A weekly window on the American political scene hosted by the Monitor's politics editors.

Exit Swalwell, enter Steyer. How much does money matter?

Billionaire Tom Steyer joined the crowded Democratic 2020 presidential field just as California Rep. Eric Swalwell ended his bid. Does wealth matter?

AP Photo/Steven Senne, File
Billionaire Democratic activist Tom Steyer at a "Need to Impeach" town hall event in Agawam, Mass. in March 2019. Mr. Steyer announced this week that he will run for president.

Dear reader:

This week, the Democratic primary field both lost and gained a candidate. California Rep. Eric Swalwell ended his campaign, saying he would instead run for reelection to the House. And billionaire hedge fund manager and Democratic mega-donor Tom Steyer, also from California, announced he was getting in.

An underlying factor behind both of those decisions: money. Campaigns need cash to operate, and with second-quarter fundraising reports due next week, the candidates who’ve raised big sums are already gleefully releasing their numbers. As The Atlantic’s Russell Berman points out , Congressman Swalwell exited before that filing, “which will likely show him collecting only a paltry sum.”

For Mr. Steyer, money’s not going to be a problem. He has donated hundreds of millions of dollars over the years to Democratic candidates and organizations – including his “Need to Impeach” campaign advocating for the impeachment of President Donald Trump, which the Monitor’s Linda Feldmann wrote about last year. Mr. Steyer was also a key player in the 2018 midterm elections, pouring huge sums into get-out-the-vote operations instates like Florida.

Now, he’s pledging to put $100 million of his own fortune toward a presidential campaign (cue grumbling Democratic strategists who wish he would put that money toward down-ballot races instead).

Still, money isn’t everything. Mr. Steyer’s late entrance means he’s unlikely to make the next round of debates. More to the point, there’s little evidence that Democratic voters have been hankering for additional candidates. If anything, voters have been pleading with their party to start culling the field.

“For some Democratic voters, the presidential primary became a little ridiculous months ago, when more candidates filed to run than could fit on two debate stages,” writes The Washington Post’s David Weigel. He quotes a voter at an event for Massachusetts Sen. Elizabeth Warren, saying: “Are they really going to wait until the primary and then have all these people on the ballot? It’s like: Oh, my God. It’s really going to dilute and drag this out.”

Of course, in 2015 a wealthy outsider entered an already crowded presidential race relatively late in the cycle – and we all know how that turned out. But if Democrats are searching for their party’s version of Mr. Trump, frankly, they may need a bit more star power.

Let us know what you’re thinking at csmpolitics@csmonitor.com.

You've read  of  free articles. Subscribe to continue.

Dear Reader,

About a year ago, I happened upon this statement about the Monitor in the Harvard Business Review – under the charming heading of “do things that don’t interest you”:

“Many things that end up” being meaningful, writes social scientist Joseph Grenny, “have come from conference workshops, articles, or online videos that began as a chore and ended with an insight. My work in Kenya, for example, was heavily influenced by a Christian Science Monitor article I had forced myself to read 10 years earlier. Sometimes, we call things ‘boring’ simply because they lie outside the box we are currently in.”

If you were to come up with a punchline to a joke about the Monitor, that would probably be it. We’re seen as being global, fair, insightful, and perhaps a bit too earnest. We’re the bran muffin of journalism.

But you know what? We change lives. And I’m going to argue that we change lives precisely because we force open that too-small box that most human beings think they live in.

The Monitor is a peculiar little publication that’s hard for the world to figure out. We’re run by a church, but we’re not only for church members and we’re not about converting people. We’re known as being fair even as the world becomes as polarized as at any time since the newspaper’s founding in 1908.

We have a mission beyond circulation, we want to bridge divides. We’re about kicking down the door of thought everywhere and saying, “You are bigger and more capable than you realize. And we can prove it.”

If you’re looking for bran muffin journalism, you can subscribe to the Monitor for $15. You’ll get the Monitor Weekly magazine, the Monitor Daily email, and unlimited access to CSMonitor.com.