As someone deeply involved in politics in Oregon (I am a house district leader in one of the districts Flynn would have been representing, I am co-chair of the county Democratic campaign committee and I am chair of a local Democratic group that focuses on policy and local electeds and that sponsored a forum that Flynn participated in ) I feel that much of the discussion on this site about Carrick Flynn lacks basic awareness of what the campaign looked like on the ground. I also have some suggestions about how the objectives you work for might be better achieved.
First, Flynn remained an enigma to the voters. In spite of more advertising than ever seen before in a race (there were often three ads in a single television hour program), his history and platform were unclear. While many of the ads came from Protect our Future PAC, Flynn had multiple opportunities to clarify these and failed. Statements such as “He directed a billion dollars to health programs to save children’s lives and removed a legal barrier that may have cost several thousand more lives.” that was featured on his website led people to come to me and ask “What did he do to accomplish this? Who was he working with? What does this mean?” These contributed to the sense that this was a shadow figure with no substance.
Second, Flynn made the mistake of assuming he could win a race with many qualified candidates. He had a chance just because the vote was split so many ways, but he consistently appeared less engaged, less experienced, and less able to represent Oregonians. His story of being a hard luck child had little resonance in a state where so many have lost so much to natural disasters in the last few years. His assumption that, as a freshman Congressperson, he could sway Congress with little experience in that realm rang false. Two of the candidates had worked for years as aides to congresspeople and touted their experience as a way that they could work to make a difference. In addition, the desire to elect a representative that reflected the diverse nature of our district—especially one that had a powerful back story of an immigrant father who gained citizenship through serving two tours of duty in Viet Nam—was powerful.
The EA community seemed to have gotten excited about Flynn because of his emphasis on pandemic preparedness. But, people in Oregon have multiple needs from their representatives and Salinas, who is serving her third term in the legislature and who has been a powerful champion for women’s health care, for environmental issues, for gun safety, for education, and for human rights among other issues, showed that she was able to understand and deliver on these issues. Again, in example, Flynn just said that he would defend women’s reproductive rights, with no further elaboration on how to do that or what that meant.
I am surprised that there was not more attention paid to the support Flynn had in Oregon. FEC shows fewer than 10 contributions to Flynn’s campaign from non-family Oregonians. This should have been an important indicator of support. This can be contrasted to over 750 contributions from Oregonians, many of them small dollar amounts, to Salinas.
In sum, Flynn may be a smart and kind man who won some of the vote because he achieved massive name recognition at the cost of $1200 per vote, but lost significantly because he neither articulated a clear history and direction nor demonstrated a commitment or knowledge of Oregon. In a smaller field, he would have lost even more by my assessment.
In addition, the negative and clearly false advertising that Protect our Future PAC used when it appeared Flynn was losing went against many of the things people on this forum profess to have wanted from this election:
It made government appear corrupt and inept—and that no good solutions could come from those who govern. This makes it hard to assert that things like the pandemic can be addressed at the governmental level.
It undercut the winner, Salinas, and increased the probability that the much less desirable candidate will win in the general election.
It advanced, the practice of grainy dark pictures, untruths, and inappropriate use of information (such as calling a $250 contribution from a drug company in 2018 financing the Salinas campaign) which just subverts the electoral process.
Some 450 contributions were made to Flynn’s personal campaign from outside Oregon, many coming from followers of this forum, and many maxing out at the $5800 allowed for the primary and general election combined. If that same money had been spent to reach out to future Rep Salinas to advance the cause of pandemic preparedness, I expect it would have been much more powerful.
My reflection to those who were working with me in this election was “I love intelligent candidates and people who look broadly at the issues. But this must be accompanied by humility or it becomes dangerous.” I feel that this campaign, whether it was the candidate or the high spending PACs, failed to achieve this humility.
Thank you for taking the time to share your perspective. I’m not sure I share your sense that spending money to reach out to Salinas could have made the same expected difference to pandemic preparedness, but I appreciated reading your thoughts, and I’m sure they point to some further lessons learned for those in the EA community who will keep being engaged in US politics.
I strongly upvoted your post, and thanks for taking the time to write it.
I note that you’re effectively recommending a strategy of lobbying instead of electioneering in order to advance the cause of pandemic preparedness. Do you have data or personal experience to support the idea that lobbying is a more effective method than campaign sponsorship of aligned candidates to build political support for an issue?
