Last week there was a very interesting report on spending in the last mayoral election. In it, consultants to the San Jose Elections Commission reported that independent spending in the election totaled over $3 million. Of the six groups that were mentioned, five were associated with the Democratic Party and organized labor (including the police and fire unions). The fifth, and perhaps most controversial and effective, was the Chamber of Commerce’s PAC that leveled some particularly pointed shots at the Cindy Chavez candidacy. By far the largest spender was the Santa Clara County Democratic Campaign, who spent over $1.7 million, ostensibly in support of Chavez’s failed campaign.
The report’s conclusion was interesting and bizarre. In the finding, the Sacramento-based consultant concluded that since most of the money was spent for Chavez and since she lost overwhelmingly to Chuck Reed, then the effects of the independent and probably coordinated spending had no effect. They had “no more or less chance of succeeding.”
Huh? You mean just because the monies were unable to sway an electorate that had already in this one election made up their minds to vote against the status quo of City Hall, then the money had no effect. This is very faulty logic. There are certain waves of public opinion that even the skullduggery of paid hacks and deceit cannot change, no matter which side it comes from. That is universally the case in some elections. But in lesser races—say District 8 in Evergreen, or certain supervisors’ races or other such low-key competitions—when “directed mail” exposes the deficiencies or simply tells lies, they can be quite effective.
It is only in the highest level of elections where public opinion is so strong that such mendacious or principled (depending on our point of view) “hits” by business, labor, gambling or oil interests will only have minimal effect. (Look at the Clinton victories in certain late primary states despite being outspent 3- or 4-to-1 by Obama as being good examples of money in some races not mattering.) Yet, some “swift boating,” as we painfully observed in the last presidential election, can turn an honored veteran into a coward and a bunch of “chicken hawks” into exalted warriors. Go figure?
The arithmetic is also faulty in the Mercury article when they say the money spent in “support of former labor organizer Chavez” was more than her $1.2 million, while it is clear that all but $393,000 of the total of $3.3 million was spent by labor and their committees “for” Chavez. Mayor Reed was quoted as saying in the aftermath: “I’m surprised I won.”
Well, the fact that he did, and that sometimes money fails to dissuade the voters, is not the norm. Time and again, particularly in less publicized races down the ballot or propositions, the impact of money is supreme.
So here’s a modest proposal: Let’s have labor and the chamber and the public safety unions agree to cease and desist (you know, a Pax San Joseum). Then, go a step further and take the $3-5 million that will be spent on the next mayoral and council elections, and create a fund to alleviate the gang culture in San Jose, give assistance to nonprofits working in these areas, provide youth counseling, and help inner-city schools like Washington, Horace Mann, and Downtown College Prep.
By accepting the premise of the report, we can do a lot of good, still not effect the elections, and make a few neighborhoods in San Jose a better place to live. Now that’s a report that I would eagerly embrace and a leadership in the above organizations that I would deeply respect.
The problem with political reform is that it never takes into account legal, fiscal or political reality.
The Chamber hit piece, which was almost universally condemned, was illegal under San Jose law. However, the law itself was unconstitutional—as are many so-called political reform laws.
In addition, other major player influences in the Mayor’s race—the Mercury News, San Jose Inside and the Metro do not have to report their contributions or expenditures—nor should they have to report.
But how do you calculate the worth of their contributions to the process?
How much does Cindy have to pay to disassociate yourself from a discredited Mayor? A Mayor wrongfully indicted, yet publically convicted by the local press.
Warren Buffett doesn’t have enough money.
How do you defend against uninformed attacks on your character?
The evil in politics is not money that persuades, it is the messages that are delivered with money. It is the lies, half-truths, innuendo and ugly campaigning that influences voters no matter how much money is spent or who spends it.
The key is to have a neutral arbitar call people on their campaign tactics and messages.
Independent Committees allow candidates to simply say they did not know. George Bush never had to answer for the Swift Boat ads, even with the direct connection to Rove.
Reed never had to answer for the Chamber’s mail.
Cindy, however, did get tagged with everything that came from the Dems and Labor because they disclosed their expenditures and the Mercury News, San Jose Inside and Metro made sure everybody knew it.
That is their job.
I say get rid of campaign limits on donations and expenditures, ethics commissions, and do-good committees.
We could save a lot of money—just by eliminating the myriad of rules, often contradictory, that current politicians must face in running for office.
Does anybody calculate how much a campaign spends on their ethics duties?
Put into place one neutral organization to judge the content of campaign advertising, require immediate full disclosure of all campaign contributions and expenditures, with real penalties if not followed and call it a day.
More laws, commissions, processes, limitations etc. only make the problem worse.
