We welcome your comments. Send them to themail@rochester-citynews.com, or post them on our website, rochestercitynewspaper.com, our Facebook page, or our Twitter feed, @roccitynews. Comments of fewer than 350 words have a greater chance of being published, and we do edit selections for publication in print. We don’t publish comments sent to other media.
Money’s power
In a recent column, Mary Anna Towler lamented low voter turnout in our recent congressional primary (“Conservatives’ Takeover Is Complete. Who Cares?”)
It’s tempting to blame voter apathy, which is surely part of the problem. But there are other forces at work. When I was reporting on elections, I thought everyone watched and read my stories. I assumed everyone watched the debates I moderated. When I ran for office, I learned that’s not true.
I learned voters don’t come to you; you have to go to them. Not everyone lives and breathes politics. People are busy with work and families. We cannot expect everyone to comb through candidate websites and sit through hour-long candidate forums. If people are not exposed to your message, you’re dead on arrival.
If high voter turnout is the goal, the primary system is set up to fail.
You may be surprised to learn that when candidates have limited resources, they typically focus on voters with strong voting histories, so low turnout perpetuates. The majority of eligible voters in a primary never get a call, a visit, or a piece of mail.
Take a look at this math. In my recent campaign for the Democratic nomination for Congress, we identified 35,000 high-probability voters – a universe that was manageable, given our resources, predicted turnout, and short length of the campaign. We called, canvassed, and mailed only those voters. We didn’t have paid staff and had money for only one mail piece. We identified about 7,000 people who committed to voting for me. We got them to the polls, but we knew that number was short.
The primary winner was surely operating in a much larger voter pool, as he had an enormous war chest. He sent multiple pieces of mail and used paid canvassers. His message dominated. It should not be surprising that he was able to identify far more of his supporters going into the election.
You cannot cross your fingers and hope that large numbers of people who have had limited or no contact with your campaign will come out to vote for you.
How do we engage more voters? Money will always flow to power, but we can do more to make sure the voices of all voters and candidates are heard. We need campaign finance reform, including a public financing option. We should follow the lead of states that send voter guides with information on candidates and referendums. Shortening the waiting period to change parties could also increase primary turnout.
There is some good news. A majority of voters in this congressional primary opted for non-traditional candidates, proving that big money can be defeated. We’re seeing similar energy in races across the country. Robin Wilt, Adam McFadden, and I spent far less per vote than Morelle. I would love to have seen what would have happened in a longer race. But make no mistake – the odds are always against beating the machine.
There’s no such thing as a level playing field in politics. We should strive, however, to make our democracy as fair as possible.
RACHEL BARNHART
Barnhart, a former television journalist, was a candidate for Congress in the June Democratic Primary.
America at the crossroads
Our democracy and society are falling apart, piece by piece, and our lives and prospects are in great jeopardy. The assets, institutions, and laws—the essence of what, over two centuries, brought our country to its valued place on the world stage – are being willfully destroyed.
Soon enough, we will be facing further environmental changes, which will bring inestimable, irreparable havoc. The threat of species annihilation – including our own – by mishap or ego-driven, mindless action, has never been as great.
Over the last two years, the nation has become more divided about such matters than we have ever been. How do we dig ourselves out of this world-destroying hole? As John Dickinson’s “The Liberty Song” says, “By uniting we stand, by dividing we fall.” We have to wake up, take responsibility for our part in allowing the shameful and criminal abuse of power that is burying our ethics and values, and then take action to stop it.
On November 6, vote for those who seem most honorable in their living, those best able to treat others as they would want to be treated.
Vote as if your life depended on it. It does.
DAVID LATHAM
This article appears in Jul 18-24, 2018.
It was too late for City to add to my letter, but FEC data shows:
Morelle spent $461,000 on primary victory, or $28 per vote.
Wilt spent $73,000 ($43,000 of her own money), or $12 per vote.
I spent $35,000 or $5 per vote.
Incomplete data on McFadden., but he’ll probably be lowest per vote.
