Over the last few days we’ve had several diaries which take on the subject matter of transfers from state party to the DNC as well as campaign contributions to state party organizations that find themselves also headed to the DNC.
The arguments are pretty clear: on one side, Hillary Clinton supporters argue that their candidate’s fundraising to inject money into state parties is a sign she cares about party growth. The counter argument is that much of this goes back to the DNC, and with many rightfully concerned about the handling of the DNC under Wasserman-Shultz, some diarists and commenters have dissected what this means to the party, alleging everything from corruption to “a fix”.
Reading through the comments, though, I’m aware that both sides really don’t quite get the Nuts & Bolts of how this work, and as a result we are debating over Republican talking points that do not match the realities of the current campaign system and the way in which state parties interact with the national party.
To benefit both sides, I decided to write this morning about the relationship between the DNC, State Parties, and Campaigns. This will not be apologia for the DNC, as we’ll discuss where this has really went wrong; but it will also hopefully clarify how this works out.
The most important thing to realize about the DNC is that once they receive funds, they have only a few ways in which they can spend it. They cannot donate directly to a presidential campaign more than a token (notice their $1,900 give to President Obama in 2012) but they can turn around and invest in state parties as well as state level organizations and national messaging.
https://www.opensecrets.org/parties/expend.php?cycle=2012&cmte=DNC
Below reflects the top 2012 expenditures made by the DNC (full list at link above):
Recipient
|
Total
|
Num. of Expenditures
|
GMMB
|
$21,239,303
|
40
|
Automatic Data Processing Inc
|
$15,390,817
|
504
|
Democratic Party of Ohio
|
$14,493,915
|
200
|
US Postal Service
|
$12,978,965
|
202
|
Democratic Executive Cmte of Florida
|
$12,554,906
|
290
|
Democratic Party Of Virginia
|
$8,890,907
|
203
|
Democratic Party of Colorado
|
$7,390,406
|
181
|
North Dakota Democratic-Nonpartisan League Party
|
$7,287,959
|
146
|
Democratic Party of Pennsylvania
|
$6,747,222
|
69
|
Democratic Party of Nevada
|
$6,347,451
|
199
|
Democratic Party of Iowa
|
$6,128,486
|
246
|
Democratic Party Of Wisconsin
|
$4,649,353
|
169
|
Telefund Inc
|
$4,233,908
|
408
|
Democratic Party of New Hampshire
|
$3,810,958
|
192
|
In fact, if you look through your list you will likely find your state or group. The DNC also spends on other items which include mail, legal support, telenumber matching and funding for postage of mail pieces throughout the nation.
Because the Democratic Party is not sure, at least not in January of the year prior to an election as to where races represent opportunities for victory, a great deal of money is held from the states who inject into their common partner — the Democratic National Committee.
Acting as a clearing house, the DNC evaluates several times a year where races exist throughout the US that reflect opportunities for Democrats to prevail. So, a state like Iowa in 2012 most assuredly did not send $6.1M into the National Party, but due to races that the National Party thought they could prevail in, received that much in return.
This method has long allowed state parties who can input very little money to receive more money back out. It, in turn, means some states put in a fair amount of money that they do not receive back.
A state like New York or California may inject a large sum of money into the DNC, but will not, in turn, be a recipient of a great deal of funding because their localized fundraising is significant and doesn’t need the outside resources in the same way that a state like say, North Carolina.
Democratic Party of North Carolina $881,066107
Democratic Cmte of New York State $608,530105
So, Wait, Does this Mean that Hillary’s Strategy is the Right One?
Not necessarily. While this has been going on for quite some time and is an accepted way to help find and support candidates no matter where they are in the country, the problem is that it really only tackles statewide & federal level candidates. The DNC will back with resources whoever wins Democratic primaries, but it can’t really get into the nuts & bolts of building a state level party.
The funds that go into these states are really tagged for specific races or goals, and while it can leave behind infrastructure, the chief goal is to help a campaign as it marches to November. For bright Red States, this is often a significant perk. Without this communal fund sharing, many Democratic Parties who exist in Republican territory would have difficulty assembling the infrastructure in time to properly field a campaign. Still, the parties themselves are left after an election still poor and unlikely to substantially grow. Donors will continue to flush funds into the DNC in hopes of finding “races we can win” rather than compete locally with a much longer term plan of building value within a state organization.
The Hillary Clinton campaign most certainly buys into the idea of the former; that in order for her campaign to prevail and to help other Democrats in federal races nationwide, you make use of State Parties who will act as they always have and pool their resources in hopes of finding winnable races to help grow the national party.
There is nothing inherently “wrong” or “underhanded” about this strategy, it is how it has been done and at times, it has worked to success.
So, Wait, Does That Mean Bernie is Right by Not Getting Involved?
