Emily's List: Forget About Early Money, Progressives

by: Matt Stoller

Sat Sep 08, 2007 at 16:53

This behavior fits a pattern.  Look who is on Emily's List's group of  featured candidates. 

Christine Jennings, FL-13: Jennings is a strongly establishment former Republican and former bank CEO candidate who in 2006 used her support from Steny Hoyer, Rahm Emanuel, and Barbara Boxer to beat a liberal in the primary in 2006 before losing to a Republican in the general.

Kay Barnes, MO-06: Claire McCaskill took this district in 2006, though it went strongly for Bush in 2004.  Barnes is the former Mayor of Kansas City and a top DCCC recruit.

Joan Fitz-Gerald, CO-02: The former Colorado state Senate head is in a three way primary with two other candidates over who will represent this liberal seat formerly held by Mark Udall.  The candidates are pretty much indistinguishable.

Chellie Pingree, ME-01:  Pingree is the former head of Common Cause and the former Senate Majority leader in Maine.  She ran against Susan Collins in 2002 and was against the war during that race.  There's a six way primary, with another female candidate in the race. [UPDATE: The other female candidate has said she will not run.]

Melissa Bean, IL-08:  This is a Bush Dog who is being challenged in the primary by a longshot female progressive, and faces a tough reelection every year.  She has a good record on choice.

Hillary Clinton:  Clinton is probably the most conservative candidate in the Presidential race, and the only woman. 

And who is not on the list of featured candidates?

Darcy Burner, WA-08:  Burner is a strong progressive who just raised $125,000 from the netroots, and her male primary opponent with a questionable background on choice just dropped out.  Burner was endorsed by Emily's List in 2006, and is now a top DCCC prospect.

Donna Edwards:  Edwards is an extremely well-respected progressive lawyer and activist in the foundation community challenging a reactionary male Democrat in the primary.  Though she nearly beat Wynn in 2006, she did not receive an Emily's List endorsement in 2006.  She still has not.

Emily's List's mission statement, as it was explained to me by a reprsentative of the organization, is to 'elect pro-choice women candidates'.  The group had a miserable record in a banner Democratic year in 2006, losing most of its House races though putting two conservative female Democrats in the Senate.  In the recent MA-05 race, Emily's List actually caused its endorsed candidate damage, opening up an effective negative attack on Tsongas late in the race.

What all of the above featured candidates have in common is that they are 'establishment' acceptable choices in DC.  That's not always a bad thing.  I mean, I like Chellie Pingree, for instance, and I think she will be a good Democrat.  Tsongas will probably be a good vote as well.  But Pingree is replacing Tom Allen and that district will probably be a pickup, as will the MA-05 for Tsongas.  Both Tsongas and Pingree are top-shelf IBM picks, as are Kay Barnes, a top DCCC pick, or Jennings or Bean.  No one will get fired if they put resources into these races, even if they lose.  Certainly no one was fired in 2006. 

But it's not clear at all that Emily's List is supporting pro-choice female candidates that actually need the help, like Donna Edwards, who in her life has moved incredibly important feminist legislation in Congress against domestic violence.  And it's weird that candidates with remarkable success on the internet, like Burner, are ignored.  The concept 'early money is like yeast' came from Emily's List, and it means that validating organizations can help candidates early on in a way that later money does not.  What's strange is that Emily's List does not validate you unless you are already 'in the club', and that lack of validation means that other donors might consider you 'fringe'.  This was the case with Edwards, who few would support until she managed to almost take the district from Wynn despite having almost no money.  If Emily's List had taken the bet on Edwards, there would be one more Democratic pro-choice candidate in the House today.

This has two consequences.  One, progressive populist women tend not to get Emily's List endorsements, but insiders who fit their districts according to the current DC conventional wisdom do.  Two, this creates a perverse incentive where female candidates who may want to run for office, like Edwards, are actually held back by a group that is ostensibly set up to elect more women. Running for office, especially if you are not already in politics, means taking a big risk in your personal and professional life.  Organizations like Emily's List ought to be focused on mitigating that risk so that more women will take the plunge.  But as we are seeing, they don't do that.  The group withholds its validation from all but the most establishment candidates, even withholding it from those with demonstrated political success.  It's ironic that Niki Tsongas, whose credibility comes from her position as the wife of a successful politician, got the nod from Emily's List to narrowly defeat another pro-choice Democratic woman, when a self-made politician like Donna Edwards, who has made substantive political achievements on behalf of women and is facing a reactionary Al Wynn, has not.

I'm not sure that Emily's List has even noticed this pattern of disenfranchising outsiders, but I would hope that Emily's List is willing to add a little more risk to their candidate selection process.