Ezra Klein: Should the Dem Party Offer Financial Support to Dems Who Vote Against Healthcare Reform

[flpoljunkie]

Commented: Should the Democratic Party offer financial support to Democrats who vote against health-care reform?
And if it does, should members of the Democratic base continue to financially support the Democratic Party? I haven't thought about this much, but Phillycomment laid out the position well in Friday's "Reconciliation" (the new name for tab dump) thread:

I was looking today at the list of Democrats who voted "no" on health-care the first time around. What struck me was how many of them were heavily supported by the DCCC in 2008. Shouldn't that kind of financial backing, a considerable part of which comes from center-left national Democratic party supporters, not go to members who simply do not support the Democrats on any of the big stuff? I mean, if you added up all the money from the DCCC given to some of the folks on that list, it's definitely in the couple of millions. I don't think these guys should be getting national Democratic Party funding if they are going to act like free agents all the time.

At some point, if you take the support of the base, you have to be accountable to the base.

This would be different, of course, if Democrats clearly had the votes for health-care reform bill and were just cutting some vulnerable members loose for political reasons.

By Ezra Klein | March 1, 2010

http://voices.washingtonpost.com/ezra-klein/2010/03/commented_should_the_democrati.html

[PHIMG]

1. this is why many at DU do not donate to DSCC and DCCC

Speaking for myself I only donate money in the primaries against DINOS.

[zipplewrath]

2. Yup, the two committees predominately fund the least progressive

They use the money to fund incumbents, even ones we'd like to get rid of in primaries. They use their fiscal clout to discourage primaries at all. NEVER give them cash. If you want to support an incumbent, send THEM the cash.

[Lasher]

4. But members of Congress give money from their PACs to the DSCC & DCCC.

So your donations could end up with the DSCC & DCCC anyway. Now that I've rained on the parade I'll admit I'm marching in it. My contributions will go directly to Democratic candidates and not to the DSCC, DCCC, or DNC.

[zipplewrath]

9. Yes, that's true

Not sure what I can do about that. Once you donate money to a candidate, or a cause, there is little limitation on how it can be used. I gave money to the Kerry campaign on a monthly basis. Then I found out in the last month that they were saving money "in case they lost". I didn't donate it for the NEXT campaign, I donated it for THIS campaign. Not much I could do though.

[DrToast]

13. I think it's still better to give money to the candiate

I would think they only give money away after they have what they need.

[Lasher]

3. No.

Hell no.

[druidity33]

5. i say no!

but nobody listens to me.....

:(

[totodeinhere]

6. If they vote against this so-called reform because they want real bona fide reform,

and not a giveaway to the drug and insurance companies, then I say yes, fund them. We need more progressive Dems who will fight for real reform.

[flpoljunkie]

8. Delete.

[nykym]

7. You can always

indicate how you would like your donation used.

[Hello_Kitty]

11. Not if you're donating to the party. It's illegal to earmark contributions. eom

[nykym]

12. Well for the most part you are

probably right, but that got me curious so here goes:
From the link particularly the last paragraph.

http://www.fec.gov/pages/brochures/citizens.shtml

"Designated Contributions

The Federal Election Commission (FEC) encourages you, when making a contribution to a candidate, to designate which election the contribution is for. By doing this, you will avoid any confusion as to which election limit applies to your contribution. To designate a contribution, write the name of the specific election on your check (or other written instrument). Or attach a signed statement with the same information.

If you do not designate a contribution to a candidate, your contribution automatically applies to your $2,400 limit for the candidate's next election. In other words, if you make3 an undesignated contribution after the candidate has won the primary but before the general election, your contribution counts against your $2,400 limit for the general. Similarly, if you make an undesignated contribution after the general election, it automatically applies toward the limit for the next election in which the candidate runs for Federal office.

If, however, you want a contribution to count against your limit for an election other than the candidate's upcoming election, you must designate the contribution. For example, suppose you want your contribution to count against the candidate's general election, even though the primary has not yet taken place. In this case, you must designate the contribution for the general. Or, if you want to help a candidate retire campaign debts for a past election, you must designate your contribution for that specific election.

Under certain circumstances, if you make an excessive contribution to a candidate committee, the committee may redesignate your contribution. When this occurs, the committee must notify you within 60 days, and must offer you the opportunity to receive a refund instead."

[Union Yes]

10. No. They shouldn't even be recognized as Dems by the Party.

Conservadems are pushing me toward a total boycott in November.

[harun]

14. Agree, they shouldn't be called Dem's.