The Obama Precedent
It’s ancient history, but Barack Obama was the first candidate to forgo public campaign financing and spending limits for his presidential campaign. On June 19, 2008, he sent a video message to supporters explaining that small-dollar donations would easily surpass the money he’d gain from public matching funds and those same donations would allow him to avoid spending limits. Obama broke the system with his popularity. No presidential candidate since has accepted limits.
In his campaign for Mayor of New York City, Mamdani made a video asking people to volunteer instead of sending money. He had raised too much. He agreed to a $7.9 million expenditure cap and had to announce in both the primary and general election that he was halting his fundraising. It’s a rare politician indeed who finds themselves in such an awkward position.
We mention these examples because the latest round of Minnesota campaign contributions were just released. We understand that money is the lifeblood of a political campaign, but that doesn’t mean we like it. Without donations, campaigns are unable to hire staff, make commercials, or mail flyers and print yard signs. The fact is that modern society is awash in distractions. TV was only the beginning. Now there are multiple streaming services, social media platforms, newsletters, radio, and podcasts. For a candidate to break into the consciousness of the average voter, it takes significant effort and funding. However, we can recognize the reality of modern campaigning and still be uncomfortable with it. There are simply too many examples of how donors curry favor and influence over our political arena.
When Too Much Is Too Much
Influence isn’t always bad. There are certainly people aligned with our values who donate to candidates. But it works both ways. Elon Musk is now a trillionaire. His values are often opposed to our own, and yet his wealth gives him tremendous sway over elections. We would argue that democracy is damaged when he, or others like him, threaten to primary an elected official if that official doesn’t do their bidding. This type of influence goes far beyond buying ads or yard signs to promote a candidate.
We may be in the minority, but we would like to see more elections where candidates qualify for public funding and adhere to spending limits. We’ve watched as vast amounts of money have been spent on unsuccessful campaigns. In his 104-day campaign for President, Michael Bloomberg spent approximately $1.1 billion. On his campaign for governor of California, Tom Steyer, another billionaire, spent $216 million. Michelle Cottle sums up our feeling about this spending in her New York Times opinion piece: “He Spent $558 Million. What a Waste.”
It’s nearly impossible not to think about the good in society that could be accomplished if these campaign funds were funneled into more human-centered projects. How many homeless could have been housed? How many lives could have been saved from drug overdoses? The list of worthy pursuits is long. There’s also no guarantee that the candidate who raises and spends the most will be the best leader. They may have charisma and connections, but the nuts and bolts of political office are more mundane. Often the “candidate” may not be a talented “politician,” or someone who can work the levers of compromise in order to achieve the best outcomes for their constituents. The skills involved frequently do not align.
If you review the figures that candidates have raised in their quest to be Minnesota’s next Governor, Senator, or Attorney General, you may be tempted to decide who will win based on who has raised the most money. But it’s worth pausing to consider who you like best, regardless of their purse size. Reforms to our campaign financing are needed, but they won’t be enacted anytime soon. Until then, it’s up to us to sort through the distractions and spin and elect the best person for the job.
Thank you for reading.