Having just failed in her third or fourth run for elective office, it’s not unexpected that Ms. Barnhart blames the system for her failed campaigns. It can’t be that she’s not qualified to run for state or federal office without a speck of practical political experience under her belt. It MUST be that the voters are uninformed and that the winning candidate, Joe Morelle, was successful only because he was able to raise and spend more money on his campaign. All of which is just a polite way of saying that the average voter is ignorant and gullible and votes for whoever runs the most media ads, sets up the most lawn signs, and sends out the most mailings. Next she’ll be calling for term limits.
Having begun her new calling as a perpetual candidate based on the assumption that her TV-generated name recognition negated the need to start at the bottom of the ladder at the town or school board level like most other mere mortals, Ms. Barnhart now finds that those nasty career politicians are even better known than she and so of course she now wants to change the rules.
As a wise man once said, the trouble with democracy is that your side might lose.
Rachel states that, “A majority of voters in this congressional primary opted for non-traditional candidates.” That statement is both incorrect and irrelevant.
Its incorrect in that there is no rational way to label the president of the city council (McFadden), and a member of a town board (Wilt) as “non-traditional candidates”. So the reality is that, minus the 20% of the voters who went for Barnhart, a full 80% voted for TRADITIONAL candidates. Though at some point someone who has run for as many offices as has Rachel surely must also be eligible for the title of Traditional Candidate.
And the statement is irrelevant in that, in the vast majority of elections or primaries in which 3 or more candidate are running, seldom does the winner poll 50% or more of the vote.
Carl and Steve dont be blind to the fact that power and the machine bypassed real democracy
Owen Thanks for that bumper sticker observation. The fact that your particular candidate may have lost is no indication that democracy (and we’re not a democracy, but rather a representative democracy) has been bypassed. It simply means that he or she failed to convince enough of the electorate to vote for them. As to that “machine”, I assume you mean those politicians who have been able to persuade the voters to re-elect them to office. To me, that’s the very essence of democracy.
Morelle is a good candidate. Barnhart, Wilt and McFadden are bad candidates. That kind of simple narrative about election outcomes makes us feel better, but it’s not always true. They were all great candidates, and Barnhart was certainly the winner in the debates.
This is an astonishing figure: $461,000 to $35,000.
If money doesn’t matter, let’s stop fighting against Citizens United. Let’s do away with donations limits altogether!
We can certainly find a viable and equitable way to regulate spending on political campaigns. But how to we equitably regulate media coverage of candidates? Today’s broadcast and print news outlets are far more interested in generating “hits” than in promoting an intelligent discussion of the issues. This is accomplished by perpetually generating and exploiting conflict between candidates, and in providing disproportionate coverage to “name” candidates from the entertainment and broadcast industries such as Donald Trump, Cynthia Nixon, and locally, Rachel Barnhart. Such coverage tends to legitimize candidates who may have no other qualification for office than name recognition and provide them with publicity that boring, old politicians can’t hope to be provided.
Larry, it’s true that media likes conflict and ignores the substance of candidates. Barnhart has incredible substance, as a 20-year investigative journalist who still speaks passionately about issues and exposes uncomfortable truths. Demeaning her work is Trump-like.
City Newspaper has consistently dismissed her, and refused to give Barnhart and McFadden any credence in the congressional race. They were arguably the best candidates.
City and D&C were in the tank for Morelle, portraying him as inevitable. City endorsed him.
Yes, I wish media was more fair, too.
RobertS47 – Don’t know what Larry thinks about this, but to me it’s not “Trump -like” to point out a candidate’s lack of experience or qualifications for office. In fact, it’s far more “Trump-like” to run for high political office with nothing more tangible than name recognition and an appeal to the naive based on a claim that “life experience” is as important as political experience.
Steve – It’s Trump-like to bash a journalist’s accomplishments. Barnhart has demonstrated knowledge and command of policy, and she’s done quite a bit to impact government.
This is why women don’t run – they’re told time and again they’re just not good enough.
There are people all over the country running for Congress who’ve never held elected office. This elitism has to stop. It’s why we have such middling, do-nothing people in elected office.
All of the candidates were qualified, even the one who only spent a few months on a town board.
