Today brought former State Representative Bill Otto, Ann Wagner’s 2016 challenger for the 2nd district U.S. Representative, to Civitas, and later Go-Teamers to St. Louis Public Radio to speak with State Representative Tracy McCreery, Executive Director of Progress Missouri Laura Swinford, and veteran political journalist Jo Mannies.
* * * * *
Otto made clear from the beginning that although he thinks policy to be hugely important, his priority when speaking is his story, and understandably so.
At 15, Otto was orphaned and placed in a boy’s home. When he turned 17, the state no longer held legal responsibility for him, so, homeless, he was placed in jail (in the middle of his junior year of high school). From there, Otto cites “the encouragement and support of some amazing teachers and mentors” as the push that helped him enter college, and, eventually, the Navy.[1] Going on to an air traffic control job after his military service, he worked for twenty years at Lambert-St. Louis International Airport. Only after he reached the job’s age-limit and retired did he consider public office, moving from community service into the 70th district state representative.
So why does Otto prefer storytelling to policy talk? He believes that, while policy at face value alienates some immediately, his story transcends politics and appeals to constituents on a human level. From there, he may or may not succeed in swaying those voters in some disagreement with his ideas, but he will have won their respect.
On policy, Otto did emphasize that he is unfalteringly pro-choice and pro-labor, while explaining that, especially given his generally right-leaning constituencies throughout his career, in other areas he leaves room for compromise so as to best represent those he serves.
As far as strategy to defeat Ann Wagner in a district generally considered a Republican bastion, Otto suggests the following: doors and debate. He claims he can win the race “on the streets,” knocking on doors and introducing himself, his story, and maybe his policies. And if given the opportunity to debate Wagner, Otto says it would play to him; if Wagner does not accept his invitation, he promises to make her refusal well known.
Additionally, when asked if he had considered running negative campaign ads, Otto responded “certainly.” Though he says he would rather avoid them, he views negative ads as a necessary component to any “realistic” campaign today.
* * * * *
One worrisome pattern among legislators we have so far met with is each one’s complaints of burdensome, “constant fundraising.” Candidates, incumbents and not, are in most all cases spending more time on the phone fundraising than in dialogue with their constituency. This undoubtedly leads to disproportionate exposure to the voices and ideas of those on the other side of the line—those that can afford to donate significant sums. Whether or not this imbalance translates into policy cannot be generalized empirically, though it is surely likely.
Another concern lies in the correlation between wealth and political office. In the 2014 Congressional races, the better-financed candidate won 91% of the time.[2] In other words, it is very difficult for a man from the even the upper middle class to challenge a woman from the true upper. Otto has (as of June 1, 2016) only raised $0.3 million out of the estimated $2.3 million needed to compete with Wagner, even having already put in much work.
Regarding negative campaign ads, criticism is by nature part of politics. However, only relatively recently have politics reached the point of more negative than positive ads. Both can be powerful and beneficial to the electorate. Even muckraking can help direct an election towards a more positive outcome, as at times, personality and personal history can be indicative of a future in policy.
However, what is said is not always true, as there is no true fact-checking nor method to hold campaigns accountable for their claims short of libel or defamation — “practically impossible” under current libel law.[3]
Thus, if Otto wants to “stick to his morals” like to his views on reproductive and labor rights — and maybe even avoid future embarrassment — he must run a strong, but unorthodox offense, one backed with facts in context.
* * * * *
In the afternoon, the Go-Team headed to St. Louis Public Radio at Grand Center to discuss the politics of Jefferson City.
Beginning with a brief description of the environment in the capital, the panel described the very significant majority held by State House Republicans: 45 Democrats to 116 Republicans.[4] This has made compromise often unnecessary within the government, as even with a Democratic governor, the Democrats in the House lack anywhere near the number to support a veto. Any support must come from moderate factions within the Republicans.
And while much of the work used to be accomplished within regional caucuses, allowing for bipartisan cooperation less dictated by each party, today even the concept of cooperation is “frowned upon,” according to Rep. McCreery.
Part of that polarization is due to Jefferson City’s location hundreds of miles from both Kansas City and St. Louis — hundreds of miles from the bulk of constituents. Often, officials feel isolated, “like on an island,” encouraging them to act independent of the needs and opinions of the people they supposedly represent.
Another is due to the work of lobbyists and interest groups, made especially easy by Missouri’s status as the only state lacking gift and campaign contribution limits (the latter only since 2008). In Jeff City, “Everything is free if you want it,” explained McCreery. Panelists cited large-contribution donors David Humphreys and Rex Springfield, maintaining “[They] can change things overnight.”
Mannies also ties polarization to the 8-year term limits: “No one is there long enough to know what’s going on [or] to make lasting friends.” As well, the majority of lobbyists in the capital are former legislators themselves, and with only a six month waiting period (before this year, none) required between leaving office and accepting employment as a lobbyist, legislators are hardly discouraged from securing a well-paying job with their decisions in office.
What is the root of these problems in Jeff City? Money? Restrictive rules?
Swinford believes it’s simple: “People just stopped voting.” She described a phenomenon in rural areas (most of the state) in which it is such a sacrifice to drop a livelihood and run a campaign that Republicans are rarely challenged even where there might be a more liberal population.
So, if you’re tired of hearing state legislators mix up “fiscal” and “physical” (as was McCreery), make it to the bottom of the ballot![5]
[2]https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2014/04/04/think-money-doesnt-matter-in-elections-this-chart-says-youre-wrong/
[3]http://www.factcheck.org/2008/02/suing-over-false-political-advertising/
[4]https://ballotpedia.org/Partisan_composition_of_state_houses
[5]http://time.com/money/4277853/fiscal-physical-confusing-missouri/
Pingback:Inside Politics: Resources - Civitas-STL