So, what do we do about this?

[merrily]

Last edited Sat May 30, 2015, 03:58 AM - Edit history (2)

As an experiment, earlier, I googled "Centrists betrayed the values of the Democratic Party." One of the hits was this article from shortly after passage of ACA, sans a strong public option.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/04/08/power-struggle-inside-the_n_529884.html

You know how some of us have been saying we don't give to the DNC, DCCC or DSCC anymore, only to individual liberal candidates? Well, according to this 2010 article, the joke's on us. (Isn't it always?)

As you read it and weep, bear in mind that the Progressive Caucus is, and always has been, larger than the New Democrat Coalition and the Blue Dog Coalition.

Since 1995, members of the Congressional Progressive Caucus have collectively given $6.3 million directly to members of the Blue Dog and New Democrat coalitions, according to an analysis by the Huffington Post of data compiled by the Center for Responsive Politics. That's not an overwhelming sum when the average winning campaign nowadays costs more than $1 million, but it represents one-sixth of all giving from one faction within the party to another. It doesn't include the millions that progressives have given to the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee -- rank-and-file members are supposed to cough up $150,000 every two years (though many miss that mark), committee chairmen $250,000 and up. The DCCC turns around and funnels that money to conservative Democrats in close races. Add to that the millions spent by organized labor and outside groups such as MoveOn.org, and it's clear that progressive donors have become major financial benefactors of the conservative Democrats who battled to undermine their agenda. "That tension exists a lot," George Miller says about the party's demand that progressives fund their intramural rivals. "That tension exists a lot. And it's real."

Democrats play it too safe, says Grijalva. "When I give my dues to the DCCC, or when you contribute to it, you have no distinction as to where your money is going to go. And it goes to front-liners and usually Blue Dogs and [they] usually vote against our issues. And that's a real frustration. And usually, if there's a progressive running, it's the last consideration in terms of support," he says.

The Blue Dog and New Democrat coalitions emerged in the 1990s in the wake of the successful Republican campaign to take control of Congress, and have continuously expanded their membership ever since. The prototypical Blue Dog comes from a socially conservative, rural district; New Democrats are more likely to represent pro-choice bankers from the suburbs. Both groups offer automatic protection against accusations that their members are too liberal.

The money flows almost entirely in one direction: The conservative coalitions have given progressives less than $600,000. While Blue Dogs and New Democrats have each given their fellow travelers $2.4 million in the past 15 years, members of the much larger progressive caucus have helped each other to the tune of just $1.3 million.

Please do read the entire article.

So, as we've preened over donating only to the most left candidates we identify, our money has been going to New Democrats and/or Blue Dogs anyway. How you like your selective donating now?

Every time I think I'm getting too cynical, I find out I'm not even close.

Can anyone think of a way out of this bind, short of not donating at all?

[MannyGoldstein]

1. Do I understand correctly that the glass is five-sixths full? nt

[merrily]

6. Don't know. I'm preoccupied with the siphon.

[Warpy]

2. I give to the candidates, not to the Progressive Caucus or any other organization

because decades of Orwellian naming and false flags have taken their toll. I no longer trust any organization. I will donate to pols whose rhetoric strikes fear into the wizened hearts of the 1%, that's worth the money even if they don't get elected or they do and turn out to be fakes.

While I sympathize with giving money to Blue Dogs in close races, I don't want it to be my money, thanks, even though the worst Democrat is better than the best Republican.

They can run those Worst Democrats without my help.

[merrily]

5. As I understand the material I quoted in the OP, part of the money you donate to specific

candidates who happen to be members of the Progressive Caucus does end up helping more conservative Democrats get elected.

[Enthusiast]

9. Their abuse left a mark.

[rbnyc]

3. This makes me think about how hard it is to raise GOS

In the world of non-profit fundraising, it has become harder and harder to raise general operating support because there has been an erosion of trust in all our institutions. Even though GOS is essential to any organization, it's become increasingly difficult to fund anything but specific programs, more specifically, measurable programs.

