(Okay, I don't know squat about this race. But I do know that the Ted Kennedy's seat was won by a Republican because the state Dems seem to have been asleep for God knows how long, and Green voice to shake things up is a damn sight better than a GOP voice. There mere fact that she's running on single payer is worth a look see, and all they're really asking for now is $$$ to get her across the public financing fininsh line, so why not take a closer look? - promoted by Paul Rosenberg)
Dr. Jill Stein is running an insurgent Green campaign for Governor of Massachusetts against 3 business-as-usual political insiders. Her platform reads like a progressive Christmas list.
Now she has the chance to break this race open and show that clean, green, people-powered politics can succeed. If Jill Stein’s campaign can raise $125,000 in amounts of $250 or less by Friday 9/24 at 5 PM, it will qualify for 1-1 public matching funds.
The thermometer on Jill Stein’s website is rising rapidly. At 10:40 EST on Friday it shows $110,918, meaning Stein needs just over $14,000 to make it over the top. Supporters of her campaign have created a "Clean Money Tidal Wave for Jill Stein" facebook event, which is doing brisk business with over 10,000 people invited so far.
Here’s why this is so important: progressives often talk about supporting independent progressive candidates, if a viable one comes along. Jill Stein is that viable independent progressive. She hasn’t taken a dime of corporate or lobbyist money. She was a leading activist for the MA Clean Elections public campaign financing law that the state’s Democratic establishment threw out after the people voted for it 2-1.
Jill Stein is the only candidate talking about replacing Romneycare with a vastly more efficient single-payer health care system. She is the only candidate calling for local green job creation, instead of the big corporate tax breaks and casino schemes that her opponents all agree on. On issue after issue, Jill Stein is unwaveringly progressive while her opponents pledge allegiance to the failed corporatist policies of the status quo.
If Jill Stein qualifies for matching funds, she’ll have a guaranteed place in the debates and a real war chest to spread her message of a secure, healthy green future. It will show that clean money campaigns can work – and that independent progressives are ready to support candidates who support them.
Dan Hamburg, LeAlan Jones, and Jill Stein are running three races that are very important to the Green Party this year. In California, Hamburg is a former Democratic Congressman hoping to be elected as a Green to Mendocino County Supervisor. In Illinois, Jones is the only African American in the Senate race and has polled as high as 14%, in a state where the Green candidate for governor got over 10% in 2006. In Massachusetts, Stein is less than $1,000 away from qualifying for the rest of the debates, and about $38,000 away from qualifying for matching funds.
I'll make this as simple as possible. Here's what each one needs from you:
I wrote this diary, "John Waltz Continues to Show Strength" yesterday when I realized that the Waltz campaign had put up a very strong showing in fundraising for the last quarter. However, now it appears as if I put it up before I realized just how strong this showing really was. You see, as a political newcomer and a Progressive in a red area John Waltz did the unthinkable. He actually OUT-RAISED the sitting Republican Geoff Davis. Even more remarkable is that Waltz smoked Davis in donations from individuals.
Democrats are very close to the 60th vote on Wall Street reform. With Maria Cantwell and Susan Collins already indicating they are voting "yes," Republican Scott Brown appears to be the 60th vote. Annie Lowrey:
Speaking on a Massachusetts local television news broadcast, Sen. Scott Brown (R-Mass.) indicated that he's leaning towards voting yes on financial regulatory reform. "I'm going to be making a decision soon, but I'm liking what I see," Brown said.
This by no means rules out a Lucy and the football moment, where one of the Senators currently on record as favoring passage withdraws his or her support (this includes Democrats, too). However, if all existing yes votes hold, and assuming Robert Byrd's replacement will be available next week, two defecting Republicans (Brown and Collins) would be enough to cancel out one defecting Democrat (Russ Feingold).
On Feingold's "no" vote Speaking of Feingold, one question I have been wrestling with is if having credible progressive leverage on future Wall Street reform bills from Feingold's "no" vote is more valuable than the concession Scott Brown wrung out of the conference committee last week (replacing a $19 billion tax on banks over five years with a cancellation of TARP and increases in FDIC insurance fees to larger banks) because Feingold refused to vote yes. Given the strong political ramifications of ending TARP, it very well might be. Or, at least it isn't clear right now if Feingold's "no" vote is a net negative.
A revolt among big donors on Wall Street is hurting fundraising for the Democrats' two congressional campaign committees, with contributions from the world's financial capital down 65 percent from two years ago.
The drop in support comes from many of the same bankers, hedge fund executives and financial services chief executives who are most upset about the financial regulatory reform bill that House Democrats passed last week with almost no Republican support. The Senate expects to take up the measure this month.
