Saturday, November 6, 2010

Ambling for Congress in 2010

Having posted extensively about health care on this blog, and being motivated to improve government by the dismal work I saw going on in Congress, I took it upon myself to run for Congress in 2010. I knew that I couldn't philosophically be a Democratic candidate and the Republican party apparatus already had a favorite. Therefore, since I am an independent person anyway, I ran as one.

With the tiniest bit of research, it is easy to discover that independents do not get elected to the U.S. House. Thus, I knew from the outset that expecting to win would be delusional on my part. As a result, I directed my efforts to setting forth items for the voting public to consider as essential to good government. My primary campaign tool was my campaign web site (which is now gone).

My other aim was to visit the election process from the candidate's side of the ballot and learn more for myself about how campaigns and elections really work. Just how hard is it to run for national office? I succeeded more with this task than getting the issues before the public. Here's what I discovered.

It's not that hard to get on the ballot. In my case, it took 25 registered voter signatures on a petition form. The election people were very friendly and made a big point of saying to get extra signatures because not everyone who thinks they are registered really is. It does take some personal courage to ask people to sign your petition. You do need to think about your campaign finances. If you keep your spending and your fund raising each under $5,000 you do not trigger the reporting requirements of the Federal Election Commission. Go over those amounts and you are in for a mountain of disclosure about your personal and campaign finances. I opted to stay well under the trigger. But, as you will see shortly, if you do, you will never win.

As an independent 'You don't get no respect.' All the press coverage and speaking invitations go to the two major party candidates. I suppose if I had pushed, I might have gotten on some platforms with them because some other independents did. The League of Women Voters (praise be upon them) invited me to two of their forums, a Tea Party group to one, and a college radio station to one. Chambers of Commerce ignored me despite the fact that I belong to one outside my district and am a small businessman. Go figure.

Voters buy the brand. It seems to be a foregone conclusion that independents have nothing to offer, or what they are offering is too extreme to be electable. Voters, therefore, pay attention to the two main candidates after the primaries are over. If you want to get elected, you must go through one of the two parties to get there almost without exception. Despite the recent push by the Tea Party, there is no organized alternative to the Democrats and the Republicans.

Money buys office. I am sad to say this, but it takes loads of money to get your message out. Whether it is flyers, roadside signs, or TV ads, unless you are willing to be a heavy spender, you aren't in the race. That translates into something else. It means that either you invest your personal fortune (e.g., Meg Whitman in CA), or you raise lots of contributions or both. In the former case, only the rich can run for office. In the later case, only the well-connected, or the soon-to-be-beholding can run for office. Translation: national public office is out of the reach of the average person (local office is not). We might like to pretend it is not, but the presence of 170 lawyers in the U.S. House would suggest the odds are against it.

You gotta have an ego. This is not necessarily a bad thing. Serious campaigning requires a lot of time and energy. You've got to want the office and you've got to believe you are the best person for it. Plus, you've got to take some hammering from the opposition. In my race that never got out of hand, but in some other local races it was disgustingly nasty. Really low ball stuff. If you beat your spouse, cheat on your taxes, default on your loans, or toss trash out your car window, plan on it coming out. The one good thing about being a lowly independent is that no one cares enough to dig and dish dirt on you - not that there was any, mind you.

Voters are concerned with the immediate, press-fed concerns of the day. It does not matter that the current hot buttons like immigration, term limits, etc. are not as serious as longer term issues like oil shortages and fiscal failure of the government. The voters get hyped up over pet peeves and popular concerns. Some of the ones who get hyped get active and this election that took the form of the Tea Party. The energy was great and some of the concerns well founded, but worries about 2nd amendment rights (gun control) and a return to a late 1700's government really did not serve the forward progress of the nation. The big issues of tomorrow just don't catch on compared to the popular issues of today. The one big exception this election was fiscal responsibility. What I project this to mean is that we will have government by crisis and not by foresight. The mounting debt, Social Security and Medicare, oil supplies and prices, global warming, etc. which are major long-term issues won't be acted upon until it is literally too late. That's so scary even I don't want to think about it.

When you run for office you become popular with two groups. The first are the election sign printers. You'll get postcards aplenty from them. The second are all manner of organizations with surveys they want you to fill out. Many of these are poorly-concealed attempts to force you to either adopt their position or look like a jerk. The one good one was from VoteSmart and I answered it.

It may turn out that you are no dumber than the other guys. If you are a novice seeking office, you might think that your competition has a head start on you regarding the issues. Think again. If you do some research on important topics, you can stand tall when you talk. As an example, the Democratic candidate did not seem to know the difference between the annual deficit and the accumulated debt of the government. This wasn't his first time running for the seat. (In all fairness, I never put the question directly to him, but his remarks suggested this was true.)

I'll leave it at this for now. Maybe I'll have more reflections later. Pose a question in the comments if you are curious about something specific.