Alan Grayson--Why His Moneybomb, Why Now

by: Paul Rosenberg

Sat Oct 31, 2009 at 12:30


"If we can demonstrate a new model, a model where you get your campaign support on the basis of people power, then we'll be much more likely to be able to implement the progressive agenda, and show America what a party with a conscience actually can do for America."  -- Congressmember Alan Grayson

At a time when progressives have grown increasingly frustrated with timidity and lack of vision coming from elected Democrats in Washington, Congressmember Alan Grayson has emerged as a rare example of someone who actually represents us--not just with his vote, not just with his voice, but with his actions.  It's one thing to tell the truth about the Republican health care plan--"Don't get sick.... If you do get sick America, the Republican health care plan is this: 'die quickly.'"  That's rare enough by itself--virtually unheard of. But Grayson not only refused to back down when Republicans threw their predictable hissy fit in response, he barreled ahead and went right into a discussion of the recent Harvard study finding that 45,000 Americans die each year from lack of insurance.  In short, he showed himself to be the real deal.  This Monday he's asking us to back him by contributing to his moneybomb. And Open Left wanted to have him tell you why in his own words.

Congressmember Alan Grayson: I have to start by thanking you for giving me the person [Matt Stoller] who is the best Congressional aid of all.

OL: [Laughs.] So I can't rail at you for stealing from us.

AG: You can if you want, but it's not going to do any good.  

OL: I know.

AG: And I'm going to keep him.

OL: I know. There are some battles you just don't want to fight.  Let's start right off.  You're having a moneybomb on November 2.  Most basic questions: Why are you doing it?  And why now?

Doing it to show that it's possible for progressive to raise money without having to cater to lobbyists and people who want favors.

We're trying to invent an entirely new model to finance a campaign.

My campaign next year is going to cost $2 million. There's no getting around it. I don't set the media rates around Orlando, somebody else does that. And the result of that is that we have to show that money can be raised for progressive causes in the old fashioned way, which is $20 here, $50 there, $100 here, rather than asking big shots for favors.

I want a campaign that's a campaign by the people and for the people. And this money bomb will show whether or not it's possible.

I think we've already shown a lot of success, I mean we've already raised a quarter million dollars, and the money bomb is still three days away. But what we need to do is to show that we can do it the same way the right does it.  The right has had multi-million dollar money bombs for Ron Paul, and we need to show that we can do it that way ourselves. Otherwise people on the left in Congress will feel that they have to keep making deals with lobbyists just for the sake of financing their own campaigns.

Paul Rosenberg :: Alan Grayson--Why His Moneybomb, Why Now
OL: And why now?

AG: Why not?

OL: I just thought, it's a year away from the election, I guess a symbolic kick-off.  Was there any particular thinking in choosing this particular time?

It's the halfway point in showing people what progressive leadership can do.  To take it in your terms, November 2 marks one half [the] distance between the last election and the next election. We've got one year to go before the next election.  And I think that in many respects, progressive causes will succeed or fail based upon how much of an independence we can establish from the iron grip of lobbyists in Washington.

If we can demonstrate a new model, a model where you get your campaign support on the basis of people power, then we'll be much more likely to be able to implement the progressive agenda, and show America what a party with a conscience actually can do for America.

OL: Harry Truman once said, "I don't give 'em hell, I just tell the truth and they think it's hell."  I know I'm not the only one who's been reminded of that quote by your outspoken criticism of the GOP on health care.  What do you think of it?  Do elected Democrats today need to learn something from his example?

Well, there is a reason why we're calling our website for the moneybomb  "democratwithguts.com". [Note: Actually "congressmanwithguts.com"] That's what's really needed.  A lot of people, Democrat and Republican in Washington always think that everything should be compromised.  But in the case of healthcare,  You can't compromise between life and death. You're either alive or you're dead. There's nothing in the middle.  And the bill that I'm working right now, I've been so strongly in favor of, and trying so hard to get support for, is  bill that saves lives.

According to the Harvard study that was published a month ago, 44,789Americans die every year for lack of health care. And if you take two people who are absolutely identical physically, same gender, same race, same age, same smoking habits, same weight, and one of them has health insurance, and one doesn't, then the one without health insurance is 40% more likely to die.  That's a national tragedy.  And if 122 people were being killed each day by al Qaeda. Think of what we'd be willing to do to put an end to that.  

