The answer to the first part of that last question is: Houston is a Democratic city. For some reason, Democratic Party voters think that they aren’t taxed enough. Had that “rain” tax been on the ballot for Harris County as a whole, it would have gone down in flames. As it is, it passed, but only by 6,264 votes out of 333,396. It’s a bit more complex than just “Houston is a Democratic city” however; I’ll talk a little about that as we go through the reasons that the “red-light cameras” were rejected (note, any mention of Prop 1’s failures comes from me and not Phil Owens).
So why were the “red-light cameras” defeated in a Democratic city? The answer to that question should be a blueprint for low-budget campaigns in the future. It is easy to say that the cameras never were about safety but how do you communicate that message to voters in a city as large as Houston when you don’t have money for television? The consultant for the campaign, Phil Owens, outlined his methods at a recent gathering of “tea party leaders” (no, I’m not a tea party leader, I was there for background info) that I was privileged to attend. I took notes but I also talked with Phil throughout the campaign and it was interesting to hear his reasoning behind some of the stuff I saw him doing. These seven principles are not “secrets” but it takes someone with Phil’s discipline to apply them in an effective manner.
I. Define the Debate
Even as they were collecting signatures to put the initiative on the ballot, Citizens Against Red Light Cameras (CARLC) was campaigning against them. If they had allowed American Traffic Solutions (ATS) to define the issue as one of safety, CLARC would have lost. Phil came up with three points for the debate and these points were repeated from the beginning:
- The cameras make intersections less safe.
- Cannot face accuser – violates civil rights.
- The cameras are about revenue for the city and the company operating them.
It took a lot of discipline for the team to stay focused on those points but eventually they won the day. Obviously, the first point had to be backed by studies – and there were many of them to pull from. Point two is obvious. The last point was harder because the city would not provide hard numbers – only now do we see the full impact of the revenue that was driving the cameras.
II. Activate the Activists
It goes without saying that you have to have established relationships to make this step effective. In this specific case, Phil was able to get the Harris County Republican Party’s Executive Committee to pass a resolution against the cameras. This made it easy to get buy-in from all of the Republican clubs and various conservative groups in the city. The Kubosh brothers went to countless meetings of these groups laying out their case and convincing the clubs to support their cause.
III. Financing
You may well be the underdog but you must have at least some financing. When the final reports come in, there will probably be a 15-1 advantage for ATS but Paul Kubosh put at least $170,000 into the campaign, enough for a small radio presence, push cards, and consulting. You also have to spend that money wisely, which brings us to the first difference between the Prop 1 & 3 campaigns. The Prop 1 camps (there were 2 different PAC’s) spent their money (about $80,000) in a traditional Republican way, forgetting that the city of Houston is Democratic. The Kubosh team put about half of their money into the black community. Smart.
IV. Expand and Excite
Go beyond the activists. Speak to any and every organization that will have you. Church groups, community groups, Rotary clubs, Chambers of Commerce – Michael and Randy Kubosh racked up the miles during this campaign.
V. Creativity and Capitalize on Free Media
Remember Lois the Corpse Flower? Phil printed up push cards with “red-light cameras stink” on them and passed them out to people waiting in line to see Lois! That is creative.
He also talked about “red-light cameras” being against the American Spirit and being grossly unfair, a message that resonated across racial and socio-economic lines. The best one was in the Hispanic community, noting that these cameras were “just like the ones on the border”. Now that is funny.
He was able to get these messages out to a large swath of the community using free media. Blogs like this one. Arranging for Michael to be a guest on talk radio (white, black, Latino) and on PBS’s Red, White, Blue. All free and all reaching different segments of the voting public.
This is another of the areas that the Prop 1 opposition failed at. They continued to reach only one segment of the voting public – KSEV listeners. They put Paul Bettencourt up as the face of the campaign. Paul likes to claim he is the most popular Republican in Harris County (no, Ed Emmett is) but this wasn’t a Harris County vote – this was a City of Houston vote. I’d guess that more people were turned off by his approach than were turned on. Same old, same old; Bettencourt railing about taxes. If these folks would have used Phil’s approach, they might have pulled off an upset.
VI. Bang for the Buck
Whatever you do with your limited resources, make certain that you get the most out of your money. Don’t waste money just because you’re familiar with a certain company – get bids, find alternatives.
VII. Get Out the Vote
Election day brings you to the hardest part – getting people to the polls. By the time the election came around, the Kubosh team had a working relationship with different groups representing different segments of the voting public. Thus they were able to turn this network on and get people not only to vote, but to go all the way down the ballot and vote against these cameras that not only make intersections less safe but they also violate our civil rights and make millions for the fat cats.
And there you have it. Obviously, doing this is much harder than simply following the steps – that brings us right back to Phil Owens and the Kubosh brothers. At no time during this campaign did I see them ever break discipline and I was around them, relatively speaking, quite a lot. They focused like a laser beam on those three points that Phil came up with months earlier and were able to define the debate. And as Phil kept telling me, “If we can define the debate, we will win this election. Trust me.”.
Phil, you were correct. Well done.