The Necessity of an Independent Ad Campaign for President

This bit of news last week alarmed me:

Progressive Media USA, the group organized to be the main soft-money advertising vehicle for Democrats in the fall, will dramatically scale back its efforts in deference to the wishes of the party's presumptive nominee.

I know everyone is marveling at the fundraising success that Obama, DCCC, DSCC, and Democrats down the ballot have had. (The DNC, however, could use some help.)

I know that some here would cast aspersions at the 527 and IE efforts on the Democratic side from 2004.  

But let me make one thing clear.

We NEED an independent expenditure ad effort on the Democratic side.

Disclosure: I know people who work with Progressive Media USA and other  third party organizations and who held senior positions at ACT. I work with third party organizations doing election work. The opinions expressed in this diary are mine and mine only.

First, some background. Progressive Media USA was once Campaign to Defend America. Tom Matzzie was the big dog at Campaign to Defend America, but he was screwing up in his leadership role, which then led to David Brock (who most of you know via his work at Media Matters) becoming the new 'face' of the group.  If one reads between the lines in various articles written on the group, bringing Brock in may have been to assuage concerns from major donors and prevent the anti-Matzzie factions of the Democratic world from abandoning the group altogether. Nonetheless, even with Brock at the helm, Matzzie still held a leadership position as the Cillizza post indicates. Internal problems are another factor cited in Chris Cillizza's post linked above, which I don't doubt.

Soft-money groups seemed to have reached their zenith in 2004 when progressive-aligned organizations like America Coming Together and Media Fund as well as conservative-backed groups like Progress for America and Swift Boat Veterans for Truth had an undeniably large influence over the outcome of the election.

Four years later, outside groups on both sides of the aisle have experienced all sorts of problems in securing the cash to fund any sort of serious independent effort. That lack of success is particularly true at the presidential level, where Progressive Media USA's collapse comes on the heels of a decision to turn Freedom's Watch from a conservative-aligned presidential vehicle to one that spends its time and money on House races.

There were downsides to ACT, and not every ACT office was run well. That's undeniable.  But what is also undeniable, is that it filled capacity in many swing states. It's practically a given that without ACT's registration efforts and GOTV, John Kerry would've lost by bigger margins.  Media Fund was not as effective as it could have been. I thought its 'Misleader' ad campaign was serviceable and helped hold Bush's numbers down while the Kerry campaign was broke in the Spring of 2004.  What it didn't do was create an emotional anti-Bush narrative that spoke to a broader slice of the swing electorate.  In short, the Democratic 527 and IE efforts in 2004 (while not limited to ACT and the Media Fund) were effective but not as effective as they could have been. IMHO, Progress for America and SBV"T" got more bang for their buck in 2004 than the Media Fund.  

So there are major Democratic donors who looked at the 2004 efforts and don't want to donate to similar 2008 efforts.  This segment of the Democratic donor world is being stupid.  One doesn't and shouldn't do away with 527 and IE efforts because we lost in 2004. The political environment in 2004 was nowhere nearly as favorable as it is this year, and a favorable political environment in 2008 is NOT a reason to avoid 527 and IE efforts in this election cycle. In fact, it is a reason to gin up the 527 and IE efforts this cycle. We have an immense opportunity to win the White House and more seats in Congress, and when the other side is drowning, you throw them an anvil.  

That is one reason why I'm unhappy that Progressive Media USA won't be doing an IE ad campaign against McCain. It doesn't appear as though there's even a progressive IE ad group that can concentrate (like the conservatives have) on House races like Freedom's Watch, Senate races like American Future Fund, or play in swing states like Iowa Future Fund. McCain right now is having to schedule a ton of "finance receptions" all over the country (and is having to stop in non-swing states to do these finance receptions), and we have the GOP on its heels. Now is exactly the time a Progressive Media USA should be blitzing every swing state to bury McCain's numbers before he has the money to answer back. But just because our candidates and party committees are having fundraising success now, doesn't mean that it will continue as the economic downturn gets worse and it doesn't mean that the money won't get spread thin with so many races in play.  

There's another reason.  Obama has run a strong campaign so far, but it's undeniable that the Wright and Ayers stuff will come back.  The right-wing  will try to elevate those "issues" and try and get voters to think about them when they go to the voting booths in October and November.  There are a lot of swing voters and older white Democrats in swing states (like OH) who are susceptible to those types of ads.  Just because Obama is great at dealing with right-wing smears doesn't mean those things won't take their toll over time.

My message to the big Obama donors is this:  Get your heads out of the sand.

We need one anti-McCain independent group to run ads, mostly tying McCain to Bush, and raising anything that might make McCain 'unfit' in the eyes of any swing voter.

We need a separate independent group to run pro-Obama ads; this group would serve as a "white voter validator" for Obama to counteract GOP smears. If I were running such a group, I'd gather Obama's IL supporters and have them talk about Obama's efforts on their behalf. (Some major Dem donors don't like what they perceive as dirty ads, and this is a vehicle for them to fund positive pro-Obama efforts.)

Without IE groups doing some of the heavy-lifting we will NOT win as many seats as we could.  American Future Fund has already helped Norm Coleman's numbers in Minnesota.  (AFF claimed to have made a six-figure ad buy and run ads in Minneapolis, Mankato and other MN media markets.)  Without IE groups serving as additional validators for Obama, he might not win the White House, or alternatively, he might not win it by margins that we want (and we want him to go into the White House with one heckuva mandate, no?)  

There are major Clinton donors who are going to sit out the election when she drops out. My message to them would be that they should at least consider funding a 527 group or a c4 that works to elect Senators and House members (like a progressive counterpart to Freedom's Watch).  The bigger the Democratic majority in Congress, the better it is for Hillary Clinton. Her legislation (and that of any Democrat's) would have an easier time getting passed if we had more Democrats in Congress and if we had a Democrat (any Democrat) in the White House.

More Democrats winning and Democrats taking control of the White House is good for everybody. It's good for Democratic party infrastructure in the states and nationally. It's good for progressive infrastructure on the independent expenditure side. It's good for (insert your favorite Democrat).

So, big (and small) donors. Put the hurt feelings from the presidential primary aside, realize the value of IE efforts, and open your wallets.