On Thursday, June 17th 2010, EMILY's List announced a new program called EMpower. We were filming WIN's 21st Annual Women Opening Doors for Women, where Stephanie Schriock, President of EMILY's List, announced the new program:
Maybe someone out there who knows the inner workings of EMILY's List can explain to me why this group has not put money behind Becky Greenwald, the Democrat challenging loyal Republican foot-soldier Tom Latham in Iowa's fourth Congressional district.
I have been going over the list of Democratic women running for Congress whom EMILY's List is supporting, with a particular focus on the six challengers most recently added to this group in early August. I do not mean to knock any of those candidates, and I recognize that every race has its own dynamic.
However, after comparing Greenwald's race to those of other candidates, I remain puzzled that EMILY's list is not more involved in IA-04.
Ouch. Steve Cohen took 79% of the vote, Nikki Tinker took 19% of the vote. That's a 60 point margin. Here are her endorsers.
During her 2006 campaign, Tinker received multiple endorsements, including the Afro American Police Association, Airline Pilots Association, EMILYs List, Future PAC, Women Under 40 PAC, and the United Steelworkers of America.
That's really embarrassing for EMILY's List, and for Harold Ford. This makes two races in a row where the Ford machine got blown out.
"These incendiary and personal attacks have no place in our politics, and will do nothing to help the good people of Tennessee. It's time to turn the page on a politics driven by negativity and division so that we can come together to lift up our communities and our country."
A little weak from the nominee, but at least he is on record on Tinker's ploy. I think she's going to be handily defeated...
Based on early votes and absentee ballots results, Cohen leads with 80.56 percent of the votes. His main challengers, attorney Nikki Tinker and state Rep. Joe Towns Jr., trail with 17.22 percent and 1.44 percent, respectively.
In a comment thread in my diary, Emily's List Backing Anti-Semitic, Homophobic Campaign???, debcoop wrote a comment that inadvertantly helps focus our attention on the underlying problem--the narrow-minded focus of Emily's List's mission that ultimately leads to this sort of boneheaded move as a sort of reductio ad absurdum result.
Emily's list is far from alone in this-the problem is endemic. The basic problem, as I will argue below, is that groups like Emily's List are not guided by the mission of building progressive power for all of us to share. Rather, they are guided by a focus on individual politicians using a limited set of criteria--criteria that in the end often fail to add up to a united progressive front. It is custom made for schemers and demagogues to take advantage of-and over the years they have increasingly done so, at the expense of the true progressives that we ought to be supporting.
Here's the text of debcoop's comment in its entirety. My response is on the flip.
Electing Pro choice Democratic women is Emily's List mission
I think electing women to office is an inherent good in and of itself.
And one of the dilemmas of the women's movement has long been whether it is sufficient to support seemingly progressive and seemingly feminist men...so much so that women never get a chance to be elected.
In NY State, where I live, it has long been noted by women's organizations here that there are lots of progressive men in office.
But believe it or not, until Hillary Clinton there had been no statewide female public offical. And that in the liberal bastion of NY!
So to say that women should suck it up for a progressive man and not challenge him...is like saying never go after power for yourself..only for others.
Also remember that when you look at the membership of the Congressional Progressive Caucus...it is mostly minorities, women and Jewish men. So when a women is running in a progressive district
there will often be a man there with their claim in already.
I have to say I trust people's unconscious responses to be revealing re Steve cohen's outburst...But if you are asking me from what I have gleaned about Tinker...I do think the race seems more about her than the issues. However what I object to is the idea that female candidates must once more defer for the greater good...which oddly enough too often means leaving the boys in charge.
What would you say of a politician running for Congress who failed denounce something like this attacking her opponent:
Typical Republican, right? Well, almost. Typical Harold Ford protege, actually. A corporate lawyer after his own heart.