When I think of my inclination to give funding only to a specific candidate's campaign rather than to an organization, I'm seeing that candidate as a measurable program within an organization that does not have my full trust, putting it lightly.

If I understand the article, such candidates are in turn directly contributing funds they have raised to the very candidates who've inspired my mistrust. Do I get it? That sucks. I think that probably the only thing to do about it is to reform the party so that it's no longer a betrayal of progressive values for money to flow from one part of the organization to another.

As a fundraiser concerned with the health of a whole organization, not just some of its programs, I approach the issue of the type of mistrust that inclines funders to contribute only to specific programs in two ways. One, I make sure there are program budget items that are beneficial to the organization as a whole, even though they are direct program expenses...creating dual benefit whenever possible. Two, I work toward an environment where the organization is free to pursue its mission without compromise, I encourage transparency, I build community trust, and make general operating support fundraising attractive to community stake-holders whose trust we've earned.

Make the Democratic Party trustworthy is what we do about this...which is what I see you and others here working hard on every day.

This is a political revolution. It starts in our own party.

In the meantime, I'm maintaining my monthly contribution to the Sanders Campaign and I feel very good about it.

[merrily]

8. What a wonderful, thoughtful and informative post!

I am not sure my reply can do it justice. First, though, to answer your question, the article seems to be saying that money you donate to, say, Rep. Barbara Lee, will go to her and, yes, she will be required to make direct contributions to more conservative reps. However, she will also be required to make direct contributions to the DCCC, which will then use the money to help existing and future conservative Reps. So Lee has to contribute to present and future conservatives, both directly and indirectly.

That's how I read it, anyway.

I think this rankles for mostly two reasons, one of which you mentioned, namely transparency.

I happen to think I have a right to do with my very own money whatever I wish. It's a problem for me if I think I am contributing to Rep. Lee, BUT I am really contributing to Lee and one or more Blue Dogs, plus the DCCC, which is contributing to Blue Dogs. The DCCC calls me all the time, as does the DSCC and I now decline every one of their requests to contribute. Little did I know my money was going to them anyway.

The other is a kind of riff on market forces. One way and another, the Party is making it harder and harder for progressives, no matter what progressives try to do If my donation to Lee is going anywhere besides to help Lee campaign, I'd obviously want it to go to progressives, not conservatives. But, that is not what is happening. One way or another, the Party protects conservatives, but not progressives, from market forces.

People here and in think tanks keep telling us the rightward drift of the Party is all about electability and nothing but electability. IOW, market forces. Well, if the people really prefer conservative Democrats so danged much, why are the bulk of donations not going to them? Why is it that the progressives have to subsidize them? It sure ain't because progressive donors, as sa group, are richer than conservative donors, as a group.

For whatever reason, it's just all rigged to make the Party more conservative. Donate to a progressive and part of the money goes to re-elect conservatives or to help the Party dig up more conservatives who want to run. And that makes me sad, because it's a very high price for me to pay in order to help Lee get re-elected.

Sorry, that was repetitive and rambling, but I hope you followed it anyway.

[rbnyc]

12. it's frustrating...

...because we are fighting a system that is rigged against us through an organization that is rigged against us. The people at the top make rules that help them stay in power everywhere we turn.

This is why the internet is such a threat. Until they rig this system (funny how the TPP addresses internet content and service extensively) regular people have pretty broad access and ability to influence online.

One thing I am doing is creating a Facebook event for every state's Democratic primary and inviting all my friends from that state, asking them to invite their friends, sharing information about how to change party affiliation, and if course, urging them to vote for Bernie Sanders.

I'm just one person, but I think I can bring additional voters into the Democratic primary on Bernie's behalf, a.k.a., our behalf. And it can be done without accidentally funding anyone I don't want to fund.

I hope other people will think that's a good idea and do the same thing.

