Mahalo for supporting Honolulu Star-Advertiser. Enjoy this free story!
In the 1990 movie “Pretty Woman,” a rich man played by Richard Gere zeroes in on the most effective way to get snooty sales clerks at a Beverly Hills boutique to be nice to his heart-of-gold-prostitute girlfriend who had been given the bum’s rush during a previous Rodeo Drive shopping expedition.
He tells them he intends to spend an obscene sum of money.
The obsequious store manager seeks specificity.
“Just how obscene an amount of cash are we talking about here?” the pencil-necked fellow asks. “Profane or really offensive?”
“Really offensive,” the rich guy says.
Though election campaigns may have only tangential connections to people who sell themselves and their self-respect to make a living, the money that candidates take in for that gain can be reasonably described as really offensive.
Money is admittedly the hard reality in politics, but the mass of cash flowing through them and the importance attached to it drowns almost everything else. Candidates are judged more on how much money they can attract than for their character, leadership skills and policy views.
Yet, the money doesn’t consistently translate into votes.
A couple of political experts recently estimated that $4 billion would be spent in the quest for the White House this year. For perspective, consider that with $4 billion, Honolulu could pay for most of a rail system — depending, of course, on change orders — without having to tax the heck out of its residents and businesses.
But here’s another startling element. These same experts say that a good chunk of that cash will make no difference in the final tally of votes on election day. Mark Mellman, a Democratic strategist, and Mark McKinnon, a Republican adviser who worked with the second George Bush and John McCain, both told NPR that the bulk of political cash will be wasted in scatter-shot tactics the campaigns can only hope will capture votes.
When experts who are paid really offensive big bucks to help win elections admit to not knowing what truly works, you have to wonder why campaigns stay with the program.
Island candidates have seen this curiosity play out.
In the last mayoral election, Peter Carlisle spent roughly $425,000, picking up votes for an average $5.71 a pop. Kirk Caldwell, who is running again this year to expel Carlisle from City Hall, spent twice as much, about $890,000 or a little more than $13 for each mark next to his name on the ballot.
Political pundits could expound endlessly in post-mortems on this phenomenon, just as they are wont to do before elections. As voting nears, there are daily “if” predictions. They run the gamut from, “If the industrial sector improves by 0.2 percent, Obama will win Ohio,” and “If Romney raises his religion profile, he will lose votes,” to “If the moon is in the seventh house and Jupiter aligns with Mars,” then Ron Paul will take the presidency in a massive write-in.
I’m not saying that there is no science to campaigning. It’s just that the money has become a means through which candidates and campaigns obscure rather than enlighten, that voters in general are seen as easily duped, that half-truths and outright lies are the centerpiece for winning office. That’s really offensive.
———
Cynthia Oi can be reached at coi@staradvertiser.com.