NJ GOP Self-Funders: Good for the Party?
It seems the issue of being a self-funding candidate in the NJ GOP has taken over front and center in the upcoming 2010 election cycle. Not just for the General Election, where money will matter vs. a well heeled Democrat incumbent, but also in the June Republican Primaries.
We are looking at potential races for the GOP nomination in the 3rd and 12th Congressional Districts. I have pointed out before that multiple problems arise when a “checkbook candidate” jumps into a race. For one thing, they have for the most ZERO political experience and start off with a race of this magnitude.
In 2008, we saw Anne Estabrook, a flop as a candidate who couldn’t answer a question of where she stood on the 2nd Amendment, throw tons of money to the NJ GOP County organizations to secure the lines over a much more experienced candidate in Joe Pennachio and a much more Conservative candidate in Murray Sabrin.
This year, we are seeing a late entry in the race for the 12th Congressional District in the form of Scott Sipprelle, a self-funding candidate. It appears that too often, County Chairman are not interested in the candidate with the right positions, but with the right sized bank account.
It means less work that they have to do on behalf of that candidate to race money. It means checks to the organization for support and of course the arm twisting the County Chairman will then do to rankle support from the County Committee members to support that candidate at the Convention.
The debate though is whether a self-funding candidate is good for the party. And I think the answer is no. The way the convention process is here in New Jersey, and how much power to dictate rather then lead that the GOP County Chairman have, it is not in the best interest of the Republican Party voter to allow “checkbook candidates” bypass the system because they are the “chosen one”.
It also seems that the rule is that these candidates are too often “Rockefeller Republicans” and stray to left in both political positions and donations. We saw it with Estebrook and BOTH positions and donations and even this Scott Sipprelle has a couple of Democrat donations under his belt.
I am sure there are exceptions someone could point out, and that’s fine, but I would take the grassroots kick-ass candidate over the establishment kiss-ass candidate any day of the week.
“I would take the grassroots kick-ass candidate over the establishment kiss-ass candidate any day of the week.”
I’d rather have a kiss-ass winner than a kick-ass loser. Besides, even if Sipprelle loses he won’t take anyone down with him and he won’t take resources away from other GOP candidates.
His money can help the rest of the ticket.
Halfacre is not just a loser but likely an expensive one if he takes money away from other candidates who have a better chance to win.
January 8th, 2010 at 9:40 pmI would say the same goes for incumbent politicians who are funded by special interests or get no real challenges. They don’t need the people so they do not represent them.
The county chairmen will take a self funder regardless of the persons positions. The reason is that the county chairmen stand for nothing themselves — except for securing business and contracts to their own law firms or their personal interests (for those who aren’t lawyers).
A wealthy candidate who goes to the people for the funding of their campaigns would be OK.
January 8th, 2010 at 9:45 pmNo one will beat Holt. The district is gerrymandered as a safe democrat seat. I don’t care how good 2010 will be for Republicans.
January 8th, 2010 at 9:49 pmMichael, I agree with what you wrote. However, I’d add that NJ state candidates have always had a tough time raising money, especially down ballot candidates. NJ is a great place to raise donations for federal candidates, but the state party just doesn’t garner enough excitement to motivate rank and file to donate. Finally, the ad markets are expensive especially for campaigns that haven’t figured out they can do other advertising besides radio and TV.I’m sure that also adds to their thinking when being attracted to self-funded candidates.
January 8th, 2010 at 10:47 pmMichael,
I must disagree with you on this one. The first criteria in a candidate is their principles. Closely following that is their character. If they are rich or poor is not a basis to select or deny a potential candidate.
January 8th, 2010 at 11:08 pmEric,
January 8th, 2010 at 11:14 pmThe reason NJ state candidates have a tough time is that Republicans in the state stand for nothing. If they did, they may be able to excite the base and give them a reason to contribute. Within that group of Republicans are conservatives who are the worst when it comes to donating.
Through Q3 of 2009, Halfacre had raised just under $59,000. We’ll have to wait a bit to see what he raised in the last quarter, and what his prospects are for the coming year in terms of fundraising.
January 9th, 2010 at 7:16 amWhile of course money is important, the fundamental for any candidate is his positions on the issues. All the money in the world usually won’t make a difference for a bad candidate – unless there is some extenuating circumstance like a scandal on the opponent’s side.
But there is no nercessary conflict between the amount of money a candidate has and his ideas. A self-finded candidate can be good or bad and must be judged individually.
January 9th, 2010 at 7:34 amMike, I thought you didn’t like Halfacre, though?
Sipprelle is obviously a conservative, as his donations to the Club for Growth and the most conservative republicans in congress dwarf his dem contributions.
January 9th, 2010 at 1:20 pm“In 2008, we saw Anne Estabrook, a flop as a candidate”
Hey Mike you seem to have a real hard on for Anne Estabrook since you seem to bring her up on every other post. And besides, are you really that delusional as to think Murray Sabrin or Joe Pennacchio could have beaten Lautenberg?
Self-funded candidates can and do get elected. The Democrats would likely have lost the open Senate seat in 2000 to Bob Franks if Corzine had not been able to spend his own money. Lautenberg would not be where he is if he didn’t have big bucks to bankroll his campaigns for Senate. Forrester had a tough time in 2002 and 2005 because his opponents easily outspent him.
On the Republican side do you think Mike Ferguson would have gone to Congress if he couldn’t fund his campaigns? I don’t know if Whitman ever put much of her own money into her campaigns but her near defeat of Bill Bradley in 1990 and victory in 1993 shows she did something right.
January 9th, 2010 at 2:09 pm