There are actually multiple reasons for this decline. One reason, obviously, is Wall Street reform. Another is that Chuck Schumer is no longer running the DSCC, and he had strong connections to NYC-area Wall Street doors. A third explanation is that some of these wealthy donors are also upset over the lack of progressive progress in the Democratic agenda, and as such don't want to donate to party committees that will focus their spending on conservative Democrats. A fourth explanation is that many wealthy donors simply like to back the party that appears headed to victory, and right now Democrats are far from a lock.
The simple fact is that there are a lot of good reforms in this bill, voting to maintain the status quo won't prevent a financial meltdown either, and that no one I know in the Wall Street reform community thinks this bill ends the overall fight.
Because of your generosity and commitment, I am thrilled and relieved to announce that Open Left and Living Liberally met our fundraising goals. This week, we raised $19,501.61, from 411 donors. This will keep both organizations going, full strength, all the way through the electoral and legislative season.
Fundraisers like these are a humbling experience. They are also an excellent reminder about who you work for. Knowing that we work for you guys is a tremendous motivation to keep going, as hard as possible, no matter what happens.
Even though it seems like political types always say this, I really believe the next six months will be the biggest we face as a movement for quite some time. From the record number of progressive primaries, to taking advantage of the large Democratic majorities while they still exist, to trying to prevent Republican control of Congress, to reforming Senate procedure after the election, this really is a very rare moment in progressive politics. There are good reasons to feel frustrated and depressed, but we still have to seize the day while it lasts.
Your support will make it possible for us to do that. Once again, thank you, from the bottom of my heart.
Update: Up to $830--thank you! Still $170 left to be doubled. Please give now!
****
If you haven't already taken advantage of debcoop's generous offer to double your donation to Open Left and Living Liberally during our fundraiser, you still have time. Since Deb pledged to match the next $1,000 in donations, 19 donors have given $680.
When I have the occasion to meet other Drinking Liberally hosts -- folks who volunteer to create a progressive social space for their community -- I often hear the question: "Do you really know Chris Bowers?"
Chris, I don't want to make you blush, but you -- and the Open Left gang -- are celebs around the country. Liberal Drinkers frequently toast you...and, more critically, they regularly read you.
For many liberals living in conservative areas, the posts at Open Left serve a similar role to our political happy hours: you help people know they are not alone.
Which is why it was a natural idea to team up our network and yours to make sure both keep running.
One year ago, Open Left needed your help in order to avoid shutting down. You came through for us, which over the past year allowed us to play a big role the fight over health care reform, marriage equality in Maine, and convincing Senate Democrats to reform Senate procedure like the filibuster.
Now, one year later, in order to keep going, we need your help again.
We are faced with a $12,000 budget shortfall over the next six months. This is a time when Wall Street reform, climate change legislation, pro-LGBT legislation, a new reconciliation bill, and both primary and general elections will be decided. To operate at full capacity, and keep making progressive dents on these issues, we need 400 members of the community to give to Open Left.
We are joined in this fundraising effort by a vital partner in the progressive netroots, Living Liberally, who is also facing a budget shortfall. Living Liberally has changed the landscape of modern politics by building progressive communities in 350 cities, with a goal of creating progressive communities in all 50 states. They are a real-life counter to the tea party that will be sustainable over the long-term, making progressives stronger in every fight we face, both now and in the future
It is not an exaggeration to say that the next six months will be the best chance in a generation for progressives to pass good legislation. We have to make it count. By giving to Open Left and Living Liberally, you can do just that.
40 days from today - on May 18 - we will see two HUGE primaries for U.S. Senate. Even if you're not from either of these two states, these races impact Democrats across the country and, well, the entire country as a whole.
In Pennsylvania, Democratic Congressman Joe Sestak will try to upset Republican-for-decades Arlen Specter.
In Arkansas, Democratic Lieutenant Governor Bill Halter will try to upset corporate lackey Blanche Lincoln.
These two races are tremendously important to defining who and what the Democratic Party is and what we will be fighting for.
If you can volunteer for these candidates (or encourage friends and family in Pennsylvania and Arkansas to do so), that would be amazing.
Of course, if you can help with a contribution to either or both via the Expand the Map! ActBlue page as soon as possible, it will make a big impact.
Polling shows that both Specter and Lincoln are at risk of - if not likely to - hand these Senate seats over to far-right-wing Republicans. (And, even if these two retain the seats, that's not much better on many key issues.)
Congressman Sestak and Lieutenant Governor Halter winning these primaries are critical to keeping these seats in truly Democratic hands. Your support can help make that happen! Please hop over to the Expand the Map! ActBlue page right away to make a contribution - an investment in the Democratic wing of the Democratic Party to pull out an old expression - and show your support.
Thanks SO much for any support you can provide. 40 Days.