We have to show the same kind of courage and the same kind of guts to deal with the problem that is killing so many of the people that we love.

And doing it in a way that may be less visible than al Qaeda attacks, but just as deadly.

OL: There's been a lot of bluster from the GOP, but so far they've only produced a string of embarrasments.  So some folks might be feeling complacent about needing to contribute to you.  What would you say to them?

I think we have to show that this can be done and set an example for others. Business as usual in Washington DC is putting the law up for sale. And many people rationalize it by saying that there is no other way to finance a multi-million dollar campaign.  We have to show that that's not true.

We have to show that people power is strong, and that the people united will never be defeated. That is the whole purpose of this exercise.

OL: For a lot of people, their response to your blunt talk is basically, "It's about time."  And while they're happy that you're speaking out in clear, no-nonsense way, they also wish you weren't so alone.  So, obviously form what you've said, the answer to what I was going to ask is yes--Do you see this money-bomb as encouraging more Democrats-so, why don't I jump ahead to say [ask], do you see any signs that others are already payhing attention or at least watching what you're doing?

No question.  There's no question, that's certainly true.  I get encouragement from other members of Congress all the time.  But you have to understand that we're in the Democratic Caucus, a cross-section of America. You know, you've got people in our caucus that belong to every race, every religion, they come from every part of the country.  And some of us are outspoken, and some of us are shy.

Many members don't look forward to being on the radio, they don't look forward to being on TV.  They don't lok forward to interviews. And many of those members have come up to me, and they say, 'Thank God, somebody is saying the things we've all been thinking.'

I hear that a lot, not just from the public, but also from other members.

OL: I've tried to keep this short, because I know how valuable your time is.  I want to close by asking you, if there's something I haven't asked that's most important for people to know?

Well, yes. It's this. We live in a system that entrusts to 435 representatives, 100 senators and one president the power of life and death.

I think that's most visible to people in war. But it's equally true when you talk about health care. The stakes here are unbelievably large, and we as progressives have to make sure that the calculations that people are making in Washington are not calculations about their re-election changes or about what lobbyists will think about their vote or about how it's going to affect the polls.  We have to make sure that people in Washington actually vote for life and health and the well-being of America.

We have an opportunity that comes along almost never.  Certainly no more than once in a generation.  We have 60 members of the Senate.  We have 59% of the House.
We occupy the White House.  And what people want in the end is not feigned bipartisanship or feigned collegiality. What people want in the end is a better life for themselves.  And if we progressives actually deliver better health care, better education, better jobs to America.  Then we have the opportunity to rule America for the next generation.

This is so, so important. And that's something we need to be thinking about every day, and every moment.  I certainly do.

OL: Thank you very much, and I guess you're earned Matt.

AG: [Chuckles.]  Well. You know, we have a lot of influence on each other. one another.


Donate Now! (Or set your alarm for Monday!)


Tags: , , (All Tags)
Print Friendly View Send As Email
Done (4.00 / 4)
And since I figure that I've already gotten my money's worth, it was a genuine pleasure to contribute. (Two million bucks for a House campaign? Every two years? And we wonder why the American political system is dysfunctional? I know it's been said before, but Jesus!)

Well, They Aren't ALL That Costly (4.00 / 4)
Though some are more.

But, yeah, you got that right.  We are a plutocracy in democratic drag.

"You know what they say -- those of us who fail history... doomed to repeat it in summer school." -- Buffy The Vampire Slayer, Season 6, Episode 3


[ Parent ]
the cost of campaigns (4.00 / 1)
i don't doubt Grayson's estimates, or that at the moment we have to compete in the system as it is.

but it seems like it'd be worth taking time at some point to look at the question of why it costs so much to run for office. because ultimately, you win the election by getting the most votes, and i'm pretty sure we don't normally directly pay people to vote the way we want (maybe Pelosi is just a cheapskate, though). so where does the money go, and what does it buy?

for instance, is advertising the only way to influence the way that people vote? is it an arms race situation, where any other methods you might use are swamped by the other guy using ads? is it about the margins - where, say, 80% of the electorate is set one way or the other, and you're really fighting over the last 20%, who might be people who don't pay attention or aren't easily reached by anything other than shiny pictures on the TV?

part of what makes finding answers difficult, i'm sure, is that we aren't necessarily aware of what really changes our minds, and people aren't reliable reporters of what they think even when they know. and it's hard to experiment because you'd end up losing a lot while you tried different things.

i've always been skeptical of public financing because it seems like it would just lock in subsidies to the ad budgets of agents who are, in the end, not on our side. it'd be in our interests if we could find any ways around them, or to push down the costs.

not everything worth doing is profitable. not everything profitable is worth doing.


