Like many Progressives I have been licking my wounds this week and processing the consequences of the impending Republican take over of the Senate. I really thought us Dems would do better and I am supremely disappointed. Although painful I have dutifully read numerous post mortems as to why we lost. The pundits and data wonks tell a story of low turnout, dark money, unflinching Republican partisanship, Obama's immigration gambit, and Democratic candidates abandoning the soul of their party by ignoring issues such as minimum wage, income inequality and running away from Obama's accomplishments. Yeah, that all makes sense. We can examine the data. As to how we dig out from under the thick layer of muck left behind by this electoral tsunami, and repair the damage done to our democracy, that is going to be the existential debate among progressives between now and 2016. Finding a road to eliminating the flood of dark money into campaigns and overturning Citizens United should be, in my opinion, a prime directive. Lawrence Lessig thought he had discovered just such a path, but like many of us, went to bed election Tuesday night disappointed.
Harvard professor, Lawrence Lessig, founder of Mayday PAC, dedicated to the ambitious and singular issue of attacking the corrupting influence of money in politics by changing the way our elections are funded, sent his post mortem to me and other contributors via email blast on Friday. According to MAYDAY.US the PAC has raised over $10 million since its inception last May--double entendre duly noted--but many have called Lessig's crowd funded effort a fool's errand, including some here at Daily Kos.
In his letter to supporters Lessig attempts to come to terms with the resounding failure of his movement in this election.
Everyone knows our government is corrupt, the pundits say. But, the pundits insist, voters don’t care enough about that corruption to do anything about it.
We think the pundits are wrong, and we had hoped that Tuesday would prove it. A couple of upsets would have gotten the attention of even the most committed conventionalist. While we did help elect some reform champions — Democratic Rep-elect Ruben Gallego (AZ-7) and Republican Rep. Walter Jones (NC-3) — we also bet on those upsets. But in 2014, they didn’t come through.
He goes on to address why Mayday was unable to upset the rotten apple cart.
A significant chunk of actual voters rank our issue as the most important. These voters are Democrats, Republicans, and Independents. And in the right context, we believe the data show that they can be rallied to the cause.
The important qualification in that sentence, however, is also the most important lesson that this cycle taught me: “in the right context.” What 2014 shows most clearly is the power of partisanship in our elections. Whatever else voters wanted, they wanted first their team to win.
We saw this most clearly in Kansas, as well as New Hampshire. Going into Tuesday, the polls showed our candidate, Greg Orman, the Independent, in the lead. But on election day, many of the Republicans who had considered voting for an Independent had second thoughts when they realized that decision my affect whether Republicans controlled the Senate. The same was true in the New Hampshire Republican primary for Senate in September: the primary was september: We moved our candidate, Jim Rubens, significantly in the 3 weeks that we had for that race. But in the end, most Republican primary voters were focused on what was the most important issue to them: Picking the Republican candidate they thought most likely to win.
Of course this strategy of backing a few Republicans in the cause of campaign finance reform was doomed from inception, and Mayday got off to a predictably dubious start by supporting a climate change denying, long shot candidate for Senate in the New Hampshire Republican primary, Jim Rubens, to the tune of about $500,000. I sent an email expressing my opinion to Lessig and got response from an earnest Mayday volunteer, Rebecca Arington.
Thank you for reaching out to us with your concerns. I'm sorry to hear that you're not happy with our candidate choices. It's difficult for me to address the situation when I don't know what, specifically, you object to. My best guess is that it involves the non-partisan nature of our campaign. I understand it's a very new and unusual way of operating but we truly believe that this is the only path to achieving reform.
Recently, Salon posted an interview with Lawrence Lessig in which he does a great job of explaining our strategy. It's my hope that reading it will help you understand why we've chosen some of these candidates.
http://www.salon.com/...
If you'd like to discuss things further, please don't hesitate to send me your comments. We truly appreciate your support and your enthusiasm for reform!
I forwarded her a link to DocDawg's DK diary and she responded straight away.
I read that blog earlier today. It's important to note that anyone can sign up for a Daily Kos account and publish their own diaries (blog). Doc Dawg is not a journalist or an employee/ representative of the site.
There are people who aren't comfortable with our non-partisan, single issue approach and I totally understand that. It's not easy for anyone, not even those of us who have committed to it. The problem is, any solutions that we push forward will eventually come to the Senate. Thanks to the modern day interpretation of the Filibuster, we need a 2/3 Senate majority to pass legislation on anything in this country. Does anyone truly believe that we can get a 2/3 progressive majority in the Senate? Not just Democrats but progressive Democrats? I think our plan has a better shot.
Progressives have been going this alone for years with no success. Part of the reason is because many Democrats are also resistant to reform. Even if they don't like the current system, they've figured it out and they've been successful in it. Talk of change brings out a lot of fear.
