I didn't sign it because Obama's "ban" on lobbyist and PAC money is a sham too. (4.00 / 1)

When I was asked to sign this letter last month, I didn't.

I didn't because I thought then, and still believe that telling the DSCC and DCCC to "be more like Obama" is setting the standard high enough to be useful.  The president had any number of "unpaid advisors" who, if they were not registered lobbyists, were in fact the very best kind of lobbyists for their moneyed interests.  Rubin and Summers, for instance are not "registered" lobbyists, but were key advisors and relentless advocates for Wall Street, which is what "lobbyists" are paid to do.  Furthermore, the Obama campaign took lots of money from the financial types, from the relatives and law partners of lobbyists, and lots of other transparent dodges.  

Here is what I wrote to Adam on April 26...

Starting a "why can't you be more like Obama" campaign when the Obama standard is elastic, ambiguous, and in the end not all that much more demanding just does not raise the bar nearly high enough.  It doesn't ask nearly enough of the professional politicians.  Is that our job now?  To push them, but only just a teensie weensie little bit?

If we were looking for praiseworthy stands on campaign financing from our president we should turn the page back only a couple of years, to the decade or more when he said public financing of campaigns, to remove the undue influence of wealthy individuals and corporations was the way to go.  Barack was saying this back when he first went to the Illinois state senate, and he was still giving it lip service at the beginning of his presidential bid.  Demanding that we begin taking the money out of politics, moving toward public financing, that would be real and substantive reform that we at BAR could get behind, and so could millions of other Americans.

Of course it's not a battle that we can win this year.  But you have to ask, if the blogosphere is to focus only on things we can win this year, whose schedule are we on?  Are we anything more than the tools of the professional political class?

Public financing of campaigns is one of those issues the polling organizations won't even do honest polling on, because the public's likely answers are too far to the left of the establishment consensus, too threatening, sort of the same way that during the Bush era polling outfits would not ask direct polling questions about opposing the war, or impeachment.  Being part of, or in bed with corporate media that rake in hundreds of millions each election cycle from campaign advertising how can be expect any different?

So while nobody can tell you that the majority of Americans do (or don't) want public financing we can be reasonably sure that tens of millions of them DO favor public financing, and tens of millions more would get behind it if our media were honest and democratic enough to allow public debate on it.  Advocating public financing is real reform, real change.  That's what we ought to be about.  Public financing is the discussion corporate media have no intention of allowing us to conduct, and that is the very reason ONLY WE in the blogosphere can raise it.

A second problem I have with all this is that it feels like a familiar piece of Kabuki we have seen in several state governments and during the Clinton years.  It's the scene where the governor or president boosts his image at the expense of the legislature, even the legislature of his own party, making himself more secure at the expense of his party's legislative majority.  In Clinton's case it let him hang on even after Repubs took the Congress back in 1994.  Not saying anything like this is Obama's plan, or yours, but hey, stuff happens.  Again, it sounds like we are mobilizing the blogosphere behind reforms so mild, so limited and so conveniently drawn that they could easily be the demands of professional politicians.

Change doesn't happen when people follow the professional politicos.  It happens when we make the politicos follow us.  At a time when millions or maybe tens of millions of Americans likely DO support public financing, a time when the guy who's president has only recently retreated from that position, this falls way short of using the blogosphere's potential to move the progressive agenda.

I would say let's table this, which sounds like it could have come from the White House basement, anyway.  Let's grow a pair, ovaries or balls, your choice, and come up with a demand on campaign financing beyond what the political consultants imagine is doable this session, a demand in line with what it takes to make some fundamental changes, a demand that takes advantage of the fact that tens of millions of Americans are actually well to the left of either of the two parties and their elite (or wannabe) consultants.  If we in the blogosphere flatter ourselves that we are pushing for change instead of being manipulated, that's the least we can do.  We should be demanding some kind of concrete steps to take the dirty money out of the political process.  That would be change.  For real.

"If you want that good feeling that comes from doing things for other people, then you have to pay for it in abuse and misunderstanding..."
Zora Neale Hurston

---

by: bruce.dixon @ Mon May 04, 2009 at 13:59:57 PM UTC

I had the same reaction (4.00 / 1)

It would be a stronger letter if it didn't also legitimate Obama's phony campaign pledge.

---

by: justinh @ Mon May 04, 2009 at 15:25:49 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Charming ... (4.00 / 1)

... now maybe if you can get around to organizing a protest you might actually have an effect.  Otherwise, though it may make you feel really good, not a damn thing will come of it.

You got two alternatives if you truly want to effectuate real change:
a.  you can start the hard work of beginning a third party and building the infrastrucutre needed to do so; or
b.  you can organize protests and start building the infrastrucure needed to do that effectively.

