SELF-FUNDING CAN HELP A CANDIDATE TOO
impeaching President Donald Trump and a longtime environmentalist, Steyer sidestepped a question about Warren and self-financed campaigns as he announced he would focus his time and money on trying to get Trump impeached.
“I believe in the grassroots, just as Sen. Warren does,” Steyer said. “What we have pushed for is the broadest possible democracy, power to the people, at all times. What we’re saying is — what counts in this is the voice of the American people.”
Warren has moved out front quickly to use wealth as a cudgel against potential opponents and try to establish herself early with voters as a vanguard of middle-class and working-class concerns — a kind of “people-not-the-powerful” message that Democrats like Al Gore tried in the past. If they run, liberals like Sanders, Brown and former Rep. Beto O’rourke are likely to advance similar arguments, as well.
Anti-billionaire populism is convenient for both Warren and Sanders. Neither has the financial wherewithal to fund their own campaign, and both have well-developed lists of online donors. With ideological leftists ascendant in the party — like Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-cortez and her call for much higher taxes on the wealthy — their attacks on billionaires may appeal particularly to liberal millennials and middle-class workers in early caucus and primary states.
“If you look at the entire period since the financial crisis, the resentment of corporations — and particularly how they failed to work for their own companies and their own workers — that resentment is strong,” said Stan Greenberg, a veteran Democratic pollster. “People really do believe they’ve been buying influence. They think there’s a nexus of CEOS, corporations, big business and politicians that’s corrupt.”
Warren repeated her criticism of self-funded campaigns recently in Iowa, on her first campaign swing to the early caucus state. “None of us want super PACS to help us and none of us believe the billionaires should be able to self-finance,” she told a crowd in Des Moines.
Rob Hogg, a state senator and 2016 Democratic convention delegate, said the message could resonate with some Iowa voters. “You have the reaction from activists in both political parties that we’re not sure we want this campaign to be bought,” Hogg said.
In South Carolina, an early primary state, a candidate’s extreme wealth could be a turnoff to a state party membership that skews poorer than Democrats in the rest of the country, said Gibbs Knotts, a professor of political science at the College of Charleston. Many voters are fed up with the concentration of political power among the wealthy, he said.
“For Democrats, given the unique character of the South Carolina Democratic electorate, I think that would be something that could be hard to overcome,” said Knotts, who is writing a book about the South Carolina primary.
Self-funding can cut both ways. Not only do candidates with vast resources have the ability to weather campaign setbacks that can dry up donations, they also can argue that they are not beholden to unpopular corporate interests.
Laura Belin, a close Iowa caucus observer, said she did not think being a billionaire self-funder was necessarily a deal-breaker.
“I don’t think of Iowans as automatically rejecting a billionaire candidate,” said Belin, an author on the Bleeding Heartland blog. “I feel like there are bigger issues for people that are more like litmus test issues, like Medicare for All.”
Rather than accepting contributions from special-interest PACS whose backers fuel disgust, Bloomberg can point out that he made all the money himself — via his company that pioneered providing computerized data to investors — and owes nothing to anyone.
“He’s never taken a dime of any special interest money,” said Howard Wolfson, a top adviser to Bloomberg. “That fact has allowed him to act independently, totally on the merits, without ever having to wonder what donors or other special interests expect or want from him. Mike is somebody who did not grow up with privilege. He made all of his money on his own.”
Matt Mackowiak, an Austin-based Republican strategist, pointed to another advantage for Bloomberg.
“In Bloomberg’s case, he’s been extremely generous in philanthropy over his life. It’s hard to make a case that he’s been selfish,” said Mackowiak, suggesting that Bloomberg could counter criticism of his wealth by emphasizing his record of promoting the public good.
While casting billionaires like Bloomberg as plutocrats may resonate among some Democrats, longtime party advisers point out that the strategy is tricky and that, by embracing it, Warren and Sanders are ignoring historical reality: Several of the party’s wealthiest leaders have been among its most progressive.
“If you look at the last century, the people who did the most, in many ways, to advance progressive politics in the country — FDR and the Kennedys — all came from great wealth,” said Bob Shrum, a longtime adviser to Democratic candidates.
Even so, Shrum, who teaches at the University of Southern California, said that almost any viable Democrat running this year will talk in some way about having a president who is there to serve the people, not the powerful, the theme that Shrum coined for use in Gore’s 2000 campaign.
Susan E. Howell, an emeritus professor of political science at the University of New Orleans, said that even in an era of populist backlash against the wealthy, the message could backfire.
“What’s working against Warren and Sanders is that, let’s face it, we are a capitalist country with a capitalist culture,” she said. “And I think the working class in a large part, over time, has bought into this. This has been our culture, that you can work hard and become a Bloomberg.”
Bloomberg, a businessman regarded as an economic centrist, was a loyal ally of Wall Street while he was mayor of New York City, but he has nevertheless embraced the liberal side of some of the country’s most pressing social issues — including climate change and gun control. As mayor, he was known for fighting the tobacco and soft drink industries.
He is rated 10th on the Forbes list of wealthiest Americans, with a net worth of about $40 billion, and he has become a deep-pocketed force in progressive politics. Organizations controlled and funded by Bloomberg recently spent more than $100 million promoting two dozen Democratic congressional candidates in the 2018 midterm elections. Of those, 21 won.
Wolfson pointed out that Bloomberg has been criticized before for self-funding his campaigns but still won in his three successive mayoral races — in which he spent close to $300 million. Running as an independent in 2009, he outspent his opponent, Bill Thompson, by 14 to 1. Despite wide speculation that he is running, Bloomberg has not entered the race.
Paradoxically, in an era of populist backlash against the wealthy, more and more candidates are self-funding, according to the Center for Responsive Politics. There is evidence, though, that self-funders generally don’t win in political campaigns, although it’s not entirely clear why.
Of 73 general-election candidates for governor who spent $1 million or more on their campaigns since 2000, only 25 won, according to data collected by National Institute for Money in Politics.
Among the Democrats mulling a 2020 run, at least one other billionaire could potentially selffund a campaign — former Starbucks chief Howard Schultz. He has been sharply critical of Trump, and indicated last year that he might consider running for the White House.
Schultz, whose net worth is estimated at $3.6 billion, did not respond to requests for comments on whether or when he would announce plans for 2020. But in a move that could help set the stage for a bid, Schultz is set to begin a national tour to promote his new book, with the first stop scheduled for Jan. 28 in New York.