What Approved Vendor Lists Reveal About Democratic Campaign Culture
Part 1 of a three part series.
Guest Writer: Dan Crowder is a local Angry Ohioan and guest contributor sharing some insider information.
Let’s get this out of the way:
I’m not a Democrat. I’m not a Republican either. I’m not a socialist, a communist, a member of the far right, or “fascism curious.”
But for nearly a decade, I proudly identified as a Democrat.
During those years I worked on campaigns, administered elections, advised candidates, managed operations, raised money, built organizations, watched and took part in how politics functions behind the scenes.
Some stories aren’t mine to tell. Others are too important to keep to myself.
So first, thank you to Matthew, Laura, and everyone at The Angry Democrat for inviting me in.
I was raised to believe that when you’re invited into someone’s home, you bring a gift. This essay is mine.
What I’m about to say will probably make some people uncomfortable. That’s okay.
One advantage of no longer belonging to a political tribe is that you no longer have to pretend certain conversations aren’t worth having. Sometimes the people furthest from solving a problem are the ones who benefit most from pretending it doesn’t exist.
If you asked me where I would begin fixing the Democratic Party, I wouldn’t start with messaging.
I wouldn’t start with polling.
I wouldn’t start with social media.
I wouldn’t start with all the points already being made here, there, and everywhere.
I’d start with how campaigns spend money.
I’d start with the approved vendor lists.
For people outside politics, an approved vendor list sounds harmless. Legislative caucuses and party organizations often maintain lists of consultants, campaign managers, printers, digital firms, media buyers, mail houses, compliance professionals, and other vendors they recommend to candidates.
On paper, the idea makes sense.
Campaigns are expensive. Candidates are often first-time office seekers with little experience. There are elections every year, not just the “big” ones. Having a list of professionals who understand election law, campaign finance, messaging, and field operations can prevent costly mistakes and help campaigns launch.
Those are legitimate reasons for these lists to exist.
But systems created for quality control can slowly become systems that protect incumbents, not elected incumbents, but institutional ones.
Over time, approved vendor lists can become less about identifying the best people for the job and more about directing work toward people with longstanding relationships inside the organization. Whether that’s intentional or simply the natural result of years of familiarity almost becomes beside the point.
The outcome is often the same.
The circle gets smaller.
Innovation becomes harder.
New talent struggles to break in.
The losses stack up.
First organizationally.
Then electorally.
A Pattern That Became Hard to Ignore
I’ve managed, consulted on, or performed contract work for more than seventy-five campaigns for public office. Only one happened to be a state legislative race in Ohio. I normally shy away from them partially because of where I live and a personal apprehension against driving longer than an hour for work unless it’s for “someone special.” But because I spent years working around campaigns, managers frequently asked me questions about legislative races that required using approved vendors.
Over the last decade, I’ve seen several versions of these lists.
One pattern always stood out.
It’s surprisingly easy to map where many of these vendors are located and notice how frequently they come from districts represented by influential members of leadership or individuals with longstanding relationships inside the caucus.
Maybe that’s coincidence.
Maybe it’s simply where experienced political professionals happen to live.
I’m not alleging corruption or kickbacks because I don’t have evidence to support that claim. I can only speak to spending decisions I observed firsthand that raised questions for me.
Politics asks voters to trust institutions every day.
Institutions should be just as willing to examine the incentives they’ve built for themselves.
These lists often cover nearly every aspect of a campaign.
Campaign managers. Consultants. Printers. Yard signs. Mail houses. Digital advertising. Streaming television. Broadcast media. Fundraising. Campaign merchandise. Sometimes even billboard companies.
To the average voter, none of this probably sounds very important.
But it’s how we communicate with them.
If an organization continues producing similar campaigns with similar strategies and similar outcomes, it would seem reasonable to ask whether the systems producing those campaigns deserve another look.
Doing the same thing over and over while expecting dramatically different results is not a campaign strategy.