Sure (4.00 / 4)
I've always supported public financing, but only as part of a multi-faceted effort.  One good thing about the clean elections model is that it promotes a focus on gaining grassroots support as a prerequisite for the public financing.

But, of course, "grassroots support" can be manufactured, too.  And there's nothing new about that.  The initiative process was similarly gamed from the very beginning here in the US, because we adopted a very flawed imitation of the original Swiss model.

So, the questions you're asking are good ones, and they need to be integrated with others as well.  There are no short-cuts in battling entrenched power.

"You know what they say -- those of us who fail history... doomed to repeat it in summer school." -- Buffy The Vampire Slayer, Season 6, Episode 3


[ Parent ]
Speaking of Clean Money Elections (4.00 / 3)
Alan if you're reading this: I don't have much at all, but I did donate $10.01 to send a message, as it were, after your wonderful address on the Republican Don't-get-sick-or-else-die-quickly health care "plan". And I'll send another $10.01 on Tuesday. And my wish is that while you have the spotlight and the attention and admiration (and gratitude!) of the progressive base, you would also champion the cause of Clean Money Elections along side the money bomb requests. We need more elected officials like you, and we need them not to be having to spend such a huge amount of time and energy on fund raising.  

[ Parent ]
Great Questions (0.00 / 0)
for instance, is advertising the only way to influence the way that people vote? is it an arms race situation, where any other methods you might use are swamped by the other guy using ads? is it about the margins - where, say, 80% of the electorate is set one way or the other, and you're really fighting over the last 20%, who might be people who don't pay attention or aren't easily reached by anything other than shiny pictures on the TV?

Ads definitely increase the costs, and they aren't the only way to influence people. I doubt they are even the best way. Face-to-face contact is an under appreciated approach - the kind of organizing model used in the better elements of the labor movement, which the Obama outreach effort was based on.  Organizers seek to connect with other people, tell their own stories, hear other people's stories and concerns, and meet them where they are.

Political parties used to be machines for reaching out to and mobilizing voters - now they are machines for generating ads and the money to pay for ads. That does not help progressives or Democrats.  

There are community action groups, unions, political parties (like Working Families) that do have the capacity to engage in that sort of mobilization.  Hopefully good progressives can work together with groups like that to reduce the reliance on big money.

All that said, I think the money bomb is a great idea, as is pushing clean elections.  


i've always been skeptical of public financing because it seems like it would just lock in subsidies to the ad budgets of agents who are, in the end, not on our side. it'd be in our interests if we could find any ways around them, or to push down the costs.

Clean elections should include free air time, which would reduce the amount of money corporations would be making from ads. But even if it didn't, they (and political consultants and others) are already making so much money from elections that I don't think it could get much worse.

On the other hand, ensuring that challengers would be able to make their voice heard, and that dissidents will still be able to run a campaign even when the big money ran out, would do a great deal to open up the system.

Politics is the art of the possible, but that means you have to think about changing what is possible, not that you have to accept it in perpetuity.


[ Parent ]
courage and guts are good. courage and guts and the policy to match are better. (0.00 / 0)
According to the Harvard study that was published a month ago, 44,789Americans die every year for lack of health care. And if you take two people who are absolutely identical physically, same gender, same race, same age, same smoking habits, same weight, and one of them has health insurance, and one doesn't, then the one without health insurance is 40% more likely to die.  That's a national tragedy.  And if 122 people were being killed each day by al Qaeda. Think of what we'd be willing to do to put an end to that.  

We have to show the same kind of courage and the same kind of guts to deal with the problem that is killing so many of the people that we love.

what exactly is his policy prescription to match the courage and guts?


You May Be Missing The Point (4.00 / 5)
My sympathies, 'cause I'm a wonk, too.  But the truth is, what we're most lacking on our side is not good ideas--though we could always use more of them--so much as it is the forceful and skillful presentation of the good ideas we already have.  I expect that Grayson will get better and better over time at promoting fresh ideas, but as a freshman from a closely divided district, his most prominent and sensible contribution right now is that of aggressively reframing the basic contours of debate.

If you want, you can check out the bills he's a co-sponsor of, to get a more refined sense of how he's chosen to engage.