RobertS47 – Where to start pointing out the errors in you posts? 1) Fabricating the claim that someone is saying that Rachel was unqualified to run for Congress because she’s a woman doesn’t give credibility to your views. 2) There are more women than ever running for public office. But that does not mean that all of them are qualified any more than it would be to assume that all the males running for office are qualified. 3) “Stevie” is a nickname. My name’s Samantha. So you can stop trying to play the chauvinism card. 4) The fact that Rachel is a journalist is no more a qualification for office than it would be if she were a doctor, a teacher or a homemaker. The fact it that none of those jobs are a substitute for hands-on political experience in the trenches. To claim otherwise would be as logical as saying that someone is qualified to be a financial planner because they’d watched a professional planner in action. 5) Please explain how it’s “trump-like” to state that both Trump and Rachel are not qualified for office because of their lack of experience.
Did anybody even read this article? Or do CITY readers just see Rachel Barnhart’s name and decide it’s time for a hate-fest?
She’s not engaging in any whine-fest about losing–she’s talking about the way our primary system perpetuates a cycle of low voter turnout. She wrote it in response to an article blaming low turnout on voter apathy, because she thought that wasn’t fair to voters. The fact that even well-funded candidates conserve financial resources by courting only “likely” primary voters, and that candidates with less have to target even narrower bands of potential voters DOES affect general voter awareness and engagement.
Did people not read the local news coverage in the run-up to the primary, noting that a large number of eligible voters were unaware that an election was happening? When nobody’s trying to get your vote, because they don’t expect you to vote, chances are…you’re not going to vote. “The majority of eligible voters in a primary never get a call, a visit, or a piece of mail.” Are we really going to pretend that doesn’t have any impact on turnout? You know, because Rachel said it and you can tell she’s a charlatan because she used to be on TV, and ugh we just can’t stand the way she’s always talking about issues and running for office, who does she think she is?
By the way:
The “no experience, not qualified” card gets played pretty selectively, I’ve noticed. Many people have been elected to Congress as their first elected position, in fact, so we know that the job can be done by people who haven’t served on the school board or whatever it is Rachel was supposed to have done first. I don’t think anybody really believes that Robin Wilt’s unopposed run and six months on the Brighton Town Board was some kind of intensive preparation for a Congressional seat, but I don’t remember hearing anything about her being unqualified for lack of experience. So what is this really about?
It’s about people who just don’t like Rachel Barnhart, for whatever reason. They don’t forgive her for running against Lovely Warren, or against Harry Bronson, or against Jim Sheppard. They don’t like that she openly criticizes MCDC and local Democratic party leaders. They’re mad she publicly opposes their friend’s or family member’s pet development project. They’re still steamed about something she tweeted or a story she did half a dozen years ago. They don’t like that she’s outspoken and doesn’t pull her punches. And they’re furious that not liking her hasn’t made her go away.
You don’t have to like Rachel Barnhart, but for the sake of everybody else who might ever try to do anything without having first run for school board: stop pretending that it’s about her qualifications or her background or her abilities.
Hilary – While I find your straw man (or should I say, “straw woman”?) arguments to be entertaining, the sheer weight of them could cause this page to catch fire from spontaneous combustion!
Thanks to everyone who posted comments on this article. Just to add my experience here – for me “Rachel Barnhart” was a complete unknown until she ran for mayor against Lovely Warren. That’s when I found out about her local news credentials, familiar only to those who used watch her local stations, and her history of running for office.
My first impression of her – she was running for an office with no practical experience in city government, mostly because the mayor was vulnerable and for some reason she didn’t have a job in the media anymore. My impression of her campaign – attack a prominent, accomplished local black woman and replace that woman with herself… because??? It left a bad taste in my mouth.
When Rachel announced her availability for Louise Slaughter’s seat, as far as I was concerned it was basically the same thing – find a high profile position formerly occupied by an accomplished female personality, trash that personality, and replace her with Rachel Barnhart, except in this case, Louise was dead so trash the person supported by Louise’s family and close associates at work – Joe Morelle.
I’m not saying this was a sophisticated understanding of local politics but it’s what I thought. She lost, again, and as far as I was concerned it was settled.
