4 ms·

I used to do electoral politics for a living, and I think people would be surprised at how often this kind of thing happens. In the "old" days, if a candidate

I used to do electoral politics for a living, and I think people would be surprised at how often this kind of thing happens. In the "old" days, if a candidate wanted to run a campaign that we thought was a waste of money, we'd buy a few billboards on the route from the candidate's house to their office or campaign HQ. We'd make sure those neighborhoods were carpeted with yard signs. Facebook wasn't yet a behemoth back then, but we did the same with ad buys during specific TV slots - a practice now being used by lobbyists to reach the current occupant of the White House. You have to manage up in political campaigns just as much as you do in corporate life.

AndrewBissell 7y ago
It's hard to see this as "managing up" given the broader Labour Leaks context: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=22858570 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=22858570
- deleted 7y ago
  [deleted]
Traster 7y ago
What you’re describing isn’t managing up. It’s fraud. You’re misleading your boss about material aspects of your job.
- culturestate 7y ago
  That would be true in some cases (though, frankly, almost everything about professional politics could be considered fraudulent in the corporate world and that's one reason why I left the business) but not here. I was a media and strategy consultant, which means that - other than helping campaigns figure out what to do - my primary job was to spend other people's money in support of a candidate or issue. There are a lot of nuances here (coordinated vs. independent expenditures, state vs. federal laws, etc.), but broadly it's not the candidate's money to do with as they please. Donors typically give that cash with the implicit understanding that we'll deploy it more effectively and dispassionately (and, admittedly, with fewer restrictions) than a campaign would. They still need to maintain a good relationship with the candidate, though, which is where things like targeted ad buys with the intent of "managing up" come in.

AndrewBissell 7y ago

It's hard to see this as "managing up" given the broader Labour Leaks context: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=22858570 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=22858570

deleted 7y ago
[deleted]

Traster 7y ago

What you’re describing isn’t managing up. It’s fraud. You’re misleading your boss about material aspects of your job.

culturestate 7y ago
That would be true in some cases (though, frankly, almost everything about professional politics could be considered fraudulent in the corporate world and that's one reason why I left the business) but not here. I was a media and strategy consultant, which means that - other than helping campaigns figure out what to do - my primary job was to spend other people's money in support of a candidate or issue. There are a lot of nuances here (coordinated vs. independent expenditures, state vs. federal laws, etc.), but broadly it's not the candidate's money to do with as they please. Donors typically give that cash with the implicit understanding that we'll deploy it more effectively and dispassionately (and, admittedly, with fewer restrictions) than a campaign would. They still need to maintain a good relationship with the candidate, though, which is where things like targeted ad buys with the intent of "managing up" come in.