The Money-Laundering Operation at the Heart of the Democratic Party

[marmar]

from AlterNet's PEEK:



The Money-Laundering Operation at the Heart of the Democratic Party

Posted by Matt Stoller, Open Left at 6:23 PM on June 25, 2008.

Hoyer and the Blue Dogs hold the purse strings of the party.



Every week or two I read another article in Roll Call, the Hill or the Politico on the increasing clout of the Blue Dog caucus. Today's came out in Roll Call, titled 'Blue Dogs' Bite Gets Stronger'. Anna Palmer's article opens with the sentence, "Blue Dogs get ready: The ranks of obsequious lobbyists looking to curry favor - and contribute to your war chest - is set to explode." The article also dubs Blue Dogs 'pro-business' and 'fiscally conservative'.

Since the 2006 elections, the Blue Dog political action committee has become one of the fastest growing, and is among the largest in Democratic leadership. Already it has nearly doubled its fundraising this cycle from the $1.2 million raised in 2006. This cycle, through the end of May, it had raised more than $2.2 million, according to CQ MoneyLine.

That puts it nearly on a par with House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer's (D-Md.)AMERIPAC, which as of the end of April had raised more than $2.2 million.

"We've always been fairly successful with fundraising, even when we were in the minority," said Vickie Walling, chief of staff to Tennessee Rep. John Tanner, a founding member of the group.

Going on to the FEC site lets you see the truth about the Blue Dog PAC - 85% of its money - $1.95M - comes from conservative corporate interests. The list is pretty standard. Walmart, Verizon, AT&T, Charter, Comcast, US Chamber of Commerce, Raytheon, Boeing, etc. And Steny Hoyer's PAC - AmeriPAC - isn't much better. Roughly 65% of his money comes from PACs, most of them similar to the ones flooding the coffers of Blue Dogs - Raytheon, AT&T, Boeing,etc.

From Hoyer and the Blue Dog PAC the money spreads outward. Just check out the list of candidates and committees Hoyer supports, from the Congressional Black Caucus to conservatives like John Barrow, Al Wynn, Don Cazayoux, Larry Kissell, Brad Ellsworth, and the Blue Dogs to progressives like John Hall, Dennis Schulman, Jim Himes, and Darcy Burner.

Now don't get me wrong, I like a lot of the people that Hoyer gives to, which is the point. We've endorsed some of them on our Better Democrats page. It's just important to note that much of the capital funding the Democratic Party is corporate PAC money, sluiced through figures such as Steny Hoyer and the Blue Dog caucus.

This has real consequences, for the business community. Check out the roll call for the net neutrality amendment that went down to defeat in 2006, 269-152. Blue Dogs voted against it, by and large, which is not so much pro-business as it is pro-telecom and cable industry and anti-technology and innovation. Or if you look at the people protecting the large tax credits for oil and gas, just check out the Blue Dog caucus and you'll find a good number in there. And telecom immunity matters deeply to businesses that don't break the law.

The sluicing funds within the Democratic Party represent relationships that make it really easy to go along with the status quo. They are at their heart network systems, dense thickets built to withstand change. I'm really quite excited about some new mapping tools I saw at Personal Democracy Forum which will help us understand just how dense the networks are, on all sides.


http://www.alternet.org/blogs/peek/89473/

[Horse with no Name]

1. The Blue Dogs are republicans who were elected as Democrats

in order to poison the party from within.
They vote as a block and use their muscle to keep the party closer to the right of center than to the left of center.

[The Magistrate]

2. Hardly, Ma'am

They are Democrats who in office represent a sizable segment of those persons in this country who view themselves as Democrats and vote accordingly. Without these centerist and even center-rightist Democrats, the Party cannot command a national majority: this may be unpleasant to face, but it is a fact.