The minister who put it out--who lives well outside the district--works with a group that's in league with the Traditional Values Coalition. And Emily's List is supporting her, more on the basis of her ovaries than her anything else--given her non-existent pro-choice credentials.
In 2006, local blogger David Holt reported: "When asked about abortion, she said the she doesn't support abortion but that the government should stay out of it."
That's an Emily's List candidate nowadays???
In sharp contrast, her incumbent opponent, Rep. Steven Cohen ranks in the TOP 25 according to Progressive Punch.
The attacks are motivated by Cohen's race, his religion, and the fact that he supports hate crime protections for lesbians and gays. His enemies clearly have no place in the Democratic Party. But Emily's List is in bed with them! And Black Agenda Report--in the person of no-nonsense Executive Editor Glen Ford--is all over this, as you'll see on the flip.
And EMILY's List endorses Nikki Tinker, the primary challenger and former Harold Ford campaign manager, who is running against progressive Democrat Steve Cohen. It's a black district, and the Ford machine is quite strong; Tinker is running with the backing of that machine. EMILY's List is supposed to be a progressive organization, but it's moves like this that are quite confusing. The mandate of the group is to support only pro-choice women, and it has a history of backing people like Mary Landrieu, that then throw choice under the bus. So what does Nikki Tinker think about choice?
When asked about abortion, she said the she doesn't support abortion but that the government should stay out of it.
That's some rousing support for the complicated and difficult situation that lots of women find themselves in - they are promiscuous, but hey, the government shouldn't stop them from getting an abortion if they really want one. And marriage equality?
She also had an honest line with gay marriage. She basically apologized for her position. She said she's struggled with the issue, that the way she was raised she can't support gay marriage but she's not saying she's right about that and that she wouldn't support the amendment.
That's more rousing leadership. And EMILY's List highlights Tinker's work on 'civil rights' cases in its press release announcing the endorsement. Steve Cohen is a good progressive representative. I like primary challenges in general, and he'll probably always face one considering the dynamics of the district. The question is where progressive organizations put their resources, and this is a cold decision by EMILY's List to push out a progressive with a 100% pro-choice record in favor of a questionable corporate backed politician that learned from Harold Ford Jr, hardly a strong supporter of choice.
I'm quite optimistic about Democratic chances in 2008, but I'm noticing a problem related to infrastructure, and that is that liberal candidates on a Federal level have no logistical support in either election or reelection contests. Blue Dogs only give to candidates who pledge to become Blue Dogs, and plenty of good Democrats and liberals are willing to help out Democrats in swing areas regardless of ideology. The DCCC and the DSCC help Democrats with a chance of winning House or Senate seats, and EMILY's List helps women running for office with fundraising, mailers, field help, etc. NARAL, the AFL-CIO, and Moveon have criteria to help candidates as well, and VoteVets helps veterans.
But if you are running as a liberal in an open seat, a primary, or a general election, there is no specific group to back you. Markos subtly makes this point in his post today.
This was the same lame spin that Republicans used to try and rationalize Jim Webb's victory in Virginia in 2006, before quickly dropping that approach as Webb's economic populism took center stage. Cazayoux and Childers appear to be economix populists in the Jim Webb mold.
Webb has proven to be something of a disappointment to liberals, voting for retroactive immunity for telecom companies and against progressive tax policies. He has been great on the GI Bill, but disappointing on Iraq overall. And Democrats just elected Bill Foster in IL-14, Don Cazayoux in LA-06, and Travis Childers in MS-01, each of whom is going to be a reliable Blue Dog vote. Foster and Cazayoux have already voted for war funding for Bush, and Cazayoux and Childers are both anti-choice. These were smart people to back; if we hadn't backed Foster, we might have lost on FISA, and Childers and Cazayoux saw the Republicans lose their total discipline in the House. And in 2008, we're going to have candidates like Ashwin Madia, a former Republican who wants to keep 20-30k troops in Iraq. Madia is a netroots favorite and a great grassroots organizer running a kickass campaign, but he's also closely resembling the mold of the Democratic candidate in 2006: charismatic, male, moderate.
