I know the timing on this may be less than ideal. As painful and nasty as the primary wars have been, they've brought to the surface several important issues. Yesterday, I spent a lot of time commenting on visions of the 50 state strategy, and how moving forward with such a strategy requires acknowledging that 1) we didn't have a 50 state strategy in 2000 or 2004, and that 2)maybe we should have. Much of this discussion was obscured in the mud slinging that ensued, but perhaps that's inevitable. I think general Democratic strategy is an important issue, and deserves to be discussed.
Another issue that's been obscured by the (perhaps understandable) anger of various candidates' supporters is what to do with special interest money. What qualifies as a special interest? Are, in fact, some 527s and 501 (c)s more equal than others?
Today, the NY Times ran an editorial called "Drowning in Special Interest Money". Here's a relevant paragraph:
Independent groups are flourishing this campaign season. Iowa is full of 527s, spending piles on television ads and get-out-the-vote efforts to help or harm candidates in both parties. The candidates invariably insist they have no control over the independents working on their behalf — even if, as in the case of one group helping John Edwards, it is run by a former top adviser.
Each of the three leading candidates has been criticized within this community for behavior relating to these outside groups. Senator Obama has been attacked as anti-labor, John Edwards has been attacked as non-viable after Iowa, and Senator Clinton was nearly booed off the stage at Yearly Kos for saying that special interests and lobbyists represented ordinary people.
Even a cursory look at my comment history will indicate that I have a horse in this race: Senator Obama. However, I have a great deal of respect for all of the other candidates (except for Gravel), and I don't intend this to be an attack. I'm genuinely curious about this issue, and the position of other Democrats on it.
Paul Krugman, with whom I've disagreed a lot lately, but whom I hold in high respect, argued that unions are not the same as other special interest groups, because they represent real people, and real Democratic (and democratic) interests (I apologize- for some reason, I can't get the NYT link- it was his December 24 column). So, when we talk about special interests and lobbying in politics, do we exclude those groups who agree with us?
Is there really such a difference between portraying a war hero as a coward, and portraying a solidly pro-labor Senator from an industrial state as anti-union? I'm not sure. And I think we have to hold our friends to the same standards as our enemies, even if it is to our detriment in the short run.
Obviously, others have different ideas, and I'm interested in hearing them. What do we mean when we talk about special interest money? Do we exclude lobbyists- the environmental lobby, the unions- who agree with parts of the Democratic platform? I've given money to Moveon and DFA, and have spent many hours volunteering for both organizations. Where is the line drawn?