Letter to the Editor: The Ability to Fundraise is not the Best Qualification for Elected Office

by Bob Van Oosterhout

If you were hiring someone for an important job, would you pick the person who was most effective at attacking other candidates and people he or she will need to work with?

Would the person who spent the most money trying to sway your opinion with thirty second ads and well-crafted social media posts, be most likely to get the position?

Would you think to ask: What are the qualifications for office?  What are the values, skills, experience and temperament that make it more likely someone will be effective in this position?  Might you wonder: What does it mean to be effective in this position?

If someone is hired to solve problems, do they need to be able to effectively work with others who might have different points of view?  Do they need a clear grasp of the larger picture and relevant details while demonstrating understanding of the needs and interests of all who might be affected by their decisions?  

Is it important for them to view things from different perspectives and clearly communicate what’s really going on while being able to separate their own self-interest from the overall interests of the community, district, State or nation?

Are elections essentially a process of hiring people to solve and prevent problems while planning for the future?  

Why is the ability to raise funds the single best predictor of whether someone will win an election?

Why does the media treat debates as boxing matches and elections as horse races?  How does the news really help us decide who is most qualified for office?  How do ads, flyers, and road signs contribute to our understanding of issues and candidates competence for office?

Why don’t we ask these questions?  

What will happen if we never do?