Maria Cantwell is paying Mark Wilson $8,000 a month. David Postman breaks the story; I'm still a bit amazed by that figure.
Anyone who has worked on major campaigns knows that $8,000 a month is a huge slice of payroll, befitting not only a very senior staff position such as campaign manager or political director, but someone with a polished political resume at that, which says their hard work on the campaign will definitely be worth that high level of expense.
In contrast, Mark Wilson will serve as "outreach director," essentially a mid-level staff position, based on the qualification that he's pretty good at talking to people to the left of most Democratic voters. That makes $8,000 a month an obscene salary. Without question, there are more campaign staffers, no doubt getting paid a lot less, conducting outreach for the Cantwell campaign. This is $8,000 a month to essentially run around the state telling disgruntled liberals Maria Cantwell isn't as terrible as they think, or as Mark Wilson used to think until he got on the payroll.
UPDATE: Respectfully Republican, who has some experience digging through Cantwell's FEC reports, says Cantwell's campaign manager is paid $4,100 - $4,300 every couple weeks. Hah! Since Mark Wilson is apparently so important to the campaign, perhaps they'll bring his top supporter, Cindy Sheehan, in soon as well. Does anyone have a small animal we can sacrifice to the campaign gods to help make this happen?
This entire affair with Dal LaMagna coming on board as co-chair, and Wilson getting hired, is the equivalent of Dino Rossi having to hire Reed Davis while signing Ellen Craswell on as campaign co-chair. It takes little imagination to picture how furiously local editorial pages would condemn such a move as the selling of the candidate's soul to the far right.
This episode smells of everything most people don't like about politics. Secretive deals, rebuked even by the PI's editorial page, where money is the ultimate problem solver, and transparency is only shown when someone starts feeling the heat. How classy. But I see I'm not the only one who thinks that.
In comparison, give Cantwell's remaining challenger Hong Tran credit for having the courage to speak her mind and resist, uh, financial incentives thrown her way as well.
So let's see, people will have a choice in November between a candidate who goes out and listens to all comers, and one who throws money around to keep people quiet. Tough call.
UPDATE: Check out the ProgressiveGovernment.org site founded by Dal LaMagna as noted in the Cantwell release about him. Scroll down to see "Progressive Cabinet" nominations: Noam Chomsky for Dept. of Defense, Rep. Cynthia McKinney for Homeland Security, Rep. Dennis Kucinich for Dept. of Peace...the list goes on. Please Senator Cantwell, incorporate these ideas into your campaign, and tell the voters all about it!
Posted by Eric Earling at July 13, 2006 07:34 PM | Email ThisAn $8,000 monthly salary is fishy, but...
A $28 MILLION DOLLAR golden parachute from a major corporate interest http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/local/274354_mcgavick17.html
is entirely kosher?
Please explain....
Posted by: bartelby on July 13, 2006 07:41 PMWilson is a new hire, totally differenct....
As a shareholder, I don't have a problem with it.
Posted by: Marc on July 13, 2006 08:26 PMSo they suffer, while he makes the big bucks.
Come on Dem's explain this pay would you!
What about the Children!!!!
Posted by: Army Medic/Vet on July 13, 2006 08:29 PMIn addition he received compensation for agreeing not to work for a competitor for three years. Why pay him well and encourage him not to work for a competitor for three years? Becuase he was a darn good CEO, turning around a flailing company, as noted by even Joel Connelly: http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/connelly/246537_joel31.html
By your logic against earned compensation, like Cantwell's wealth - in the form of RealNetwork stock she earned - in 2000 should also have been a problem.
Posted by: Eric Earling on July 13, 2006 08:37 PMI think I'll sign on as chief lover of all things Progressive at Horse Ass, spout Bush hatred, Drink Liberally, etc. Then in 2008, I'll run against a prominent Democrat on a Nutroots extreme left platform. I'm aiming high. I've got two kids, a beautiful wife, and I look as American and as electable as Apple Pie, so it's going to take $10K a month to get me on board Patty.
But $10K a month won't phase the Dems because when it comes to getting power, they'll do anything, even if it means hating and destroying their country.
