The Sweep: How McCain-Feingold Ruined Everything – The Dispatch
Campaign Quick Hits
Results in the Texas 6th: The votes are in, and its headed to a runoff. Of course, with 23 candidates on the ballot, that was a foregone conclusion. The widow of Rep. Ron Wright, longtime GOP activist Susan Wright, took the top spot, which was expected. But despite a lot of puffery in the media about how the district was trending away from Republicans, it was Democrats who got a wake up call: The second person headed into the runoff was not the DCCCs Jana Sanchez, but another Republican, state Rep. Jake Ellzey. As FiveThirtyEight reported, Ellzey was the top fundraiser from either party but also had more money in his campaign coffers than any other candidate.
Of course, if I had asked you pre-2016 who would advance out of a 23-person field, the good money would have been on the widow of the officeholder (who shares a name) and the top fundraiser. No doubt some will argue this means doom and gloom for the Adam Kizinger disavow Trump Republicans, whose candidate finished with barely 1,000 votes, and it may. But Id say their bigger problem was picking a candidate with zero name ID in the district, a bland rsum, and very little money to raise his profile in time. Again, pre-2016, it would have been a clich that national media is no substitute for people in your district knowing who you are and feeling comfortable with you.
So does that mean we are returning to pre-2016 political realities? I think you can make a good argument that there was a singular exception to the rules of political gravity that nobody else has been able to replicate and that, at least, held true in this race.
The point: The Texas-6th will be held by a Republican, giving the Democrats no breathing room heading into 2022 with a five-seat majority in the House.
Courtesy of strategist Bruce Mehlman:
I was thinking about this quote that I included in last weeks edition of The Sweep from Richard Hanania: 49.1% of all Americans cast a ballot in 2020, compared to 2.9% who cared enough to actually give money to one side or the other.
Thats it! Thats the whole explanation for why we are where we are. Well, at least its half of it. See, my theory has long been that everything that is playing out currently in our politicsthe fecklessness of Congress, the disintegration of the Republican Party, and the negative polarization on both sidesis all an unintended consequence of the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002 (aka BCRA, aka McCainFeingold).
I could literally write an entire thesis paper on this topic but let me give you the BLUF:
The ban on soft money weakened the national parties.
The low limits on individual federal donations disincentivized major donor programs and incentivized the money to come from elsewhere.
Well leave No. 1 for another dayits important, but lots of other people have written about it. But No. 2 hasnt gotten nearly its due. So lets break it down a little.
The current limit that an individual can give to a federal campaign is $2,900 toward the general election. So as a candidate youve got two problems: First, there arent that many people in the country who have that level of disposable income. Second, $2,900 is a small drop in the bucket compared to what you need to run a federal race at this point. The contribution limit was indexed to inflationbut not the inflation of campaign expenditures. My first campaign was in 2002 and the limit was $2,000. But the range for contributions from individuals in the top 50 House races in 2002 was $1 million to $3 million. In 2020, it was $5 million to $28 million. So while the donation limit is 1.5 times higher, the amount of money you need to raise to stay competitive is six to nine times more. What is a candidate to do?
To start, you try having outside groups without limits. Theres a reason Citizens United came to the Supreme Court for relief in 2010 and not 1995. There was no way for them to get the money to their candidate, and there was no way they werent going to spend the money to help their candidate. Thus, super PACs were born, and millions and millions of unlimited dollars started pouring into groups that are allowed to spend the money on electioneering activities as long as they dont ask the candidate how they should spend it. But as I wrote last year on Citizens Uniteds 10th anniversary, super PACs are pretty terrible and arent nearly as effective as direct spending by the candidate.
So while that money is being lit on fire, campaigns needed a new plan. Ben Carson wasnt the first to figure this outbut he did get a lot of attention for it. Ben Carson raised $20.8 million in the third quarter of 2015 and he spent more than $11 million raising it. To put it in political operative terms, he was spending 54 cents to raise each dollar. At the time, that seemed insane. When asked whether that kind of burn rate was sustainable (Scott Walker and Tim Pawlenty both learned about burn rates the hard way, dropping out of their races early after running out of money), Carson spokesman Doug Watts replied, Its not only sustainable, its strategic and its profitable. He was right.
Fast forward to now, and campaigns on both sides have gutted their major donor programs and beefed up their online and digital fundraising. The cost per dollar raised is substantially higher, but it doesnt take any of the candidates timea campaigns most valuable resourceand the candidate doesnt have to dial for dollars for eight hours a day, a task that very few candidates are willing to do without grumbling, procrastinating, or other tactics used by teenagers to get out of geometry proofs.
