5 ms·

True. And, if you see a news report about somebody whose positions you like deciding to run ... send them a campaign contribution. Running for office is quite

True. And, if you see a news report about somebody whose positions you like deciding to run ... send them a campaign contribution. Running for office is quite costly these days, and no-strings-attached contributions are really helpful. (Many contributions have strings attached. Yours doesn't have to.)

antisocial 10y ago
Why does it have to be expensive? This is the fundamental question we should be asking and should be trying to find solutions to.
- namlem 10y ago
  It shouldn't be, but the only way to change that is through politics, which means working through the current system.
- anigbrowl 10y ago
  To keep riff-raff like you and me out, of course.
tptacek 10y ago
Running for local office is not in fact all that expensive at all!
- antisocial 10y ago
  For a house representative, it is around 2M dollars every two years. That's 870M dollars of special interest money every two years and 7B dollars every four years. http://www.politico.com/story/2013/01/7-billion-spent-on-2012-campaign-fec-says-087051 http://www.politico.com/story/2013/01/7-billion-spent-on-201...
  - iamnothere 10y ago
    True, but House elections are hardly "local" -- I think they were implying city and county level offices.
  - scott_s 10y ago
    Which is a problem. But I believe tptacek mean state, county town and city positions, and not necessarily in a legislative capacity.
    - tptacek 10y ago
      Yes. I'm specifically suggesting not running for federal office, but instead running for local office and using that position --- which is gettable --- as a base for further influence. It's not my idea; it's something a friend of mine, who has done it, is pushing.
      - jimterrapin 10y ago
        I couldn't agree more. You said it perfectly. The federal offices and state offices, all that stuff is easy. The hard work, and where the opportunity is, is figuring out the obscure Water Districts, Port Commissions, and similar positions. Very winnable, and they create momentum.
- antisocial 10y ago
  I understand what you meant, I just wanted to get attention for my belief that we shouldn't be relying on special interest money at all to call it a democracy.
- ryandrake 10y ago
  Running might not be expensive, but I bet winning is. My wild-ass guess (not a political science major) is that voters can be bucketed into the following broad groups: A: People who vote straight party-line, no matter what. A toad could be on the ticket and they'd vote for it. B: People who vote for whatever name they most recognize. C: People who actually study the candidate's positions and make a rational choice. Generously let's say A=80%, B=17% and C=3% of voters. Whether or not you get A's vote depends entirely on what letter is next to your name--you have no control. B's vote is expensive because you need to carpet the area with saturation advertising in order for them to remember you when they fill out the form. C is so small that it's probably not worthwhile to do the legwork. So you end up spending tons of money hoping that you can get B to tip the scale towards you. At least that's how it looks to me.
  - squozzer 10y ago
    The rule of thumb I was given was $1 per resident (not voter) for the office under consideration -- just to have a chance.
  - tptacek 10y ago
    Running for statewide or federal office is extremely expensive. What I'm saying is, don't do that, at least for your first win. Instead, win a seat on your local library board or parks district.
    - nradov 10y ago
      Sorry I deleted the original comment, remembered wrong facts.
      - maxerickson 10y ago
        Obama was a state senator in Illinois before running for US Senate.
  - djrogers 10y ago
    > A: People who vote straight party-line, no matter what. A toad could be on the ticket and they'd vote for it. Since the parents is discussing running for local office, I'm not sure why you think party comes in to play. Or perhaps this is a regional thing? In my city, party affiliations are not advertised/listed for positions such as city council, mayoral, parks board etc.

antisocial 10y ago

Why does it have to be expensive? This is the fundamental question we should be asking and should be trying to find solutions to.

namlem 10y ago
It shouldn't be, but the only way to change that is through politics, which means working through the current system.
anigbrowl 10y ago
To keep riff-raff like you and me out, of course.

tptacek 10y ago

Running for local office is not in fact all that expensive at all!

antisocial 10y ago
For a house representative, it is around 2M dollars every two years. That's 870M dollars of special interest money every two years and 7B dollars every four years. http://www.politico.com/story/2013/01/7-billion-spent-on-2012-campaign-fec-says-087051 http://www.politico.com/story/2013/01/7-billion-spent-on-201...
- iamnothere 10y ago
  True, but House elections are hardly "local" -- I think they were implying city and county level offices.
- scott_s 10y ago
  Which is a problem. But I believe tptacek mean state, county town and city positions, and not necessarily in a legislative capacity.
  - tptacek 10y ago
    Yes. I'm specifically suggesting not running for federal office, but instead running for local office and using that position --- which is gettable --- as a base for further influence. It's not my idea; it's something a friend of mine, who has done it, is pushing.
    - jimterrapin 10y ago
      I couldn't agree more. You said it perfectly. The federal offices and state offices, all that stuff is easy. The hard work, and where the opportunity is, is figuring out the obscure Water Districts, Port Commissions, and similar positions. Very winnable, and they create momentum.
antisocial 10y ago
I understand what you meant, I just wanted to get attention for my belief that we shouldn't be relying on special interest money at all to call it a democracy.
ryandrake 10y ago
Running might not be expensive, but I bet winning is. My wild-ass guess (not a political science major) is that voters can be bucketed into the following broad groups: A: People who vote straight party-line, no matter what. A toad could be on the ticket and they'd vote for it. B: People who vote for whatever name they most recognize. C: People who actually study the candidate's positions and make a rational choice. Generously let's say A=80%, B=17% and C=3% of voters. Whether or not you get A's vote depends entirely on what letter is next to your name--you have no control. B's vote is expensive because you need to carpet the area with saturation advertising in order for them to remember you when they fill out the form. C is so small that it's probably not worthwhile to do the legwork. So you end up spending tons of money hoping that you can get B to tip the scale towards you. At least that's how it looks to me.
- squozzer 10y ago
  The rule of thumb I was given was $1 per resident (not voter) for the office under consideration -- just to have a chance.
- tptacek 10y ago
  Running for statewide or federal office is extremely expensive. What I'm saying is, don't do that, at least for your first win. Instead, win a seat on your local library board or parks district.
  - nradov 10y ago
    Sorry I deleted the original comment, remembered wrong facts.
    - maxerickson 10y ago
      Obama was a state senator in Illinois before running for US Senate.
- djrogers 10y ago
  > A: People who vote straight party-line, no matter what. A toad could be on the ticket and they'd vote for it. Since the parents is discussing running for local office, I'm not sure why you think party comes in to play. Or perhaps this is a regional thing? In my city, party affiliations are not advertised/listed for positions such as city council, mayoral, parks board etc.