The real problem, of course, remains the role of money in the campaigns, where 94% of the house races result in the candidate with the most campaign funds winning the election, and the huge sums requiring the candidates to spend time - and more - on the big donors.

On this article, though, is it quite fair in the current system to point out one example making six million dollars, and imply that all of them are quite overpaid? Aren't they entitled to a 'fair wage' as well, as long as it is a money-focused system? It would seem they are.

Now getting better ones - for free or not - who tell Gore to talk about Global Warming, who tell Kerry to combat the Swift Boat lies - that's another issue. Asking these people if they could make a lot more elsewhere to work for low pay seems a recipe for problems.

What exactly is a "fair wage"? Seems to me these exorbitant amounts are anything but fair. In this time when retiring CEOs can take home $450M, maybe it's time we asked more often:

Just how much money do you NEED, anyway?

The abuses and poor performance of Democratic consultants was a major topic of "Crashing the Gate", and has long been discussed in detail on DailyKos and MyDD among others.

And unlike Walter Shapiro, Armstrong and Moulitsas name names. Bob Schrum, who get paid tens of millions to run national campaigns, only to go 0 for 8, is the most glaring example.

Even today, Schumer's DSCC won't fund candidates unless the candidate agrees to use the consultants and campaign directors chosen from the club by the DSCC. That would be OK if those guys had a winning record. But there's a whole industry in DC of people who get rich by losing elections.

And boy, has Shapiro been spun, thinking that Terry McAuliffe was one of the reformers.

Democrats have lost the House, lost the Senate and now "lost" the White House twice in a row. Thanks to tese consultants. Millions and millions of dollars for consultants who lose? And whose TV ads suck? Really, just look at the ads these Democratic consultants are creating! Terrible, terrible stuff. Amateur hour.

Compare them to the effectiveness of Republican ads which, even though they have no facts on their side, look pretty convincing. Whatever the GOP guys are getting, they're worth it. But the Democratic ones? They make me sick.

And, you know, Shrum, what a parasite! You'd think he might have enough of a stake in winning to give some of his millions back to keep Kerry from going dark in Ohio. But noooooooooooooooooooo. Scum. Absolute scum. 0-8 and laughing all the way to the bank.

Image consultant for Gore and Kerry. You know, that's all anyone has to say about Bob Shrum. Image consultant for Gore and Kerry. Incompetent -- or WORSE.

First, this is not a shock to anyone. Media consultants for corporations, celebrities, development projects, etc. all charge amazing fees for little work.

Second, the "public" can be evoked when public dollars are funding campaigns. It's contributors who should be torqued off right now.

The DNC's actions to reign in these costs by going 'flat fee' in 2004 makes my case. Democrats are waking up to this issue. Shrum? Out the door. Times they are a changing.

This article charts part of the vicious cycle tying media & elections, but neglects to complete the circuit. The vast majority of campaign money goes to buying television ads. Not only does this give consultants a nice haul, but election seasons are the most profitable time for local television stations, which are granted a monopoly on the public resource of the airwaves for free. This need for high-priced television ads are the primary factor that makes running for office an exclusive domain of the rich and connected, keeping democracy distant from the voters. Meanwhile, television stations have a disincentive to provide "free" news coverage to campaigns, as the news competes with the paid advertisements on which they depend - further keeping the electorate uninformed and disinterested in elections. Despite this, broadcasters are granted their licenses only if they uphold a committment to broadcasting in the "public interest, convenience, and necessity," a duty that the FCC never enforces.

What is to be done? One simple solution is to require broadcasters to fulfill their public interest mandates by offering free airtime to candidates. A good overview of such a bill is available at http://www.campaignlegalcenter.org/FCC-198.html

This is an issue that you won't see reported most places, as it undermines the profit machines for broadcasters, consultants, and politicians, but is a crucial factor in the weakening of our democracy.

I've worked as in advertising for most of my adult life and in particular have been a media buyer for several local and statewide campaigns.

Shapiro's column is generally on the mark. However, he does neglect to discuss the origins of the 15% commission structure. This is the historical advertising agency standard fee for handing a campaign--whether the client is a politician, a product, or a service. Also, the 15% equates to the commission that TV, radio, magazines and outdoor grants to "recognized" advertising agencies and media buyers as a discount on their gross rates.

So the roots of 15% are based in this admittedly antiquated commission structure. As the number of zero's increases, the workload does not increase accordingly.

Advertising agencies in general have moved away from this structure and towards negotiated fees that may or may not take into account commissionable media spending. My experience has been that, as a consultant, your compensation should not be incentivized by increasing spending in commissionable media. You are much more credible with the client when you can be objective about tactics and strategies rather than have your paycheck tied to them.

One other point: while Shapiro correctly fingers the big Washington consulting firms for inflated earnings, the state and local deals are much less lucrative for those involved. By far the biggest take my company netted during election season was about $40k over three months. Healthy compensation, yes, but I worked 6-7 days a week, was literally on 24-7 call, had constantly cancel and replace buys in the heat of the campaign, etc.

And, as a local company we were lucky to get in on it. The party apparatus puts heavy pressure on federal, statewide, and even local candidates to use their "big boys" in DC, and this pressure is often tied to whether a candidate will receive party funding. Often the local agencies are left with the lesser races where there is not enough of a budget to properly compensate the consultants regardless of what formula is used.