September 8th 2016
San Francisco
San Francisco Chronicle
In front of a small scrimmage of media observers, billionaire Mark Fucher stood up on a small dais in a conference room at the San Francisco Hyatt and announced... what exactly?
Let's start off by saying what it wasn't, in Fucher's own words: "Contrary to some rumours, I am not announcing my candidacy for President of the United States of America, not as a Democrat, not as a Republican, and not as any kind of third-party candidate." Why not? "I'm not sure I'm qualified enough, and I am sure I'm not handsome enough." Well, that's clear then.
Instead, Fucher, 53, announced the creation of what sounds like a Super PAC, although he was careful not to call it one. Instead, he referred to a single-issue political think-tank backed by a well-resourced financial foundation. That was so vague that the journalists present struggled to find a way to ask "what's one of those?".
What it seemed Fucher was announcing was a political campaign to finance candidates who would commit, without reservation, to campaign finance reform. So, in essence, he was announcing that he was about to spend a vast amount of money to find candidates who would work at federal and state levels to take money out of politics. The irony (some might call it hypocrisy) of this had not escaped Fucher. "I am proposing changes to electoral law that would make it impossible for corporations or rich individuals like me to have undue influence over the election of public officials in this country."
The vehicle for that, he suggested, would be to find individuals to pursue both the Presidency in 2018, and members of Congress from that same election, who would commit, whole-hearted to a platform of finance reform. And this is where it got interesting. A German journalist asked if that meant the chosen candidates would only be allowed to speak about campaign finance. Fucher said no. "The people we back will come from many different parts of the political spectrum. They will have differing views on almost every other issue affecting our country, from the budget, to foreign policy, to employment. But they will put this vital issue, one that is fundamental to everything else, front and centre in their campaigns. Everything we do as Americans depends on the successful operation of our democracy; that democracy cannot be successful while there are obscene amounts of money spent on buying elections. This campaign will seek to make a fundamental change in how elections are run."
So, he could see his foundation backing either a democratic or a republican candidate for President? "Yes. Ideally, long before the primary season, we will have identified candidates we can back in both the major parties, and possibly from independent backgrounds, who we can back." Did he have people in mind? "We do. But discussions are at a very early stage." And what if there was a strong Republican and a strong Democrat who agreed with his campaign? Could he back both? "That would be nice."
Fucher took questions from the confused press pack for about forty minutes. Very few of his answers added much precision, though he did announce that his campaign would be opening offices in Washington DC and San Francisco in the next weeks, and would be staffing those with 'key' personnel over the next few months. He was asked about several names of potential candidates, and the name of Sam Seaborn was prominent in a number of those questions. Fucher batted them all away: "I'm not going to talk about specific people at this time. For now, the campaign is just me and my staff. But we will have news about high-profile staff appointments and then candidates we will back in due course."
Just to show how confused this press conference was, Fucher was asked what the name of the campaign was, and even that appeared to be uncertain. "The really great names have been taken," he quipped. The Foundation would be called the Free The Vote Foundation; he admitted that wasn't a snappy campaigning label. "We have considered calling it the Campaign For Democratic Freedom" he suggested. One of my colleagues suggested that this sounded like the campaign would lean more towards the Democrats than the Republicans. "Right now, our goal is to find the best individuals." Would a successful candidate have to leave their current party affiliation? "Not for our sake. They could continue as a Democrat, a Republican or an Independent, but with our endorsement and backing." So, Sam Seaborn (D/CDF), perhaps?
The campaign doesn't have a name, but it does have a hashtag: #Can'tBuyMyVote. Fucher announced that the campaign would be largely visible on social media to begin with. At least that's something he does understand.
