Is Wu an ‘insider’ or ‘outsider’ in Wichita mayor race? Depends how you interpret data | Commentary
Portraying mayoral candidate Lily Wu as an “insider” in an outsider’s clothing based upon her campaign finance reports is a bit unfair, to put it mildly.
More importantly, it’s the wrong analysis for voters to use at the ballot box.
Having written countless columns about national, state and local politicians, I understand there is plenty of fodder for criticism out there and campaign finance reports can be a goldmine of revealing data.
But having successful professionals support your mayoral campaign does not equate to “insider” status any more than one plus one to the first power equals three. Suggesting to the contrary is nothing short of unbridled cynicism.
True or false?
▪ Lily Wu has raised a record-breaking amount of money in this primary: True.
▪ A total of 329 contributions were for the maximum $500 limit: True.
▪ Americans for Prosperity threw $66,000 toward the campaign: True.
That is all data — publicly accessible data anyone can read about. How one elects to analyze the data as a prognosticator of future candidate performance is the key.
One way to analyze the data — the path taken by Dion Lefler (Wu’s Koch/D.C. connection is a third of her ‘outsider’ run, July 27) — is that a lot of wealthy people support the campaign, and some of those people do business with the city.
A libertarian PAC has also supported the campaign, and this PAC is an influential one fueled by Wichita’s most wealthy resident. All of the donors are “insiders,” which term is defined by Merriam-Webster as a “person recognized or accepted as a member of a group, category, or organization: such as a person who is in a position of power or has access to confidential information.”
As the analysis continues, Wu’s acceptance of these funds to advertise her campaign to the masses makes her an “insider” as well, and her campaign flyers describing her as an “outsider” are basically laughable. She will thus be beholden to the “insiders” if she wins the election and will make decisions which benefit those individuals and not the city at large.
That’s analysis, alright — analysis that blows through about seven red lights on its way to the intended finish line.
Here’s more analysis: Lots and lots of Wu’s max-contributing donors are physicians and other skilled professionals who have no ongoing business with the city. They will be doing things like treating patients, performing root canals or representing clients in court. Those types of individuals are listed in the campaign reports also. So are non-max donors across all different industries.
Perhaps these donors take a special interest in candidates who appear intelligent, articulate and presentable, meaning they will make our city look good. They like to hire those types of people too.
If all of these successful people — many of whom have zero business with the city — believe Wu would do well in the job, perhaps it’s true. Voters will get to decide what they think.
She would be beholden to the same sets of rules as every other elected official in the job. If she decided to selectively hand out city bonds like Halloween candy or have a separate VIP waiting room for “insiders” looking to make sweetheart deals, people would take notice pretty quickly. Then just maybe the topic would find its way into the newspaper.
Money pervades politics because people pay attention to ads. Motivations vary. Instead of defining any max donor as an “insider,” how about we apply the term to those who never seem to leave the political arena? There’s nothing more dangerous in politics than an officeholder who has no other marketable job skills — they will do anything to keep the job.
Our goal should be to somehow draw the best and brightest into every campaign. Stamping a name like “insider” on new candidates and discarding them accordingly is what got us into this mess to begin with across all levels of government.
It got us a bunch of insiders.
This story was originally published July 30, 2023 at 5:00 AM.