But remember what Hanania said. Only 3 percent of voters are ever going to give to a candidate (and that number gets lower the lower down the ballot you go). So how do you reach them? And how do you motivate them? Outrage.
When Mitt Romney got in trouble for his 47 percent comment in 2012, he was speaking at a major donor event. Up to that point, it was de rigueur for a candidate to say one thing in public and have a totally different message to their major donors. But online fundraising doesnt require that at all. In fact, it is the opposite. Everything is an opportunity to raise online dollars. So everything the candidate does and says needs to be geared toward that 3 percent. And, as you can guess, they dont care about the same stuff as the other 97 percent who dont give.
As a result, Congress has no incentive to legislate (in fact, not legislating is better to keep the problems alive think immigration reform), the national parties are of minimum help because they are drawing from the same pool as candidates (I drink your milkshake), and candidates are best served by stoking the outrage by doubling down on the culture war on both sides.
So there you have it. I am a Burkean minimalist because of the 17th Amendment and BCRA. Both sounded so good in theory, but beware the unforeseeable consequences that await the best-laid intentions in the tall grass.
Chris is back with his wit and wisdom, and its Mike Pences turn in the barrel:
Theres encouraging a little presidential speculation with a whisper campaign, and then theres scheduling a trip to New Hampshire right after giving a big speech in South Carolina. Former Vice President Mike Pence is forgoing the whispers and grabbing the bullhorn as he gets ready to head to the Granite State next month to speak at the annual Lincoln-Reagan dinner in the states most electorally important county, Hillsborough.
Pence chose a group of South Carolina social conservatives, Palmetto Family, last week for his first major public remarks since January 6, when a mob of pro-Trump rioters tried to keep him from certifying the results of the 2020 election. He also spoke to a gathering of hundreds of pastors and made a campaign-style stop at a South Carolina medical school to talk about coronavirus responsea convenient way to highlight his successes leading the White House pandemic response team.
Pence has scheduled a high-profile slate of speeches, appearances, and fundraising events in the coming weeks, and his team promises that he will frequently hit the trail in support of midterm candidates. Hes got a book in the works, and hes even launching a podcast. Its safe to say that hes runningor at least he wants to. What we dont know is whether his timing is right.
I have been bullish on Pences chances for the GOP nomination ever since the chaotic Capitol raid. As the former vice president for a divisive, unpopular commander in chief, Pence didnt have much of a chance for 2024. He was so obsequiously devoted to Donald Trump and his broad-shouldered leadership that it seemed unlikely Pence could get enough mainstream support to push through to the nomination. But because of his milquetoast persona and Sunday-school teacher vibe, neither could he tap in to the cult of personality among Trumps hard-core supporters. He was too Trumpy to win over traditional Republicans, but not Trumpy enough for the MAGA stans. When Trump turned on Pence and sent a mob of berserkers to go try to stop him from filling his constitutional duty, however, the former president gave his No. 2 a massive political gift.
Its certainly true that Pences decision to do his job will kill any chance of winning over the hardcore Trump lovers, but he probably wasnt going to score well with them anyway. And there will be lots of Trump wannabes dividing up that share of the vote. But now, unlike his potential mainstream competitors Nikki Haley and Mike Pompeo, Pence has shown that he was willing to defy Trump when it counted. The fact that he could do so without having to make a show of it is all the better for his chances. For a party that will surely be exhausted by the fight over Trumpism, Pence could represent the kind of bland compromise that voters may be seeking. If a former vice president could win the Democratic nomination by being the consensus compromise choice, why couldnt the Republicans pull the same trick?
Whats less clear is how Pences candidacy will wear over time. His incipient run will no doubt anger Trump, who is busy trying to maintain his grip on the GOP from his gilded bunker at Mar-a-Lago. Pence did as much as anyone to put the lie to Trumps loony claims in service of his efforts to steal the 2020 election. Trump, eagerly cruel and enthusiastically petty, can hardly let the offense go unpunished. Maybe the thinking from Pence and his very savvy strategist, Marc Short, is that its better to draw that fight out early so its old news by 2023. Or maybe they just dont think they can afford to start raising money and locking up support in what will be a very crowded field. Whatever the reason, well soon find out whether the former Veep can find a way to survive and advance in a party still terrified of his former boss.
View post:
The Sweep: How McCain-Feingold Ruined Everything - The Dispatch