Progressives mount a hostile takeover of the Dems

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.