Matt Lerner spent some time looking into lobbying for altruistic causes and posted about it on the EA forum. I appreciate his research, and would like to see more exploring the effectiveness of altruistic lobbying and how to do it well.
Personally (though obviously Carol may disagree), I don’t think that’s necessarily the strategic takeaway from Carol’s post. The value of electioneering vs. lobbying probably depends on the specifics of the districts and candidates.
When an EA-oriented candidate has stronger ties to the district, a more robust political history, deeper local political connections, etc? Sure, the monetary value of donating to that candidate probably exceeds lobbying. .
But at the end of the day, none of those factors were remotely there for Flynn.
As an aside, I grew up in OR-06 and still have a ton of connections there, and Carol’s post is 100% spot-on. The only thing I’d add is that—in the absence of clearly defining himself—the fact he was backed by what appeared to be crypto did the defining for him. And in the context of a Dem primary, that’s not a helpful association
As someone who has both worked to elect candidates and who has lobbied at many levels, my experience is that lobbying can be quite effective if it is done with a candidate who shares your values and goals. I have done this mostly at the state level and find that, until they rise to a position of some power, candidates may not be able to achieve what they wish. In contrast to this, spending time with committee chairs who have much power over the agenda is quite effective, especially if you can establish yourself as a source of reliable information and policy directions. Both are valuable. Thanks for the article referral. I look forward to reading it.
To specifically flag this, I agree with you that I do not like the quoted behaviour at all. I do not think that EA or EA adjacent campaigns should be misrepresenting other candidates. It hurts ability to cooperate later and damages the democratic environment. Perhaps this is naive of me, but I think the cost from these behaviours in terms of reputation were greater than what they added.
It advanced, the practice of grainy dark pictures, untruths, and inappropriate use of information (such as calling a $250 contribution from a drug company in 2018 financing the Salinas campaign) which just subverts the electoral process.
Beyond that, I’m not sure I agree that this was a huge miscalculation from Carrick. He took a risk and he lost. You describe him as “assuming he could win a race with many qualified candidates”. I am unsure whether he thought he would probably win, but he thought it was worth a shot. And he didn’t do terribly, but the people of Oregon chose a candidate they preferred, as is their right. To me, that seems to be how democracy works.
As someone deeply involved in politics in Oregon (I am a house district leader in one of the districts Flynn would have been representing, I am co-chair of the county Democratic campaign committee and I am chair of a local Democratic group that focuses on policy and local electeds and that sponsored a forum that Flynn participated in ) I feel that much of the discussion on this site about Carrick Flynn lacks basic awareness of what the campaign looked like on the ground. I also have some suggestions about how the objectives you work for might be better achieved.
First, Flynn remained an enigma to the voters. In spite of more advertising than ever seen before in a race (there were often three ads in a single television hour program), his history and platform were unclear. While many of the ads came from Protect our Future PAC, Flynn had multiple opportunities to clarify these and failed. Statements such as “He directed a billion dollars to health programs to save children’s lives and removed a legal barrier that may have cost several thousand more lives.” that was featured on his website led people to come to me and ask “What did he do to accomplish this? Who was he working with? What does this mean?” These contributed to the sense that this was a shadow figure with no substance.
Second, Flynn made the mistake of assuming he could win a race with many qualified candidates. He had a chance just because the vote was split so many ways, but he consistently appeared less engaged, less experienced, and less able to represent Oregonians. His story of being a hard luck child had little resonance in a state where so many have lost so much to natural disasters in the last few years. His assumption that, as a freshman Congressperson, he could sway Congress with little experience in that realm rang false. Two of the candidates had worked for years as aides to congresspeople and touted their experience as a way that they could work to make a difference. In addition, the desire to elect a representative that reflected the diverse nature of our district—especially one that had a powerful back story of an immigrant father who gained citizenship through serving two tours of duty in Viet Nam—was powerful.
The EA community seemed to have gotten excited about Flynn because of his emphasis on pandemic preparedness. But, people in Oregon have multiple needs from their representatives and Salinas, who is serving her third term in the legislature and who has been a powerful champion for women’s health care, for environmental issues, for gun safety, for education, and for human rights among other issues, showed that she was able to understand and deliver on these issues. Again, in example, Flynn just said that he would defend women’s reproductive rights, with no further elaboration on how to do that or what that meant.