"You know what they say -- those of us who fail history... doomed to repeat it in summer school." -- Buffy The Vampire Slayer, Season 6, Episode 3


[ Parent ]
i miss lots of points - hence the questions... (4.00 / 1)
But the truth is, what we're most lacking on our side is not good ideas--though we could always use more of them--so much as it is the forceful and skillful presentation of the good ideas we already have.

after a couple minutes of reflection, i realize i don't disagree with you on this as much as i thought i did.... i guess what it comes down to for me is knowing which of the good ideas we already have is grayson promoting with his very skillful (and getting better) presentation?  i was especially curious about the healthcare issue because he's described the problem but not a solution (as far as i know).

will ask again on some other post, as i did not mean this as a criticism to derail fundraising (msg to all who have $$ to donate, please listen to paul and open your wallets!).


[ Parent ]
I Take The Long View (4.00 / 8)
I think we need to recall the New Deal.  It came in two waves.  The first was more conservative than the second. Even though FDR and the Dem-dominated Congress were willing to meet business & the GOP half way at first, the country just kept moving left, and then the Supreme Court did them the favor of throwing most of it out.  So they came back smarter and stronger.

Don't get me wrong, I'm all for fighting hard for the best we can get right now.  But I also think we should not accept the Versailles CW that whatever we get now is the end.  I think that's just bunk.  It's only true if we lie down and let it be true.  And one of the best things about Grayson is that he's speaking out in a way that facilitates a transition to Round 2, without yielding right now in Round 1.

"You know what they say -- those of us who fail history... doomed to repeat it in summer school." -- Buffy The Vampire Slayer, Season 6, Episode 3


[ Parent ]
I'd like to see a new model for growing progressive political power (0.00 / 0)
That would quite naturally lead to more contributions from progressive citizens to progressive campaigns. Please see my posts to Donna Edwards for details, here and here.

You also might give some thought to transitional funding strategies. E.g., progressive candidates who anticipate being campaign cash-strapped, can pledge not to take more money from corporate-related PACs than they do from less exalted citizens, and only up to a certain limit.

Also, why don't progressive candidates ask for pledges throughout their term, of effort and time, not just money? Ultimately, we have to drive down the cost of getting people knowledgeable and excited enough to vote for the best candidate. Ultimately, that will require large scale adaptation of vote bloc technology. In the meantime, candidates can call for the formation of thousands of 'min-vote-blocs'.  I.e., citizens can make a pledge that they will keep working their personal networks, until they find at least X other people who will vote for the progressive candidate, who otherwise would likely not vote at all, or else not vote for that particular candidate. X needn't be a large number - X = 1 might make all the difference, if the progressive candidate has gotten enough such pledges.

A closely related pledge by citizens (which might be easier to fulfill) is that they will contact X other people known to them (i.e., again they will work their personal networks) during the next, say, 6 months to tell them why they are excited about the performance of Congress Critter Y, and to ask them to strongly consider voting for them during their next election.

Citizens can also be asked to pledge their time for campaign activities (phone banks, etc.), which will mostly involve approaching strangers.

Finally, if you're really serious about growing a progressive movement, you can ask for volunteer pledges of time to approach strangers outside of political campaign season to both 1) get people to join a progressive movement (such as Progressive Democrats of America) and 2) also to brag about progressive Congress critter X's record.

435 Dem Primaries 2012
Coffee Party Usa
TheRealNews.Com


It's not just about showing it can be done. (0.00 / 0)
It seems that there are efforts to marginalize Grayson.  Certainly, Anthony Weiner (Mr. Single Payer himself) tried to when he said something to the effect of "he's one french fry short of a bag".  

Weiner's new found progressivism can only be made permanent if he sees Grayson's work paying off.

And now for a little history, Weiner was the conservative Democrat running for NYC Mayor in  2005.  Believe me, there were no flaming reds in the race.

I live in a true blue state--I will have a choice in November


Done! (4.00 / 1)
Took the pledge and donated tonight. Obama's obsession with bipartisanshippiness is a roadblock to progressive change. I will no longer donate to the Democratic Party in general and only help individuals like Rep Grayson. Thanks for the wonderful interview. I hope tons of Democrats, liberals and progressives chip in with however much or little they can!  

USER MENU

Open Left Campaigns

SEARCH

   

Advanced Search

QUICK HITS
STATE BLOGS
Powered by: SoapBlox