Dialing the Money Men Replaces Campaigning for Votes

When most Americans think of political campaigns they picture cheering crowds listening to a candidate’s speech, intellectual debates about issues, and high-minded discussions of strategy. But the experience that I had as a candidate for the U.S. Senate in 1986 was far different.

I remember waking up at 5:30 a.m. in Goldendale, Wash., to begin another day of “dialing for dollars” . . . making phone calls not to potential constituents but to political-action committees asking for thousands of dollars. During 1986 I began most of my days this way.

I remember a weekend strategy meeting on Orcas Island (off the coast of Washington) in early August at which, instead of talking issues, we discussed the fact that we did not have the money to make even a modest television purchase for the coming primary. I remember meetings that should have been devoted to discussing the trade deficit but, instead, were spent discussing the campaign deficit.

I remember calling old friends and former staff members who were now successful lawyers and lobbyists. They took my calls and tried to help, but time and time again they said, “Brock, you cannot win unless you raise more money.” Why couldn’t I raise more money? Because I was not a credible candidate. Why was I not a credible candidate? Because I had not raised enough money. The ability to raise money, rather than a willingness to raise new ideas, has become the centerpiece of campaigns.

As a former six-term congressman and with 35 years in public life, I was not a stranger to the people who traditionally support candidates of my ideology and interests. Yet I found that potential contributors, particularly PACs, were not interested in what I would do as a senator; they were concerned about how I would do as a candidate.

I never imagined how much of my personal time--at least 50%--would be spent on fund-raising. Most of the time I was not talking to constituents about contributions; I was talking to professionals who control PACs and lobbyists who were far removed from the voters of Washington state. I was campaigning for money, not campaigning for votes.

After six months of campaigning I came to the conclusion that my campaign for the Senate, my lifelong dream, was going nowhere. My candidacy had not been measured by the number of voters I met or the issues they raised. My credibility was not determined by my response to dairy farmers losing their herds or to students who could not obtain college loans.

The bottom line was: The folks in Washington, D.C., who controlled the money had not been persuaded that I could win. It was not a question of how many doorbells had been rung or how many requests I had for yard signs. No one asked how many of the 39 counties I had campaigned in. The first and last question was: How much money have you raised? At the same time, my friends were asking: Why don’t we ever hear anything about your race?

Suddenly it occurred to me that we were expected to run campaigns in both Washingtons. I had thought that my contacts in the nation’s capital would be thrilled to learn that I was in the state, working 12 hours a day, seven days a week. However, we were forced to use limited resources and staff time to change the perception in Washington, D.C.--the perception that I could not win.

Well, I did win. But I wish that I had been able to win by debating the issues with my opponent rather than debating my prospects with political bankers.

Campaign finance reform is not just an attempt to make our lives as politicians easier. It is designed to make our politics better. I do not believe that any U.S. senator would “sell” a vote for a campaign contribution. However, as the amount of money we raise increases, so does the perception that all those folks are getting something for the millions that they contribute to a campaign.

Beyond the illusion of “vote selling” is the reality that Congress is not making the tough decisions that it should make. Too often we seek the easy answer, the compromise that will offend the least number of contributors. We hate to offend because we know, particularly as incumbents, that a PAC or a large donor will not oppose us unless we have voted consistently against their interests. We know that incumbents can collect money from all sides of an issue if only they hedge. I believe that the current campaign finance reform measure sponsored by Senate Majority Leader Robert C. Byrd (D-W.Va.) and Sen. David Boren (D-Okla.) is an important step toward the reform of a system gone amok. To those who claim that public financing is an “unjustified raid on the taxpayers’ pockets,” I would suggest that public funding is the only way you can create incentives to make candidates accept campaign spending limits.