Tom,
Great column. It would be nice if people running campaigns would respect the fact that we can cast a vote without undue influence by them. Many people take voting very seriously and actually do research candidates, and issues on their own. If we had campaigns that weren’t influence by hit pieces, perhaps more qualified people would run for office. Running for office is difficult enough without having to worry being publicly defamed by your opponent. That type of campaign is in big part why so many people don’t vote.
That $3-5 million IS part of the gang culture in San Jose. If you get my drift, and I think you do.
#1 – As a voter, I would have felt more comfortable with Cindy had she distanced herself sooner from Gonzo. To me it appeared she owed a lot of her political success to him. And, she was right there supporting financially wasteful ideas such as the Grand Prix. Finally we have someone who will fix basic services, like swimming pools for kids in the summer. Always seemed like the last administration was trying desperately to put San Jose on the map as a destination city instead of making it a city for it’s inhabitants.
#1 – Excellent comment! The negative slime from the Chamber was far more effective than the millions spent on Cindy’s behalf, because the media was complicit in the perpetuation of the Chamber’s story. Witness Wonder Woman’s response (#4), that Cindy got where she is because of Ron. That’s completely false, but dispelling that was nearly impossible. Cindy was her own person and not officially aligned wih Ron at all. One problem was her acceptance of the largely ceremonial Vice Mayor title. How to undue that association? Obviously, no amount of money did it. Hence the conclusion that money spent on her behalf was worthless. On the other hand, the conclusion can’t be reached that money spent in the future on another candidate’s behalf would be equally useless.
Kathleen,
>Many people take voting very seriously and actually do research candidates, and issues on their own. <
Unfortunately, most do not.
#4
who will fix basic services, like swimming pools for kids in the summer.
Swimming pools are basic services?
That certainly is a laudable and worthwhile goal, but swimming pools are far from being a basic service.
I will take libraries over swimming pools any day.
A VERY IMPORTANT STORY PERTAINING TO THE LAST ELECTION WAS MISSED BY THE NATIONAL PRESS. CINDY WAS BACKED BY LABOR, CINDY WAS VICE-MAYOR, CINDY WAS AN INCUMBENT, CINDY SPENT THE MOST MONEY, THE STATE SENATOR’S AND EVEN CLINTON CAME TO HER SUPPORT AND STILL SHE LOST AND LOST BADLY. SHE WAS NOT TAINTED BY THE FORMER MAYOR, SHE WAS AN ADVOCATE AND DISPLAYED THE SAME ARROGANCE THAT DESERVED TO BE THROWN OUT. AN HONEST DEMOCRATE WAS ELECTED. FINALLY, THE VOTERS GOT SICK OF HAVING PUPPETS WHO ARE BEHOLDING TO SPECIAL INTERESTS THAT DO NOT OFFER THE CITY OR EVEN THEIR MEMBERSHIPS ANY THING REAL.
#6- Rich,
I said many not all, or most. But I agree that the majority depends on the media, and “friends,” to cast their votes. Sad isn’t it?
I do have one question for you though Rich, why did you make this statement,” Reed never had to answer for the Chamber’s mail?” In the beginning, the Chamber endorsed Michael not Chuck. That is when the mailers began.
Kathleen:
You and Rich have started to explore an issue that I have often pondered and each day realize to be more and more true, and that is the theory that most people are idiots. It is unfortunately much easier to assume this fact and have someone prove you wrong than to give them the benefit of the doubt and be dissappointed in the end. It is a sad commentary on life, but if you accept it for what it is and set your expectations accordingly, things make a little more sense in this world.
BlueFox:
If you get to the true, basic definition of “basic services, libraries wouldn’t even be included. Fire & police, garbage/sewer/water and general community & street maintenance would be the core. Fortunately, most cities don’t agree with this strict interpretation and consider libraries, parks & recreation (including pools, soccer fields, and yes Pete, even golf courses) as basic services to promote the quality of life in the city. Unfortunately for us, someone forgot to tell San Jose how to do any of these basic services well… (ok, that is unfair, the golf courses are usually in pretty good shape…)
We can learn a great deal from our history. Remember when Janet Gray Hayes was mayor of San Jose back in the 1970’s? Mayor Hayes brought about significant change in San Jose, by reducing crime, creating easier access to the mayor’s office, and controlling urban sprawl. Her reforms, along with facilitating women in leadership roles is something we can draw upon today to create a better quality of life in San Jose.
Don’t cry any tears for Cindy Chavez.
She’s making tons more money that Mayor Chuck Reed with her “California Leadership Services” Consulting, given a contract with help from former councilmember George Shiwakawa to help East Side Union High School District. She has no long hours, less stress, spends much more time with her family, gets to see her son Bennan Mateo grow up. She is sitting pretty.
Prediction in political circles is that she will never get back into politics now that she is feeding off the private sector “consulting” gravy train.