Wealthy Progressive Donors On Strike To Push For Campaign Finance Reform

[sabrina 1]

Just when you're ready to give up and accept the fact that no one with any influence will fight for anything that benefits the people, something like this happens.

Donor Strike: Rich Progressives Pledge To Withhold Cash

A group of 27 major donors is vowing to withhold campaign cash from lawmakers who stand in the way of legislation that would allow for public funding of congressional campaigns. Over their careers, the donors have contributed millions to Democratic candidates -- and, on limited occasions, Republicans or independents -- but they say they've had it. And they don't mind if it means a lack of access.

Disappointment in the implementation of Progressive Ideas has influenced some of them to stop donating money:

The pair said they were sad to have to take the step. "If, 15 months into the Obama Administration, we were looking at a long list of accomplishments, with a long list of probable victories coming -- as many of us dreamed last November -- then we would not be asking you to take this step. But the picture is not nearly so promising because of the power of private money in the political system. We have all been part of that system. It is time for us to take the lead to change it," they wrote.

Disappointment in the Democratic Party since they took over the government is not just confined to the 'little people'. These are people who worked hard and gave millions of dollars to the party and don't feel they've gotten much for their money or their efforts.

Murray Galinson, a big giver and former president of the United Jewish Federation, said he's not certain the effort will work, but it's worth a shot. "If you don't give it a try, nothing's going to help," he said.

Galinson said he was finally pushed to make the pledge by the Citizens United Supreme Court ruling, which allowed limitless corporate funds to pour into campaigns.

Without the strike, the donors are doing little more than furthering a flawed system, said Kirsch. "It's silly, because I'm just helping perpetuate the system. The more money I give, the more I allow them to maintain the status quo. My money's working against me," he said.

The Supreme Court Ruling on Corporate Personhood is a big issue for so many people but for so many of those of us who helped get Democrats elected, it has been one disappointment after another. I won't bother making a list, but it does seems to grow every day.

At least these are people whose money will make a difference if enough of them withhold it.

Otoh it may not work, which they acknowledge. For one thing, the Big Corps will probably give even more money to try to make up for it.

Maybe then these Progressive Donors might consider finding and backing their own candidates because it's clear the Democratic Party as it is today, has no interest in Progressive ideas, even when they are from Millionaires like these people.

I used to wonder where all the rich progressives are. Maybe we should write to them and offer to help any liberal candidate who can get enough money to run for office. This could be a beginning of a new way of taking back the Democratic Party!

Yeah! People are beginning to wake up! And maybe if we join them, we can get some of the change we thought we were going to get last time.

Giving up is not an option but continuing to play the same old DC game isn't either, I agree with them!

[amborin]

1. wish they'd be on strike until the admin respected progressive principles

[sabrina 1]

3. I think that is what they are planning to do amborin.

I hope that they are successful in getting many others to join them.

And then, I hope they put their money behind candidates who might actually work for the people instead of wasting it by donating to the DNC.

I think this has the potential to start some real change in the electoral process.

I wonder if we could get in touch with them. Marcy Winograd could use some money to help her defeat Jane Harman eg. And she is a real progressive.

[amborin]

9. +1

[KharmaTrain]

2. Biting Your Nose To Spite Your Face...

It's admirable these people feel their not getting their money's worth (wouldn't that be called lobbying??) so they'll sit back and show the Democrats by letting more rushpublicans get elected. So be it...their right and I also have been withholding contributions to only a handful of candidates I know, not to campaign committees or PACs.

If they think they're going to change the fetid culture inside the beltway, good luck. Let's see how people react with Boner as Speaker and McChinless in the Senate.

[sabrina 1]

4. I don't think they were expecting much. Just

some progressive policies from the Democratic Party. And they saw the WH cozying up to DLCers and Republicans.

Since the WH had time to talk to Republicans, these progressives had every right to expect to be listened to, by their own party. That is very different from a lobbyist who often isn't from the party at all.

As far as the fear that people deserting the current version of the party making a Republican majority possible, well it IS possible.

The point is, only the leadership of the party can prevent that from happening. That's what these people, and the rest of us, you too, who will no longer donate to the party, are hoping they will start thinking about.

Otoh, to be honest, I think the party under the current leadership will never promote progressive ideas.