I finished reading what is otherwise a good interview with Newsweek by Dan Choi, who you may know as a veteran discharged under Don't Ask, Don't Tell and made headlines last week by chaining himself to the White House gates with two others:
In the interview, Dan criticizes last Thursday's 1,000-person rally, sponsored by HRC in Freedom Plaza here in DC with comedienne Kathy Griffin that actually led to his march to the White House, in the following way:
[Over the past two years] I've done 50 live interviews, a hundred other interviews, how much more talk am I expected to produce? When I heard Kathy Griffin was going to be a spokeswoman for Don't Ask, Don't Tell, I wondered about that. I have great respect for her as an advocate. But if [the Human Rights Campaign] thinks that having a rally at Freedom Plaza with a comedienne is the right approach, I have to wonder. Don't Ask, Don't Tell is not a joking matter to me. To be at Freedom Plaza and not at the White House or Congress? Who are they trying to influence? I felt like they were just trying to speak to themselves. If that's the best the lobbying groups and HRC can do, then I don't know how these powerful groups are supposed to represent our community.
I think Dan misses a fundamental point: we all have a role to play. HRC does certain tactics that may, to some, seem very insider or star-oriented. Dan described one he thought to be so- a rally in Freedom Plaza with a comedienne. I happen to see the value, as it brought out a thousand people, including a number of my less politically-inclined friends who would never take their short lunch hour to go do activism. The use of celebrities is valuable and quite common, including with Fight Back NY (a new PAC working for marriage equality in New York State) and and their video with Cynthia Nixon, or last summer's National Equality March, where Lady Gaga spoke (who shared a stage with... wait for it... Dan Choi!). You draw a crowd, tap into a new community. You can make a case over the location, perhaps, but I don't find fault with holding a rally with a positive celebrity advocate designed to draw people, many of them not active in this movement.
Also, sometimes I see vitriol hurled at organizations- in this case, HRC- purely on impulse. If a different group like Equality Across America held a rally in a plaza named "Freedom" midway between the White House and the Capitol featuring Kathy Griffin or Lady Gaga and drew 1,000+ people in the middle of a workday, I am doubtful Dan would make the same criticisms. Consider the value, not the sponsor.
He goes on to ridicule fundraising events:
They say freedom is not free, but it doesn't have to cost anything either. Jesus up on the cross did not have a party with all his major donors to raise money for his cause, his cross was free. Ghandi did not need three-course dinners and a cocktail party to get his message out. These are people who sacrificed their lives. For them it was hemlock, a cross, the bullet that shot Harvey Milk ... it was not the size of their distribution list, but their message that endured.
Leaving aside that Dan has agreed to participate in many of these dinners and cocktail parties, including receiving the Imperial Court Diamond Award at the 24th Annual "Night of a Thousand Gowns" masquerade ball this Saturday in NYC, and that many of the organizations with which he collaborates, including GetEqual (whose co-founder also chained herself to the White House gates, and did an e-mail blast in solidarity with him) are funded by Big Gay Donors Who Go To Cocktail Parties, I will never understand why people trash organizations for holding fundraising dinners or cocktail parties.
What is one of the best ways to raise money to fund all these good things? One useful tactic is to hold... wait for it again... dinners and cocktail parties. Shocker. Personally, I would rather see underfunded non-profits get a little more funding, and I'd rather see field organizers be able to do their work, and I'd rather see No On 1 win, so let's keep raising that money.
We all have a role to play, and we all use different approaches, and Dan has, so far, played a positive role by being a great face for why Don't Ask Don't Tell is wrong. If donors want to play their role by giving tens or hundreds of thousands of dollars to fund this work by attending dinners and cocktail parties, more power to them. I- and Dan, I imagine- will be happy to accept their money and play our role, too.
As we await the historic vote on health care reform, it's important to remember that we're just ten days away from the end of the first fundraising quarter of 2010. The fundraising totals reported in this quarter will be pivotal to determining the tenor of many races for the rest of the year. If there is any time to contribute, now is the time!
Please head over to the Expand the Map! ActBlue page and contribute whatever you are able to these terrific Democratic candidates for Senate.
Democrat
Currently At
End-of-Quarter Goal
Distance to Goal
Kendrick Meek
$25
$300
$275
Bill Halter
$445
$750
$305
Joe Sestak
$1,320
$1,600
$280
Paul Hodes
$1,447
$1,700
$253
Robin Carnahan
$1,163
$1,400
$237
Remember, the contribution you can make isn't just a donation to a single candidate or political campaign. It's an investment against Republican obstruction (and conservaDem enabling) and an investment toward achieving that more perfect union.