[Horse with no Name]

4. Not to be pedantic, Sir

but I live in an area and know the politicians personally. They are ALL republicans but run as Democrats.
In no way do they espouse ANY liberal or progressive values. Hard-line conservatives.
Just like the aforementioned ones.
Besides, what good is a majority of Democrats who vote with the republicans on issues near and dear to the core principles of the Democrats? It is a worthless majority, IMHO.
When you line the good up vs. the bad of what this last Congress has done (or not done, in some cases)...you will pretty much find that the Blue Dogs were the deciding vote block on most of that legislation. I've not been impressed.

[The Magistrate]

7. You Are Personally Acquainted, Ma'am, With All the 'Blue Dog' Caucus?

The group is certainly no favorite of mine, and nothing would please me more than to be able to dispense with them, but that is not at this point a practical proposition. Calling them agents of the Republicans acting covertly to destroy our Party, however, is hardly sensible or helpful.

[WhiteTara]

30. My Blue Dog voted against the telecoms

just the other day. We have our differences - he doesn't think the monkey is crazy enough to bomb Iran and I do, but I was proud of him for that.

[Gman]

8. That's a hard fact for people here to swallow

there will never be a successful far left Democratic Party regardless of how people here define who is and isn't a Democrat. Hillary represents many of the real, mainstream population that favor Democrats but who have values that are more conservative than some here find palatable. They are the heart of the party that makes the difference in elections. And herein lies the danger for Obama. If he doesn't win these people over, he won't win.

[eridani]

19. Anybody who says "far left" is a Republican operative

Ask any of the Blue Doggie constituents if they want to support corporations at the expense of people, and if they would rather keep getting charged an arm or a leg by private insurers which are in business to deny coverage as often as possible.

Name any actual policy designated as "far left" and you are describing a policy supported by most of the US population, including plenty of Republicans.

[glitch]

24. They have no idea what actual "far left" is. Or they do have an idea and misuse it intentionally.

Pretty weird to see it used here.

[Individualist]

27. It's the latter rather than the former,

a commonly used DLC tactic.

[eridani]

28. Brownback just called Obama "hard left" AFTER he supported FISA immunity n/t

[glitch]

29. We expect idiocy from the republicons

they are seriesly hugh morans after all, but here it's a bit more difficult to understand.

[JHB]

26. I think I'm going to start calling myself an "Eisenhower Leftist"...

...to openly remind people just how far rightward the spectrum has been yanked on economic issues.

Real "radical leftists" don't even bother with the Democratic Party, so when you hear that term directed at Democrats, the odds heavily favor it being a steaming pile of elephant dung.

[readmoreoften]

9. I'd rather lose something than win nothing.

That's just me. At least when people got angry and wanted a change, there'd be some real change.

[Gman]

23. That attitude is why Gore lost in 2000

when so many voted for Nader. Now look at the disaster they got us into.

[readmoreoften]

25. Greens had no obligation to vote for Democrats.

They didn't have little crystal balls in their pockets. It's as idiotic a charge as blaming YOU for not being involved in stopping voter fraud before it happened. Maybe 2000 would've gone differently if you personally worked a little harder. By the way, the Communists and Socialists didn't vote for Gore either. Neither did the Libertarians.

If the Democrats want votes of people on the left than they can represent their interests. Nobody is obligated to vote for anyone. The Democrats choose not to appeal to their own base because the Republican media tells them "the country's not there." Why is the "country not there"? Because the Democrats have failed to capture the imagination of the American voter. Are you telling me that people believe Republican crap in their heart of hearts? No. They bought the product with the better packaging.

I voted for Gore in '00 but I'm not stupid enough or arrogant enough to tell people who to vote for. Especially with the abysmal performance of the Democrats over the past 30 years. I'm voting for Obama this election to get Bush out but after that I'm done with this party myself. It stands for nothing other than "we're less worse." I won't be joining the Greens either.

My point was to have a Democratic party that was DIFFERENT from the Republican party--not to fucking vote Green.

And if you didn't notice--Gore won the frickin election.

