No, underpaying progressive campaign workers isn't a good thing
by David Atkins
A bunch of people in left-leaning circles are passing this around, as if it were good news:
One of the big challenges Mitt Romney faced after effectively clinching the GOP presidential nomination in late April was ramping up his campaign to match the behemoth operation President Obama already had in place across the country.
The Republican challenger finally caught up last month – at least when measured by money.
The Romney campaign spent $4.04 million on payroll in August -- nearly twice as much as it spent in July -- while the Obama campaign spent $4.37 million, according to campaign finance disclosures filed last week with the Federal Election Commission.
But the president appears to be getting a much bigger bang for his buck.
So the Obama campaign is getting the same level of commitment from staff while saving $330,000 dollars money. So celebrate, right? Well, maybe not.
According to an analysis by the Times Data Desk, part of the Los Angeles Times, the Obama campaign had 901 people on its payroll last month, and paid them a median salary of $3,074 a month, or $36,886 a year.
The Romney campaign, in contrast, had 403 people on its payroll, and paid them a median salary of $6,437 in August, which would mean $77,250 a year.
This isn't a good thing. First, Democrats are supposed to be about helping regular workers and the middle class. But more importantly, one of the key challenges that progressives face is a high level of burnout from our core volunteers and activists. People have to be able to make a living, and passion for the issues only goes so far. Republicans and conservatives are able to train and keep their best and brightest because they pay them enough to stay in the fold. Democrats and progressive organizations expect talent to work for peanuts.
Eventually, what happens is that good people burn out and quit when it comes time to build for retirement and raise a family.
Is it really worth it for the Obama campaign to underpay its staff to save $330,000 a few million in election expenses, just to buy a few more TV ads and be lauded as a better businessperson than Mitt Romney? No, it isn't. Not even for the campaign itself, and certainly not for the future of the progressive movement. Of course, left-leaning organizations aren't as well funded as right-leaning ones. But there's more than enough money there to pay good workers a decent wage.
But don't just jump on Barack Obama. This is a chronic culture problem within the entire Democratic infrastructure. Young people lean progressive, and the politically interested are often desperate to work in Democratic campaigns. Limousine liberals are able to send their kids to work for free on "internships." And then there is a huge swath of Democrats and progressives who believe that payment for political services is somehow unclean, and that if any payment is granted for working on progressive politics, it should be at a minimum subsistence level.
This foolishness has to be fixed for the sake of the future of the movement. And it certainly shouldn't be celebrated.
Update: Obviously, I got my math wrong through a clumsy reading of the details. The President's campaign is saving millions of dollars in staff expenses, not $330,000. But the general point remains the same.
.