from AmericanWindsurfer.com
"The Democrats' most dangerous opponent in '08 may be their own campaign consultants, who charge far more than GOP strategists — and deliver far less," warns Tim Dickinson in the latest Rolling Stone, out Friday. Here's the gist:
The party's campaign strategists operate under contracts that would make Halliburton blush. While their GOP counterparts work for a flat fee on presidential campaigns, Democratic media consultants profit on commission, pocketing as much as ten percent of every dollar spent on TV ads. It's a business model that creates "an inherent conflict of interest," concedes Anita Dunn, who served as a strategist for Bill Bradley in 2000. The more the candidate spends on TV advertising, the more the consultant cashes in. And that compensation is hidden from public scrutiny: Federal campaign reports reveal only what a campaign spends on ads, not how much the consultants skim off the top."Consulting," says former Gore campaign chair Tony Coelho, "is a business that can turn into a racket." Over the past two presidential elections, Rolling Stone estimates, that racket has cost the Democrats at least $10 million more in consultant fees than it did the Republicans. Even top GOP advisers, who usually counsel that greed is good, are amazed by the exorbitant fees. "If you want to elect your candidate, you ought to be able to work for a reasonable rate - not try to haul off a sack full of profits," says Mark McKinnon, the lead media strategist for George Bush in both 2000 and 2004.
Now, McKinnon gets some pretty decent airtime in this article, and its well-within his job description to make Democrats appear unfocused and inept. And it's a pretty blistering piece all around, which manages to lob a few hits at Hillary Clinton for being over-scripted (a common meme) and even suggests that Barack Obama's natualness is, itself, a strategy. But you can't argue with the facts, especially when those facts happen to be a disastrous trail of high-priced losses over the course of some very high-stakes elections. It's a pretty fascinating read and provides some great context, especially now as the money is rolling in to the campaigns (it is crazy what these people make!). Though even before it hits newsstands the article already seems dated without reference to the "Hillary 1984" YouTube spot, and more generally with its look back at 2004 without commensurate looking forward at 2008, which has already seen the rules change (Macaca) and then change again. Still, it's a great reminder that behind every candidate, there's someone making money.
The Enemy Within [Rolling Stone]
Related:
John Kerry: Candidate, Windsurfer [American Windsurfer]
