Rich People Only Vote Once

Wisconsin Democrats keep choosing money over votes, and it’s a problem. Many Democrats cite the 2018 and 2022 elections, when Tony Evers barely squeaked out victories to claim that “boring wins” and to exaggerate the importance of massive donations Evers’ campaign was able to generate. 

This raises the question: if Tony Evers wasn’t boring, could he have won without needing that massive, ugly pile of billionaire cash? Even more compelling: if Tony Evers wasn’t dependent on that pile of cash, might he have been free to be less boring? 

While it is true that Citizens United and other degradations unleashed campaign spending and subverted democracy across the US, it is not true that raising that kind of money is the only, or even the best, way to win. Researcher Adam Bonica recently posted a thorough article showing that campaign money heavily influences candidates, but barely moves voters. The reality is simple: votes win elections, not dollars. However hard weird sociopaths like Elon Musk might try, you can’t actually buy votes.

People hate politics.  

Money only buys obnoxious TV ads, apathetic door knockers, and thousands of pounds of hyperbolic flyers (most of which go directly from the mailbox to the trash can). I’m not going to argue that those things are entirely useless, but there comes a saturation point. The piles of ads go from informing voters of a candidate’s positions, or the stakes and contrast in a race, to overloading and annoying us. The most common political position in Wisconsin, and across the US, is annoyance and exhaustion with politicians and campaigns.  

One or two ads with a clear and bold campaign promise are worth dozens of the shlocky and vague garbage Republicans and centrist Democrats throw at us. Candidates who authentically stand for policies that clearly benefit voters can generate organic excitement. They inspire people to turn out, to volunteer, and enthusiastically chatter with friends and family. Bold candidates make elections fun, not annoying. An exciting candidate does not need a massive treasury, especially since massive treasuries are mostly used to line the pockets of advertisers and hairbrained or deceitful consultants.

The inverse is also true. A candidate who depends on donations from rich people and corporations cannot champion bold, clear promises. We live in a time of vast yawning inequality, far worse than ever in history. Policies that combat that inequality will cost rich people and corporations some portion of their gluttonous hoard. If politicians even begin to deliver on affordability and social safety nets, they risk inspiring people to demand more, and a more affordable life gives us the free time and economic security to actively fight for more. There is a possible snowball effect. If the political system gives us an inch, we could take a mile. Electing socialists doesn’t merely threaten the worst excesses of the richest 0.0001%, it might jeopardize every wealthy person’s social status and position high above the rest of us. That’s why so many rich people and corporations pour money into cautious do-nothing candidates like Joe Biden and Tony Evers. It is why they are already heavily funding Mandela Barnes, Missy Hughes, and Sara Rodriguez. 

Conditioned dependency

Wisconsin voters have been conditioned to believe that being bribed is a candidate virtue. After WISDEMs chair Ben Wikler helped Tony Evers out-fundraise Republican challengers, too many party members started giving money top priority. Remember: statistically, factually, they are wrong. Money does not win elections, but Wisconsin Democrats falsely believe it does. 

This summer, Devin Remicker won the race for party chair after throwing lavish parties with prime rib, escargot, free beer mugs and an open bar. One attendee at that party told me he liked William Garcia and Joe Zepecki’s ideas and plans more, but voted for Remicker because Democrats “cannot win” without the large donations he’s able to gather. There is no financial transparency with internal party elections, but rumors are Remicker’s campaign received money from LinkedIn founder Reid Hoffman. Hoffman has given $14.7 million to Wisconsin Democrats in recent years. He also worked with Jeffery Epstein after Epstein’s sex trafficking activity was well-known. 

In November, Milwaukee Democrats chose wealthy real estate developer Brett Timmerman to chair the Democratic Party of Milwaukee County (DPMC). Timmerman was also awarded “Democrat of the Year” in 2019. Timmerman’s primary qualification is that he raises lots of money for Democratic candidates. He’s also a gay man, married to an African immigrant. In his candidate speech, he talked about surviving bullying in his youth. Hopefully that means the county party will have less of the bullying, exclusion, and dysfunctional sycophancy that reactionary centrist Chris Sinicki brought during her tenure as chair. Timmerman seems like a nice guy, but the money he raises comes from his real estate connections, whether directly or indirectly. 

What happens when Democratic primaries are won by candidates vowing to ban price fixing, establish rent control, create a millionaire tax, encourage community land trusts, and provide eviction protection–all policies that will deliver affordable housing, but cost landlords and realtors their profits? Milwaukee Democrats picked a leader whose economic self interest is directly opposed to the kind of policies needed to deliver housing affordability and win races. 

A culture shift

In his take on Mamdani’s victory Waleed Shahid says too many people “feel the cost of a system that answers fast to donors and slow to everyone else.” Too many Democrats are an enthusiastic part of that system. The most loyal party members might forgive them, or believe that this trade off is necessary, but many don’t. Independent and low propensity voters are even more averse to a Democratic Party that looks like a brood of corporate shills. 

Wisconsin Democrats have to shake off this false perception that we need massive fundraising success to win. Donations from the wealthy and corporations can stir up more animosity than they buy effective outreach, and they always have strings attached, which prevent candidates from running on winning issues.