Campaign 101: Surplus Funds
what happens if there's money left after the election?
2008-10-22
By Eric Easter

The notion of a surplus is an intriguing concept, because it assumes that there is not an adequate number of things to spend $150-300 million dollars on in two weeks to win an election.

But indeed there is, and since the Obama campaign is smart, they will find a way to spend all or most of it on media and efforts to get out the vote. The cost of lawyers alone to monitor voting suppression activities could eat through the bank account easily.

Then there are bus rentals, cash to hand out to street organizers, state election night parties and thousands of pizzas to fuel all-nighters.

Still for the sake of the question, let’s assume he’s stuck with, say, a leftover $50 million in the campaign’s mattress after a victory, what happens to the money then?

A down payment on reparations? Doubtful.

The first bit off the top would obviously go to repay debts. With two weeks to go, nobody’s asking for three bids before making a decision to spend. The campaign is paying top dollar for whatever it gets, and come November 5, those people will want payment.
 
There will be equipment leasers, direct mail specialists, consultants, media planners, staff and state organizations closing out business once everything is reconciled. And since the vast majority of campaign staffers will not survive the transition to the White House or even the transition team, the campaign may take the economic environment into consideration and do something unheard of in campaigns, which would be to award severances and/or bonuses to ease the move into a very insecure workforce.

Technically, a surplus is the campaign’s money to keep or spend at will. I say technically because the practice of disbursing such funds freely, while legal, causes all kinds of image and ethical issues.  Former ambassador and former candidate Alan Keyes famously discredited himself when he drew a $100,000 salary from his senatorial campaign fund.

Given Obama’s penchant for opening up the political process to the public, there is the likelihood that in the event of a surplus, the funds might be used to ease the burden on taxpayers and supporters for the costs of transition – staff, office space, inaugural planning and events. That would also ease the pressure on fundraisers who have been working overtime these last few months.

More likely, though, as the titular leader of the Democratic party, Obama would be pressured to shift a considerable part of any surplus to support Congressional races in 2010 in order to keep a Democratic majority, something that would be in Obama’s definite interest for his first term.

On top of that, there’s the cost of presidential china, refurbishing of the Oval Office and a host of other unseen things that are usually supported by fundraisers. Many of those items could be offset by a surplus.

Clearly Obama made a very smart move by opting out of public financing, but should we be concerned, as John McCain suggests, about the amount of money raised, impressive as it is? It wasn’t that long ago that a $20 million presidential campaign was considered an obscene amount. Now we’re talking $750 million, an incredible sum even accounting for the higher costs of jet fuel, media buying and inflation.

The answer is no, and maybe. Obama has run what is a truly national - meaning all 50 states – campaign. That represents a significant precedent and probably an anomaly that won’t be repeated for at least two or three election cycles. It does, however, raise the price of entry into national politics significantly, possibly cutting out the public’s access to quality candidates who might not be able to muster that level of financing.  Then again, if one can’t organize the people and the money to compete at such a level, perhaps one shouldn’t be running for president.

Eric Easter is Chief of Digital Strategy for Johnson Publishing Company, Inc. He writes about politics, culture and technology for Ebonyjet.com.