Listening to Rush today. He complained about Republican political consultants who lose elections for their employers and suffer no longer-term career consequences. Someone hires them for the next big election.
All good points. My question is why political candidates don’t routinely offer consultants performance-based deals. Sure, a marginal candidate might have to pay outright. But might not a Romney or McCain get better results by offering a base salary of, say, 50% of the current going rate, plus a 200% bonus if the candidate wins? The current system seems to offer little financial incentive for a consultant to deliver results.
Or perhaps this incentive already exists, since the winning candidate is likely to hire his consultant in a steady role after the election. Yet there always seem to be prominent political consultants who get hired despite failure in multiple elections. Perhaps consultants wouldn’t accept performance-based deals because they often know, going in, that their candidate’s odds are poor.
What am I missing here?