HighGround Public Affairs Consultants

By: Paul Bentz

Now that the legislative session has finally come to an end and signatures are due at the end of the month, campaign season is starting to heat up.  With redistricting and an upcoming presidential cycle, it seems like we are on an accelerated time table towards some very contentious races.

With that, there is the temptation to fall into a “tit for tat” mentality where candidates are focused on their opponents.  Candidates should take a page out of last week’s episode of Mad Men.  After getting his ad dropped in favor of Don’s concept, Michael Ginsberg said to Don Draper, “I feel bad for you.”  To which, Draper responded, “I don’t think about you at all.”

We know that’s not true.  However, Draper chose to promote himself instead of tearing down Ginsberg.  The same should go for candidates.  Here are five things you should consider as you tell your story:

1.  Talk about you:  People want to know you and have a reason to vote for you.  Putting your opponent down doesn’t mean people will vote for you – it simply casts doubt on your opponent.  The right mix for any candidate discussion should be at least 75% about you and only 25% about your opponent.  It is human nature for people, and media, to seek the conflict.  Don’t fall for it.  Stay on message.

2.  Remember your audience:  There are more people who will vote in your election than you will ever be able to talk to.  More importantly, people are going to work, paying bills, taking their kids to sports, getting ready for summer, etc.  Voters, even the highest of high efficacy voters, are going to spend far less time focused on your election than you are.  Most people who vote don’t go to PC meetings, read message boards, or attend debates.  Don’t assume they know what is going on, and more importantly, don’t focus on the “inside baseball.”

3.  Know when to respond and when not to:  You don’t have to respond to everything your opponent says about you.  In fact, it should be a discussion with your campaign team about what you should and shouldn’t respond to.  The same goes for media questions.  Know what you are going to say when the media comes calling, instead of responding to everything they ask.  They are trying to stir up controversy and get you into a back and forth.

4.  Stop reading blogs and comment sections:  This one is a tough one, especially when you can’t sleep or when someone emails a link to you.  This feeds back into point number two about remembering your audience.  If you look closely, it’s the same people who comment on every story.  Their opinions bounce around in an echo chamber creating an altered reality that is sometimes different than the feeling of the overall electorate.

5.  Keep your head down and raise money:  Every time you are tempted to pick up the phone and talk about your opponent, use that time to pick up the phone and call a donor.  The best thing you can do to win your race is to have the money you need to share your message and execute on your campaign plan.  There may be a time to challenge your opponent or set the record straight.  When that time comes, it’s critical you have the money in your campaign account to do it right.

Though, I think they secretly do, celebrities always say that they don’t read the tabloids.  As a candidate, you should take the same advice.  Follow your campaign plan.  If you don’t have a campaign plan, make one.  Always move forward and tell your story.

A sight never seen before in Arizona!

It is one of the finest traditions in all of professional sports. At the conclusion of an NHL playoff series, both teams line up and shake hands at the end.  Perhaps all of us could take something from this.   There is nobility in fierce competition be it on the ice or in the world of ideas.

Here is a plea for the City of Glendale to join the NHL in keeping this fine sport in Arizona – so we can continue to be witness to fine traditions like we saw last night.

David Brooks is a favorite around here for his ability to apply real observations about human behavior to politics and inspiring us to do better.  In today’s article, “The Creative Monopoly,” Brooks discusses the trap of competitiveness standing in the way of real leadership and innovation.

Brooks writes, “You know somebody has been sucked into the competitive myopia when they start using sports or war metaphors. Sports and war are competitive enterprises. If somebody hits three home runs against you in the top of the inning, your job is to go hit four home runs in the bottom of the inning.”  Click here to read the entire article.

There is no doubt that politics is filled with competition and we use our own fair share of sports and war metaphors (our name is HighGround after all).  However, we try to encourage our candidates not to get sucked into the “tit for tat” and instead focus on their agenda and the goals they want to accomplish.

That’s why campaign timelines and strategies are critical to keeping everyone moving in the right direction.  Candidates should be spending their time and energy telling their story and sharing their vision instead of worrying about what their opponents are doing.

Craig Harris’ tome from this morning reminds me of the scene from A River Runs Through It, where the Presbyterian Minister played by Tom Skerritt is editing his young son’s writing. The erstwhile son continues to bring piece after piece to his erudite and taciturn Scottish father, and the father says time after time, “again, half as long.”

So it is with Mr. Harris’ piece this morning, and here is my edited version:

Attorney General Tom Horne declared a conflict of interest in prosecuting two well known Republican political operatives with ties to the Fiesta Bowl scandal. Horne declared this conflict because both of the individuals were involved in his re-election campaign.  The case was then turned over to Maricopa County Bill Montgomery who declined to prosecute the misdemeanor charges because of the vagueness and uncertainty in the underlying statute.

