Every couple election cycles I write a version of this same essay. So here goes again.
When I worked as a military analyst, it was common to cite the wisdom that ‘amateurs talk about tactics, professionals talk about logistics’. There is a parallel statement we could make about politics, that ‘amateurs talk about policy, professionals talk about fund-raising.’
We are now used to hearing political campaigns discussed in terms of how much money they’ve raised, who has the most cash on hand, what PAC is prepared to dump spending into a tight race, etc. We are numb to the knowledge that our elected officials spend much of their time raising money, and that there are innumerable secret deals made to provide benefits to donors in return for their support.
We have gotten used to the reality that most Americans hate Citizen’s United and the interpretations of the constitution that tell us money is speech and corporations are people, but are unable to do much about it. We look in anger and disgust and resignation at the ease with which billionaires and big corporations pump money into campaigns, not just the big national races but, more and more, in state and local races that used to be held under the national radar.
Much effort has gone into examining the possibility of amending the constitution (highly unlikely), or putting different justices on the Supreme Court to change the law (equally unlikely). The latest remedy aims at convincing individual states to use their power to charter corporations to take away their right to give to political campaigns—a worthy effort but slow and likely to be blocked by the Supreme Court.
Americans are angry about a lot of the wrong things, and not angry enough about the insane, corrupt system that we, you and I, have allowed to become entrenched. It is not normal, it is not inevitable, it is not in our interest, and it must be stopped. Now.
How? Stopping the supply of money is very difficult. What goes unexamined is addressing the demand side. Why do campaigns want money? What is it used for? Many things, but by far the largest expense for most campaigns is advertising, mostly on television and social media. How much goes to what venue will depend on the particulars of demographics, political orientation, national trends, and other factors. Television reaches older voters, social media the youth. Direct mail can target undecided or low-propensity voters.
Clearly political professionals think that advertising works. This is why they need a lot of money. Advertising is expensive, as are the pollsters and media experts needed to design and execute campaigns. Of course many factors can allow the less well-funded to win, but other things being equal, it’s best to advertise, advertise, advertise.
The advertising model is a major cause of political polarization. Attracting attention is done most reliably by appealing to fear and anger. Political aids are largely negative, designed to tar the image of opponents and link them to exaggerated dangers—immigrants, communists, transgender athletes, evil capitalists. Advertising works in 30 and 60 second intervals, long enough to make you mad, too short to make you think.
But what if advertising didn’t work anymore? What if voters stopped paying attention—in fact, were repelled by political ads and started voting for the candidate who spent and advertised less? That’s the demand side. That’s what we should be trying to affect.
How to do this? Should candidates start running ads saying ‘don’t pay attention to political ads?’ Funny, but why not? The thrust of messaging needs to incorporate a rejection of the advertising model. Explain that the power of big money in politics that most voters hate comes entirely from the willingness of many voters to be swayed by ads. You can take that power away. Don’t pay attention. Don’t watch. Dump the flyers in the trash.
Go further. Take a pledge not to vote for the candidate who spends the most on ads. Pledge to vote only for candidates committed to reversing Citizen’s United and stopping the flow of money to politicians from rich individuals and corporations. Put this pledge on bumper stickers and yard signs. Make having the best-funded campaign something to be embarrassed about.
This pledge may be difficult, at first. Some of your favorite politicians will be the ones who have the biggest donations. This is why I would structure the pledge as I have, to NOT vote for the candidate who spends the most money. You don’t have to vote for someone you don’t like, but you shouldn’t vote for the biggest spender.
Americans are experts at dealing with ads, we’ve done it all our lives. We know that ads are not reliable sources of information. Most people would never make a major purchase like a car based on a television ad—they would do test drives, look at customer reviews, talk to people they know. Choosing who to vote for is just as important.
It’s doubtful either of our two major parties would embrace this. Both are heavily invested in the current model and employ thousands of professionals whose livelihoods depend on the continued flow of big money—a ‘politics industry’ that lobbies to keep itself in business. Countless consultants and accountants and lawyers live off contracts from the parties and their supporters. Campaign advertising is a major revenue source for television and radio and social media and direct mail, all of whom will fight to keep the current model.
This effort will have to come from elsewhere. It will have to come from citizens who organize and make their views known. And who, above all, make good on their pledges not to pay attention to or have their views changed by paid advertising. When millions spent on ads don’t move the needle on voter choices, the whole house of cards will collapse.