WASHINGTON -- Money talks. But people still listen to those with something to say. Money matters. But content matters more, and the combination of money and content can be both positive and dramatic.
It has been politically correct this month to lament the alleged purchase of the Democratic Senate nomination in New Jersey by former Wall Street king Jon Corzine and to deplore the sudden start of bigtime presidential campaign advertising on television.
These reactions are misplaced and ill-informed. The truth is that the public gets more worthwhile information from campaign advertising than it gets from campaign coverage.
The latter is increasingly dominated by cynical insiderism and tactical analysis, nonscandal scandals, and personality. The former gets too much ignorant condemnation, especially the stuff that lays out a politician's ideas in outline form.
The truth is that Corzine didn't buy his nomination, he won it. The truth is that the Democrats' big buy on Al Gore's behalf is more to be welcomed than lamented. And the truth is that George W. Bush, if he and his advisers have anything on the ball, will follow suit in the same vein.
Taking Corzine first, the $33 million of his Goldman Sachs zillions that he spent on his fight with former Governor James Florio bought him name recognition, not victory. Among New Jersey Democrats, what counted were these messages that resonated powerfully: his detailed advocacy of universal health care insurance coverage and of a vastly increased federal investment in public education reform; and his reminder of Florio's breach of faith on tax increases with the voters who elected him governor for one tumultuous term 11 years ago.
In all, the evidence is that about four of every five Corzine advertising dollars went for issues and biography commercials, the rest on the rough stuff. There are plenty of rich, would-be pols (New Jersey's own Steve Forbes comes to mind) who can tell you how all the money in the world behind negative television won't win you bupkus.
There are also plenty of rich, would-be senators and governors (Mark Dayton in Minnesota, Michael Huffington and Al Checchi in California come to mind) who can tell you that all the money in the world behind a buffed up image and a few dozen lengthy position papers won't get you much either. In fact, most rich, former candidates can tell you that the historical odds are decidedly negative.
But every once in a while (Jay Rockefeller, retiring New Jersey Senator Frank Lautenberg, Herb Kohl of Wisconsin come to mind), the right combination of circumstances, issues, personality, and opponent arises. With about the same frequency, improbable candidates also rise despite comparative political poverty (Barbara Boxer, Paul Wellstone, Bob Smith, and Patty Murray have great stories to tell). And every so often, celebrity athletes take a shot (it worked for Bill Bradley in 1978, but not for Bud Wilkinson in Oklahoma back in 1964 or for Pete Dawkins in New Jersey in 1988).
In the presidential campaign, it is obvious that money - and, in particular, the soft or unregulated stuff - is available in buckets this year and makes postprimary and preconvention ad wars possible. But it doesn't necessarily follow that the ads have to be ugly just because the source of the money is.
The Democrats have just shown that in their initial spot on their cause of a prescription drug benefit within Medicare. And I would be stunned if the Republicans didn't ape them after venting their artificial outrage. The reason is that the campaigns already know from expensive research what the market will bear. It was no accident that the end of the competitive primaries on March 8 was not quickly followed by general election combat on the air. Voters were telling the pollsters and focus group leaders that they wanted a break and weren't interested in attack ads. A few junkies may think the campaigning since then has been a huge deal; the public knows otherwise.
The Democrats' beginning last week was no more conceived in despair than the looming GOP campaign will come off as panic-driven counterattack. In fact, the Democrats telegraphed this punch for mid-June weeks ago. And the question of who shot first is more academic than political. What is more, the Democrats' technique of introducing the issue first in the commercial, bringing Gore in the middle, and sticking to advocacy of the drug benefit, with the enemy the pharmaceutical industry instead of Bush, all reflect considered judgments of what is likely to interest people.
The ads are intended to influence perceptions and votes, but if in the process a topic is widely introduced, if it stimulates more press attention to the substance behind the ad, then it is adding to the campaign not polluting it.
Soft money should be banned. And public, taxpayer money could level the field if free and low-cost TV time were more widely available. But in the meantime, you don't have to be a cynic to observe that not all or even most rich people simply buy nominations. And soft-money-issue campaigns sure beat soft-money-financed mud-throwing. The truth is, this year has gotten off to a surprisingly decent start. We should be more thankful than outraged.
Thomas Oliphant is a Globe columnist.
