Dr. Wilson's campaign spending provides a cautionary tale for the would-be judicial candidate

I can only imagine what admixture of altruism and ambition courses through the veins of Dr. Willie Wilson (that's a screen shot of a recent Wilson Tweet above). Even if I had twice his money, I doubt that I'd be half so eager to go back out and start dishing out dough to an ungrateful electorate had it rejected me as thoroughly as it rejected Dr. Wilson in last week's Chicago mayoral primary.

In that sense, certainly, Dr. Wilson is a better man than I could ever be. And God bless him for it.

But whatever your opinion of Dr. Wilson, or his policies, or his giveaways, his several unsuccessful campaigns provide a cautionary tale for the would-be judicial candidate.

Wilson provides an extreme example of the old adage: No matter how much money you, the candidate, may have to spend, there's always someone around to spend all of it... and more besides. And the equally awaful corollary of that old adage: Spending money, even spending money by the bushel, does not guarantee victory.

Political consulting is one of the last bastions of caveat emptor. There's no regulation and, sometimes, seemingly, no shame. That is not to say there is no value in the consultant's work. There can be. The good consultant knows everyone and gets along with most. The good consultant can take a decent lawyer with limited political instincts and make him or her a judge.

And if a consultant occasionally fleeces a well-heeled candidate just to pay the bills, you, the prospective candidate, must understand that the candidate also needs his or her share of winners. No consultant is going to secure your business by telling you all the losing campaigns he or she has run, or helped run. If the consultant has a web site, it will boast about all the winners he or she has helped; the consultant's sales pitch will invite you to imagine yourself in this select company.

That's where the consultant wants you to be. The consultant, no less than the Democratic Pary of Cook County, is shopping for winners. You may be a lump of unfinished clay, but the consultant soliciting your business thinks he or she can mold you into something electable. You are not just buying a consultant's service, the consultant is trying to buy you, too.

You will notice, as you investigate those consultants that maintain a web presence (and many do not), that consultants often indicate that they will only work with those who share their worldview. They are quite selective (the ones who don't advertise may be even more so). I'm not saying you have to be an ideological soulmate in order to be taken on by a consultant, but if he or she uses all the progressive buzzwords of the moment and you are a Trumper, chances are pretty good that you will not connect. Even if you have a lot of money to spend. Remember, the consultant knows everyone and gets along with most -- and, for a consultant in Cook County, these relationships would surely be strained by taking on a Trumper.

(And, yes, there are conservative consultants, too -- but how could one help you in Cook County?)

Also, remember always, there is another side to this: I've heard from aggrieved consultants who lament that they lost this campaign or that one because they were obliged to follow their candidate's instructions. The candidate rejected the consultant's expert advice and insisted on dictating a strategy that worked for the candidate's mentor, who got elected to the bench 30 years ago.

There may be more than excuse-making in these sorts of complaints.

I don't want to overgeneralize: It is probably unfair to say that all lawyers are control freaks. At least some, surely, are merely micromanagers.

However, dear Prospective Candidate, when you give someone the keys to the car, you really do have to let them take the wheel.

Within reason, anyway.

Many of the consultants you may encounter will have cut their teeth on aldermanic or state legislative campaigns. These are, and should be, more rough-and-tumble affairs than judicial campaigns. Tactics that may seem acceptable, or at least all too common, in other races should be viewed with skepticism (and, in my opinion, revulsion) in judicial campaigns.

Remember, Prospective Candidate, it is your reputation that is at stake in your campaign, more so than the consultant's. The consultant will find other sheep to shear. Or, if things get really tough, he or she will seek a sinecure in some public agency. Meantime, listen to what the consultant recommends. Even though your great friend Judge Smith did not have to do what the consultant suggests, the consultant knows more about how to get elected today. That's the reason to pay the consultant in the first place.

Just remember, even if you do not win a robe in this campaign, you will still have your reputation. Get it back from the consultant at the end of the campaign, win or lose, as intact as it was when you started the campaign. Don't let the consultant risk your hard-earned reputation by doing something that makes your moral compass start spinning wildly.

Running for judicial office is often a process -- more than one campaign may be necessary (and, indeed, should ordinarily be expected).

In political campaigns as in so many other things, your results do not come simply from what you spend, but from how you spend it. From what you buy.

Caveat emptor.

---------------------------------------------------------
On the subject of judicial candidates spending money, FWIW is pleased to announce that Dr. Albert J. Klumpp has completed his look into 2022 campaign spending numbers. His guest post on this topic will appear later today. Please stand by.