[Full disclosure from the start: I've been friends with Rob Witwer for twenty years, when I started at Amherst College and he was a sophomore already well-known as a campus conservative leader. We shared the same thesis adviser, a mutual love of the NFL and a political debate which has not ended during the intervening decades. After college, we found ourselves again separated by one year at the same law school, and have remained close over the years. While he's wrong on many issues that we here care about, he's an honorable guy, and this book is worth your time.]
"In October 2004, the GOP dominated politics at every level in Colorado," write Rob Witwer and Adam Schrager in their new book The Blueprint: How the Democrats Won Colorado (and Why Republicans Everywhere Should Care). "Republicans held both US Senate seats, five of seven congressional seats, the governor’s mansion, the secretary of state’s and treasurer’s offices, and both houses of the state legislature. On Election Day in 2008, the opposite would be true."
The story told by Witwer, a former Colorado state representative, and Schrager, a journalist, is a narrative as much about infrastructure and campaign finance law as it is about issues and candidates. Colorado changed because four wealthy progressives -- Rutt Bridges, Tim Gill, Jared Polis, and Pat Stryker -- had a plan. Over email this week, I asked Rob to explain:
So, a bunch of tremendously rich Coloradans get together in a room and decide to use their wealth to change the state's politics, only for Democrats this is a happy story?
That's one of the things that makes the Colorado story so remarkable. It was progressives, not conservatives, who came together in a focused, businesslike way to change the political climate of their state. There's no question that four very wealthy donors -- Rutt Bridges, Tim Gill, Jared Polis and Pat Stryker -- were decisive in changing Colorado from red to blue. But it would be a mistake to say that this story is just about money. Discipline, unity and leadership were just as important.
And law. Without getting too much into the details, which your book covers quite well, explain to folks what these four donors figured out.
Campaign finance reform was a necessary pre-condition to the Colorado story. In 2002, voters passed a ballot initiative that significantly restricted how much money parties and candidates could raise and spend (much as McCain-Feingold did at the federal level). Colorado progressives were quick to understand that the infrastructure necessary to support a political movement -- voter registration, grassroots mobilzation, get-out-the-vote, communications, etc. -- could only be accomplished through a network of nonprofit entities like 527s and 501(c)(4)s. In essence, progressives privatized party functions. And here was where the "Gang of Four" donors played a key role: the discipline imposed by their purse strings ensured that these nonprofits would work together in a coordinated way towards a common objective: winning state legislative races.
Talk a bit more about the coordinated effort. What were all these different progressive organizations doing?
Donors and their advisors presided over a constellation of entities, each with a special purpose. One 527 would focus on the state House, another on the state Senate, and yet another on joint field operations. After 2004, the Gang of Four added new donors and massively expanded the scope of their infrastructure. In addition to carrying on the work of the 527s, they supported a think tank (the Bell Policy Center), a grassroots communications arm (ProgressNow), a government watchdog (Colorado Ethics Watch), a media watchdog (Colorado Media Matters), an online newspaper (the Colorado Independent), and as many as three dozen other entities. Imagine a toolbox with a variety of specialized instruments, each calibrated for a specific use, in the hands of a master carpenter. It was -- and is -- quite an effective model. And it's being replicated in states across the country.
You were a state legislator at the time, though I know your district wasn't one of the ones targeted. Did your Republican colleagues have any idea what was happening to them in 2004?
Not until it was too late. The sustained, coordinated force of the progressive effort overwhelmed and swamped a number of Republicans in traditionally "safe" GOP districts. The level of resources directed at state legislative races was unprecedented. In 2004 progressives raised $3.6 million in outside money for state legislative races ($2.5 million of which was provided by the Gang of Four). By contrast, legislative Republicans raised $845,000 in the same cycle. But again, money wasn't the whole story. The unity on the progressive side gave Democrats a tremendous advantage over a number of GOP candidates who were badly wounded by bitter primaries.
Have Republicans caught up? How much do decisions like Citizens United and SpeechNow play into this sphere going forward?
Republicans haven't caught up yet, but as this book shows the Colorado blueprint isn't rocket science -- with enough money, discipline and unity, anyone can replicate it. I don't think recent cases will do anything to slow the rise of outside spending. If anything, they will accelerate it. Campaign finance reform dramatically raised the amount of soft money in politics, and there's probably no way to put the toothpaste back into the tube. On both sides, the "shadow party" is here to stay.
Why was there such a focus on state legislative seats?
One of the amazing things about the Gang of Four is that they clearly had the resources to be players in big federal races, but they opted instead to focus on state legislative seats, where they could get more bang for the buck. As Tim Gill is fond of pointing out, state legislatures are the starting point for changes in social policy. Gill is focused on gay rights, so to him control of a state legislative chamber matters more than a U.S. Senate seat. Beyond that, legislatures are the farm teams for future Governors, Senators and members of Congress. Defeating or electing a local candidate can launch or derail a political career. And finally -- perhaps most importantly -- in the next two years state legislatures will redraw the lines of Congressional districts. The battle for state legislatures in 2010 will in many ways determine the balance of power in Congress for the next decade.
Why should the Colorado story matter to folks in other states?
Progressives in Colorado built a better political mousetrap, and strategists everywhere are taking note. The progressive donor group Democracy Alliance is committing $110 million to export the Colorado blueprint to several other states in time for the 2010 elections, even as conservatives study the lessons of Colorado closely. In a business where there's nothing new under the sun, Colorado progressives came up with an innovative new way to build and sustain political movements. It's not rocket science, but it is different than what came before.
An excerpt from The Blueprint is available here. Of note, it's been blurbed by everyone from liberals like ProgressNow founder Michael Huttner, David Sirota and me to conservatives including former Gov. Bill Owens and Hugh Hewitt -- this is an even-handed take, not a takedown, and is well worth your time.
The Blueprint is available via Amazon, and at bookstores everywhere.