Watching Contribution Limits In Action As Incumbent Protection
Posted by: Jubal | 03/07/2008 10:29 PM
The final count-down to close of filing today offered a concrete demonstration of how campaign contribution limits function as an incumbent protection device.
Ever since former Sen. Joe Dunn got cold feet in mid-January and pulled the plug on a planned run for the 1st Supervisor District, OC Democrats have been fishing around for a serious candidate to challenge Sup. Janet Nguyen's re-election.
With close of filing less than two months away, time became the implacable enemy of their recruitment efforts. Each day that passed without a candidate was one less day to organize and raise money.
But it's the latter that presented the greatest difficulty, and as search for a Democratic challenger continued into the final week of filing, contribution limits exerted an ever greater downward pressure on the potential for any serious challenger to enter the race.
Janet Nguyen has been raising money for her re-election practically since she was sworn in, building a campaign war-chest far surpassing any challenger considering a late entry faces the daunting task of trying to amass a war-chest sufficient to introduce himself or herself to 1st District voters, explains his/her positions and spotlight Janet's weaknesses. In other words, be at minimally competitive with the incumbent.
Given the $1,600 contribution limit, that's a very tall mountain to climb -- and it makes it impossible for the late challenger to raise enough to overcome Sup. Nguyen's advantages in money, incumbency and name ID.
This is not about Janet Nguyen. Who the incumbent is immaterial to the point -- which is that contribution limits protect incumbents and narrow voter choices -- a barrier to entry that grows exponentially taller as filing deadlines approach.
An absence of contribution limits permits a candidate who, for whatever reason, couldn't entertain an earlier entry into the race the ability to quickly raise the large amounts of campaign cash necessary to be competitive in a truncated campaign season.
Granted, the incumbent could also take advantage of the lack of limits -- but the incumbent always possesses a natural fund-raising advantage by virtue of incumbency. Contribution limits enhance that advantage, while the absence of limits dilutes it.
But in the world created by TIN CUP, any potential late-entry -- like a Santa Ana Councilman David Benavides, for example -- is basically looking at running on the hope that independent expenditure committees and DPOC member communications would do the heavy lifting. Without their help, a late Democratic entry into the 1st District would be doomed under TIN CUP limits. That''s an uncertain foundation on which to build a campaign.
The upshot is voter's choices are narrowed because the game is stacked in favor of incumbents, rich people and candidates who started running many, many months before the election. TIN CUP limits progressively narrow the field of potential candidates -- and potential options for voters -- the closer the filing deadline draws.
Like I said, this point of this post isn't that Sup. Nguyen deserves a strong challenger. It's that we've just seen how TIN CUP limits have the negative effect of deterring candidates from running for county office.
Ever since former Sen. Joe Dunn got cold feet in mid-January and pulled the plug on a planned run for the 1st Supervisor District, OC Democrats have been fishing around for a serious candidate to challenge Sup. Janet Nguyen's re-election.
With close of filing less than two months away, time became the implacable enemy of their recruitment efforts. Each day that passed without a candidate was one less day to organize and raise money.
But it's the latter that presented the greatest difficulty, and as search for a Democratic challenger continued into the final week of filing, contribution limits exerted an ever greater downward pressure on the potential for any serious challenger to enter the race.
Janet Nguyen has been raising money for her re-election practically since she was sworn in, building a campaign war-chest far surpassing any challenger considering a late entry faces the daunting task of trying to amass a war-chest sufficient to introduce himself or herself to 1st District voters, explains his/her positions and spotlight Janet's weaknesses. In other words, be at minimally competitive with the incumbent.
Given the $1,600 contribution limit, that's a very tall mountain to climb -- and it makes it impossible for the late challenger to raise enough to overcome Sup. Nguyen's advantages in money, incumbency and name ID.
This is not about Janet Nguyen. Who the incumbent is immaterial to the point -- which is that contribution limits protect incumbents and narrow voter choices -- a barrier to entry that grows exponentially taller as filing deadlines approach.
An absence of contribution limits permits a candidate who, for whatever reason, couldn't entertain an earlier entry into the race the ability to quickly raise the large amounts of campaign cash necessary to be competitive in a truncated campaign season.
Granted, the incumbent could also take advantage of the lack of limits -- but the incumbent always possesses a natural fund-raising advantage by virtue of incumbency. Contribution limits enhance that advantage, while the absence of limits dilutes it.
But in the world created by TIN CUP, any potential late-entry -- like a Santa Ana Councilman David Benavides, for example -- is basically looking at running on the hope that independent expenditure committees and DPOC member communications would do the heavy lifting. Without their help, a late Democratic entry into the 1st District would be doomed under TIN CUP limits. That''s an uncertain foundation on which to build a campaign.