Then Rachel got into the local media with her explanation of the election. More people voted for people like me than voted for people like the guy who won. That got me asking why she seemed unable to accept a political loss and move on with her life.
I’ve since gotten to know Rachel a little bit. She published a book about her long history in journalism and politics, which I have read almost in its entirety. As a teenager, she published a small independent magazine at her school, calling the principal to task for suspending black students at a far higher rate than whites. For this she was suspended from school though after a huge uproar that included coverage in the Democrat and Chronicle she graduated with honors as the valedictorian of her class. Yes, she went to an Ivy League college though in its Ag and Tech program, not the college proper.
Yes, she became a TV journalist – the hard way, learning from her colleagues one step at a time, doing tons of grunt work for a substandard salary. Yes, she migrated away from one station, into another, and back to her original employer, all for understandable reasons. She learned how to navigate the field, negotiate a professional salary, and above all, tell compelling stories about life in this area.
And, yes, she ran for office before, opposing a prominent, well established local politician, one who had recently come out as gay. It was a mostly negative campaign, and she lost, badly. Then she ran for mayor. It was a difficult campaign. She lost again. Then she ran for congress, and she lost again, period.
In my personal conversations with Rachel, I have confessed that even though I have learned a great deal about her and from her as a result of her writing on this election, nothing she could have done, with whatever more money she may have been able to amass, would have changed my vote. I made my decision the old fashioned way – not on social media or after having my door knocked, but after reading the detailed press on all the candidates, and watching them perform on two televised debates. Yes, the history and personal connections of one of the candidates figured in his favor for me but in the end, it was his calm and mature performance at those debates that convinced me to vote for him. Money spent elsewhere had nothing to do with my decision.
In the days since her loss, I have learned that Rachel recently lost a dog she loved, and adopted a new one, who seems utterly loveable. She has been a media figure and a candidate for public office but she is also a human being, with a story, a mind, and a heart. She is now supporting a prominent, and promising third party candidate for Governor. I have supported and encouraged her in this venture.
What I have learned, and choose to share about this experience, is that first impressions matter. A lot. If someone chooses to run for office based on their distaste for another person, and if they choose persist in attacking their opponent’s character, that negativity can turn people off before the positive argument gets heard. Rachel’s runs for office have been motivated to some extent by her objection to the people who hold the offices she seeks. I hope she is learning that in politics, if you put your positive arguments first, and learn how to lose gracefully, while preparing a positive agenda for the next race, your chances of attracting votes increase. Eventually, if you work at it, you can win.
I wish her well, and I thank everyone for their interest in this race.
Hilary Shroyer – thank you for your perspective. I understand that you are a lawyer who worked as a consultant on Rachel’s campaign. Thank you for your service to her.
I do want to let you know that I find Rachel’s writing informative, including this letter about the influence of money in political campaigns. Since I made a commitment to get to know her better, I’ve learned a ton from her.
But for me, it seems Rachel is still trying to figure out if she wants to be a politician or a sometimes investigative journalist. Her break down letters and articles in the aftermath of her campaigns read like a journalist’s attempt to bring clarity to a politics story, but this one and the one she published on Medium are necessarily biased because she is the subject of the story in each case.
If she also tries to make the case that a re-interpretation of the data would make her, or people like her a winner rather than a loser, it can look to people who don’t know her well like sour grapes. Twice I have seen Rachel attempt to bundle the numbers of voters who *didn’t* vote for her winning opponent with hers and use that to declare a kind of win. I rather doubt that Robin Wilt or Adam McFadden would appreciate being swallowed up in her self perceived victory. I haven’t seen either of them endorse this point of view.
The truth about this campaign, for anyone who chooses to face it, is that the real race isn’t between three non-traditonal Democrats and a fourth with a resume and, yes, significant backing in the community which includes some of its business and industry. It’s between the guy who won the Democratic primary and a popular local neurosurgeon with a dedicated conservative platform and a huge war chest, one about to swell as the actual race for a set in the United States Congress gets underway. His campaign has been unified and focused from the start, and his chances look promising in the current political atmosphere.