Since 2005, in both general and special elections, we have put a group of corporate Democrats in office; it was smart, and I gave money to Foster, but with better planning it's possible to have put progressives in better chances to capture these seats. In IL-14, we had a candidate running in a primary against Foster who did not have the campaign organization and fundraising to pull it together. This is a problem in Vito Fossella's district, in GA-12, in IA-03, and it was true in MD-04 in 2006. We also have contested primaries between liberals and moderates in VA-11, and clear progressives running in general election contests like Darcy Burner and Eric Massa.
Where is the EMILY's List for them? Here's what an organization like this would do.
Talented Recruits: A liberal state Senator might consider challenging a conservative Democrat in a primary or for an open seat, but would know that it will take a lot of money to get it done. With a group promising to help fundraise and organize, and secure progressive surrogates, it's more likely we'd have primary challenges and liberals going for open seats.
Surprise Candidates: When a Republican retires or has a Fossella moment, the perpetual liberal running for that seat might not know how to run a campaign. Being able to put campaign infrastructure around him/her would make it more likely liberals could snag those seats when they become available.
Shifting the Caucus: By helping candidates specifically for being liberal, as Blue America does, this organization would put in place a general incentive for staying liberal.
Overall, it's clear that when an environment shifts, those best-positioned to take advantage of it, do. Let's get in a better position for 2010 and 2012. And if you are interested in something like this, contact me at stoller at gmail.com.
We've documented a variety of problems caused by the EMILY's List model of politics, including the execrable 11% victory rate for EMILY's List endorsed Democratic House candidates in 2006. I've heard some grumblings from donors who are frustrated at the fairly conservative leanings of many of their candidates and the general lack of accountability in the process. It's getting a bit worse. At the end of the last quarter, EMILY's List sent out a fundraising pitch for Joan Fitzgerald, a Democrat running in a contested primary against Jared Polis, a progressive and wealthy businessman in Colorado, for the second Congressional district. It's a safe seat.
EMILY's List has been sending out materials angering their local donors calling Polis a conservative and making pitches like this: "Will you help Fitz-Gerald keep this critical seat in Democratic hands". The seat is safe, so this argument is dishonest. Furthermore, Polis is not a conservative; he was in fact on the EMILY's List Majority Council and was endorsed by former EMILY's List candidates Peggy Lamm, Pat Schroeder, Angie Paccione and Josie Heath.
There are a variety of other dishonest claims that EMILY's List is making about Polis on behalf of Fitzgerald, and it makes sense for them to work for her election. That's their mandate. But the way it's happening is rubbing a number of their donors the wrong way. EMILY's List is making claims similar to their dishonest arguments in Massachusetts 5th around choice on behalf of Nikki Tsongas, only this time, they have attacked one of their own supporters quite viciously, and this is inadvertently reducing the organization's credibility. People give to EMILY's List to promote female candidates, to promote progressive candidates, and because they believe their money isn't being wasted. By lying about the Republican threat to the seat (there isn't one, it's a PVI D+8 seat), they are reducing their own credibility that they are using resources wisely elsewhere. And by misleading people about Polis's record, the group is muddling the brand that they are progressive.
Some of their donors are quite shocked, and are beginning to wonder if EMILY's List is making false claims in its pitch for resources elsewhere. I have seen up close how helpful the group can be, but there seem to be serious structural flaws that Ellen Malcolm has not yet seen fit to address. You can't simply lie about your friends anymore and expect to escape accountability.
I'm reading through this complaint the Al Wynn campaign just filed against Donna Edwards with the FEC. He literally accuses SEIU, the League of Conservation Voters, Friends of the Earth, Anna Burger, EMILY's List, the Arca Foundation, ACORN, and the Tides Foundation of campaign finance violations, though as you can see it's kind of hilarious what independent experts think. I hope you're proud of your endorsee, Speaker Pelosi. And I hope the rest of these groups come out forcefully against Wynn, mocking him mercilessly for his nonsensical claims. Let's go through the problems.
