All Posts Tagged With: "fundraising"
What if Herman and White were Both Fired Tomorrow?
As the U of I community debates whether or not Chancellor Herman and President White should be fired or forced to resign from their positions, some have argued that if would pose a huge continuity problem for the University of Illinois if the two top dogs had to be replaced at the same time.
At the core of the position of Chancellor and President are the following roles: the public face, the fundraiser, the community leader, the provider of values and vision, and the public servant. White and Herman can no longer effectively play these roles. Both have violated the public trust, forever tainted their own integrity, diminished their effectiveness as fundraisers, embarrassed themselves and the university, and enraged lawmakers in Springfield who are now less likely to fund us (with the added excuse of not wanting to pay inflated salaries of these jokers). There is no question that White and Herman cannot provide the people of Illinois with the best possible leadership of the University of Illinois. This is the most important criteria the BoT and Pat Quinn should use when determining whether White and Herman should be retained.
Although anytime any leader of a bureaucracy the size of the University of Illinois is replaced there will necessarily be a transition period, here the resulting administrative hiccup would be much less damaging than retaining Richard Herman and B. Joe White. White and Herman aren’t exactly steering the boat alone. The University has an ever-expanding army of senior administrative personnel who can keep the wheels going round even if we had to name an Interim-President and Interim-Chancellor tomorrow. Read more…
A study in self-funding
Today Rich Miller at Capitol Fax referenced a study that illustrates the folly of self-financed campaigns, and observes that the Illinois GOP should take a lesson from this recent history.
* And a study of the 2008 election results shows that self-funding candidates don’t do well at all…
49 Congressional candidates spend $500,000 of their own money, and of them, only 6 House candidates and 1 Senate candidate won.
Perhaps the saddest case of this was Sandy Treadwell, who ran against Kirsten Gillibrand in NY-20. Treadwell poured in at least $5.9 million of his own money. (Gillibrand spent $3.6 million, but only $250 of that was her own money.) The return on Treadwell’s investment: priceless. If by ‘priceless,’ you mean losing to Gillibrand by a 23-point margin.
The Illinois GOP might take that as a broad hint to stop recruiting those self-funders.
As usual Miller is spot on. If you can’t convince your people and your party to support your campaign, it’s a good hint that you’re not a viable candidate.
Too often wealthy candidates are surrounded with people afraid to tell them bad news, or the egos of the wealthy are spurred on by staffers who want to keep getting a check. And when you’re many months, hundreds of hours, and tens of thousands of dollars in to a campaign, its hard to recognize sunk costs, and hard to tell when to stop.
This is also a good sign for our democracy. Folk’s don’t like it when it looks like you’re just buyin’ it. An interesting question, would more aggressive federal campaign finance reform reverse this trend? It’s really hard concoct campaign finance legislation that could constitutionally limit the ability of a candidate to spend their own money on their campaign. Does limiting PACs, lobbyists, and contribution amounts give self-financed candidates an unfair advantage?