Just in case you missed it, because I’ve been blogging like a maniac, I’ve an earlier post today on political participation, “Ten dollars and a whole lotta love,” and the Howard
Dean campaign.
Here is an interesting question: If a political candidate could get all
the financing he or she needed from 100 donors, should the candidate do
it? If the candidate had the technology to get the financing
instead from several hundred thousand or even millions of people,
should the candidate do it?
I recall a friend who is a major liberal donor saying with nostalgia
that “back in the good old days you could go to just three or four
people and have the funding for a presidential run.” Eugene
McCarthy’s campaign in 1968 is the classic example, funded by Stewart
Mott and a handful of others.
Now, hmmmm. McCarthy didn’t do too well. Neither did
McGovern. What if the reason, in part, was not that they were too
liberal for the times, but that they relied upon too few donors?
And as a result did not connect with enough people, and did not allow
enough people to become connected to them?
Going to a few donors is easy and sweet–perhaps too easy. Even
today, there are a few kingmaking fundraising networks that Democratic
candidates can go to for help. But perhaps this is a mistake for
the candidate. Clark seems to have signed up for a club of
professionals. He has a great web team, but it is not absolutely
necessary to his fundraising–it is sort of a sideshow. And
Clark’s reportedly doing well on money, but not doing well in terms of
connecting with people.
Kerry is relying on a small network of big donors, and may end up using
his own and his wife’s assets. And he feels pretty disconnected from the people.
Edwards had an early “lead” in fundraising from fellow trial lawyers,
and he has spent the most of any of the candidates on TV ads in
Iowa–and he is doing very poorly there.
In the 2000 primary, Republican Steve Forbes used a great deal of his own money, and didn’t get too far.
By contrast we have Howard Dean, who has been absolutely dependent on a
large network of small donors, particularly in the early months of his
campaign. And he feels highly connnected to people.
By the way, and perhaps most important, it is the Republicans and
George Bush who have the largest networks of small donors.
Hmmmmm. And while people like me may not think that Bush &
Company are in touch with reality, no one can say they aren’t in touch
with their base of voters. Karl Rove’s network is very connected. Hmmmmm.
Maybe the network is the thing. And maybe the small contribution is the most important.
Maybe politics is like a mosh pit. You have to do a sequence of
ever-expanding trust falls, and find out if you will be held aloft by
the crowd…