First of all, the complaint is signed by Lori Sherwood, Al Wynn's campaign manager and a former Comcast lobbyist. Here's Wynn in the Baltimore Sun.
"There seems to be a vast, dare I say, left-wing conspiracy designed to circumvent campaign finance laws," Wynn told reporters during a conference call. "Within this scheme, her supporters are coordinating efforts to exceed fundraising limits and engaging in illegal campaign activities."...
An attorney with the independent Campaign Legal Center in Washington who was asked by The Sun to review the complaint said it didn't appear to contain any facts that would constitute illegal collaboration.
"Interestingly, and unlike most complaints filed with the Federal Election Commission, there's not a single provision of federal campaign finance law directly cited in the complaint," attorney Paul Ryan said. "Several of the allegations, in my view, make clear the complainant doesn't really have a clear understanding of what constitutes coordination under federal law."
And then there's the campaign problem, where Wynn radically underreports the amount of money he's taking in. On his original July 15th Quarterly Report, Wynn reported receiving $61,582.69 in contributions between April 1, 2006 and June 30, 2006. Two days later, he filed an amended report saying he actually received $107,132.69 - almost double what he originally reported. Two weeks later he filed yet another version of his July 15th Quarterly Report saying he actually raised $157,275.69. Last week the FEC sent a letter asking him to explain these discrepancies and threatening an audit of his political committee....
His willingness to tangle with the FEC and flout campaign finance laws is not new. In 2000, Wynn was forced to return contributions from MSFBDA Management Group, a company that laundered money through its employees to Wynn...
There's more. That year, Wynn's campaign was one of 45 campaigns that failed to file a pre-General election report. In 2001, he was fined for filing his report late.
And let's not even go near the massive electoral problems in the 2006 primary election. There's also a lot more nasty stuff on Wynn out there, and it hasn't come out yet. I imagine he's going to get really personal and vicious; he's already accused nearly a dozen powerful, important, and extremely lawyered-up and careful progressive groups of lawbreaking.
Let's get rid of this guy. Donna needs volunteers and money, especially volunteers (which you can do from anywhere as long as you have a broadband connection)! Sign up here or go through Blue Majority.
UPDATE: And let's not forget Al Wynn's fake news video, which you can tell is produced by Wynn's campaign not because it's disclosed as campaign material, but because it is an incredibly shitty and incoherent production. It of course was taken down immediately, though I did manage to grab a copy and upload it for posterity.
This is not a surprise, but unlike most endorsements, it's a big deal. Emily's List is one of the few political organizations with the capacity to run campaigns. If you desperately need a trained communications or field director, or if you need polling or capital, Emily's List can get it to you. They can also do independent expenditures and work effectively in coalitions. They won't always get candidates what they need, and their processes are opaque and organized around attracting suburban married women through TV buys, but they have stepped in to many campaigns and run them out of the box.
It's a good step forward for Darcy, as she gets stronger and Reichert gets weaker. Watch his fundraising numbers. He's not an especially bright guy, and he's not a quick learner, so it'll be interesting to see if he is able to raise money without majority status or Republican leaders taking care of him. Last year, the GOP spent something on the order of $7M in the district against Darcy; I doubt they'll have anything close to that budget this year.
Jane Hamsher noted a few minutes ago that Emily's List has decided to endorse Donna Edwards for Congress. This is a big and welcome development for both Donna and Emily's List, which did not back her last cycle. Emily's List has been a bit skittish about taking on establishment power since backing Nancy Kaszak against Rahm Emanuel in 2002 in the Democratic primary, so it's wonderful that they decided to back Donna against Al Wynn. It's unusual for this group to take on a sitting incumbent, and it is wonderful news.