My hope for this coming election season is that Democrats, whoever they are, can face this reality, and do what is necessary to keep the legacy of Louse Slaughter alive by keeping that seat BLUE.
So, what do people think of the whole voter turnout in primaries thing? Or are we just sharing our favorite Rachel Barnhart stories now?
I mean, should be we be trying to get more primary voters out? Or is voting in primaries something we’re happy to have around 20% of eligible voters do on a nice day with four candidates in the running?
Funny how , after over a dozen posts commenting on Ms. Barnhart’s excuses, political opinions and qualifications , one of her apologists suddenly wants to divert attention from Barnhart to the primary system. An interesting variation of the Trumpsters’ tactic of “whataboutism” when, when losing the argument, they start responding with “What about Clinton”, or “What about Obama”.
“So, how about the actual article attached to this comment thread?” isn’t really the same thing as “but her emails.”
If people are having too much fun trashing the person who wrote the article to bother with the article itself, I guess that’s good for CITY to know. They can just run an empty column that says “by Rachel Barnhart” each week and let everyone play in the comments.
Frank Pennington – We seem to be harvesting a bumper crop of sour grapes, aren’t we? As Rick Santelli of CNBC said under similar circumstances, “The sour grapes that we are experiencing isn’t going to make a better tasting wine for Democrats in the future.”
Hi again – you know, I’ve been thinking about Hilary Shroyer’s response to my two, detailed and nuanced responses to this thread ever since she posted it.
My reactive response to her might say “Hilary, did YOU actually read the *content* of *my* responses to *you*?” Because I don’t see any evidence that she thought about the time I invested in moving past my own defense against her candidate, or the time Rachel took, to her great credit, to make herself more accessible to me.
There was real merit in the “story” I told, with great transparency, about how I viewed Rachel Barnhart prior to and up to my actual vote for someone else, how I came to cast my one vote, what happened when I decided to get to know someone I defended against prior to casting that vote, and what might attract me to casting one more in line with her real goals in the future. Which are laudatory.
Nothing humanizes a politician like a fully fleshed out, positive personal story. It’s how the best candidates for public office make their case to the public. It’s how the best of them get elected and re-elected. By telling compelling stories, personal stories, about themselves and the people they wish to serve, that attract others to participate in the blessings of our democracy.
I wish, for her sake, that Rachel Barnhart had taken that approach as she decided to leave her career in the local media to get more involved in the political process. Rachel is a gifted and polished story teller. That’s her actual trade in life. I honestly believe that when she stops trying to promote herself by tearing down other public figures and processes, she can and will attract the attention she needs to get her positive message across, and to eventually find a place in our working democracy.
And as for “how do we get more people involved in the primary process?”
For me a good start is not “the whole party is a mess, most of the people serving are either corrupt or complicit in others’s corruption… let’s talk about how bad that is and how we – or maybe I, your self appointed hero, want to get into a fight with it”.
Legislation does NOT get passed because elected leaders get into daily heroes vs villians battles with each other. It gets passed because people take the time to learn how to craft it, communicate its merits with others, and work with the other sometimes fallible human beings in their legislative body to make good things happen for the people they are asked to represent.
I would love to know more about how you all believe we can work together, as citizens of our shared democracy, to inspire others to engage in its merits. Because the other stuff is a major turn off for me, and I hear other people tell me the same thing… all the time. All the time. They are sick to death of the negativity. They want something to reach for, not something to fight against.
AmyLouise, thank you for civil dialogue and taking time to get to know candidates.
I do take exception to the idea that Barnhart is mean and attacking because she points out truths. She says a lot of things we don’t want to hear. I do care about corruption. If she were discussing Republicans, she’d be a hero. (And she should do that more.)
As to Hilary’s point, I go back to $461.000.
Let’s keep saying that number. $461,000. $461,000. $461,000.
RobertS47
AmyLouise, thank you for civil dialogue and taking time to get to know candidates.
Me: You’re welcome. I honestly believe that our democracy suffers from reactionary, oppositional, sometimes even demeaning dialog rather than a civil exchange of reasoned, perhaps conflicting points of view.
And I very much appreciate some of your comments here as well.
