Likely, many of us have started receiving emails, snail mails, texts and calls from midterm election candidates and wannabees.
Often, they begin with, “I’m running because… .” They are filled with policy positions, and of course, a pitch for money.
But they seldom answer an important question: Just why is the candidate running?
Why are some leaving their private lives and jobs to enter public service? If they are seeking higher offices, how did they perform in earlier elective offices? Why are they willing to take the threats and abuse that too often are inflicted on elected officials today?
We are grateful that fellow citizens are willing to step forward to serve the public. But their motives will help determine how well they will serve.
As voters, it’s just as important to evaluate candidates’ motives as it is to evaluate their policy proposals.
Likely, salary is not a motivator. Consider Bakersfield City Council members, who spend thousands of dollars to get elected to what amounts to volunteer posts that only pay $100 a month. (Actually, council posts “pay” thousands of dollars a year more, when vehicle allowances, and benefits, such as health insurance and retirement, are included.)
Members of Congress likely are not living on their $174,000 annual salaries. But many are getting amazingly rich from the spin-off benefits of their jobs — investment returns from the legislation they help pass, honorariums, etc. (Google “How Congress Gets Rich.” The research is eye-opening.)
Some candidates are such long shots that you wonder why they’re running.
An example is a Kern County woman who unsuccessfully ran in the statewide March 2024 primary election against 30 candidates to fill the U.S. Senate vacancy created by the death of California Sen. Dianne Feinstein.
To qualify to appear on a statewide ballot for U.S. Senate, candidates must comply with complex “ballot access laws,” collect voter signatures on nomination petitions and pay a hefty filing fee. The fee can be waived with the submission of additional voter signatures.
The unsuccessful Kern candidate, who had never served in an elective office, took her America First message on the road, received a decent amount of press coverage, collected campaign contributions and spent about $129,OO0.
But she finished the race with only 0.4% of the vote. Democrat Adam Schiff and Republican Steve Garvey finished in the top-two primary spots. Schiff won handedly in the November general election runoff and now is California’s junior senator.
Why candidates run for public office has long been the subject of study.
The Pew Research Center, which recently conducted candidate and voter surveys, found some candidates are motivated by the potential to earn a lot of money; advance their careers; and use an office as a stepping stone for election to higher office.
Some candidates simply seek fame and public attention. They use their campaigns as vehicles to advance personal ideologies and raise their public profiles.
But many candidates genuinely wish to serve the public. A personal experience, for example, may have revealed a public need that they want to address by influencing local issues, such as education, public safety and infrastructure. They want to be community champions.
It’s up to voters to evaluate a candidate’s motives and determine if they will benefit their families, communities, state and nation.
The first step is to ask candidates why they are running for public office. Don’t accept platitudes and grand policy positions. Seek to know their personal motivations.
Do your own research. What have candidates done and said in the past, as well as today. Are they sincere? Do they have the ability to serve?
And before you whip out your credit card to donate online in response to those political solicitations, read the fine print. Make sure your donation is a one-time “gift,” and not a promise to give regularly. Stories abound of generous contributors being duped by greedy campaigns.