A couple of days ago a story on this site story rolled past which did not get much notice. I have been busy and wanted to dig deeper into the entire thing about a unanimous decision by the DNC ruling that it will not accept donations from fossil fuel companies but my time has been limited. In a way it was sort of like the party rejecting a corporate PAC. Furthermore and perhaps more importantly the author of story that brought this to my attention, best coast, wrote:
… and plans to propose a ban on donations over $200 for fossil fuel company employees.
Now some of the comments were dismissive of the decision. The dissenters wrote that the amount of money that it amounts to is only a tiny fraction of the DNC’s income. And while on the one hand I think that is important to point out if that is the case, that it should be clear. But while I might be one who may find myself sometimes more on the side of the dissenters, but not so much this time. For one, this proposal which was submitted by Christine Pelosi, daughter of the minority speaker, which offers to begin a process whereupon the party begins to divest itself from the fossil fuel industry does appear to be a important stand to make in itself. It is a clear stand about the need for addressing climate change.
But even if it is only a tiny amount of Democratic donations the second part of the proposal is just as important as the divestment. That second part could be where a real precedent was set. The limitation on employee donations may be agreed upon in August. This could be a more important step than bans on corporate PACS. So without further ado let me put this out there. I don’t know if I’ll get a chance to get back to this story, but here it is.
Bundling by employees is often where the real money falls into the hands of politicians. The popular rejection of corporate PACS, started by Bernie Sanders in his presidential run and which some prominent Democrats are agreeing to, may also only rise to about 10% of their corporate take. It too, to some extent, is a symbolic gesture.
My understanding is that it is that the more significant amount of money comes from when a corporation’s employees and their families, under the umbrella of the company they work for, donate bundles to individual politicians. And I believe they are allowed to donate at $2700 to individual politicians, unless there are additional loopholes available. But even more in the way of broader donations to SuperPACs and the parties themselves. And they can donate at least this other donations to PACs or 527’s or the like. At a minimum, that can be a lot of $2700 donations.
Even Bernie took that $2700 donation from individuals. I’m sure there were a few. But it’s important to point out that in a single primary season, not including a general election, he raised over a quarter of a billion dollars through the average donation of $27. To be sure, a $200 dollar donation is a still a lot of money if you donate it at least a couple of dozen times, but it is less than a tenth of the current high end. And a lot can be raised by the 1% donation of the legal limit given enough donors.
Furthermore I believe that the DNC has set a standard. Personally, I believe the Democratic party needs to dedicate itself to our campaign system having a fair cap of $200 per donation from any corporations. It won’t do that unless you believe in it and if we encourage it. I think though it’s a way to truly upset the Republican apple cart of the current campaign funding system. And a way to start to have multiple small, $27 to $200 dollar annual donations as a separate fund for Democrats who reject corporate PACs. I would like to see the party to start a second, fully transparent source of funding to the Democrats who are rejecting corporate PAC money. It would still allow corporate bundling but at a level that the rest of us can compete with at less than $200 per year to the DNC or the party as a whole. Many families or individuals could donate $200 a year.This would allow most of us who donated to Bernie and others before and to consider this and to open the door to anyone who likes this idea, regardless of party or lack of party affiliation. Try and make this the contribution and call out the Republicans on a dirty model of fundraising which allows no something that any activist will do. Even at the $27 level it’s proven to be effective even as a limited amount. And one last step which must be included these incumbents should be no longer requiredto be calling donors. Instead should be allowed to be some of the few in Washington devoted to their job 100% of the time.
Now we have a standard we can push for to be applied to Wall Street, to big Pharma, big Ag, Silicon Valley and media giants. We won’t get unanimous votes on all those but we only need to get 51% over time. Even if sector to sector. Here’s the thing. I argue that this gives us huge advantages over Republicans? Many from the 45% or so of registered voters who are Independents Compared to Democrats and Republicans hardly ever breaking into the 30th percentile. While Independent numbers keep growing. Also people here often forget that many average people are not so invested in their ideology that if one party truly helps them it will change their vote. Sometimes they vote strictly for symbolic gestures. It should make it possible for Democrats to campaign anew to non-voters. Asking for their vote, By divesting us from big donors.
Turning back CU will likely take a decade or longer. We can’t wait for a constitutional amendment to happen. Getting 67 senators to agree to kick Trump out of office will be an easier thing to accomplish. We need a more realistic campaign reform strategy in the meanwhile which does not coordinate with Republicans.This might help reduce the power of CU of people start boycotting big donors or rejecting them in other ways. Shame those who donate their $2700 or bring most Americans to people voting against anyone who takes the maximum. This kind of shaming is the thing Republicans have done for years to earn their success. Shame for worthy causes instead.
How do Republicans defend against that if we turn public opinion towards it? If we start demanding the campaign system gives more power back to every citizen, it will bring votes. Bernie raised more than any Republican campaign once on a small donation. In fact he out raised a bunch of them in total. Can we get it up to $50 a year? Heck, $20 from more people would work just as well. Now they are invested in voting. It’s a reasonable price for democracy.
That is the potential standard the DNC has set. It could a be model that steps towards not only changes in how our party approaches change in campaign reform internally and as well as a possible proposal for long term change of the system. Rejecting corporate PACs is important but again, to some extent is also symbolic and not where the real money often lies. It brings to light how we need to also start talking about the greater money brought in by bundling and lobbying on behalf of candidates and the even greater sums the parties themselves can play with and how they are used. It’s good to see the Democratic party leadership offer some acknowledgement of the contributions made by wealthy employees. Always go to Open Secrets to see more about it all.
I argue that people would generally appreciate real gesture of limiting campaign donations by this party. It’s a road and a rationale towards a public campaign funding model. I thin this will help us win more consistent Democratic voting than we seen for decades. I think people would generally approve. I think more people would vote.
Perhaps a more important standard was set the other day and we should consider it seriously as more than just a gift horse.