Boston Globe peddles an "I bought the candidate" narrative on education

The Globe article led someone on the Daily Kos to rip me -- given the source, a proud moment! ;-)

I don't know if Tilson said anything like this, but the Globe article certainly implies that Tilson must be entitled to influence because of his fundraising.

No, I didn't say anything like that.  I was simply disclosing my personal support for one of the candidates I was commenting on, and the reporter was right to note this.  But to the extent that money obviously buys some degree of influence -- would anyone question that? -- the idea that my piddly $50,000 could compete with the bazillions of dollars in money and organizational clout that the unions bring to bear is ludicrous (and, unfortunately, it shows)...

 

-----------------------

Boston Globe peddles an "I bought the candidate" narrative on education

by SDorn

Tue Aug 07, 2007 at 10:54:51 AM PDT

http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2007/8/7/13364/16332

The Boston Globe's story today on education reform has one jewel:

[Whitney] Tilson, who helped found Teach for America, has raised $50,000 for Obama, but is frustrated by what the candidate has had to say on education.

I don't know if Tilson said anything like this, but the Globe article certainly implies that Tilson must be entitled to influence because of his fundraising.

You can be sure there's more on the jump!

• SDorn's diary :: ::

For the moment, ignore the fact that reporter Marcella Bombardieri's non-campaign sources are Tilson, Joe Williams, and Amy Wilkins—all with a similar perspective on education policy. At its very basis, Bombardieri's paragraph implies that Tilson and Williams must be Important People because they Raise Big Money. On its face, that's an obnoxious argument, one I hope Tilson and Williams would disavow and one that flies in the face of Obama's vast small-donations base. I have not taken any sides in the nomination battle, but one of the strengths of a small-donation strategy is that a candidate doesn't have to give access to individuals just because of what they donate. In fact, I would consider it a fabulous consequence of the ban on soft-money and an affirmation of Obama's strategy that he can ignore bundlers' policy preferences if he thinks differently.

The other obnoxious part of Bombardieri's article is the ironic argument that Obama, Clinton, and other Democratic candidates have felt pressure to pander to teacher unions. Here's the story lede:

Senators Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton have been among the strongest voices in the Democratic Party for education reform. And yet, as they pursue endorsements from the nation's powerful teachers unions, both candidates have avoided reform themes and instead have emphasized union favorites such as increasing federal school aid.

Okay, Ms. Bombardieri: either resources should buy influence, in which case it's okay for Obama to pander to both Tilson and the NEA, or resources shouldn't buy influence. More fundamentally, she essentially buys into the argument that one is either pro-reform or pro-union and not both. That's fairly close to Joe Williams's rhetoric, which is often close to a "teachers unions are guilty until proven innocent" argument.

The article also implies a monolithic view of what education reform is or can be: charter schools, merit pay, high-stakes accountability all as a package. So much for sophistication. A lousy article all around.