The rich and not so famous -- A losing season in Georgia for a wealthy aspiring politician.
AP's Dick Pettys, who has covered Georgia government and politics since 1970, has a recent story on some of Georgia's wealthy seeking high office. An 8-15-04 AP article notes:
With enough money, it's possible to start a political career at the top, skipping the usual career path of steppingstone offices.
But Georgia voters haven't been so obliging to businessmen who make a wad in the private sector and then dive into politics.
Cliff Oxford, founder of the technology support company, Atlanta-based STI Knowledge, finished second in the primary for the Democratic U.S. Senate nomination and made it to a runoff, but couldn't close the deal in the Aug. 10 rematch with Rep. Denise Majette.
"I don't think Oxford lost because he was a millionaire. He lost because he wasn't a very good candidate," said Merle Black, an Emory University political science professor.
"Money is not a barrier, but it is difficult when you have no campaign experience or you're lacking in political skills to transfer what may be a very successful personal style in the private realm to the political realm," University of Georgia political science professor Charles Bullock said.
"As CEO of a company, you're used to issuing orders. As a political figure, you're often asking people to help you, you're asking for their votes. The persona you put on as CEO may make it difficult to get into that position of asking for help," he said.
There's a real allure to politics for some successful businessmen, said Patricia Farrell, a New Jersey psychologist, medical consultant and author. "In America, being a governor or senator is American royalty and forevermore you are going to be called 'senator' or 'governor.' And they want that," she said.
With enough money, it's possible to start a political career at the top, skipping the usual career path of steppingstone offices.
But Georgia voters haven't been so obliging to businessmen who make a wad in the private sector and then dive into politics.
Cliff Oxford, founder of the technology support company, Atlanta-based STI Knowledge, finished second in the primary for the Democratic U.S. Senate nomination and made it to a runoff, but couldn't close the deal in the Aug. 10 rematch with Rep. Denise Majette.
"I don't think Oxford lost because he was a millionaire. He lost because he wasn't a very good candidate," said Merle Black, an Emory University political science professor.
"Money is not a barrier, but it is difficult when you have no campaign experience or you're lacking in political skills to transfer what may be a very successful personal style in the private realm to the political realm," University of Georgia political science professor Charles Bullock said.
"As CEO of a company, you're used to issuing orders. As a political figure, you're often asking people to help you, you're asking for their votes. The persona you put on as CEO may make it difficult to get into that position of asking for help," he said.
There's a real allure to politics for some successful businessmen, said Patricia Farrell, a New Jersey psychologist, medical consultant and author. "In America, being a governor or senator is American royalty and forevermore you are going to be called 'senator' or 'governor.' And they want that," she said.
posted by Sid Cottingham | 9:40 PM
1 Comments:
Oxford's loss aside, politics is all about the money. Politicians (successful ones, at any rate) lately tend to be one of two types. Either they are self-funders - a la Cliff Oxford - or they are party insiders that are well connected enough to raise the dough they need. Those two categories describe the vast majority of challengers in this political environment.
The sad part is that most of this can be directly traced to so-called campaign finance "reform" - specifically McCain-Feingold and Shays-Meehan.
Don't get me wrong, I'm not at all opposed to campaign finance reform, but I oppose it as it is practiced currently.
Consider this: Prior to the first attempt at reforming campaign finance laws in 1972 or '73, the average challenger raised about sixty cents for every dollar an incumbent raised. After the campaign finance reform movement, that number dropped as low as $0.20 for every incumbent dollar before stabilizing about where it is today - about $0.45 for every incumbent dollar.
So, the answer has to be publicly-financed elections. But since only about 40% (sometimes more, hopefully more this year!) of the American people care enough about their government to vote in a general election, to say nothing of primaries and runoffs, I doubt that Joe Sixpack is going to react positively when he sees the extra burden on his tax bill.
I didn't mean to turn this into a rant on campaign finance reform. Bottom line is, we live in a meritocracy, where the only "merit" that matters is (to quote Dickens), "the furniture of one's pockets."
But Oxford was a terrible candidate.
Post a Comment
<< Home