I am surprised that there was not more attention paid to the support Flynn had in Oregon. FEC shows fewer than 10 contributions to Flynn’s campaign from non-family Oregonians. This should have been an important indicator of support. This can be contrasted to over 750 contributions from Oregonians, many of them small dollar amounts, to Salinas.
In sum, Flynn may be a smart and kind man who won some of the vote because he achieved massive name recognition at the cost of $1200 per vote, but lost significantly because he neither articulated a clear history and direction nor demonstrated a commitment or knowledge of Oregon. In a smaller field, he would have lost even more by my assessment.
In addition, the negative and clearly false advertising that Protect our Future PAC used when it appeared Flynn was losing went against many of the things people on this forum profess to have wanted from this election:
It made government appear corrupt and inept—and that no good solutions could come from those who govern. This makes it hard to assert that things like the pandemic can be addressed at the governmental level.
It undercut the winner, Salinas, and increased the probability that the much less desirable candidate will win in the general election.
It advanced, the practice of grainy dark pictures, untruths, and inappropriate use of information (such as calling a $250 contribution from a drug company in 2018 financing the Salinas campaign) which just subverts the electoral process.
Some 450 contributions were made to Flynn’s personal campaign from outside Oregon, many coming from followers of this forum, and many maxing out at the $5800 allowed for the primary and general election combined. If that same money had been spent to reach out to future Rep Salinas to advance the cause of pandemic preparedness, I expect it would have been much more powerful.
My reflection to those who were working with me in this election was “I love intelligent candidates and people who look broadly at the issues. But this must be accompanied by humility or it becomes dangerous.” I feel that this campaign, whether it was the candidate or the high spending PACs, failed to achieve this humility.
Thank you for taking the time to share your perspective. I’m not sure I share your sense that spending money to reach out to Salinas could have made the same expected difference to pandemic preparedness, but I appreciated reading your thoughts, and I’m sure they point to some further lessons learned for those in the EA community who will keep being engaged in US politics.
I strongly upvoted your post, and thanks for taking the time to write it.
I note that you’re effectively recommending a strategy of lobbying instead of electioneering in order to advance the cause of pandemic preparedness. Do you have data or personal experience to support the idea that lobbying is a more effective method than campaign sponsorship of aligned candidates to build political support for an issue?
Matt Lerner spent some time looking into lobbying for altruistic causes and posted about it on the EA forum. I appreciate his research, and would like to see more exploring the effectiveness of altruistic lobbying and how to do it well.
Link:
https://forum.effectivealtruism.org/posts/K638s9L2wCEW78DEF/informational-lobbying-theory-and-effectiveness
Personally (though obviously Carol may disagree), I don’t think that’s necessarily the strategic takeaway from Carol’s post. The value of electioneering vs. lobbying probably depends on the specifics of the districts and candidates.
When an EA-oriented candidate has stronger ties to the district, a more robust political history, deeper local political connections, etc? Sure, the monetary value of donating to that candidate probably exceeds lobbying. .
But at the end of the day, none of those factors were remotely there for Flynn.
As an aside, I grew up in OR-06 and still have a ton of connections there, and Carol’s post is 100% spot-on. The only thing I’d add is that—in the absence of clearly defining himself—the fact he was backed by what appeared to be crypto did the defining for him. And in the context of a Dem primary, that’s not a helpful association
As someone who has both worked to elect candidates and who has lobbied at many levels, my experience is that lobbying can be quite effective if it is done with a candidate who shares your values and goals. I have done this mostly at the state level and find that, until they rise to a position of some power, candidates may not be able to achieve what they wish. In contrast to this, spending time with committee chairs who have much power over the agenda is quite effective, especially if you can establish yourself as a source of reliable information and policy directions. Both are valuable. Thanks for the article referral. I look forward to reading it.
I strongly agree with you. It is not a power thing.
Thanks for writing this Carol.
To specifically flag this, I agree with you that I do not like the quoted behaviour at all. I do not think that EA or EA adjacent campaigns should be misrepresenting other candidates. It hurts ability to cooperate later and damages the democratic environment. Perhaps this is naive of me, but I think the cost from these behaviours in terms of reputation were greater than what they added.
Beyond that, I’m not sure I agree that this was a huge miscalculation from Carrick. He took a risk and he lost. You describe him as “assuming he could win a race with many qualified candidates”. I am unsure whether he thought he would probably win, but he thought it was worth a shot. And he didn’t do terribly, but the people of Oregon chose a candidate they preferred, as is their right. To me, that seems to be how democracy works.