Advice to a Republican awash in campaign contributions

What to do when wealthy, powerful Republicans give you a million dollars to use in a state senate campaign? 

Give it away.

Really. Give it away.

Too much money is a good problem to have -- if one has the sense to realize it is a problem. 

From the Hicks campaign website

Republican candidates for the Oregon 3rd senate district representing Medford and Ashland Oregon receive a million-plus dollars every cycle from upstate Republican senators' PACS, from Republican-oriented corporate PACs, and from wealthy Republican donors. This year's beneficiary is Brad Hicks, the former CEO of the local Chamber of Commerce. Contributions are pouring in. [Click, then enter Committee ID 24485, then Transaction Type: contribution.]

Spending it overwhelms voters in this small media market. Cycle after cycle the spending produces the message that the candidate is a solid, loyal, agent of the great Republican hegemon of business elites with all the money in the world to browbeat voters. It is a losing message.

My advice for the Hicks campaign is for him to accept maybe $200,000 in donations and give the rest back, however much it is. The more that comes in, the better, as long as he gives it away to charities. 

First thing is to return the $5,000 he got from the PAC of Altria, the Marlboro cigarette people. What was he thinking taking that donation? He doesn't need the money and he has to know that Democrats will showcase that donation. And give back the money that came in $5,000 and $10,000 hunks from Republican state senators welcoming you to their team. It communicates that they want a grateful and indebted senator, not an independent one; a bad message. Give back he money from the bank, pharmaceutical, and real estate PACs. Hicks problem is that he already looks way to tight with business elites and this just confirms it.  Most of all, give back the $249,000 from Nike founder Phil Knight's PAC aimed at creating a state legislature to his liking. I like Nike shoes, and I am grateful for "Uncle Phil's" two billion dollar donation to Oregon Health Sciences University, but I don't want him buying himself a legislature. It looks wrong and out of scale. I liken it to the Qatari jet gift to Trump; it's too big.

Pick two or three local charities to receive the PAC money. Use the portion of the money from rank and file local Republicans to fund a sensibly-scaled campaign, and include some ads to say what you did. Don't overdo the self-praise, or it will wreck the message. The goal is to look public spirited, not braggy.

The Hicks campaign received large donations from people associated with what is ow an international auto dealer, Lithia Auto Group. I have good feelings about those people, even if they mostly give to Republicans. They are prosperous, public spirited, and local -- a good combination. My recommendation is to give the money back to them and ask them to make a tax-deductible contribution to Southern Oregon University with it. This is a natural for them. They already donate large amounts to SOU and it turns an after-tax political donation into a tax-deductible charitable one. Let them publicize the switch.

Lithia's leadership is the key to getting buy-in from the big upstate PACs that have invested so heavily in this race. Lithia's leaders are market savvy, and Republican strategists have proven they are not. Auto dealers know that no amount of advertising will convince a working man who needs a pickup truck to haul his tools that he should buy a small sedan. No amount of money will persuade a blue constituency energized by Trump to elect a Republican foot soldier dressed in a Trump uniform of red, white, and blue. The upstate GOP establishment that created the river of cash will need some persuading. God knows they won't listen to me. They might listen to someone from the DeBoer family.

I am offering up practical advice. It won't irritate voters with a blanket of ads. It makes a point people agree with, that big money is ruining our politics. It communicates a message of public service, not partisanship. By redirecting their money Hicks would make a visible gesture that maybe, just maybe, he has tiny bit of independence from the MAGA establishment and business elites sending him money.

The problem with this advice is that it doesn't work to fake it, to go part way and just give away a pittance and then brag about it. That backfires worse than doing nothing because it is both hypocritical and partisan, and the avalanche of campaign ads gives away the game. This only works if he is all in. Radical generosity is what reframes the campaign, if he dares to do it.

I realize I sound as crazy as Jesus: give away money to the poor, put down weapons. This sounds like pie in the sky idealism, not real life. Only a very gullible Republican candidate would take such unrealistic campaign advice. I get that.

I expect the Hicks campaign to proceed the tried-and-true way. As Napoleon allegedly said, "God is on the side of the big divisions." Hicks has the big divisions, and the momentum of every campaign is to use the money if it has it.

[Note: To get daily delivery of this blog by email go to Https://petersage.substack.com. Subscribe. The blog is free and always will be.]