From 2006-2008, the DCCC made $14,421,187 in independent expenditures on behalf of elven members of the House of Representatives who are currently either "hard no" votes, or confirmed Stupak bloc, on the health reform bill. Those eleven members of Congress are Adler (NJ-03), Arcuri (NY-24), Bright (AL-02), Childers (MS-01), Donnelly (IN-02), Driehaus (OH-01), Griffith (AL-05), Kissell (NC-08), Kratovil (MD-01), Minnick (ID-01), and Shuler (NC-11).
Additionally, the DCCC spent $21,328,946 on eleven members who are currently undecided: Altmire (PA-04), Carney (PA-10), Dahlkemper (PA-03), Ellsworth (IN-08), Kosmas (FL-24), Hill (IN-09), Kanjorksi (PA-11), Mitchell (AZ-05), Perriello (VA-05), Space (OH-18) and Teague (NM-02).
The DCCC also spent a pile of money on the special elections featuring Travis Childers, Bill Foster, Scott Murphy and Bill Owens in 2008-2009, although I could not find exact figures on how much they spent. A safe assumption is that another $10,000,000 was spent in those campaigns, upping the overall total to around $45,000,000 on Democrats who are opposed, or undecided, on the health reform bill.
Furthermore, the DCCC spent $6,703,898 on just Dahlkemper, Donnelly, Driehaus and Ellsworth, all of whom are either Stupak bloc or "Stupak curious."
And to top it off, the DCCC is still actively raising money for nine "no" votes, (Adler, Arcuri, Bright, Childers, Driehuas, Kratovil, McMahon, Minnick, and Nye) along with a slew of undecideds (Carney, Dahlkemper, Foster, Hill, Kosmas, Mitchell, Scott Murphy, Owens, Perriello, Space and Teague).
The DCCC is the easily the largest source of funds for the Democrats who are holding up the health reform bill. And, they show no signs of turning off the spigot for 2010.
There is a lot of buzz in the blogosphere about how Progressives in Congress are bad negotiators. I'd have to say that serving as the Democratic Party serving as the primary source of funding source for the opposition to its legislative agenda takes bad negotiation up a couple orders of magnitude.
Oh yeah--and two committee chairs, Peterson and Skelton, oppose the health reform bill, too. Sweet.
A few months back, I wrote about moral hazard in the LGBT community around the National Equality March. The concept was whether march organizers, who up to that point (eight weeks out) had done a poor job of planning and the March looked like it would be a failure, who made the bed should be forced to sleep in it alone, or whether lots of LGBT community leaders and organizations would ride to the rescue to get them media attention, attendees, etc. It turned out to be the latter, as it became evident that many would rather not get embarrassed on a national stage. The moral hazard problem this created was that any big-name activist who unilaterally plans a major action that will get massive media attention can look at the March experience and witness that others will ride to the rescue to make sure the LGBT movement doesn't look stupid. Insulation from risk.
I'm starting to see this again in California as a movement to repeal Prop 8 is moving forward. The debate had been raging over the past year regarding whether to move forward in 2010 or 2012. Arguments in favor of 2010 include that civil rights should never wait, that there is a very palpable anger in the community to harness, that we could have won if the No On 8 campaign didn't suck so much. 2012 advocates argue that a presidential year is better for us in terms of turnout, that the polling hasn't shown any movement, that more persuasion needs to be done, that there isn't enough time or enthusiasm to raise the tens of millions necessary to win in California. And perhaps the biggest one is that if we lose in 2010, we're done for quite some time.
This past week, as Phillip with UniteTheFight reports, Love Honor Cherish, a Los-Angeles based advocacy group, announced a drive to obtain the one million signatures to qualify its already-submitted language for the 2010 ballot. There are a number of problems with their effort, though, and this is set up to be a very dangerous proposition.
To keep the momentum going, Open Left community member debcoop has pledged to match the next $500 in donations. So, if you give right now, your donation counts double!. Deb will also give another $500 if we stop the Stupak amendment from ending up in the final bill.
Your support, as always, is humbling and a great reminder of who we work for on Open Left. The next six months will cover the most pivotal legislative fights of a generation--health care, climate change, financial regulations, reproductive rights, a new jobs bill and what to do with the leftover bailout money. We want to keep making as big a difference as we can during these fights, and need another $8,645.01 to cover our operating costs until May. Please, chip in what you can now.
Update: $170 into the donor match. Please, take this chance to double your support!
First update on the fundraiser: as of 6:30 p.m. eastern, 82 contributors have donated $5,572.99!
This is a great start, and will cover another 56.5 days of our operating expenses. In order to last until May, we need to cover another 126 days worth.
Please, if you value the information we provide, the campaigns in which we engage, and the analysis we produce, contribute to Open Left today. We work for you, and we can't work without you.
STATE BLOGS
