Time for a bit of a rant. I listened in on the Edwards campaign’s press call this morning where they launched a new website called AmericaBelongstoUs2008.com, asking voters to sign a pledge “not to vote or caucus for a Democratic presidential candidate that accepts campaign contributions from Washington lobbyists and special interest PACs.”
Edwards’ top advisers Joe Trippi and Jonathan Prince were on the call, making much of how our broken political system is dominated by lobbyists and special interests, and trying to distinguish their candidate from the other Dems for not taking contributions from DC lobbyists.
But here’s what offended me–and I’m sorry if this is going to sound like an attack on the Edwards campaign, because it’s not. It’s just that with Edwards making the biggest and boldest claims to be a change agent, my expectations are higher.
When my colleague Josh Levy, who was also on the call, asked the Edwards folks how they were going to use the list of pledge signers (they’re aiming to get 1 million names by Feb. 5th), Trippi and Prince basically punted, mumbling something about going after lobbyists.
Look guys, don’t treat us like we’re dummies. Clearly this is a list-building exercise (and a way to earn some media coverage). After someone signs the America Belongs to Us pledge, they’re taken to a sign-up and donation page for the Edwards campaign. And that’s it.
Now, there’s nothing wrong with political campaigns trying to build up their email lists. Nor is there anything wrong with doing it by riding the news and connecting their campaign priorities to voters’ concerns.
But what bothers me is the hollowness of the exercise. The real issue here–which Edwards is, to his credit, trying to raise–is how power works in America. Some people with lots of money have more power than other people, who happen to have less money.
Let’s not kid ourselves, though. Merely rejecting donations from DC lobbyists and PACs hardly blunts the power of well-heeled donors. Again, I’m not beating up on Edwards here, just stating the facts. If you look at OpenSecrets.org to see where the money is coming from in this presidential election, in terms of big donors vs small donors, there is a difference between the candidates, but it’s hardly a huge difference. For Edwards, 28% of his money has come in amounts of $200 or less, while 39% has come from people who are maxing out at $2300+. For Hillary Clinton, just 13% has come from small donors, vs 63% from maxed-out donors. Obama, Huckabee, McCain and Romney all fall in between, with Giuliani pretty much matching Clinton’s level of fatcat support.
If you’re going to change the way power works in Washington, you have to build up countervailing power that is based on large numbers of people working in concert, rather than large piles of money working in concert. Helping one candidate get elected president over another might help change that fundamental fact. But if you watch what the candidates do, rather than what they say, all you see is an effort to build up their own power bases by collecting money and names.
There is power in those lists of names, now more than ever thanks to the net. Just look at MoveOn.org if you doubt that. But while the candidates surf this incredible wave of freely offered voter-driven attention that comes once every four years around the presidential race, and suck up millions of small donations and hundreds of thousands of names in the process, what do they leave behind?
In 2004, they didn’t leave much behind. John Kerry build a 3 million-plus email list, but did he give it over to institution-building, or enable its members to connect to each other around their common interests, or even just give it to the DNC? Nope. Same with the Clinton machine, and every other national political wannabe. Lists are power and they don’t like to share.
Here’s what I’d like to see. John Edwards should pledge to give his list of “America Belongs to Us” pledge signers to the reform groups in America who are working to fundamentally change how campaigns are financed. Hillary Clinton should pledge to give her million-plus email list to the groups who are working to make sure every American has real health care coverage. Barack Obama should pledge to give his list to the groups who are trying to re-orient American foreign policy around a new paradigm.
This isn’t just a Democratic rant. Mitt Romney should promise to give his list to groups working to reduce government waste. Rudy Giuliani should give his to groups working to strengthen America’s defenses. And so on.
If the law doesn’t allow such direct transfers from campaigns to NGOs, then at a minimum pledge to tell your list members about such groups and let them voluntarily sign up.
In an ideal world, we wouldn’t even be giving our names to candidates for them to unilaterally deploy to suit their ends. We’d be in control of our own personal data, and we’d be empowered to connect directly with other people who share our common interest without having to use a political campaign as a vehicle for finding each other.
But we’re not (yet) in that ideal world. However, before you add your name to one more candidate’s list or pledge drive, consider this: it’s time that we stopped handing over this power without expecting something real in return.
The first candidate for national office who shows they’re really about sharing power and not just amassing more for their own ambitions–however sincere and well-intentioned–will get my attention. After all, America belongs to us, right?