The upshot is voter's choices are narrowed because the game is stacked in favor of incumbents, rich people and candidates who started running many, many months before the election. TIN CUP limits progressively narrow the field of potential candidates -- and potential options for voters -- the closer the filing deadline draws.
Like I said, this point of this post isn't that Sup. Nguyen deserves a strong challenger. It's that we've just seen how TIN CUP limits have the negative effect of deterring candidates from running for county office.
Jubal,
Once again, you never cease to educate...many good points...
Trung's failure to pursue another campaign has largely been speculated to be a simple matter of campaign financing and an unusually daunting debt load...this posting certainly supports this conclusion...
Do you have any insight into the factors affecting Trung's decision to drop out...I know that he contacts you or is it Tomahawk by phone from time to time...
Jubal,
Let me list a few problems with your analysis when it comes to Central OC, and specifically, the 1st District:
1) You assume, and perhaps incorrectly, that the other Viet challengers have not been raising busloads of money, fast, since the last reporting date, which was already 2 months dated.
2) Janet's challengers, Dina and Hoa, may not be well known in the mainstream community, but they are well known in the Viet community, which will most likely make up 40-50 percent of the total votes for this low-turnout election. Trung's exceedingly well performance despite mainstream polling (which he flat-lined) is a prime example that conventional predictions just don't work in this area.
3) Both Dina and Hoa have a sizable support base from their various constituencies that will be brought into heavy play in this election, ie., earned media, ground ops, GOTV efforts, etc.
4) Money is important but it is not the be-all-that end-all factor. Of course, having more money is better than having none, but it is only one factor, and not necessarily the deciding factor in a race like this.
There are many other issues that dilute the incumbency factor but I just want to address your money issue and how it is not as potent as you think it is, especially when you have three candidates who are known quantities in the Viet community.
Trung's withdrawal from the race for Dina is a strategic move against Janet. It is a concerted move after a thorough consideration by his camp.
Money is only one minor consideration since Trung can put his name on the ballot and still does well.
Matt,
You can't have it both ways. First you cry when Disney spends a lot of dough against Sun Cal. Now you advocate no limits for candidates. Do you only protest big money when you are a paid consultant?
Hypocrisy.
Jubal:
No blog entry on the article about Norby and his "study of homelessness"?
"You were crying about Disney said":
I'm not.
You, on the other hand, can't even get some simple facts straight.
I'll go slow so you can keep up.
I never complained about the amount of money Disney spent fighting SunCal's project. On the contrary: on several occasions I clearly stated they had the right to spend as much of their on money for political purposes as they like.
You say "Now you advocate no limits for candidates" as if I were adopting a new position. I have ALWAYS favored abolishing contribution limits. I have put forward that position many times on this blog.
Your comment is a hash of straw men for beginning to end.
Idiocy.
Anonymous @ 2:29 p.m.
1) I rarely blog on weekends.
2) Judging by what the LAT story said, Chris Norby demonstrated an error in judgment while he was in a bad place, i.e. the deterioration of his marriage. The article isn't clear how the "homeless studiy" description came to be attached to that particular expenditure on his campaign report. But to his credit, Chris didn't make excuses, but admitted the error and fixed it.
http://www.ocblog.net/ocblog/2007/08/the-disneyheim-.html
The Disneyheim Campaign: $1.35 Million Spent...And Counting
I expected a big number, but $1.35 million spent and $1.5 million donated in the space of three months? Gloriaski.
I guess this is what you call supporting unlimited spending, Matt you got what you ask for, however it seems this time you weren't so happy about big spending. Were you?
Be Careful What You Ask For aka You Were Crying About Disney:
I was marveling at the amount of money Disney spent.
Did I say, "This is outrageous! They shouldn't be allowed to spend so much!"?
Did I say, "Waaah! This is so unfair!"?
No, I didn't.
So the quote from my old post provides absolutely no support for your feeble assemblage of straw men arguments.
I enjoy a good debate as much as the next guy -- but with people who are logical, able to cobble together a minimally sensible argument and possessed of at least rudimentary reading comprehension skills.
One Who Knows:
All good points, but I believe they're more properly in the "exception that proves the rule" category.
My point was broader than the situation in the 1st District, and I'm not positing that contribution limits are an insurmountable barrier to entry for late-comer candidates. But generally speaking, it's difficult to deny that the incumbent protection attribute of donation limits is amplified as filing deadlines approach, for the reasons I cited.
Jubal,
Has District 1 in particular been the exception on a number of fronts? The rule must be written with a huge caveat (or exception) when it comes to the Supe race in this district.
If the conventional rule applies, OC would either have Supervisor Umberg or Bustamante running for re-election this year, not an all Viet contest.
But I would generally agree with you everywhere else around OC when it comes to political war chests.