Also, this issue has been particularly resistant to traditional activism. This is because the media, especially television media, doesn't want to cover it. Most of the coverage the Mayday PAC is getting comes from print/ online journalism. Television and radio make a killing from all the competitive political spending and the last thing they want is to advocate for policies which likely make them less money. I'm aware of two short pieces about Mayday on MSNBC. They were skeptical and the coverage it was all conducted in a begrudging sort of manner.
I'm not sure if you read Lessig's tumblr post from the other day - the one Doc Dawg is responding to. Just in case, let me give you the link: http://tmblr.co/...
I'm not sure if I can say anything else to explain why we're doing what we're doing. If you never come to agree with us, well you'll be in good company. Please know that our plan is based off of years of experience, knowledge, polling, etc. We're not just winging it over here. We have good reasons to believe this can work and all of us have the very best intentions.
Thanks again for your interest in the issue. If you don't agree with us, I still appreciate all the thought and research that has gone into your decision.
And my response:
Hi Rebecca,
Thanks for your thoughtful response. I understand the way Daily Kos works, but that is a big part of its egalitarian appeal--anyone can publish and, if their diary posts are any good, the editors will recommend them and they can gain traction and credibility within the decidedly progressive DK readership. In some cases the good works of a DK "member" gain national attention (e.g. BrainWrap, AKA Charles Gaba). I appreciate that DocDawg is not an employee of DK and may not be able to secure press credentials at a presidential news conference, but DD, his feud with Dr. Lessig aside, raises what I believe are some relevant points, many questions progressive contributors might also be asking. And while as important as the questions may be, it is the response to those questions that may in the end decide the success of Mayday PAC to secure additional funding.
Dr. Lessig's ostensible strategy of supporting viable, sympathetic candidates regardless of party affiliation (e.g. "Buddy Romer who ran for President as a Republican in 2012, taking no more than $100 from anyone") is noble if naïve, but, as a lifelong Democrat and incurable idealist, I bought in nonetheless. I know there must be a few Republican candidates who share our goal of washing the dirty money out of the political laundry, but the chances of those candidates making it out of their party primary are low, as you must know. President Obama, I believe, made a critical error early on by seeking "non-partisan" cooperation. As with grand tour cycling, the "pack" prevails. The Rockefeller Republicans have almost entirely been driven out, or underground. Even so, I support the quest, because I am a hopeless believer in humanity. There is a better way. But Jim Rubens?
What are we to make of Mayday's support of extreme longshot Jim Rubens? Dr. Lessig is highly educated, a Harvard professor no less, and surely knows Mayday's financial support here is just so much money flushed down the proverbial toilet. Why not support Shaheen? If by some stretch of the imagination Rubens were to defeat Brown would Mayday support Rubens over Shaheen? Really?
I agree that many Democrats have resisted. In California, a safely "blue" state, we have recently been frustrated in our effort to expose dark money by, of all champions of progressive causes, organized labor. They represent the individual worker against a well documented history of abuses by their corporate employers, and their unwillingness to accept disclosure is understandable but nonetheless regressive. They will have to be brought onboard kicking and screaming. In this humble progressive's opinion it would be somewhat less quixotic to convince the unions to support campaign finance reform than underwrite a candidate like Rubens. I look forward to your argument otherwise.
DocDawg suggests asking for our money back. I will not be doing that. Instead I contacted you to let you know my concerns. I am not a wealthy man, at least when it comes to money, and my contribution to the cause was minimal, but I am passionate about getting big money out of politics. When I read Dr. Lessig's appeal to do this I gladly donated what little I could . . . . I referred Mayday Pac to those within my circle of influence. I am anxious to see what the future brings. There is a better way.
Best wishes,
In his email to supporters, Lessig explains his new and revised strategy, but just can't seem to let go the dream of a bi-partisan utopia where funding some Republican candidates will bear fruit.
This partisan reality suggests an obvious strategic response: Rather than battles that force supporters of reform to betray their party loyalties, we need to focus on races where a partisan battle is not an issue. We need to engage in more primaries. The data supports the idea that we could move partisan voters towards our issue in safe seats more easily than contested seats. And that means supporting candidates in primaries in safe seats who would make our issue central, so we give voters a chance to vote for reform without worrying that they would weaken the chance that their party would win.
So I sent him an email suggesting Mayday contributors would be better served if the PAC focused on state initiatives and propositions.
In my opinion, backing sure thing, safe seats will not make a difference, and money spent on members of the GOP will be money wasted. In fact, for a one issue PAC like Mayday, I believe money would be better invested in state propositions and measures addressing election funding, because reaching consensus in the national political forum is highly unlikely and funding any one politician also funds all their other positions, which I especially believe in the case of Jim Rubens was a poison pill. Look at what responsible gun law supporters were able to do in Washington, and prison reformers accomplished in California. I support your mission, but believe your methods are flawed.
Rebecca dutifully replied and promised to forward my comments to other PAC members, including, Lessig. If I were to hear from him directly I'd be pleasantly surprised. If I do I will post an update. Well, that's my Mayday dairy for now. Thanks for reading.