I just left an entry on the DCCC blog, in reply to a post by Executive Director Jim Bonham, in which he replies to Kos's main-page entry with a thoughful (but unsatisfying) entry.
In that entry he comments that "we do not, and cannot, use ideological or policy positions to decide our support or non-support," which is where I start my reply.
I ended up making a few points that were kindof unexpected and I thought useful. So, I decided to cross-post it in my diary.
Continued below...
"But we do not, and cannot, use ideological or policy positions to decide our support or non-support."
Dear Mr. Bonham,
I am a very practical guy. I can fully understand your statement above, from a DCCC perspective. But I think it's clearly not an appropriate approach for the individual donor.
I want a Dem majority in the house, because I agree with the Democratic party. I will be practical in the candidates to whom I chose to donate. But I will not select a candidate who does not represent my values within reason.
I supported Schrader, like many bloggers, specifically because I wanted you guys to take notice. Here was a small-timer who all of a sudden had a real shot, and shares my values. It appears you have taken notice, and we're both pleased.
I supported Morrison because of the importance of weakening DeLay. It would be wonderful if he wins. But if he doesn't, I still believe it's a net benefit for the House, probably in terms of numbers as well. Kos likes to point out the benefit of keeping DeLay busy on his home turf, a strong argument.
I supported Matsunaka because his opponent is unacceptible. I feel that, while you might not want to support candidates on ideological grounds, it should be a factor who the candidate's opponent is. We may not win the house in 2004. We need for people to know that, if you play right-wing games with our Constitution, you will be targeted for removal. That Matsunaka is now in a reasonably strong position says a lot about what we've done for him, but also, about the fact that contributions to him were not wasted.
One thing I'm not sure has sunk in within the beltway is the makeup of our current surge in contributions. I think it's clear that the internet has finally tapped into a group of Dems who have never donated before, but have always payed attention. These are the academic/professional middle class. This is an exceptionally ideas-driven group of people, but a dedicated group as well. The key to keeping them in the fold is letting them know that their opinion matters to you, a lot. You don't have to give them all the positions they want, but you can't blow them off either. That's their currency. Thought, not financial gain. Lots of big donors expect something in return. These donors expect nothing in return, but a little attention upfront.
That's the weakness in a top-down donation scheme, the type you suggest. Kos takes polls and collect opinions before creating his lists of who to support. That's the only way to get folks like me. I don't have a budget for how much I give, and wouldn't have donated the money I gave to Schrader and Matsunaka and Morrison to someone else. I'd have kept it or spent it on Amazon.com.
One exception for many of us is Kerry. We were definitely all torn on the primary, and unsettled feeling lingered through May and June, while we still gave to Kerry. Bush is an uncommon unifying force. If you want to hold onto us after this election, it will take a very well thought out targeting effort, based in part on ideas and open communication.
I tell you this because I hope you will find it helpful. I by no means intend to preach to you about fundraising, you are much more experienced than we are. But I'm not sure if the Dem party has had to deal with this particular donor base before. We're worth a lot, but we come with our own expectations.