So, what these millionaires can do is to put their money behind real progressives and start changing the party so that it DOES represent their interests, which it pretends to do right before every election.

I see this as a great opportunity for real progressive candidates and I hope this is how they see it also.

Why should we allow the DLC to choose our candidates if there are now millionaires who can back the ones we choose?

[KharmaTrain]

5. Progressive Candidates Are Getting Ignored...

We just saw one in Michigan...Bart Stupak's seat who couldn't afford to fight for the nomination and thus had to give up...and there are other Progressives who face similar problems. It's easy to blame the DLC or whatever boogieman you want, but the bottom line is Progressive don't really support their candidates the way other groups do. Yes, it requires money and lots of it...and the system isn't going to change. Those who want the positions will find the way to get the money and wage the campaigns. How else did we end up with a Paul Wellstone or Russ Feingold or any number of Progressive Congresscritters. Sadly that number is small and why the Progressive/liberal voices within the party are small.

To some who see this administration "caving in" to the DLC or rushpublicans or whomever, would you prefer that all sorts of Progressive initiatives were introduced and defeated due to lack of votes? It sure wouldn't help people who are out of jobs or stuck in the quamires in Iraq and Afghanistan. Don't get me wrong, I'd love to see more progressives and have donated more money and hours than i care to admit to helping get them elected but I also realize what a difficult situation this administration was put in from Day One and doing nothing and playing ideological games would have made matters worse.

No, I'm not satisfied with many things this administration has done or hasn't, but I'm also grateful the booosh cabal and the GOOP are no longer in charge. Sadly I don't see Progressives out working like I saw in '06 and '08...instead punishing the DNC, DLC or whomever and this will lead to the GOOP gaining control of one or both houses and forget about anything getting done.

[sabrina 1]

6. Well, first , I don't think people are punishing anyone.

I think they are just disgusted. The Bank bailouts, with no one being held responsible was simply an outrage to a vast majority of Americans, not just progressives.

But think about that. Democrats DID vote against the bailouts. The people DID work to stop Wall St. from being rewarded for what they had done. And we WON. Only to have the leadership twist arms and allow Paulson to actually threaten people to vote 'yes'. Who is to blame for that? Who do the people blame, having actually worked for something, accomplished it only to have Wall St., backed by the leadership of the party, take it away again. That was a serious political miscalculation aside from anything else, one that the people will not forget as it so affects their own lives.

Then there is the torture issue. No progressive can go along with this administration's actions regarding those egregious crimes. I know I simply cannot. Nothing has changed, again, no accountability. But I would have been happy if the victims had been allowed to get their civil suits into the courts here. Instead, the DOJ has done exactly what Bush did, refused on the grounds of 'national security'.

So many issues like this that have turned people off politics and politicians as they see no difference on the bigger issues. And the real progressives in Congress get over-ruled because there aren't enough of them.

As far as blaming this administration, I know they had a lot to deal with from the disastrous Bush years. But they knew that going in. Bush is gone now. Why can't they stop torture, compensate the victims, hold the criminals accountable? And if they can't do any of that, what hope is there for this country? We can't keep blaming Bush for Obama's own decisions, like lifting the ban on Offshore Drilling. Even Bush didn't do that although he wanted to.

I am hoping that these millionaires will spend their money on good candidates now, rather than the party.

You cannot blame the people. The people put the Democrats in power and were then told to stfu. People will simply not tolerate being used like that. It is human nature.

[KharmaTrain]

7. Different Democrats In Different Places

Firstly, I can't and won't attempt to defend this administration's continuation of the policies of the past regime. I've never subscribed to the "war on terror" bullshit for many reasons and think this administration is scared of upsetting the military (looking weak on defense).

That said, there's a perception that the '08 elections was some type of Progressive/Liberal victory or mandate. It wasn't. It was a total repudiation of the rushpublicans. Most Democratic gains were due to the corruption and ineptitude of the GOOP...and many of the pick-ups were in Purple and Red areas. Those candidates weren't Progressive nor are their districts...the fact the rushpublicans had veered so far to the right, the Democrats had picked up the middle...the people who do make a difference in winning or losing elections...especially on the national level.