The two lobbyists when contacted by the Republic indicated they had fully complied with the underlying statute, which requires the “designated lobbyists” to report all expenditure on behalf of the client which they both share.  Both lobbyists indicated that had they separately filed, it would result in a doubling of the single expenditure.

When contacted by the Republic, the Secretary of State’s office, who is responsible ensuring compliance with lobbyists reporting statues, said that “I have never believed, nor do I now believe, that the law requires two lobbyists to report the same expenditure.”

The simple lesson here is that many, many people have been sullied because of the poor behavior of a few.  That, as my edited story indicates, does not justify the continued victimization of easy targets; legislators, lobbyists, etc..  who,  for the vast majority, were simply attempting to comply with the law.

Consumers of news should always wonder when reading lengthy pieces such as this, what news is not going reported when the paper gives this spectacle such attention.  As Tom Skerritt’s character says at the end of the scene referenced above, “good, now throw it away,” that is where this story should have ended up, in the trash.

We are proud of the work we do for our clients and are honored when we receive recognition for our efforts. Recently, HighGround was ranked #5 in lobbyists in the Phoenix Business Journal book of lists.

In addition HighGround won again at the Pollie awards – taking home a silver award and an honorable mention for our work during the Phoenix Mayor’s race. Hosted by the American Association of Political Consultants, the “Pollie” awards are the “Oscars” of the political consulting business and are considered the most prestigious national awards in politics. Click here to see the winners.

We are grateful to be recognized for our continued efforts to “make it happen” for our clients.

Robert D. Kaplan wrote an interesting piece today about something we’ve been talking about for a few years now.  The media focus the past year has been squarely on the events unfolding throughout the Middle East.  While this is undoubtedly important, when compared to the effects a failed Mexican state would have on our country, it pales in comparison.

“A deeply troubled state as well as a demographic and economic giant on the United States’ southern border, Mexico will affect America’s destiny in coming decades more than any state or combination of states in the Middle East. Indeed, Mexico may constitute the world’s seventh-largest economy in the near future.”

Take a moment to read how these two national security issues have a lasting effect on our nation.  Lets hope during this years presidential debates, there is an honest dialogue on what America must do with the growing instability that is much closer than the other side of the globe.

By: J. Charles Coughlin

I read Bob Robb’s column last week, “Don’t worry, China has big problems” and ran into the fourth paragraph which says:

“According to the report (World Bank), what China has to do to move to the next stage is breathtakingly broad and sweeping: develop more robust consumer and service markets; reduce the role of state-controlled companies and the state’s role in such companies; develop private financial markets with free movement of capital, both within the country and across its borders; establish an independent central bank and a floating currency; establish independent courts and the rule of law.”

As I re-read the column and contemplated Arizona’s own struggles with Mexico, I replaced China with Mexico and read the paragraph this way:

“What Mexico has to do to move to the next state is breathtakingly broad and sweeping: develop more robust consumer and service markets; reduce the role of state-controlled companies and the State’s role in such companies; develop private financial markets with free movement of capital, both within the country and across its borders; establish an independent central bank and a floating currency; establish Independent courts and the RULE OF LAW.”

This weekend I read a lengthy piece in the New York Times entitled, “In Mexico, a Kidnapping Ignored,” which describes that six years into a mostly military assault on drug cartels, impunity across much of Mexico has worsened, and justice is harder to find.

As the Supreme Court prepares to hear the Justice Department’s case against Arizona this summer, isn’t it time to focus the attention of the nation on the real problem confronted by the Arizona economy, namely the mass exodus of people from a State struggling for control?  This is not meant as a condemnation of the Calderon administration, but a call for our Country to begin to focus our national resources on stabilizing what is a failed State in Mexico.

As our country draws down our commitment to places like Afghanistan and Iraq, is it heresy to suggest that we invest in stabilizing our nation’s fourth largest trading partner and Arizona’s largest?  Can we re-examine our nation’s own complicity in destabilizing Mexico, be that through illegal drugs or gun shipments?

Is President Obama prepared to stop playing the race card and play the statesman card and acknowledge that we don’t want a “moat” – just a country stable enough to do business with?  If the Democratic Party is really concerned about human rights, let’s stop talking about the illegal immigrants trying to get jobs in Arizona and start talking about the 40,000 people who have been murdered in Mexico in the last six years.

We don’t make America greater by undermining our own laws to accommodate the lawlessness of another country. We set an example by enforcing our laws, which promote greater economic opportunity for all.

Let’s not worry about China, Afghanistan and Iraq and worry about our own neighbor right here at home, that seems like the neighborly thing to do.