Over the past two decades political consultants have become integral to candidate and initiative campaigns. They also appear to be playing a larger role in helping national and state parties to elect candidates to office.
As part of the Center for Congressional and Presidential Studies at American University's "Improving Campaign Conduct" project, funded by The Pew Charitable Trusts, Harris Interactive conducted a survey of state and national party officials to assess the party officials' use of consultants in the 2002 elections.
Over half of all the state party officials surveyed report that they plan to hire political consultants during the 2002 election cycle. Eighty-eight percent of those surveyed said they definitely or probably would hire a pollster, while 81 percent said they would probably hire a direct mail specialist, 69 percent expect to hire a media consultant, and 56 percent a fundraiser. Of those planning to hire a pollster, almost one-third (32 percent) said they would hire a pollster exclusively for the party, while 59 percent said they would hire a pollster for both the party and the candidates the party supports.
Similar breakdowns between working exclusively for the party and working for both the party and the party's candidates can be found when looking at those who plan to hire direct mail specialists and media consultants. Of those planning to hire direct mail specialists, 36 percent expect them to work exclusively for the party, while 60 percent expect them to work both for the party and the party's candidates. State party officials anticipate that media consultants also will have the same roughly one-third, two-thirds breakdown; 30 percent expect media consultants to work exclusively for the party, and 59 percent expect media consultants to work for both the party and the candidates the party supports.
While the expectations for the use of pollsters, direct mail consultants and media consultants are similar, state party officials have somewhat different expectations about how fundraisers will be used. They expect fundraisers to be equally divided between working exclusively for the party (48 percent) and working for both the party and its candidates (46 percent). One expectation common to all four types of consultants, however, is that very few party officials expected that they would hire the consultant to work exclusively for candidates the party supports. The expectations ranged from 1 percent for direct mail specialists to 8 percent for media consultants. Clearly, state party officials who hire political consultants hire those consultants to work with the party and with the party's candidates; they are not paying for consultant services only for candidates.
Comparing Republican and Democratic use of consultants found similarities with some consultants and differences with others. There was no difference between Democrats and Republicans in their expectations of whom pollsters and media consultants would work for; the expectations mirrored the results reported above. However, comparing Democratic and Republican state party officials expected use of direct mail specialists and fundraisers found Democrats were more likely to expect to use both types of consultants exclusively for the party, while Republicans were more likely to use these consultants for both the party and the party's candidates. Democratic use of direct mail specialists was almost equally divided between exclusively for the party (46 percent) and both the party and candidates (52 percent), while Republicans expected than only one quarter of the direct mail specialists would be used exclusively for the party, and 70 percent would be used for both.
There are also differences between Democratic and Republican state party officials when it comes to their expectations for the use of fundraisers. Over half (53 percent) of the Democrats expect to use fundraisers exclusively for the party, while over half (59 percent) of Republicans expect to use fundraisers for both the party and the party's candidates.
We also asked state party officials why they would hire each of the four types of consultants. Both Democrats and Republicans cited the fact that their organizations did not perform that particular service as the main reason for hiring pollsters, direct mail specialists, and media consultants. However, the reasons for hiring fundraisers were more mixed. Thirty-four percent of party officials said they would hire fundraisers because it would allow them to save money on staff salaries, 24 percent said they would hire fundraisers because they likely were to be directed to hire them by the national party, and only 23 percent said they would hire them because their organization does not perform that particular service. There were also substantial differences between Democratic and Republican state party officials on this question. Almost half (45 percent) of Republicans said they would hire fundraisers to save money on staff salaries, while only one quarter of Democrats cited saving money on salaries as a reason to hire a fundraiser. Democrats (30 percent) were more likely than Republicans (18 percent) to expect to be directed to hire fundraisers by their national party. Twenty-eight percent of Republican state party officials said their organization did not perform fundraising services, compared to just 19 percent of Democrats.
In addition to asking state party officials what consultants they expected to retain for the 2002 elections and how those consultants would be used, we also tried to assess how party officials view the roles of political parties and consultants over time. Party officials believe that the role of political parties in electing candidates to office has increased at the local, state and national levels over time. Fiftytwo percent of party officials believe the role of political parties has increased at the local level, 65 percent believe the role of parties has increased at the state level, and 63 percent believe the role of political parties has increased at the national level, and there are no differences in these perceptions among Democrats and Republicans.
Three years ago we surveyed a sample of political consultants, and asked the consultants their views on the roles of political parties and political consultants over time. When we compare the views of the consultants with those of the party officials we find some interesting results. Both consultants and party officials believe that the role of political consultants in electing candidates has increased over time, but political consultants think their role has increased much more so than party officials. Eighty-six percent of political consultants believe the roles of consultants has increased at the local level, compared to just 55 percent of party officials, while 88 percent of consultants believe the role of consultants has increased at the state level, compared to 69 percent of party officials. At the national level, 80 percent of consultants believe their role in electing candidates has increased, while 65 percent of party officials believe the role of consultants has increased. Democratic party officials are slightly more likely than Republican party officials to think the role of consultants has increased at all three levels of government; 60 percent of Democrats thought consultants' roles at the local level had increased, compared to 51 percent of Republicans, 74 percent of Democrats thought consultants' roles at the state level had increased, compared to 65 percent of Republicans, and 70 percent of Democrats thought consultants' roles had increased at the national level, compared to 59 percent of Republicans.
Finally, when we compared party officials and political consultants' views of the role of political parties in electing candidates over time, we find very different perceptions. As mentioned above, party officials believe the role of political parties has increased over time. However, political consultants are more likely to say that the role of political parties has decreased or stayed the same over time. Only 20 percent of consultants thought the role of political parties had increased at the local level, only 29 percent thought parties' roles had increased at the state level, and only 31 percent thought the role of parties at the national level had increased.
[Author Affiliation]
David A. Dulio is an Assistant Professor at Oakland University, Robin Kolodny is an Associate Professor at Temple University, Candice J. Nelson is an Associate Professor at American University and Academic Director of A. U. 's Campaign Management Institute, and James A. Thurber is a Professor at American University and the Director of the Center for Congressional and Presidential Studies at A. U.
Комментариев нет:
Отправить комментарий