The 2015-2016 problem is that a mismanaged and debt-ridden DNC sold out its own state parties to stay afloat. The ongoing problem is a political culture that views the DNC as a presidential vessel, rather than an organization for building raw Democratic strength. Until the root issues are addressed, even when we win elections, Democratic governance will always be brittle and fleeting.
Donna Brazile’s article in Politico has set off a new round of infighting. It is unfortunate, because the scuffle over a two years old primary is distracting from the real problem with the DNC, of which the Joint Fundraising Agreement was only a symptom.
Donna’s most explosive assertion was that the DNC/HFA agreement was unfair to Hillary’s primary competitors. Perhaps that is true, or perhaps not. What is demonstrably true, however, is that state parties and their local candidates were not beneficiaries of this agreement, even though their participation benefited the DNC and HFA.
Exhibit A — Victory Fund to Missouri Democratic Party Transfers
These are the 2015-2016 cycle transfers from the Hillary Victory Fund to the Missouri Democratic Party. This is the MDP’s share of funds under the agreement. The dates range from 10/1/2015 to 11/18/2016. The total adds up to $3,043,700.
Exhibit B — Missouri Democratic Party to DNC Transfers
These are the 2015-2016 transfers from MDP to the DNC. They add up to $3,033,700. If you look closely, each transfer in is matched by a transfer out of the exact same amount of money, with the exception of $10,000 deposited on May 2nd, 2016.
Is this bad?
Despite what some may claim, there is nothing nefarious or illegal about this. The joint committee can allocate its proceeds to a participating state, and the state can make an unlimited transfer to the DNC, which can then spend the money how it sees fit. Traditionally, the nominee’s campaign drives the decision about DNC strategy and spending, whether that’s Senator Kerry, Senator Obama, President Obama, or Secretary Clinton.
Where does this leave the Missouri Democratic Party?
They are a participant in this agreement but although on paper they received over $3M from the agreement, they didn’t have any say in how that money was spent. It was reallocated to the battleground states.
Now, MDP was not harmed, per se, by this agreement. This $3M was raised by the victory fund (HFA did all or most of the work), and it’s doubtful that George Clooney or Haim Saban (just two examples) would have donated to the Missouri Democratic Party independently of this agreement.
But MDP wasn’t helped by the agreement either. With an additional $3M, would we have Senator Jason Kander right now? Would a MDP that received $3M more in 15-16 be in a be in a stronger position to hold McCaskill’s seat next year?
The problem is neglect and missed opportunities.
This is not Hillary Clinton’s fault. Her campaign drove a bargain with the DNC to protect her interests. It is the DNC’s job to remain neutral in primaries and look out for its interests and those of its state parties. Instead, because it was deeply in debt, with a lazy and incompetent chair, they cut a deal that got themselves above water while leaving state parties with few resources.
What’s more, there is not a culture of trust between national campaigns and local parties. A big part of a reason why a presidential campaign would structure agreements this way is they don’t trust state parties to use the money wisely.
Regardless of the reasons, the state party infrastructure was neglected by the DNC at a time of robust fundraising.
We are at a crossroads.
Whether you supported Clinton, Sanders, O’Malley, or other Democrats last cycle, this should be troubling. There is a general consensus that the Democratic party has been hollowed out, focusing too much on presidential elections and not enough on the nuts and bolts of organizing. Now that we have lost the presidency these problems have become acute.
I’m tentatively encouraged by some of what Chairman Perez has proposed, but the real test will come next presidential election. Will we break the cycle and have a DNC that keeps some of its focus on building Democratic strength? Or will the DNC once again squander a party building opportunity and become just an appendage of the presidential campaign? If we can start to come together and lay the groundwork now we could have a DNC that stays focused on its state parties and the long term. That will benefit all of our candidates, from president to dog catcher. We deserve a DNC that is more than just an empty vessel for fundraising.
Please get involved with your local and state party. Make sure they are doing good work, and agitate for the DNC to help fund that good work, both in this coming election, and in the future, when they are pressured once again by presidential campaigns.
PS: If you live in Virginia or New Jersey (or Washington’s 45th Senate District)...I hope you didn’t read this because you’re knocking doors! :)