Casey Corr offers up an inside view of how much of the down and dirty work of fundraising actually unfolds in a serious campaign. It isn't glamorous, it is a grind, but it's the price candidates pay to compete.
David Postman was curious about Corr's assessment that all-star fundraiser Colby Underwood is a prominent force in Seattle politics. In a word: yes. He's one of the leading, if not the leading, Democratic fundraising consultants in a one-party town. End of discussion.
I'll personally attest the process is as crazy as Corr details. When I ran for the small position of Snohomish County Charter Review Commissioner I hit up the same universe of people, described by Corr, one might think have little interest in a local, civic campaign.
I asked local biotech executives I worked with in a past job, I asked friends outside of Snohomish County, I asked current work colleagues I know well from outside the state, I asked family, and I asked fellow, former Slade Gorton staffers.
The result? $2,250 out of $12,675 in total cash contributions came from people with no earthly interest in the Snohomish County Charter Review Commission. That $100 from ICOS Corporation? It wasn't because the makers of Cialis were concerned with the structure of county government (and no, they didn't send free samples with the check).
The truth is people are willing to give to candidates they know, trust, and respect; regardless of the office that candidate might be seeking. Odd though that may be, tapping into that fact is an essential foundation of any successful fundraising operation.
So, if you're curious what the life of a candidate is really like away from the cameras and the public view, read Corr's piece.
Posted by Eric Earling at May 19, 2007 01:51 PM | Email ThisAnd yes, there are Republican equivalents to Colby Underwood.
Posted by: Chris Vance on May 20, 2007 09:58 AMIs that why the tribes contributed hundreds of thousands of dollars to the campaigns of the incumbent judicial candidates in November 2006? NO, Erick, it was not. They paid the bucks for outcomes in cases that would keep them rich. They wanted results, and they knew which politicos they could buy results from.
Look what the tribes did. They pay the bucks just before the November elections, then on December 7, 2006 the "Colville Tribes" opinion comes out. It greatly expands the tribes' soveriegn immunity from tort liability in Washington Courts. That means the tribes can't be sued, Eric.
See, Eric, the way it works is that contribution payments are made to incumbent Justices as paybacks for decisions that went the contributors' way, and as threats to the incumbents about what they'll have to do in upcoming cases. Plus those payoffs ensure the right outcomes in pending cases. SEE??????
So maybe you are right about what campaign contributions to you were for, but don't try fooling yourself (or us) about campaign contributions in general. Like what payments to the Justices on the Supreme Court are all about. Those are just graft payments.
Of course, speak up if you disagree Eric.
Posted by: palentine on May 20, 2007 07:51 PMAs to your broader point, I've been in politics a fair amount of time and I've never seen your theory to be true. Money tends to follow votes people like or positions candidates take, not vice versa. You imply votes follow the money. I've never found that to be the case, though I presume there are rare cases where that sort of corruption actually occurs.
In the example you're talking about, you're claiming on overt connection between judicial nominations and judicial decision-making. I don't think that's the case. I think candidates with certain judicial philosophies naturally attract money from donors who share their views on how active courts should or shouldn't be in interpreting the law to desired ends.
Posted by: Eric Earling on May 20, 2007 08:31 PMRegular readers will attest comments very rarely get deleted at this site. Perhaps you want to consider that the comment in question was so off-topic and so bizarrely long that most readers don't appreciate having to wade through such garbage.
One of the few complaints we actually get here in the comments on how the site is run is that we are more generous than some would like in leaving comments up that might be considered off-topic or otherwise a serious annoyance to other readers.
Posted by: Eric Earling on May 21, 2007 06:50 AMYou do understand we do not have "judicial nominations" in Washington, right? Judges and Justices are elected. They campaign for their seats on a non-partisan basis.
Also, donors to judicial campaigns do not care about how "active" a judicial candidate will be in interpreting the law. For example, in 2006, the BIAW was not looking to elect less "active" Justices than the SEIU and WEA (big backers of the incumbents). The BIAW wanted the right outcomes in certain cases the Supreme Court would be hearing. An "active" judiciary by definition could cut toward a donor, as well as cut toward the donor's opponents.
More significantly, only a miniscule percentage of appellate court opinions each year involve any "interpreting the law." For the most part, that isn't what appellate courts do.
You are spot on the money though, in one respect. The big donors - the PACs and other deep pocket contributors - are entities who frequently litigate and can lose big money if judicial decisions come out the wrong way. They indeed are making the big contributions (to Supreme Court candidates in particular) as payoffs and to ensure that opinions will further the donors' "desired ends."
In your experience, donations to legislative campaigns don't equal votes later. That isn't the case with judicial campaign donations. There, the big donations equal the right language in, and outcomes of, cases. The big donors are not buying helpful "interpretations of the law." They are ensuring selective blindness to their opponents' claims.
At Superior Court level in the counties, the donations are from lieyers, evaluators, GALs and other suckers of money out of families.
They ensure the maximum transfer of wealth from households who are split in two, and have double expenses, to the courts and their lackeys, the misery merchants.
Posted by: The Geezer on May 21, 2007 10:09 AMIn several cases, including Sheehan, that bench gave huge and unjustified wins to local governments.
Now everybody knows that the Washington Supreme Court is willing to ignore both the law and legal arguments citizens raise. What that bench will do is make up false claims and ascribe those to citizens. That is how they "bless" illegal actions.
Posted by: P. Sellers on May 22, 2007 01:30 PM