David Drumlin: I know you must think this is all very unfair. Maybe that’s an understatement. What you don’t know is I agree. I wish the world was a place where fair was the bottom line, where the kind of idealism you showed at the hearing was rewarded, not taken advantage of. Unfortunately, we don’t live in that world.
Ellie Arroway: Funny, I’ve always believed that the world is what we make of it.
Contact (1997)
Regular readers of this blog know I have referred to this excerpt from the film adaptation of Carl Sagan’s novel of the same name on multiple occasions. Arroway (Jodie Foster), a member of the SETI (Search for Extraterrestrial Intelligence) team which picks up and deciphers an alien signal, is deprived of the chance to pilot the interstellar vehicle described in the transmission. Instead, Drumlin (Tom Skerritt), the president’s science advisor, is chosen for the mission. On every previous occasion, I sided with Arroway. I too would like to believe “that the world is what we make of it.”
Today, I am shifting my allegiance to Drumlin. Why? Because the rules which currently govern our world were established by people who have gasplighted the American public. That is not a typo. The lies perpetuated by Donald Trump, the Heritage Foundation and MAGA news outlets would make the founding fathers gasp in disbelief. Much, if not all of this, was made possible by one Supreme Court decision, Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission. A decision propagated by so-called “originalist” justices who turned campaign financing upside-down by opining that “corporations are people” and “money is free speech,” although such language appears nowhere in the nation’s foundational documents.
So, a la David Drumlin, I would like to think that any candidate with an interest in public service, who is passionate about one or more issues, and can articulate that passion should have a reasonable chance of getting elected. There are four candidates running for the Democratic nomination for representative in my home district FL-4. I have interacted in person and/or through correspondence with all of them. All four satisfy my three basic criteria laid out above. They want to serve the residents of our congressional district. They have all identified issues about which they are very passionate. And each is out on the campaign trail sharing their passion with whomever will listen. Any of them would be a quantum leap better than the incumbent. But Drummond is correct when he tells Arroway, “Unfortunately, we don’t live in that world.”
Desire to serve, passion, and engagement should be enough, but it is not. According to countyoffice.org, the average successful campaign for the House of Representatives in 2024 raised just under two million dollars. Why is this important to us? The Cook Report rates congressional districts by their historical partisan preference. It currently lists FL-4 as R+5, which means, all things being equal, a Republican candidate can expect to carry the district by five percentage points. Watching the results in the Tarrant County, Texas special election for the state senate, we see what a well-funded candidate can do. The Democrat out-performed Trump in 2024 by 31 percentage points. That bodes well for upsets in any R+5 district.
In FL-4, the incumbent Aaron Bean has outperformed the Cook rating. In his two congressional races, Bean won by 21 points in 2022 and 14.6 points in 2024. There are always multiple factors. The Bean family has a history in NE Florida of political success, community service, and philanthropy. Also, the Florida legislature redrew the district boundaries following the 2020 census, diluting the Democratic vote by redistributing it across two districts–FL-4 and FL-5. However, there is one other obvious factor. The following data on total campaign receipts in FL-4 comes from the Federal Elections Commission.
2022
Republican candidate/$1,198,576
Democratic candidate/$10,465
2024
Republican candidate/$1,738,171
Democratic candidate/$32,058
This is the world we live in. Neither fair nor just. And fighting fire with fire has its down-side. Already, one Facebook commenter has described the current candidate who had a successful first quarter of fundraising as “buying the election” and “relying on millionaires.” Has that candidate received a number of $3,500 contributions (the maximum allowed for the primary)? Yes, but he has also received more than 800 donations of $20 or less. And did this individual really think you can buy a congressman for $3,500? I would hope he would focus more on an incumbent who has said nothing about a UAE sheik investing $500 million in the Trump family’s crypto business four days before the Donald took office.
Which brings me to Project 2026. We do not have an organization or mission statement. We only have a “prime directive” originally presented in the January 15 Deprogramming101 post conveniently titled “The Prime Directive.” Voters need to focus on electing a Democratic House member in their respective districts. If that happens in 218 individual districts, Mike Johnson will be history, and Democrats will set the House rules, the schedule, and increasingly important, determine who will be called before congressional committees to testify under oath. The same is true for Senate races. Flip four seats and the Democratic majority leader can follow Mitch McConnell’s tactics and refuse to schedule consideration of any future Supreme Court justices nominated by a lame duck president.
One more point. I am aware that some social media sites include calls for one or more of the current FL-4 Democratic contenders to drop out of the race. I AM NOT! They deserve the opportunity to make their case. But I would ask them to consider if they honestly believe they will have the resources through November to challenge an incumbent with a well-funded war chest. (Bean has already amassed $1.26 million in campaign receipts for his 2026 reelection bid.) Under-funded, principled campaigns are noble efforts. But they do not codify Roe v. Wade. They do not lead to actual oversight or defunding of ICE. They do not hold an administration accountable for breaking the law. They do not expose public corruption. They do not keep a president from turning sacred space into gilded monuments to himself. And most importantly, they do not have the opportunity to pass campaign finance reform so future House candidates do not have to raise $2.0 million or more to compete for office.
Finally, nothing I say here relieves any candidate who has the best chance of defeating an incumbent from helping create that fairer world. Especially for young adults who have not had the time to develop the network or resources on which an older candidate can draw. On accepting the position of director of the entrepreneurship institute at Miami University, the donor for whom the program is now named gave me the following advice. On your first day, start looking for your successor. That is the way your impact on the program stretches years beyond your tenure. The same is true for a member of Congress whether he/she serves one or ten terms.
I hope no one believes we can turn the ship of state around in two years. America may take years, if not decades, to heal the wounds of this current anomaly in our 250 year history. Project 2026 is not a one-off. Perhaps a better moniker would be “Project 2026-?”
For what it’s worth.
Dr. ESP
Doc – Please don’t take this a a criticism of the direction of your blog.
Dr. Oxford says,
“cor·po·ra·tion/Partnership/noun
“a company or group of people authorized to act as a single entity (legally a person) and recognized as such in law.”
[Don’t blame me. My mother was an English teacher.]
Nevertheless, “…don’t give up the ship!” In addition to focusing on the Democratic primary, would it be a step forward to advance Republican hopefuls in that primary, too?
Slick, I didn’t realize you are now a subject of the King. Not sure where you found your definition, but here is the full OED entry for “corporation.”
An incorporated entity with the capacity to act as a legal person, having an identity in law distinct from those of the individual or collection of individuals of which it is comprised at any point in time; (chiefly British) an artificial person created by royal charter or (esp. formerly) prescription, or under an act of the legislature, having its own powers, duties, and liabilities in perpetual succession.
Even under British law, the corporation has “an identity distinct from those of the individual or collection of individuals of which it is comprised.” The fact it can act as a person does not mean it has the same rights and privileges as a human being.