March 19, 2010 05:49 PM UTC

Senator Bennet's Leadership Draws Unfair Criticism in DenPost

•  
• by: MADCO

Recent experience suggests that several things are required to execute a successful political campaign.

It’s been documented .

Things like

1. Communicate a clear and consistent message

2. Persuade, don’t educate

3. Respond quickly to attacks

4. Run a tight ship with a clear chain of command

or

1) Understand your constituency

2) have a compelling reason to run

3) start fundraising- calculate the budge req’d to run successfully

4) calculate the “win number”

5) refine the budget

6) canvas/get out the vote

7) repeat 3-6 as required

8) transition or concede

or

1) know the issues involved in the office you seek

2) Develop a compelling message

3) funding.

4) Canvass

5) repeat

or  from a software company

Step 1: Get the Right Tools

Step 2: Hire Campaign Staff

Step 3: Budget and fund raise

Step 4:  Strategy and Message

And so on.

I am a Democrat and I want the Colorado seat to stay D.

I like Senator Bennet – he has done a very good job so far.  But I also think he ‘s the most electable in the general and this is crucial to me.  Yeah, yeah, there have been polls and …yada blada.  Too early for polls to be predictive. Useful, yes, especially to the degree that the poll measures the quality of the required components.   But polls more than 7 months from election day in a race like this are not that predictive.  The likely primary voters are not all engaged yet. The economy can change a lot in the next seven months. A lot can happen, including just voters getting to know the candidates.

Many well intentioned Colorado D’s, and others, have criticized Senator Bennet for executing successfully on one or more parts of the required campaign components. But no complaint has been louder or more bizarre and misplaced than the criticism that he has successfully been raising big money, including from PAC donors.

Through 4Q 09 – the last reporting period for which reporting is available – Bennet successfully raised a little less than $5mm, including a little less than 20% from PACs.

20%? That does not sound like a big number.

It seems like some people are just offended by a number that sounds like a large value.  But in a 2010 US Senate race, $15million is considered “cheap.” And Team Bennet is not there yet, though his pace is ahead of recent successful Colorado campaigns.   Udall and Salazar had not raised $4.7mm by the year end of the year prior to their election date.  So he has been more successful, but it is not like he’s raised 10 times the amount needed to win just because.

Some critics have complained that the Bennet campaign’s defense of raising big dollars is that the campaign with the most money always wins.  The campaign has not, to my knowledge, made that claim, and it makes no sense because it’s verifiably not correct.

However, the Bennet campaign realizes – and I and other supporters have claimed – that campaigns generally need to have sufficient funding to win.   Yes, some very low budget campaigns have won. But it is the exception. Some campaigns have also won with a less than clear and compelling message or other weak component, but that is also the exception.

The loudest criticism is that Senator Bennet has received so much PAC contributions.

Well, first, Senator Bennet has received the lowest percentage of PAC contributions of any member of the Colorado Delegation, except Congressman Polis who accepts no PAC contributions and largely self-financed in 2008.

This morning’s Denver Post article attacking Sen. Bennet for his recent announcement of an ambitious agenda to fix a broken Washington just doesn’t accurately reflect Sen. Bennet’s record.   The Denver Post unfairly singles out Sen. Bennet for receiving PAC contributions, even though he’s received a lower percentage than the rest of the Colorado delegation.

Candidate ___PACs/Other committee cont Total  %PAC

Michael Bennet (2010) $885,195 $4,824,998 18.3%

Mark Udall (2008) $2,186,292 $11,787,048 18.5%

Betsy Markey (2010) $448,820 $1,179,896 38.0%

Diana Degette (2010) $205,515 $311,667 65.9%

Jared Polis (2010)    $1,000         $242,305  0.4%

Ed Perlmutter (2010) $428,799 $882,124 48.6%

John Salazar (2010) $381,049 $676,561 56.3%

Doug Lamborn (2010) $90,135 $153,256 58.8%

Mike Coffman (2010) $148,336 $410,447 36.1%

(from FEC.gov)

The article implies that somehow because Sen. Bennet has taken PAC contributions it limits his credibility as a reformer going forward.  That the act of acceptance means he cannot legislate in opposition to those contributors.

