back to Introduction • next section

Show Me the Money

Part 3: Reporting on Radio

by Steven Rosenfeld

Covering money and politics for radio can be a rich and rewarding beat for political reporters, especially for those who have spent any time chasing candidates or legislators on the campaign trail or in State Houses.

In this brief chapter, I’d like to talk about why this topic is well-suited for radio journalists and suggest various ways of framing stories and easy-to-use sources.

When I first started covering money and politics for Monitor Radio in 1995, I remember saying to myself and to others, “How am I ever going to do radio stories on all the campaign contributions, donors, lobbyists and political reforms? How am I going to produce pieces that won’t bore people to death, or at least numb them with numbers?” After all, good radio thrives on personal comments from people. And just about everything I had seen in newspapers, magazines, on television and the Internet seemed to rise and fall on analyses of candidate-filed campaign finance reports. This was true in the best national newspapers as well.

This will probably come as a surprise, but I truly think the best money and politics radio stories have little to do with this type of number-crunching work. Forget about the example set by number-based investigations because, to be honest, too many of the stories that rise and fall with numbers really miss what this beat is about.

I’m not trying to disregard the incredible amount of data now available on the Internet and through groups such as the Center for Responsive Politics. It has a role and an important place in many stories. But I believe being too number-dependent sends reporters in the wrong direction. This topic, above all else, is a political culture story. That’s what a lot of print reporters don’t convey, but it’s what radio reporters can readily and easily show.

What I mean by a culture story is that most money-and-politics related-activities — where money is raised, discussed, spent, etc. — are small meetings or social events where we can record what’s going on and talk to people about their role in it. For me, this beat came into focus when I stopped running after politicians for fast quotes and discovered I could ask about all the faces I had been pushing past for years.

Politics is intensely personal and a clubbish, insiders-only arena. Most people who work on campaigns and in State Houses, even grassroots types, aren’t exactly volunteers taking a day off from their day jobs. They tend to be professionals who have agendas and who organize all sorts of campaign or lobbying activities. These involve a lot of people-to-people interactions that, more often than not, wouldn’t be happening but for someone’s or some group’s political money.

What the number-based analyses often fail to convey is the human and emotional dimension of contemporary political fund-raising, professional campaigns, lobbying and legislating. We in radio can bring people the sound and feel of life on the campaign trail and in halls of power as it’s unfolding. It isn’t hard to get this kind of tape. But this involves more than just looking at reports of campaign contributions and then asking people about them. So, I’m asking you to think a little differently about this topic. Try showing the way the political world works.

Money’s Role and Gathering Tape

Money, obviously, is used by candidates to pay for their campaigns and for sending messages to voters. But it is also used by candidates as an organizing tool and as a rationale for most of their social events, which more often than not are fund-raisers. Money is used by candidates to buy all kinds of services that political professionals — consultants — have usurped, filling the campaign roles once played by political parties, the public or volunteers. Money is spent by donors to get access to candidates and office-holders — for glamorous photos they put on their desks, meeting other high-flyers and players in the community and, of course, for promoting specific economic agendas. When we start looking at how money works in the day-to-day political world, we’ll soon find it’s attached to many sound- and interview-rich activities. They’re not the press events where candidates are making pronouncements on the issues of the day. Look for other settings where political players are talking to other players about issues, bills, contracts, other candidates’ elections, etc.

Of course, there are always contributors and politicians who are dumb enough to offer money or accept it for specific outcomes. That’s the classic definition of political corruption. It certainly happens and probably more than we think. We should cover this if we’re lucky enough to bump into it, and occasionally we in radio do. But corruption stories are the hardest to find, prove and get on tape.

There is the danger of missing a good story about what’s going on if you’re just looking for something wrong. Many reporters are being a little sloppy when they look at campaign finance reports and then say or imply in their pieces that, because a contribution was involved, something is corrupt. It’s worth remembering that what campaign reports don’t show is how much more money and time is likely being spent by these same actors lobbying, or literally investing in face-time with politicians. It’s much more costly to lobby than to contribute to most political campaigns. If you’re going to do number-based reports, lobbying figures are sometimes the best ones to use.

Most significant about the role of private money in politics is that there are a sphere of people who surround candidates and office-holders who, in fact, the candidates and legislators seek out. It’s these folks who define our political system. This is where the reporting shifts from pieces that explain the basics of fund-raising, lobbying, polling, ad campaigns, etc., and starts to discuss the political implications of who has the money, power and influence.

When we start talking to people about their various roles in campaigns and legislating, we find a lot of people who set the tone for much of the way politics is framed and presented today. This gets more political when you consider that, as a class, these insiders are a much narrower group than the public at large and their issues often are not what is on the minds of average voters. But because they get access to candidates and legislators (as a result of their campaign donations), their agendas end up occupying a concrete slice of a legislator’s finite time. The result is people, groups or industries that can spend money can skew decisions about what is a priority and what isn’t. Or, as William Greider, author of Who Will Tell The People, says, “To me, this is the most debilitating effect of campaign money: It keeps new ideas from being articulated in a way that might arouse the public.”

There is also a dimension to this beat that’s not just about wealthy economic interests. I’ve been saying we should look at money and politics as a cultural story because we are in a world where money determines who is in the room and how people interact. So, because it determines who participates, money’s role in politics raises very real civil rights issues and concerns about who can and who cannot participate meaningfully.