RobertS47: I do take exception to the idea that Barnhart is mean and attacking because she points out truths. She says a lot of things we don’t want to hear.
Me: I don’t think I ever said I don’t want to hear the substantive points Rachel wants to make about the need for campaign finance reform. What I believe I said, with honesty only about myself, was that I couldn’t hear her positive arguments because it seemed to me, with what little I know about all the ins and outs of the democratic party’s in fighting, that she placed a higher value on taking public figures to task than on presenting a compelling narrative about her own life – which includes her career in local journalism – and on what she *hopes to achieve* as a public servant. I don’t listen very much to people who are always attacking the rich powerful or prominent. I listen to people who show me who they are, what they want to do to make my own life better, and how they want to go about it.
And to some extent, I factor in the fact that all this work needs to be done in an environment that includes people who may not agree with me, or with the people who promote ideas or principles I hold dear.
RobertS47: I do care about corruption. If she were discussing Republicans, she’d be a hero. (And she should do that more.)
Me: I care about corruption as well, but at this point I am more deeply concerned about the corruption at the head of the United States Executive Branch, and the Senate and Congress members who do not oppose it when it really matters, and less what happened in a political contest that is now over.
You know, from where I sit, having watched Louise Slaughter win election after election every two years mind you, I believe I learned something about how a woman gets into office, stays there, advances progressive ideals, and does her best to deliver for the people she serves in the Congress. I saw Louise focus on what needed to be done, and how she could use her personal charm and intelligence to make good things happen. People saw that and re-invested their trust in her *15* times. When I talk about this particular contest I am talking about the good example she gave, the seat she leaves behind, and who might fill it in November.
As of today there are two people on the ballot for that seat. One of them studied under Louise, one of them has pretty much the same “outsider” resume as the one being supported in this thread. The second one is James Maxwell.
While I personally think the world of the good doctor, the platform he supports mirrors or endorses much of what Donald Trump has said and done in the last 18 months. I’m focused on what can I do to mitigate what I perceive to be the damage Mr Trump has done while in office, between now and the first Tuesday in November.
Thanks for your time, Robert. And thank you for acknowledging my positive effort to get to know the people in this discussion thread better. It really matters to me that you see that.
Robert – In the movie, The Wizard of OZ, Dorothy is told to click her heels three times and to keep repeating, “There’s no place like home. There’s no place like home” and she’d get back to reality. Perhaps if you’d added in the heel clicking to your chant of $461,000, $461,000, $461,000, you’d discover the reality that incumbent politicians almost always raise more money, much more money, than their challengers, but that using that political fact to impugn someone’s integrity is a giant leap into unreality.
And as an FYI, Louise Slaughter’s last campaign finance report lists that she had already spent $312,793 on her re-election before her death in March. Obviously that makes her as suspect as Morelle. Funny that you and Barnhart weren’t out there saying that number, $312,793…$312,793…$312,793…
Carl,
Hey, at least we’re talking about the issue at hand.
No one is suggesting Morelle has no integrity because he raises so much money, thoough raising it from drug companies, cable companies, lobbyists and people with business before government is problematic. He could follow the lead of Sanders, Gillibrand and Warren and not take it. (Slaughter took it, though not to the pay to play extent we see from Morelle. )
The fact incumbents can raise so much money — because they are in power and get people stuff — is precisely the problem.
$461,000 to $35,000. We may just have to disagree about what we want to see in a democracy and about Citizens United.
Robert – We get the point that you don’t like Morelle, But unless you’re prepared to condemn Slaughter for engaging in the same alleged “pay for play” tactics as Joe, then you’d better find something more credible to dislike about him. In 2017-2018 Louise collected $539,320 in campaign contributions. $187,771 of that came from large contributors. Another $332,675 came from PACs, while only a measly $83,877 came from Bernie-style small contributors. So, are you going to now condemn Louise because she was in power and got people stuff?
Carl,
In an earlier comment, I believe I said all four candidates were terrific.
Campaign finance reform is about making the system more fair to voters and candidates. It’s about more accountable government. If incumbents can insulate themselves with huge bank accounts, they don’t have to answer to the people.