People have spent more money for far less return - just look at McGavick's spending pace.
Posted by: Daniel K on July 14, 2006 12:00 AMBut, McGavick didn't "Hire" Cantwell....Get the point?
McGavick's spending pace has nothing to do with it. He can spend as he pleases.
Posted by: Chris on July 14, 2006 06:33 AMThose who think the deal a good idea tactically should look at today's Devericks cartoon, or at (most) of the comments on Postman's blog.
But Daniel misses the point, this isn't about how much the "buyout" should be. It is about principles or lack of them by both Wilson and Cantwell.
As a politician, how can you still expect to be a politician when you "buyout" your opponent and then get caught at it. Big problem for Cantwell don't you think?
Posted by: swatter on July 14, 2006 07:06 AMTypical liberal relativism! He did it, so this isn't so bad.
Posted by: Fred on July 14, 2006 08:28 AM"non-partisan" I'm surprised they didn't say "mainstream", the other term they often use while trying to trick voters into believing they aren't really commies.
One look at ProgressiveGovernment.org website is all any sane person needs to understand exactly what Maria Cantwell and the rest of the "progressives" really are.
Here's hoping the McGavick campaign will use a few tidbits from that site in the fall campaign.
As far as principle - these are Democrats; the concept has no application here. But I have less regard for Wilson, the politician who "sold out" his principles for a lousy $8000 a month, than I do for Cantwell for using a cost effective strategy to eliminate an unprincipled competitor. If it's substantially cheaper to buy him than to defeat him, then buy him. I don't see how it's much different than a defendant in a lawsuit settling out of court because it's cheaper, even though he believes he's right; or a company paying a resigning employee not to work for a competitor. Cantwell can always fire him in a month or two when it's too late for him to run a campaign with any chance of winning. From what I've heard about her, she'd have no compunction about doing it to him. Wouldn't that be amusing?
Based on Cantwell's past assinine comments about economics, I'm surprised that such a purely economic scheme ever occurred to her or anyone in her campaign. But then again, this kind of buying and selling may come naturally to politicians.
Ken.
Posted by: ken on July 14, 2006 09:02 AMYou forgot the other part of the equation. Wilson met with Cantwell, looked into soul and found out she was against the Iraq War (or so Wilson said she said) while she was for it publicly. That, my friend, is lack of principle on the Cantwell part.
Don't mix apples and oranges.
Posted by: swatter on July 14, 2006 09:44 AMThese are the same people who work the worker-bee jobs and complain "where's my share?" when corporations profit. Face it, you have a $9/hour job. Anyone can do it. You deserve nothing. You're a peon. McGavick busted his hump to turn a company around. I don't think his compensation is out of line for a corporation of that size.
Posted by: Eric on July 14, 2006 10:23 AMEither way, it tells me that my congresswoman will PAY for what SHE wants. Or as Bugsy would say "Snuff Out" the competition......
Posted by: Chris on July 14, 2006 10:23 AMOh wait I forgot....the SeaTimes won't care about the JOA and we will see a sudden renegotiation of it right after estate tax reform so the young Blethen can make a mess of his inheritance and the PI can stay open and Art Thiel can keep his job and Joel Connelly can continue to vote from whereever he wants. All delivered courtesy of the Hearst Co. lobbyists reminding the Dems of the free PR and easy passes they have and will continue to get but could go away if the PI were to close.
Now by dumping Wilson, wouldn't that be a bit HARSH.... That would mean she was just USING him to get what she wanted?
As far as principles goes, there aren't any left were these two are concerned. Cantwell is Pro War, and Wilson is Anti War. By being in the same Camp now, they BOTH have compromised their integrity to any Voter who had faith in them....
Shame on them both.
Posted by: Chris on July 14, 2006 10:30 AMSo True, So True !!! Thanks for the chuckle..:)
Posted by: Chris on July 14, 2006 12:07 PMAmazing how so called "principled progressives" are easily bought off. Makes one wonder how they'd act if put in charge of national security and facing an enemy (Chinagate anyone?)
Posted by: pbj on July 14, 2006 07:37 PM