The primary in this race is February 12. 2008 is going to be a woman's election, and I'm excited and energized that Emily's List has jumped on board one of the races that could be an early signpost.
Emily's List had a success of sorts last week, when Niki Tsongas beat former Lowell Mayor Eileen Donoghue in Massachusetts 5th district primary. I say 'of sorts' because the mission of Emily's List is to elect pro-choice Democratic women, and both Donoghue and Tsongas fit that bill. The rationale from Emily's List for endorsing Tsongas was that she was 'the stronger candidate'. Tsongas won, despite an overwhelming fundraising advantage, some of which was provided by Emily's List, by around 4 points. I'm not sure how Tsongas was determined to be the stronger candidate, but if she was a better candidate than Donoghue, it wasn't by much. I should say that I'm glad Tsongas won, because Donoghue represents the Lowell machine and they are kind of awful; I'm just looking at the selection criteria for Emily's List.
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.
The latest polling on the Massachusetts fifth primary is out (via Blue Mass Group), and it shows that Niki Tsongas is still in the lead, but Lowell City Councilor Eileen Donoghue is surging.
Undecided voters are breaking decisively to Donoghue, Finegold is dying, Eldridge is static, and Tsongas is static.
The race has shifted because of Donoghue's aggressive strategy, and the Lowell machine kicking into gear. Both the The Lowell Sun and the Eagle Tribune endorsed Donoghue, and Lowell machine people are engaged in some vicious negative attacks on Tsongas, putting up the site NotNiki.com. The attacks have clearly been successful, and though Niki's base isn't going down, late breakers are going for Donoghue. These are nasty people going after Niki; if you'll recall, it was the Lowell Sun that called the 'Use it or Lose it' campaign to get Marty Meehan to transfer some part of $5M from his PAC in a safe seat to the DCCC "a nasty shakedown by rotten political scoundrels."
This is going to be a turnout game on Tuesday. Lowell is going turn their people out for Donoghue, so Tsongas's organization needs to be solid. It's too bad she didn't operate as a progressive, otherwise that 15% Eldridge has would be hers and the race would be over. When I first looked at this election, I had thought this would be a standard progressive versus establishment race. But it's not quite that, it's more about a local machine (Donoghue) fighting against state elite liberal reformers and DC groups like Emily's List (Tsongas).
Once again, this race is up to the hard core support, since the special election is right after labor day and the fight is not generating big press. I'm not sure who wins in that scenario, though it is the only thing Eldridge has working for him.
I have been talking a lot with Ellen Moran since Chris' post on the why did so many women lose in '06 issue. Ellen is the executive director at Emily's List and is also a good friend for many years.
She says that Emily's List is working very hard to figure out what happened in congressional races last year (it's not like they didn't notice). Given that Democratic women candidates for Senate and Governor did well, and that all the races were close but almost all broke the other way, it's a puzzling result to them. They are putting a ton of research and analysis into what happened, trying to examine it from every angle, but they don't feel satisfied that they have the right set of answers yet. She says that when they feel like they understand what happened in a thorough way, she will come back to us with that analysis.
I know this won't satisfy everybody reading this. The kind of wide open and frequently blunt dialogue that I have come to love about the blogosphere is a new thing for more traditional DC institutions like Emily's List, and not easy for them to embrace. But I am inclined to give Ellen the benefit of the doubt, partly because of my friendship with her, but partly because organizational culture moves more slowly and has to check off more boxes and think through more complications than some of the rest of us do.
Let's see what they come up with, and keep exploring our own lines of analysis as well. I know folks have lots of theories they are putting out there, and I've been impressed with much of what I've seen so far in terms of analysis. I think this exploration has been really helpful and really important, and I'm glad EMILY's List is doing their own. Maybe between the two processes, we'll find the complete answer to this puzzle. I hope everyone looking at this keeps looking at this exhaustively, and remains open to what surfaces. I look forward to more dialogue.
STATE BLOGS
