Raising Clean Money

Jamie McLeod-Skinner, candidate

     

"Give what you can, and then give just a little bit more, to help this great candidate."

  The campaign "ask" 

How does a candidate fund a campaign if one isn't independently wealthy?

It was a time-honored conclusion to a campaign event, this one for a Democratic candidate  for Secretary of State, Jamie McLeod-Skinner, at my home on Sunday.

Give. Give more.

The "ask" was well handled, nicely done. 

It had the usual elements. It came at the event's end, after the candidate had spoken. It was given by a volunteer who strongly supported the candidate. It reviewed why the candidate was not just good, but the best candidate for the position. It said the donated money was needed and would bring Oregon better government. Then it asked people to give.

I invited politically active friends who I thought might be interested in meeting McLeod-Skinner. The invitation to the house party was issued publicly on Facebook and then widely forwarded around. Local Democrats posted it in a newsletter. About fifty people attended. There was no outside "media" there, but they would have been welcome. There was a mix of people there. Some prosperous, some not.

The campaign circulated donor envelopes. I noticed that most people wrote checks. My expectation is that the more prosperous people wrote bigger checks than the least prosperous, but I really don't know.

I consider it the best, cleanest money in politics. It came from people who saw the candidate, liked what they saw, and wanted her to win her office. It came from a variety of citizens, people who have no particular ax to grind or special interest other than "good government" as they see it. 

City Councilman Kevin Stine and McLeod-Skinner

In the Presidential campaign Pete Buttigieg surprised people by raising money very well. That put him in the "first tier" of candidates even while candidates holding higher offices--Senators Harris, Booker, Bennet--have fallen back. Buttigieg holds both Town Hall public events and fundraisers. 

Sanders and Elizabeth Warren--and their supporters--are openly critical of Mayor Pete Buttigieg's fundraising.

An AP story reported Buttigieg "stirred criticism from progressives that Buttigieg--a Harvard-educated child of academics--is a product of privilege" and said detractors call him "Wall Street Pete." Buttigieg was holding holding high dollar campaign fundraisers and people were showing up. He has raised some $50 million dollars from his mix of contributors; Warren $60 million; Sanders $74 million.

Buttigieg opened his fundraisers to the media in response to the criticism. I attended one in Portland. It is just like his Town Halls, which I have also attended.

Sanders reports an average contribution of $18. Buttigieg reported last week that he had average contribution of $32. Small contributors represent 48% for Buttigieg, versus 58% for Bernie Sanders and 53% for Elizabeth Warren. Buttigieg:  Click: Open Secrets  Sanders:  Click: Open Secrets   Warren:  Click: Open Secrets

I have a perspective on the Democratic message and on fundraisers. My thirty year career as a Financial Advisor put me in daily contact with people who sought greater prosperity for themselves. Yes, a few people say they have no interest in money and they disdain wealth and the wealthy, but my observation was that most people do not dislike money, and indeed would be happy to have a little more of it, maybe a lot more. It is one reason why they work, save, and invest. A great many people buy lottery tickets for fun. The idea of being wealthy seems attractive. 

It is also my observation that most people think that people much richer than themselves ought to be paying more in taxes. Yet, simultaneously, most people believe in social mobility and do not consider themselves locked into "working class," and don't consider themselves to be in inevitable conflict with richer people. 

What a tangle.

That means Democratic candidates need to thread a needle, but there is a path. 

They can support more progressive tax policies, plus greater health care, education, and other services for deserving people, i.e. people like themselves. That is popular. But attacks on the rich backfire. People don't hate the rich. They want to tax them, yes, but they also want to be one of them. It is bad politics for Democrats to make prosperous Americans their political enemy. 

Every campaign has a website and donation button.

A lot of rich folks are Democrats. They show up at fundraisers to lend support. Some people click the internet button and give $10. Others click it and give $1,000. They are all Americans.