Overall Progressives have done a terrible job in presenting and selling their ideas to the electorate. While we can sit down and break down an Progressive ideal for a person and they'll agree to it, it's not easy to do so on a bumper sticker or 30 second commercial. The right wing spin machine spent years building up a machine of hate radio, Faux noise and endless "think" tanks that bombarded their slogans and memes...so much so they became accepted...big lies that many still believe. There have been few Progressive voices out there to counter it. Things were getting better through the rise of the netroots but I've seen that on the wane this year as disenchantment over one issue or another...be it torture or DADT or the bail outs or health care...they're looking to "punish" this administration. Not sure what they think they'll accomplish, especially if there's a GOOP take over of both houses.

In my years, the only way to counteract big money is through people power...shear numbers. This is especially the case in local races where the next generation of Progressives come from. And that leads to another area...building a stronger party from the bottom up. It won't be easy and will take years. It took the GOOP 30 years from Nixon to Raygun to Boooosh to develop their machine. Progressives need to develop a similar system to make the people and the ideals visible and easy to understand. Then we might actually see a more Progressive nation. At least my hope.

I'm not blaming "the people"...cause there were too many people with too many interests and issues...and they vote in their best interests. The job of Progressives is to connect to those interests and issues...not walk away and let the bastards win...cause they're about to, again.

[sabrina 1]

13. I think most people know that Democrats won in 2006 and 2008

mainly because of the failed policies of Republicans. But without the progressive base, working, phone-banking, pounding the pavements, donating, motivating people to vote who might otherwise not have, regardless of the disgust with Republicans, Democrats still would not have won. A party that loses its base cannot win, and that's what happened to Republicans in 2008. There's a lesson to be learned for Democrats in that, but they don't seem to be learning.

I agree with most of what you said regarding the work the Right did for decades to build coalitions.

I don't agree that 'progressives are bad at messaging' entirely. I do think they made a huge mistake by not countering the rhetoric of the right instantly. By the time they tried, the right had already successfully demonized liberals and their 'social agenda'.

We elect representatives to speak for us. They have access to the microphone that the people do not. Most of us DID counter the right whenever possible and wondered where the Democratic leadership was. Then we discovered they were partying with the right in DC, or as in the case of Clinton eg, hanging out with the very people were supposed to be fighting.

It's not that Progressives have done a bad job, it's that we thought we were electing people, like Obama eg, who at least fight for the issues he claimed he would fight for in the campaign. How could people know that he would completely change once he got to DC?

It was a costly learning process, not just for ordinary Democrats but also for those big donors.

You are definitely right about 'people power' but even then, it requires leadership or the 'people' will be viewed as a mob.

I don't know the answer except that electing 'more democrats', as these millionaires say, wasn't the answer. We, and they, got very little as a result of doing so.

All that money that was donated to the DNC went to candidates, and it still is, like Jane Harman. Since you can't win without money, what I'm saying is, untile we get enough people in Congress to get real finance reform, that money might now be used to do just that, to back real progressives.

[Greyhound]

11. It would be better for them (rich) and make little difference in my life.

I'm just saying that if the Democrats continue to refuse to stand for anything except winning a few elections, they are lost and something will fill the vacuum they will leave behind.

[dflprincess]

16. Money talks

If these people stop donating the Democrats might actually notice and maybe even wonder why.

[Hannah Bell]

8. it floors me that he gave al gore TEN MILLION DOLLARS.

& didn't even get a tee-shirt.

certainly tells you there's a need for campaign finance reform.

[sabrina 1]

14. Yeah, that amazed me too and it said something very important imo.

Gore apparently wasn't interested in talking to progressives. Nor was Obama. But they DID talk to Republicans and in the case of this administration, boasted about putting Republican ideas into the Health Care Bill. Yet, these very big Progressive donors didn't even get a tee-shirt??

They have taken too many people for granted for too long. And we gave them a pass because of how horrible Bush was. But it looks like the people are waking up.

Their answer to the results of their own actions is to attack the base of the party. I am liking this party less and less every day the more I learn about them. It clearly needs new leadership or WE need a new party.

[Greyhound]

10. K&R. Another small step...

[Little Star]

12. k&r

[BrklynLiberal]

15. I hope their money works when our political pressure did not.