Political Business Venture

waxie · #1 07-24-2006, 05:54 PM

I am currently working with a partner to develop a proposal and am curious to see if this forum has any input. I have been relatively disappointed by the level of discussion in this forum thus far, but maybe you guys can change my mind.

I am planning a new politically oriented business venture that will combine policy research, strategic communications, and earned media creation. Basically, we will be providing several different services for a small group of candidates. We will be focusing on city council races with relatively small budgets. At this point, we have identified three campaigns and all have projected budgets of under ~$300k. Combined they will likely raise somewhere between $750k and $1 million.

We are considering two options for this project. The first option is that we would work directly for the candidates and encourage them all to combine their resources to pay for our services. We would get to choose who we worked for without answering to anyone. I have strong connections with several of the campaigns (one candidate actually asked me to mange his campaign, but I turned it down) and they all trust me. However, not all the candidates have strong relationships with each other. Therefore, I would be serving as the main bridge between everyone. There is a chance for infighting and other squabbles.

The other option is slightly more complicated. We are considering approaching a small number of labor unions and asking them to sponsor the project. Basically, we would be funded by their political action committees and perform services to candidates that the unions endorsed. As far as I know, this sort of thing has never been done before. It would give us less freedom to choose candidates, but it would be more stable and we’d be likely to make more money. It would also provide us with a strong link to the labor movement and potentially open up the door to larger contracts in the future.

What do you guys think? I’m curious about general impressions and also specific ideas for how to structure this.

Ps. I am currently a 21-year old student studying political science at a small college in Pennsylvania.

waxie · #2 07-24-2006, 09:58 PM

Anyone have any thoughts?

Slider · #3 07-24-2006, 10:03 PM

Without any experience or connections, why would the other 2 choose you to manage their political budgets?

What benefits are they gaining from the combined pooling of budgets? Why would candidate A who is getting 400k a year want to pool with B who is only getting 250k a year?

I only see it viable if they somehow had something they could run in tandem with together like Sheriff/Mayor etc...

waxie · #4 07-24-2006, 10:22 PM

Slider:

Thanks for responding to my thread. You're doing a great job at responding to a lot of posts and giving feedback.

I am confused by your post. I'm not going to manage anyone's political budget. Instead, I will be encouraging the canidates to pool their resources and pay for my services. Most of these folks couldn't afford me on their own. I am not going to be working for the campaign staff, but as a consultant.

I have connections to all threee campaigns I am considering working with. I am actually the co-chair of one of the other candidates PACS and have known the other campaign manger for several years.

-Waxie

Slider · #5 07-24-2006, 10:52 PM

So each of them would be pitching in a 1/3 of to get a 1/3 of the face time with you?

That's what I don't understand - why would they need to pool resources to hire you? Why couldn't they just spend 1/3 of your normal asking price for 1/3 of your normal time without having to be affiliated with the other candidates. Is there anything tying the other candidates together?

Slider · #6 07-24-2006, 10:56 PM

I like the second idea about having unions hire you to help their candidates. There's definitely a lot more $ involved there, but you have to be able to demonstrate the value of your services to the union which would be a lot harder to do than with the candidates you already know.

waxie · #7 07-24-2006, 11:07 PM

[ QUOTE ]
I like the second idea about having unions hire you to help their candidates. There's definitely a lot more $ involved there, but you have to be able to demonstrate the value of your services to the union which would be a lot harder to do than with the candidates you already know.

[/ QUOTE ]

I have an extremely close connection with a major union. If that union agrees to fund the project, then I believe they can bring other unions to the table.

waxie · #8 07-24-2006, 11:09 PM

[ QUOTE ]
So each of them would be pitching in a 1/3 of to get a 1/3 of the face time with you?

That's what I don't understand - why would they need to pool resources to hire you? Why couldn't they just spend 1/3 of your normal asking price for 1/3 of your normal time without having to be affiliated with the other candidates. Is there anything tying the other candidates together?

[/ QUOTE ]

It is not worth my time to collect 1/3 of the money and give 1/3 of the facetime. They will be paying 1/3 of my cost, but only get about 1/4 of my time. Does that make sense?

Jimbo · #9 07-24-2006, 11:26 PM

[ QUOTE ]
It is not worth my time to collect 1/3 of the money and give 1/3 of the facetime. They will be paying 1/3 of my cost, but only get about 1/4 of my time. Does that make sense?

[/ QUOTE ]

It makes sense for you but not for them, IMHO political consultants overate their own value.

Jimbo

Slider · #10 07-24-2006, 11:47 PM

So because you're giving less face time then full time, you get to charge a little more for the time. I understand that as you will have more work to do in keeping up with 3 different candidates and their respective problems but is it fair to them and will they bite?