotten, and at least in my precinct he did get more votes than the person who actually won the primary district-wide. So if I don't have money to give, I believe I have a lot to give that is not money.
However, by not asking whether I would be willing to volunteer first, I believe that the campaign of that candidate is missing a step (even though in my case, my answer would be identical, that I am committed to working for Governor Richardson.)
Paul Tsongas once said while running for President in 1992 but scraping by for funds, "Money is the mother's milk of politics." And in fact, that year I felt inspired to give $20 to Tsongas, and later it turned out that many of his contributions were embezzled by a campaign worker. That disillusioned me on giving any campaign donations at all for a long time, at least a decade (well, I worked hard for that twenty bucks, and I gave it to Paul Tsongas so he could get his message out, not to buy some crook a Mercedes.)
Nobody wants to be thought of as nothing more than a source of free cash, and that is the message I got from the call. Further, if they asked if the people they contacted wanted to volunteer first, they could still ask for cash later in the call (either, 'Great! Thank you for agreeing to volunteer! Would you like to also make a donation today?' or, 'I'm sorry you're too busy, would you be able to show your support with a monetary donation instead?') Doing it that way would get you a local volunteer list, still give you a chance to ask everyone who isn't otherwise committed for money, and make people feel like you want them to do more than just write a check to your campaign.
I am also volunteering for another candidate who is running for another office. Recently I asked about whether that candidate had some literature available for an event I was working at. When I called, the phone representative answered that they didn't have any literature yet, or really any well developed campaign, because at this point in the campaign, they were focusing on raising money. Well, I'm glad they are raising money, but was it really worth missing a chance to get your name and information out to hundreds or even thousands of potential voters? The whole point of a campaign organization is that you can have some people raising money while other people are out there organizing, canvassing and talking to voters-- it is possible to do both at the same time.
One guy I will mention that I worked for (and for that matter gave a few dollars to) is Paul Babbitt, in 2004. He raised $2 million, and never really got his message out (but at the end of the campaign, there were boxes and boxes of unopened Babbitt literature). So he got thumped by 22 points. He could just as easily have done that with no money, and frankly if the focus had been on getting him out there more, Rick Renzi's misleading attack ads might not have been as effective.
Republicans have for a long time held a significant edge in fundraising (they after all have a lot more wealthy donors, who can simply write a check for the max, and then go get the same from all of their friends.) One of their problems during the past few years is that Democrats have become more effective at raising funds, and the GOP was so addicted to simply getting a bigger megaphone by spending more on ads than Democrats that they didn't know as well how to campaign when they were behind in the cash totals. Now, that can be a good thing for Democrats, but only if we make sure we don't fall into the same trap as Republicans did. We can't disconnect with our own base and volunteer network simply for the blind pursuit of funds.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