If only the Senator had some kind of voting record or track record in the Senate that we could judge. But wait, he’s been there for more than a year.  Surely, he’s voted on something relevant in all that time. Some vote or position where the Senator was in opposition to some of his donors.

If only the Senate kept records of these kinds of things. It would be so helpful to be able to look it up and confirm either the claim that he has caved to his donors or that he has stood up for the families and voters of Colorado as he has claimed he would.

Senator Bennet’s record in the Senate shows that he has consistently stood up to the special interests. It would be one thing if Michael had a history of caving to the big money, but his record is exactly the opposite.  He has consistently taken the tough stands and stood up to the special interests, advocating for Colorado families.

Banking Industry and credit card issuers

Early in His Term  Senator Bennet advocated for Financial Regulatory Reform  [David Theilan, 4/26/09

“…Bennet launched in to discussing the financial mess…He then talked at length on the work he is putting in with Senator Warner and others under the direction of Senator Dodd to come up with the needed regulations to insure this does not happen again. He dove in first to the asleep at the wheel regulators we had. And the fact that not only was there minimal to no regulation, but the banks were being encouraged to leverage themselves even more to 20:1 or even 30:1. Clearly he saw this as insane.”

Bennet Is Pushing For Strong Consumer Financial Protection Agency.  Denver Post 10/4/2009

“Bennet … is in favor of many of the regulatory reforms proposed so far even though they are opposed by Wall Street. He’s in favor of both a new consumer regulator and reining in the derivatives market, Bennet said.” This was a move that is aggressively opposed by the financial services industry.  

Bank Industry Opposes Creating a Consumer Financial Protection Agency. Reuters 2/25/10

“Republicans and lobbyists for banks and Wall Street have been trying to kill or weaken the proposal, calling it an unwise step that would separate consumer protection from banking supervision. The CFPA also threatens bank profits.”

Senator Bennet Helped Pass “Landmark” Credit Cardholders’ Bill of Rights.

Bennet voted for the Credit Cardholders Bill of Rights Act. Politico May 19 called the measure a “landmark” “credit card crackdown” and said it would “impose strict new rules on interest rates, fees and other controversial billing practices.”

Banking Industry Opposed CARD Act. Reported Fox Business

“The banking industry opposed the overall measure and said it could restrict credit at a time when Americans need it most. Banking officials defended their existing interest rates and fees on grounds that their business — lending money to consumers with no collateral and little more than a promise to pay it back — is very risky.”

Banking Industry Opposed Interest Rate Cap and Bennet Voted For Reasonable Caps on Credit Card Interest Rates.

Senate Roll Call Vote 191

Industry Opposed Freeze On Rates and Bennet Supported the Credit Card Rate Freeze Act. Bennet Co-sponsored a measure that, according to the Wall Street Journal, would “freeze rates on existing card balances until February, when tough new rules for the industry are slated to go into effect.”

Wall Street Journal

Thomas.Gov

I will add more later for other industries- focusing especially on the industries from which Senator Bennet has received PAC contributions. Health Insurance and Pharma, Oil and Gas and other mining, nursing homes and one a separate pice on specific financial legislation where I disagreed with his vote, but understand his logic. There have been votes on other legislation and resolutions and other Senatorial stuff, this is just stuff most obviously related to PAC donors.

But it is important to keep in mind that fundraising is just one component of a executing a successful campaign, one that Senator Bennet does well, better than most.  By all means, hold him accountable. Absolutely, let’s have campaign finance reform.  But until we do, do not unilaterally disarm by forgoing funding just ’cause. Let’s do it after we win and hold the seat.