Before I answer this I want to say that I simply don’t believe this factored in to the decision of the Sanders campaign as to how to invest their money. I do not think they ever had a meeting and said “this is the impact, it does X and Y and therefore Z, and as a result, we’ll play 5-th Dimensional chess and decide to do ZZ in hopes that Hillary will react..” That is simply too convoluted about an issue very few but hardened party insiders will ever care about. It is far more likely that Occam’s razor applies. Bernie Sanders campaign will have fewer outside validators, organizations who, through money and resources will back his campaign and as a result, the Sanders campaign needs to hold on to as much of their own resources as possible in order to mount a competitive campaign for the presidency. And there is NOTHING WRONG WITH THAT. At all. People who donated to Bernie Sanders donated under the guideline they want Bernie Sanders to win; like all candidates he has a fiscal obligation to work hard to make that happen and whatever strategy they believe will be successful is what they owe to their donors.
While some in the Hillary Clinton camp have used Bernie’s smaller donations to State Parties as a sign that he isn’t supporting down ballot Democrats, the Bernie Sanders campaign can significantly blunt this argument by pointing out the benefits of their strategy. Bernie supporters can reasonably argue that the DNC will invest most after the primaries and can do so through issue advertisements, legal support, and postage meanwhile the Bernie campaign will be spending money now, immediately, in an effort to create Democratic voter registration and support today.
There is No Right Answer
Despite concerns by the Hillary Campaign that Bernie is showing he doesn’t care about down ballot Democrats or Bernie supporters complaint that this shows that Hillary is “cooking” the system, neither argument is really particularly valid. Despite the money that the Hillary campaign is putting into the DNC, should Bernie Sanders prevail in the Democratic primary, he will be the recipient of the benefit in the fall. Despite the fact that Bernie isn’t putting in resources to the party through this method doesn’t in any way mean that he is not willing to support the party grow, as his efforts to mobilize traditional non-voters or those on the sidelines could be seen as having a significant impact and may be money better spent.
In fact, the decision by both campaigns to act differently on this issue may give the most benefit. Hillary Clinton campaign’s investment in the states (who in turn fund the DNC) will benefit any candidate who prevails in a Democratic primary for the fall. Bernie Sander’s campaign method of influencing voters now will also benefit any candidate in the fall. It may be a case where both candidates seeking slightly different strategies may work out the best for all involved.
The reality is that there is absolutely no certainty.
On the Ground
What this debate has highlighted, though, is that State and County Democratic parties are desperate for financial support. What has made this conversation as contentious as it is dates back far before DWS. Numerous state and county parties struggle desperately with proper funding to support their candidates. Democratic donors are more likely to donate straight to a presidential campaign or senate campaign as opposed to a county or state party.
As a result, these organizations have significantly atrophied. Many struggle to raise money to support the bare minimum of staff they are required to have: An Executive Director, Communication Director, Field & Outreach, Finance, Compliance. Many state organizations have combined or outsourced those roles due to financial concerns.
As a result, the playing field for potential victories that the DNC will invest in is not truly expanding. This is largely because of state parties that do not have the resources to identify, recruit, and support candidates who will make up the Democratic bench of the future. This is not as problematic for US House, US Senate, and Presidential races, but it creates continuing concerns in our state houses.
The DNC, most certainly — and I believe correctly — focuses on winning the presidential and senate seats in order to help manage federal government issues, which is their job. For Democrats as a whole, though, this focus on the national ticket only is not the most effective, and the way the resources have been deployed in the past can be infuriating.
What Should a Supporter Do?
Whether you back Bernie or Hillary, realize this line of attack on the other candidate is largely pointless without an action step beyond it. If you support Bernie Sanders, the most important action step is simple and one that we encourage in Bernie Sanders meetings around the midwest: find local candidates who support Bernie Sanders and are running for your state house and invite them to speak at a Bernie event. Encourage Bernie Sanders donors to invest in challengers who represent issues that Bernie believes in to help give him the state houses and federal offices holders he will need to make his concept of a revolution at the ballot box true.
If you are a Hillary supporter, demand more of the DNC not just to help back winners in general elections, but to help put more on the ground infrastructure with the influx of funds they receive from state parties. It is pointless to give back to states 1:1 money, and that should not happen, but investing more money in states that need financial help to grow is a smart, long term investment. More importantly, if you are a Hillary backer, realize that you also should do as above: find local candidates who will represent your issues in your state house, and invite them to speak to your groups and encourage fellow supporters to donate to that local campaign.
If Democrats Are to Prevail, They Do It Together
If you take Bernie Sanders or Hillary Clinton out of the picture, I will bet you that in every state in America you can get together with a group of people and discuss at least one or two truly terrible Republicans who exist in your State House, State Senate, or is a member of your US House Delegation. Bernie Sanders supporters and Hillary Clinton advocates share common ground that these people have got to go, not just to help Bernie or Hillary, but to provide true representation for the residents of their state.
Candidates who run for your state house, city council, county commission make changes that impact your daily life directly; and in order for either position of party growth to be true, supporters of both Presidential candidates should realize that those local and state candidates represent true party building.
Howard Dean once said: If you vote in every election, I’ll give you a C for participation. You work a campaign, you get out and make real effort, I’ll give you a B, maybe a B+. But if you want an A, you have to affect real change. That means you run for something. Whether it is precinct captain, city council, county commission, state house, state senate, US House, Governor, Senator.
So, rather than debate the financial merits of funding the DNC.. something none of us will solve before election day, 2016, now is the time for supporters & both candidates to get serious about how we build the infrastructure of the Democratic Party going forward.