Otherwise, your letters don't mean shit if they are not backed up with a critical mass of people marching in the streets or if you don't create some leverage/threat to the democratic plutocrats of truly moving on towards a new way with a third party.

Has obama even bothered to meet up with the progressives in congress yet?  Probably not and why should he, he has your votes in the bag and he knows it.  So he courts the blue dogs instead and gives them biscuits and then rolls over for them.  But for your crew:  nothing.

But, of course, these two solutions require strategy, organization and infrastructure hardly the strong suits of progressive organizations which is why you continue pissing into the wind while the blue dogs piss on your back and the dlc democrats tell you it is raining.

Z

---

by: Z @ Mon May 04, 2009 at 14:55:38 PM UTC

um... (4.00 / 1)

Are you aware of the push for big-picture reform? Join the "donor strike" -- www.Change-Congress.org

And yes, as the open letter indicates, when 5,000 sigs are reached they will be delivered in person with fanfare.

---

by: AdamGreen @ Mon May 04, 2009 at 17:40:14 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Why such a limited goal? Why not even mention public financing? (0.00 / 0)

Where's the vision, beyond trashing the DSCC and DCCC and making the president's fig leaf on this issue look like a tuxedo?

In your reply to my note you admitted that a huge number of people want to see public financing.  Why not get out in front on that, instead of letting ourselves be used by the White House to score some cheap political points?

"If you want that good feeling that comes from doing things for other people, then you have to pay for it in abuse and misunderstanding..."
Zora Neale Hurston

---

by: bruce.dixon @ Mon May 04, 2009 at 18:31:15 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

I like the spirit behind the idea and thanks for sharing it with me, but ... (0.00 / 0)

... I doubt it will be very effective.  But then again it is better than wasting your money sending it to congressional candidates that take it and still cater to their big money donors anyway totally unaffected by your contributions.  

I've already joined this in my own way.  I will not give to any candidates that the dscc or dccc back.  I may give to third party candidates and maybe someone like Sestak that may run against specter in the dem primary, but I don't know enough about him yet.  I will not give money based upon less abhorrent representation which seems to be rallying cry by so many progressive organizations.  

Z

---

by: Z @ Mon May 04, 2009 at 19:07:56 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

I'll sign, but I don't trust any of them to listen US..why start now? (4.00 / 2)

Rahm Emanuel and Chuck Schumer used our dollars to elect hacks who keep their agenda, the Wall Street and AIPAC ideologue agenda going strong  -from the inside.

2 inexperienced and gullible losers, Van Hollen and Bob Menendez, have now replaced them, with worse consequences for the party than before.
Van Hollen got in the Congress and the DSCC job as a newbie solely by capitulating to AIPAC, and Menendez, who barely won election in New Jersey took the DSCC job.  

Ol' Roberto, while on the one hand claiming he wasn't an ideologue, almost derailed the Democrats own omnibus appropriations bill, because he didn't like an infinitely small piece of it pertaining to Cuba.

Harry Reid rules the Senate by special interest caveat alone. Lieberman and Specter - both who oppose Democratic policies were deliberately put in place to ensure that continues.

As a result, I advocate never donating a dime to either of them at anytime.  Redirecting the argument towards a national antiDSCC and anti-DCCC due to insider collision and corruption is the more fitting response.


Nationalism is not the same thing as terrorism, and an adversary is not the same thing as an enemy.

---

by: worldlymother @ Mon May 04, 2009 at 15:13:56 PM UTC

awesome (0.00 / 0)

www.change-congress.org -- seems like you'd be into the donor strike.

---

by: AdamGreen @ Mon May 04, 2009 at 17:40:54 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

awesome (0.00 / 0)

www.change-congress.org -- seems like you'd be into the donor strike.

---

by: AdamGreen @ Mon May 04, 2009 at 17:40:56 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Alison and I... (4.00 / 1)

interviewed Nick Nyhart, president of Public Campaign, about the letter last week on our blogtalkradio show.  You can listen here:

http://www.blogtalkradio.com/n...

We also discussed Clean Elections.  The first half of the show is our regular "Pictures of the Week" feature with Michael Shaw of BAGnewNotes - http://www.bagnewsnotes.com

---

by: Susan S @ Mon May 04, 2009 at 16:54:25 PM UTC

A side note from the VA debate.. (4.00 / 1)

Did anyone know, as McAulife revealed in the governors debate, that he had funneled money given to the Democratic party coffers over to the DLCC coffers and their candidates??

That sheds even more light on how and why we ended up with so many non-Democratic wienees wasting Congressional seats.


Nationalism is not the same thing as terrorism, and an adversary is not the same thing as an enemy.

---

by: worldlymother @ Mon May 04, 2009 at 16:55:46 PM UTC