Also, the internet obviously offers a strong counter to mainstream press, and we keep sharing articles with our contacts and increasing the range of alternative voices.

We have to use every available resource and fight really hard. When I read your posts, I feel so grateful to have such a thoughtful, intelligent, passionate, amazing person in this fight. And I'm even more grateful that you're not the only one I see.

We are a force, and we're here to take the primary, the party, the Presidency, and to take our country back.

[merrily]

13. I am not sure what you are going with the states, but it sounds great.

Is there a way you could create a facebook page for each state without everyone of us doing the same? Meaning, if you can create a page for Massachusetts and post about it in GD and in the Massachusetts group, other DUers who are in Massachusetts or know people in Massachusetts can take it from there. And, so on with each state.

Thank you so much for the great complimets. And yes, we are lucky to have a number of great DUers. We used to have more, especially on the left, but they got banned or felt run off. I wonder if they would have felt that way if they had seen the poll that shows liberals outnumber others on this site ten to one. Sigh. I miss them so much.

[rbnyc]

15. I think so.

I have to look at the best way to do it so I don't have to be friends with every person on the internet.

[merrily]

16. How cool would that be? I'd be willing to spam a bunch of political message boards with links to

to the pages. Alabama for Sanders. Or, Sanders for Alabama.

you might have to put a disclaimer, though, that it's not associated with the campaign.

Maybe the campaign should be doing this. Is there a way to suggest it to the campaign? In fact, the campaign should probably have a place where people can post ideas like this.

[rbnyc]

18. I was thinking of contacting the campaign about it.

I'm still waiting for a reply from my last inquiry. It must be hard with so many volunteers.

[merrily]

19. Great idea. I signed up to volunteer, but have not heard back yet.

I wish I could live in Vermont for the summer! His headquarters there is going to be exciting.

[rbnyc]

14. I have to add...

...what might be even more frustrating is how the people on the bottom just go willingly. On a national level, I know left-leaning people often wonder how poor, struggling people vote against their own best interests and support republicans. It's amazing to us how they can't see beyond the sports-team-cultural-identity, or how they are so full of hate and suspicion of "the other" that they enthusiastically swallow the most ridiculous arguments, like trickle-down economics, or global warming is a hoax, because look, a snowball.

But the same thing is happening in our own "liberal" community. There's an elite group at the top of our own party who profit from the status quo, the same as they do on the other side, and there are constituents lined up to support them for the same kinds of reasons.

[merrily]

17. Yep. There are just so many moves on the chessboard, though.

You can go LOTE or you can vote Third Party or write someone in. If you do either of the last two, you may or may not send a message for the long term, but you definitely will increase your short term pain. You can demonstrate. With millions and hundreds of millions of dollars involved, will anyone pay attention though? And so on. Options are very limited.

[Paka]

4. Giving only to individual candidates is the best answer.

I've made the mistake in the past to give to a group expecting them to honor their stated agenda; no more. I will give to Bernie directly this election and any candidate that earns it. I live on a poverty income and any hard fought money I give must be well spent.

[merrily]

7. That doesn't solve the problem described in the OP though. Please see Reply 5.

I imagine the same thing is true with money you donate to individuals running for the Senate. As far as I know, money given to Presidential candidates is different, and will not end up with the DCCC or the DSCC. I never have figured out where any money still in the till when a Presidential campaign ends goes, though. I guess that will be a question for another day.

[RiverLover]

10. Not good at all, that's what I think!

What a scam fake Dems have going. I give to Moveon.org and WolfPAC. Both work on issues, WolfPAC for publicly-funded elections & MoveOn is mainly for progressive causes. I hope when they do give to candidates, it goes to the candidates...

[merrily]

11. Yeah, it goes to the candidates INITIALLY. However, if they make it to Congress, they have to,

in effect, kick back, both to conservative politicians and to the DCCC, which will support conservative incumbents and find and fund conservative newbies.