Home
Archive
Newsletters
Video
Blogs
Discuss
About
Search
Donate
Advertise
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
  • AlterNetYour turn

Support AlterNet
Do you value the information you're getting from AlterNet? Please show your support with a tax-deductible donation.


Feedback
Tell us how we're doing.

Advertisement
Advertisement

Progressives mount a hostile takeover of the Dems

Posted by Joshua Holland at 9:27 AM on September 7, 2006.


Change is in the air.

Share and save this post:

      

      

Share on Facebook       

AlterNet Social Networks:
follow us on twitter
find us on Facebook

Got a tip for a post?:
Email us | Anonymous form

Get The Mix in your
mailbox!

 

A lot of progressives are getting jazzed by the prospect of the Dems taking over the House in November, and for good reason, but I'm more excited about the fact that there are about a dozen strong progressive candidates running sharp, viable races. Much of that has has to do with new infrastructure arising on the left -- new sources of funding and messaging that are creating a playing field on which real progressives can compete.

I agree with David Sirota that about a quarter of the Democratic caucus has sold out ordinary Americans on the alter of campaign cash and misguided "triangulation." A block of that size is more than enough to swing vote after vote towards the corporate right.

Progressives are finally realizing that they have to push back, and Dems are starting to recognize that they're a new force in the party. A big part of that are the key primary challenges -- Ciro Rodriguez' failed challenge against Henry Cuellar in Texas' 28th CD last March and the Lamont campaign have put some fear into some of the worst Democrats. Small donors who are true to the core values of the Democratic electorate can play a big part in that. Just two-tenths of one percent of Americans contributed to political campaigns in 2000, but that's changing.

Last week, I wrote about Donna Edwards' challenge of Al Wynn in Maryland's 4th CD, and that race is a perfect example of progressive Dems taking on the establishment. Wynn has been in Congress for almost 15 years, and he has a whole party machine behind him. Edwards wouldn't have even been a contender just a few short years ago. (As I said last week, I've met Edwards, and I should also disclose that she did a small favor for me, making a call to help me set up an interview I wanted.)

Wynn is a brilliant example of that chunk of Big Business Dems I mentioned above. As Down With Tyranny neatly summarized:

[Wynn] has led efforts to bring casinos to the district. He voted for the Republican energy bill, to weaken the Endangered Species Act, drill for oil in Alaska's protected land, and give billions of dollars in tax breaks to the oil and gas companies. He sided with the Republicans and the pharmaceutical companies on drug policy, the credit card companies on the bankruptcy bill, and just recently, he joined the telecommunications industry in supporting privatizing the Internet.

Edwards is a serious challenger because she's raised over a quarter of a million dollars in this cycle, according to the most recent FEC filing -- which puts her in firing range of Wynn's $570,000. Her values are much more closely aligned with the voters of the 4th, so she doesn't need to match him -- she just needs enough money to buy a few ads and get her message to voters.

Now look at where their money comes from -- and you get a clear picture of what divides them (it's not as simple as "ideology"). 48 percent of Wynn's total is PAC money while over 95 percent of Edwards' contributions come from individuals.

Not all PACS are bad, but according to Opensecrets, Wynn's got a highly unusual PAC profile for a Dem: he's gotten almost four times as much dough from corporate PACS as he has from labor. He gets it from big DC lobbying firms like Akin Gump and McAllister and Quinn, a big chunk from energy companies, the max from Wal-Mart (Wynn was one of the sell-out "Wal-Mart 22") and telcoms are pouring money into his campaign to reward him for his position against net neutrality. Al Wynn probably came to DC with high ideals -- Edwards herself supported him in 1992. But those high ideals are hard to maintain when you're constantly dialing up the corporatocracy for dollars, and in Wynn's case they're a thing of the past.

Not only are almost all of Edwards' contributions from individual donors, but a third of her cash came through ActBlue, which bundles small donations from progressive contributors and is one of the most important pieces of progressive infrastructure to come along in recent years. When she gets to Congress, she'll owe her loyalty to her constituents.

ActBlue has raised over $8 million -- mostly in small donations -- for Dems since 2004, including over $1 million via progressive blogs. I can't tell you to give money or whom to support if you do. But if you're looking to have an impact beyond casting a vote, take a look at ActBlue's list of candidates endorsed by the "Netroots" (MyDD, Kos and others), Atrios or Blue America Communities (FireDogLake, Crooks and Liars and others). You'll definitely find someone worth your time and/or money.

[Several pre-coffee typos corrected]

Digg!

Joshua Holland is a staff writer at Alternet and a regular contributor to The Gadflyer.


On the religious right 'nuts,' liberals, and catching a break
A response to a colleague...
Post by Evan Derkacz. October 17, 2006.
Bush thinking of 'replacing' Iraqi government? [VIDEO]
A whole new definition of Democracy.
Post by Evan Derkacz. October 16, 2006.
Religious right rally's first gaffe
Church opposes bigoted agenda
Post by Evan Derkacz. October 16, 2006.
Advertisement
Comments Turn comments off sitewide Give us feedback »
Comments closed.
The comments for this story have been closed. Thank you to everyone who participated.
View:
Progressives Can Win
Posted by: StuartH on Sep 7, 2006 10:27 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I was involved in an effort to win a majority of city council seats from a history of developer control a few years back.

It looked hopeless at first. Huge amounts of money and very entrenched political perceptions.

A lot of smart, savvy, hard work and efforts to sell the electorate on a progressive approach to fiscally sound government, starting with brokering honest growth control with developers, and after several elections, we had all seven seats including the mayor's.

