Journalists vs. Experts
When I turned on my television I heard these words, "Barack Obama is going to spend close to a quarter of a billion dollars on campaign financing."
It was Morning Joe on MSNBC with Joe Scarborough, Mika Brzezinski and guests Mort Zuckerman, Jay Carney and Eugene Robinson. It was one of the best television bits I've seen in a while and it was done on campaign finance. They questioned whether or not Barack Obama had bought the election. While Joe Scarborough said, "There is not a more shallow way for an election to be decided than by 30 second ads...those 30 second ads are decisive. You can say it's been bought," Jay Carney, however, argued that an election could not be bought.
Generally speaking I have my issues with television news. I usually find it not terribly well thought out--I usually find that it skims over the issues at hand. Is television news changing for the better? Are they working on creating a discussion on real issues from all sides?
But then I stopped for a moment. All of the people being interviewed were either journalists or magazine editors. How do I know if these are the real issues right now in campaign finance? Sure, they may know more than you or me--especially since Joe Scarborough was a former congressman--but why do cable news' hosts so often just interview other journalists rather than experts in the field being discussed?
So today I decided to speak with an expert in the world of campaign finance. Stephen Weissman is the associate director for policy at the Campaign Finance Institute, which is a non-partisan, non-profit organization associated with George Washington University that conducts research and makes recommendations for policy change in the field of campaign finance.
I told him about the bit I had watched on MSNBC and asked if Obama had bought the election--or if that was even a legitimate question. Weissman said, "Can a financial advantage help? Yes. Does it determine the election? No. There's so many factors affecting the election...Your message must resonate with people."
Okay, so then this doesn't seem like the biggest problem in the campaign finance world. I wanted to know what the main problems were in this election--what really needed to be talked about and discussed.
Weissman said that one of the main problems with this election, is that, "Overall big money has been the most important force in this presidential election." The average person, because of this, is not given the most significant voice. In a way, Weissman discussed, in this election the small voices and the small donations have been feigned. Half of Barack Obama's money has come from donations of $200 or less. Donors giving less than $200 dollars, however, do not have to be reported publicly. So, big money, has been giving many many small donations of less than $200. Fake names and fake organizations have also been created that give many small donations and bundlers are still prevalent in both campaigns.
Campaign finance when explored below the surface is riddled with problems in the public financing system and with big corporations, or "big money," being given more of a say than the average person.
It's important to know whether or not we can say if Barack Obama has bought the election. He hasn't. That question has been discussed. But there are bigger problems out there in the world of campaign financing that need to be explored, investigated and publicly discussed in the media so that the public can be aware. Again, I enjoyed the piece on Morning Joe, but I want to know more. I want to see round table discussions that really get the issues out there--and maybe that means talking with those who are experts in fields outside of journalism.
I'd say, "Consider the source." I saw that bit with Scarborough -- or at least one similar to it early this week -- where Joe is peeved that Obama "lied" about taking public financing and "has bought" this election. He rails on about how "unfair" this is for McCain, and that McCain is being outspent 7 to 1 in some markets.
My response: Boo-hoo.... Sounds like sour grapes to me.
Remember that in prior elections, where both candidates took public funding, the RNC manhandled the DNC in fundraising giving their candidate -- even thought they may have started with even money -- an overwhelming advantage. Additionally, the RNC (as we saw last year with the Swiftboat ads) has never been shy about taking help and support and advertising from third-party groups.
Now, in all past elections since public funding was instituted, each candidate has always had the opportunity to forego such funding. It was and has never been mandated.
The whining from the Republican camp is because Obama has beaten them at their own game: raising a huge sum of money -- and the DNC ended up doing better than they forecasted as well -- from by and large small donors. All of a sudden fundraising from small donors is now suspect. Claims of untraceable credit cards may actually be prepaid cards, debit cards that have allowed those who might not otherwise be able to participate, to join in.
So Scarborough and others complaining about how the election "was bought" are complaining now, not because there is a legitimate complaint, but because "that one" is winning.
Had McCain really thought through his game plan, and had his campaign not been swirling down the toilet when he had to make the decision, he probably would have chosen to forego public financing.
And to the final aspect of your thoughtful post, I would say that people are smarter than marketers. Even when they buy Pet Rocks. The best marketers in the world work for Coca-Cola. They have a multi-billion dollar budget to sell bubbly, brown, sugar water. But the people didn't buy New Coke. That is how I see McCain-Palin.
If -- and you have to believe that once upon a time there was a "maverick politician" named John McCain (and frankly, I don't) -- "maverick McCain" represents "original" Coke and this iteration of McCain represents New Coke, then "New Coke and Fresca" will be rejected by the Pepsi Generation. (Way to milk an analogy, much!)
October 31, 2008 4:13 PM | Reply | Permalink