[Gman]

32. If you voted for Nader in 2000, you have some of the blame

you knew the election was close and you voted for Nader anyway. You're part of the cause of all of this. I don't know what the hell you thought you were doing or trying to prove.

Yes Gore won, but had Nader not even been on the ballot in FL, the entire FL mess would have never happened.

[robinlynne]

22. That's the myth they perpetuate.

[Psephos]

3. The real "poisoning" comes from exclusionary attitudes and political naivete

A lot of the Blue Dogs represent distinctly conservative districts that would absolutely vote Republican unless the Democrat is also seen as having some conservative leanings.

So, in the real world, would you rather have a centrist Blue Dog Democrat or a right/far-right Republican? Because that's the only actual choice in more districts than you realize.

[Horse with no Name]

5. There really is no difference

By the way...can you tell me how the Blue Dogs voted on FISA?
Thank you in advance.

[Gman]

10. There is a big difference between NIck Lampson and Tom Delay

Lampson has been blasted here for being too "conservative". But he won in Tom Delay's personally drawn district. I'd take Lampson, a Democrat any day.

[Psephos]

12. Perhaps *you* can tell me where Obama stands on FISA...

Guess we should get rid of him, too. :eyes:

[Horse with no Name]

13. you are asking one of the MOST vehement people against obama on this board

if I would get rid of him for FISA?
:rofl:
There is ONLY one answer to that question but I will defer from answering it lest I be tombstoned.:rofl:

[Psephos]

15. Ok, now I understand

Nevermind.

:hi:

[Horse with no Name]

18. I believe in holding ALL politicians feet to the fire

when they do wrong...not just republicans.:hi:

[Individualist]

6. K&R

The only thing worse than a neocon is a neocon enabler pretending to be a Democrat.

[Democrats_win]

11. All politicians and preachers are in the pockets of rich men.

That's why they can't hear our screams.

We don't hear about jobs or how the FED is screwing us while helping the crooks and frauds on wall street.

They are all so seriuosly in the pockets of the financial industry that they were unable to read the unPatriot act or the Bible. Thank God that citibank and all of these crooks are getting a little of what they deserve. To save our nation, we should be setting up gilloutines and sending these f*ckers to hell.

Our leaders and citizens are so worthless that surprisingly our polarized nation is on a single path: down. In the end, that's how bush united us.

Stick that in your lapel flag pin hole!

[Individualist]

14. Not all...

Kucinich is not bought and paid for, nor is this minister I recently had the pleasure to meet - http://www.1stpres-eliz.org/page5.html

[defendandprotect]

16. kick and rec

[rucky]

17. Rate this up, folks!

[starroute]

20. It's about the corporations, not about conservatism

Part of the K Street Project/Permanent Republican Majority had to do with getting all the business contributions and lobbyists over on the Republican side. That had the fortunate side-result of cleaning a lot of corruption out of the Democratic Party -- corruption that had very definitely been there in the 80's and early 90's. (Think S&L scandal, for example.)

Now, as the GOP implodes and power swings back to the Democrats, the corporate money will as well. They'd rather elect Republicans, because it makes their life easier, but if they can't do that, they're almost as happy to buy Democrats.

The number of House Democrats who have turned since last fall as a result of telecom money really dispirits me. I can handle conservative Democrats in districts where conservatism is appropriate. I can't handle Democrats who serve their corporate donors rather than their constituents.

The only hope I see is if Obama's ability to mobilize a legion of small donors could be turned to Congressional and other campaigns as well. That might be sufficient to overwhelm the flood of corporate money -- and even turn some Blue Dog Dems back from the dark side.

But it's definitely a problem -- and one we need to solve quickly if we're not to lose our democracy.

[lovuian]

21. its about how our two party sytem is failing because of

corruption and fear

[WhiteTara]

31. Steny Hoyer is a power mad nasty man

who looks evil on the face of him. He thrust himself on Pelosi even though her pick was Murtha, who would have been far, far better of the two.