Again. it seems we disagree on what’s best for our democracy. This is not about any one race or candidate. It’s about all races and all voters.
Robert – I notice that bringing up the point that Slaughter engaged in the same campaign fund raising tactics as Morelle suddenly has you scrambling to replace your obsession with the amounts Joe raised to the safer topic of generic campaign finance reform.
Interesting word, “reform”. While it’s supposed to mean “improvement”, when used in the political sense it tends to mean simply, “change the rules to give ME what I can’t earn on my own”. Thus, we hear calls for campaign finance reform from lightweight and neophyte candidates who haven’t the ability to attract campaign dollars and who are less-than-subtly arguing that (as I originally posted) the average voter is ignorant and gullible and votes for whoever runs the most media ads, sets up the most lawn signs, and sends out the most mailings.
While you’re waiting for your version of campaign finance reform, I’m waiting for reputable studies which demonstrate that it will produce better candidates and elected officials, and more honest and effective government.
Carl,
Louise Slaughter was no saint. How many women in politics did she mentor, again? She and Warren hated each other. As for her campaign finance report, she played by the rules. The rules need to change.
I was waiting for someone to equate raising money with being a good candidate. The reason challengers have to rely on small donors is they don’t have access to power and they have no power to give anyone anything. Also, supporting challengers could result in retaliation. Ask city employees how free they felt to donate to anyone challenging Warren. Heck, could they even put out a lawn sign? Or ask Irondequoit Town Hall workers same about Morelle. Cuomo’s $31 million is a road map for pay to play. This is how the system works. The system and institutions don’t want any change.
Why do you think so many people have a problem with Citizens United? Because money has enormous power over elections.
Robert – Of course neither you nor I are in any position to know whether Slaughter OR Morelle have played by the campaign finance rules. So your continuing attempts to imply that Joe MUST be doing something illegal/unethical/immoral because he was able to raise more dollars than your pet candidate is merely your unsubstantiated opinion. That’s not to say that there aren’t crooked politicians. There are. Just as there are crooked reporters, crooked teachers, crooked doctors, and crooked neophyte candidates for political office. Bottom line is that large campaign war chests are no more a sign of a crooked politician than small ones are a sign of an honest candidate.
And as to that, “waiting for someone to equate raising money with being a good candidate”, you’ll have to keep waiting as no one here is claiming that to be the case. As for me, unlike you, I’m waiting for someone to provide reputable studies establishing an actual correlation between the size of campaign contributions and politicians giving away the store before I start condemning incumbents. “Pay for Play” is a catchy slogan. So is “Make America Great Again”. And neither one actually means anything. Each merely plays off the biases of True Believers.
Carl,
This will have to be my last post on the matter, because you’re moving the goal posts and putting words in my mouth.
We do know what Morelle and Slaughter did because they publicly file their reports. We know how they got their money. I never said they did anything wrong.
Here are arguments for campaign finance reform. we’ll just have to agree to disagree. Thank you for the discussion.
http://www.lwvnyc.org/campaign_finance_reform.html
http://thehill.com/blogs/pundits-blog/campaign/277224-a-campaign-finance-reform-plan-that-really-levels-the-playing
https://www.aclu.org/issues/free-speech/campaign-finance-reform
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2014/04/04/think-money-doesnt-matter-in-elections-this-chart-says-youre-wrong/?utm_term=.5f4871a6e83a
Its next to impossible to defeat an incumbent in NYS due to the overwhelming relationship between campaign spending amounts and winning elections. It is a self perpetuating system driven largely by special interests in both parties. 198 out of 199 is not coincidental.
https://www.newyorkupstate.com/news/2016/1…
Robert – My last response to you seems to have disappeared. No doubt a technical difficulty. In any event, I simply pointed out that, far from moving any goalposts, I merely responded to the various points you raised. As those points diverged from your original comments, so to did my responses diverge. I also pointed out that the various articles you cited were merely opinion pieces, none of which provided that long believed in, but as yet unproven, connection between campaign contribution largess and preferential political treatment of the contributor by the recipients of that largess and that calls for so-called reform tend to be nothing more than a desire to change the rules to give an edge to those unable to win any other way.