Where to Start

Where do we begin as radio reporters? It’s easy. The first rule for raising money and lobbying is that the most effective way to do both of these activities is face-to-face, eyeball-to-eyeball. So here’s where we can start gathering people-oriented, first-person tape. I look at campaigns and legislative sessions as unfolding dramas with different activities and focuses depending on the time of year or stage of the process.

In the winter and spring of an election year, candidates are organizing campaigns. We don’t see them, but they are spending more time fund-raising than anything else. It’s easy to spend time with them while they’re doing this. It’s easy to record their half of a telephone solicitation and then ask them how they feel about this part of the process. And the same is true when it comes to donors. You can also ask what they believe they are spending their money on. I’ve always gotten telling replies when I ask candidates how they feel about putting their fate and careers into half a dozen 30-second ads.

You can also step back from the candidates and start asking consultants to explain their roles. Typically, any candidate who faces a contested election and will spend more than $30,000 will hire consultants. This means the story is the same at the local level as it is with state legislatures and Congress. Consultants range from campaign managers to fundraisers to pollsters and researchers to phone-banks and more. It’s interesting to ask candidates why they think they need to hire these people, what they are doing for them and how they feel about it. This is especially true for first-time candidates. They’ll probably tell you that hiring a consultant or two means donors will take them seriously. But, curiously, the everybody-does-it explanations usually omit a good reason why these folks are running. It’s also worth noting that, on the most local level, candidates are now more inclined to raise money and hire help than to rely on volunteers or political parties.

Consultants and their specialties also make some interesting stand-alone stories — and these folks like to talk to the press. Most think they are smarter than their clients, and the truth is, they may be when it comes to running campaigns. While most consultants work with one party or another, they generally view races somewhat tactically. This means you can talk to them about what they are doing without getting into the politics of various issues. You can do stories on what all this money the candidates are raising is being spent on. One of my favorites is doing a report on opposition researchers, the people who dig up the “facts” or “dirt” that we see in all the ads. These guys are freelance investigators not too different from reporters in many newsrooms. They will talk about what they’re looking for, and then you can ask them and others whether their work (and the resulting ads) are good or bad for voters or the political process. This same approach can be taken with the people who make political ads, and the people who are paid to gather signatures for ballot initiatives. A great source for these folks is Campaign and Elections magazine’s annual directory of political consultants. You’ll be amazed who is in your backyard and what they specialize in. (Campaign and Elections Magazine is now owned by Congressional Quarterly.)

Lobbying, in contrast to campaigns, is somewhat harder to cover because the people doing it usually feel that talking to the press about their work will undermine their chances of success. But talking to the other side usually gets around that hurdle and then forces the people you want to focus on to talk. Here’s where the campaign finance reports can come into play. You can look at reports to see who is a player and whom you should interview. You can also use the reports to get a sense of a person’s or group’s fund-raising history and past relationships with officials. But be careful not to assume that just because someone made a contribution they are agents of corruption. They may be, but the more telling sign is to see how much they are spending on lobbying. Chances are, if they are spending thousands on contributions, they’re spending tens of thousands on lobbying, and that will more accurately reflect the stakes and investment.

The other thing about lobbying and campaign contributions is that lobbyists aren’t always fans of the current system. In fact, many will tell you they feel shaken down for their money. Legislators and lobbyists interact in different ways at various stages of a legislative session. For example, legislative leaders will almost always hold fundraisers before a session begins or near its end. Trade groups and others will show up because they want action on any number of issues. But the lobbyists will tell you, if they’re honest — and many are — that this is a bit of a shakedown, but until the system changes, this is what they have to do.

I’d like to emphasize that these kinds of stories are not just the province of State House reporters. The same dynamics and activities can be found at the local level. For example, at virtually every county board or planning commission in California, where I live, you can find developer money in elections and in independent issue campaigns. So don’t think that this beat is only for the most experienced reporters. It’s really for anybody who has an inclination to look below the surface, and not very far below it, I’d add. In fact, it may be easier for local reporters to do these kinds of stories because the political players at this level don’t have as much experience in talking to the press, on one hand, and on another, they usually don’t get much coverage.

These kinds of stories do take more time to do than spot news on today’s bill or last night’s planning commission meeting — but not that much more time. The time required to gather tape is the same as for most pieces. What takes time is calling the people who are involved — the candidates, consultants, lobbyists, donors, etc., asking them what’s going on and getting permission to cover their part in campaigns and legislating. Here’s where a little psychology will help with access. I always tell people I am reporting on the process. If you don’t take the tone that anything having to do with money is evil, then you’ll get in the door. I say, “Look, I know that raising money is the most important and least-liked part of the process. I simply want to see how things work.”

Why is money the most important part of campaigns? Because unless someone will spend their personal fortune on their campaign, or until the voting public adopts full taxpayer funding of elections, then even the best candidate in the world has to raise money for his or her message to be heard. You can tell that to campaign managers and consultants.

Steven Rosenfeld is a Money and Politics Reporter for National Public Radio. He can be contacted at 515 Eugenia St., San Francisco, CA 94110, (415) 487-3204; e-mail: srosenfeld@npr.org.

top of page • back to Introduction • next section