The essential basic is that progressive solutions, while appealing to the smartest people in the community can also appeal to fiscal conservative, reponsible taxpayers.

The reason that there is a national situation in which the Democratic Party looks anything but progressive, is that the field has been left to the consultants for at least a couple of decades. Mailing lists automated as computer databases have replaced networking by people working among their neighbors. We The People simply felt that life was complex enough and so left citizenship duties to paid professionals who - guess what! - mainly are concerned with their own interests in turning politics into a formula that puts professionals in the center as indispensable, with money-making the foremost concern.

Citizens need to take this back. Then both the Democratic Party and the government of America at all levels can be freed from the shackles of special interest obtuseness to face the realities that need to be faced.

Pick a candidate. Give 20 bucks. Personally, I am reluctant to give money to the DNC and certainly not the DLC. I think candidates ought to get this money directly. Ultimately, the point is to promote a more progressive direction for the Democratic Party.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Drug Sense
Posted by: Lauren on Sep 7, 2006 11:37 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Hey sorry for the spam but this is a really good team.

DrugSense has some answers. Here is how you can change the world in just a few minutes per week.

* Help us Newshawk articles about drug policy. Newshawks are
individuals who find drug-policy-related articles in newspapers and
magazines, or on selected Websites, and forward those articles to us
using a special format. The more articles we have, the more powerful
our DrugNews Archive (http://www.drugnews.org/) becomes as a voice for
fairness and honesty. You can help build this incredible resource with
just a few minutes of Internet surfing. For more
information, please see http://www.mapinc.org/hawk.htm

* Help us format articles for archival storage. The true power of the
DrugNews archive rests in its ability to store drug policy articles
long after they have disappeared from their source Websites. Putting
these articles in a uniform format and appending correct attributions
to them makes the archive a powerful research tool. This, too, helps
promote the truth about drugs and drug policy and will likely take no
more than a few hours of your time per week. You can give formatting as
much or as little time as you have, but rest peacefully in the
knowledge that you made a difference. Those who provide volunteer
formatting services are called Editors and are required to complete
a short web-based, self-paced training course. Please contact Jo-D
Harrison, jo-d@mapinc.org, for more details.

* Donate to DrugSense. Some people have more money than they have time.
Monetary contributions can be a powerful force for social change.
DrugSense is a 501(c)(3) educational non-profit that provides accurate
information about drug policy. You can see the myriad of services we
offer on a bare bones budget by exploring http://www.mapinc.org/
and http://www.DrugSense.org. Your dollars go toward supporting
these integrated services designed to bring the truth to the media
about drug policy and end the War on Drugs.
Please visit http://www.DrugSense.org/donate and donate what you
can. You may also mail your check or money order to:

DrugSense
14252 Culver Dr #328
Irvine, CA 92604-0326

Remember, it's not what others do, it's what you do. You CAN change the
world. You can help end the War on Drugs by helping DrugSense.

Mark Greer
Executive Director, DrugSense

P.S. Good news! For a limited time, a matching funds grant will allow
your donation to DrugSense/MAP to be DOUBLED! You'll have twice the
impact for the same dollars! Donate today.
http://www.DrugSense.org/donate

You have received this message because you are subscribed to one or
more voluntary mailing lists (listserves) provided by DrugSense/MAP.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

electoral politics is a waste of time
Posted by: rebel_pig on Sep 7, 2006 11:44 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
real politics is about setting the sociocultural stage and creating expectations in the minds of people.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Values
Posted by: nonwhiteperson on Sep 7, 2006 3:47 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Dems and progressives can go deep into our values and win long term. The Nation came up with progressive values 101 a couple months ago. Freedom, Opportunity, Security and Responsibility. That is, real freedom, opportunity, security and responsibility/accountability before crooks and liars twisted these words. I wish I had a subscription so I could post the whole article but it basically said 1) Freedom is civil liberties 2) Opportunity is a level playing field 3) Security and health care, education, jobs, wages and environmental protection and 4) Responsibility is accountability Republicans don't have. FOSR says it all, doesn't it?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» progressive values Posted by: Linda50
» RE: progressive values Posted by: aonghus36
» RE: progressive values Posted by: Linda50
» RE: progressive values Posted by: nonwhiteperson
» Found Her Web Site, but... Posted by: aonghus36
Good Luck with kicking out the Moneymen
Posted by: may261989 on Sep 7, 2006 4:04 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
What America really needs is a system where every candidate gets an equal share of resources to devote to their campaign.
But with 50% of your population still believing Iraq and Al Qaeda are tied together and another major portion believing that the Universe is 6,000 years old... hell, I dont hold up much hope for y'all.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

I need to make my point again: we only have September/October to do this
Posted by: Bobsays on Sep 8, 2006 4:02 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
These are exciting times: the British progressives have started their campaign to disrupt the 'new world order' and the third world war by deposing Tony Blair. His days are numbered. Canadians need to get moving on Stephen Harper. He is vulnerable and heads a minority government. He only governs at the consent of the leftish NDP and Liberal parties.

As for the US, you can do it in November. Join Britain (and hopefully Canada), in making a masive political shift this autumn. And what if you don't act?

Expect world war three. Expect an invasion of Iran and Syria. Expect a draft. Expect a massive economic crash. Expect more inflation and higher prices for basic goods.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

UNFORTUNATELY, THE U.S. HAS THE WORST OF ALL TYRANTS!
Posted by: krose on Sep 8, 2006 8:15 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
G.W. BUSH, THE "EMPEROR" WITH "NO CLOTHES," THE "BULLY TYRANT," who cannot speak English!

His days of power are coming to an end.

We SHALL overcome, THIS, too!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]