When the question “what has changed?” is met with the answer of “nothing,” you get a very predictable result.
Consistency vs. Conformity
To be fair, approved vendor lists don’t exist solely to enrich political insiders.
Sometimes they’re designed to steer work toward union-friendly businesses that align with Democratic values.
Sometimes they’re intended to ensure campaign staff understand compliance requirements.
Sometimes they’re meant to create consistency across dozens of legislative races happening simultaneously.
Those are all defensible goals in their own way.
The problem begins when consistency becomes conformity.
One story has stayed with me for years.
Several legislative campaigns changed managers during the middle of an election cycle. The incoming managers naturally assumed the people before them had underperformed and left the campaign. And they acted like it. Issues weren’t their fault. It was the fault of their predecessor for not developing the campaign properly.
That wasn’t the case.
From what I saw, the original managers had simply fallen outside the approved vendor structure.
The frustration they described to me upon first hearing of their inevitable departure was genuine.
They believed their work mattered less because of their place within the system.
Too many people come away believing that social relationships matter more than ability and knowledge.
“Socializing is working.”
Imagine spending months building relationships through hard work, organizing volunteers, raising money, and winning a competitive primary, or making the campaign competitive, only to lose your job because someone higher up preferred a different arrangement.
A different arrangement that placed a loyal hand or obedient novice to control the flow of campaign cash.
To be clear, I don’t know whether that practice still exists under today’s Democratic leadership in Ohio, and I sincerely hope it doesn’t.
If it has ended, that’s progress worth recognizing.
But if the practice continues, it represents one of the most anti-worker practices I’ve witnessed inside a party that proudly describes itself as pro-worker and believing there is dignity in labor.
Winning Requires Better Questions
And yes, Republicans have preferred vendors too.
Political parties are institutions. Institutions build networks.
The difference is that Republicans in Ohio have spent the better part of the last three decades winning.
Organizations that are losing have even greater reason to question long-standing assumptions.
If Democrats want different outcomes, they have to become comfortable asking uncomfortable questions.
Could more competition among vendors lower costs?
Could opening campaigns to newer consultants and vendors produce fresher ideas?
Could rewarding results instead of relationships create stronger candidates?
I don’t know.
But I know those questions deserve to be asked. This isn’t about punishing experienced consultants or longtime vendors.
Many are exceptionally talented and have earned every opportunity they’ve received.
Campaigns don’t exist for consultants. They exist to persuade voters.
Every dollar spent inefficiently is a dollar that isn’t reaching another neighborhood, another volunteer, another persuadable voter, or another future candidate.
Organizational incentives aren’t an inside-baseball issue.
They shape the voters’ experience.
They shape who the elected official will be.
Create Opportunity, Not Scarcity
It’s about creating room for the next generation to compete.
The Democratic Party doesn’t need fewer experienced professionals.
It needs more.
More campaign managers. More digital strategists. More organizers. More communications professionals. More mail firms. More printers. More entrepreneurs building campaign technology. More people with new ideas who aren’t forced to wait for someone else to retire before getting a chance.
Healthy organizations create opportunity.
Unhealthy ones protect scarcity.
Conclusion
None of this alone will fix the Democratic Party.
It won’t suddenly win legislative majorities.
It won’t solve every messaging problem.
But changing incentives changes culture, and culture eventually changes organizations.
And if something doesn’t change soon, we’ll be past the point of changing.
I agreed to write this only if my name was attached to every word.
If criticism is worth making, it’s worth owning.
If someone has a problem with what I’ve written, they’ll know exactly who wrote it and can voice their displeasure to me directly.
Dan Crowder: 440-665-7816.
Stay Angry.
Guest Writer: This article was contributed by a guest writer.
The Angry Democrat welcomes submissions from writers and community members who want to contribute thoughtful commentary on the Democratic Party, our democracy, public policy, and the future of our communities.
Interested in writing for us? Contact admin@theangrydem.com.
 |
|