Today is the end of the first fundraising quarter for candidates for federal office. By April 15th, all candidates for federal office, as well as all federal PACs, have to disclose how much cash they have on hand, how much they raised from January 1st through March 31st, and what expenditures they made.
In an attempt to make themselves appear more viable to party committees, to media outlets, and to other donors, candidates try to rack up as many donations as possible on the last day of the quarter. With email now such an essential part of campaign fundraising to a huge deluge of political fundraising emails today. For some perspective, at 1:30 p.m. Today, eastern, Brandon English tweeted that he had already received 53 email fundraising asks today:
Now 53 end-of-quarter emails in my inbox today. Most popular subject lines are "Midnight" and "X hours to go". Give to your fav Dems today!
Now, Brandon works on new media for the DCCC, so he might be on more of these candidate email lists than anyone in the country. He also clearly isn't bothered by the deluge.
However, with literally hundreds of campaigns sending out fundraising emails today, and with many campaigns selling their email lists to other campaigns as a means of paying off campaign debt after elections are over, the signal to noise ratio for online organizers is reaching a disturbing level. I have donated to about 25 different federal campaigns since 2003, mostly in small amounts, and as a result I have received dozens of emails over the past week. Instead of reading them, these days I am pretty much just deleting them all.
While most campaigns will still make far more money over email today than they made any other day this year, the possibility of a long-term, chronic decline seems real. As more campaigns sell their lists to each other, and as campaign email lists grow larger, the usefulness of email as an activism tool can only decline on an email per email basis. And then, as individual emails become less valuable, campaign email lists might grow even larger, as they become cheaper to purchase.
Email remains at the center of new media political organizing for now, but days like today are a reminder that won't be the case forever. Eventually, social networking will replace email, since social networking groups cannot be sold and since it is much easier for an individual to choose which groups they join. This probably doesn't spell danger for large, email-based activism organizations over the next few years, but in a decade, or perhaps a little more, the declining value of email will make the basic structure of online political activism completely different than it is now.
Public universities across America are raising tuition so high that many students simply can’t afford it.
For example, the University of California system is boosting its average undergraduate tuition from $7,788 to $10,302. [1]
In five states, public universities already charge undergraduates on average more than $10,000 per year for tuition and fees. [2]
It’s outrageous that US politicians sign blank checks for war, yet turn their backs on young Americans struggling to get an education.
Tell your members of Congress to support tuition-free higher education at public universities.
State governments are justifying massive tuition hikes as a necessary evil in the face of growing state budget deficits. But the real question is one of priorities.
Congress recently passed the largest military budget in US history, [3] while Wall Street enjoyed a massive $14 trillion bailout. [4]
Our members of Congress must prioritize education above endless wars and subsidies for corporate profits.
The future of our nation depends on making quality education available for our young people.
Tell your members of Congress now: support tuition-free higher education at public universities!
Notes: 1. Jenna Johnson and Daniel de Vise, “Students protest cuts to higher-education funds.” Washington Post, March 4, 2010.
2. College Board, Trends in college pricing. October 20, 2009.
3. Tony Capaccio, “Congress Approves $636.3 Billion for Defense in Fiscal 2010.” Bloomberg, December 16, 2009.
4. “Behind the real size of the bailout.” Mother Jones, December 21, 2009.
In the latest game of public option hot potato, Senator Dick Durbin says he will whip hard for a reconciliation bill that includes a public option. However, the caveat is that he will only do so if the House sends a reconciliation bill to the Senate with the public option in it. If the House sends the Senate a reconciliation bill without a public option, then Durbin will whip aggressively against adding one in the Senate. From a Durbin spokesperson:
"I want to be crystal clear: Sen. Durbin and the rest of the Senate Leadership will be aggressively whipping FOR the public option if it is included in the reconciliation bill the House sends over. Conversely, the Leaders will whip against any attempt to alter or amend the bill if the public option is not in it (or as your email says - whip against adding the public option as an amendment in the Senate.)
The reason is simple. There can be no amendments - good or bad - to the reconciliation bill once the House passes it and sends it to the Senate. The House will not do step one (passing the Senate healthcare bill in the first place) if they do not have assurances that the fixes they want (i.e., the fixes in their reconciliation bill) will be passed unchanged by the Senate."
This is the same point I argued last week: the public option must be in the reconciliation bill that the House sends to the Senate in order to have any chance. Because of the leaderships twin desires not to blow up any deals on votes once the bills reach the floor, and their desire to stop the Republican strategy of filibuster by amendment, they are not going to allow any strengthening amendments to the health reform bills to pass. This includes a public option amendment.
However, it is highly unlikely that there is a public option in the House reconciliation bill. Two weeks ago, Speaker Nancy Pelosi said it was off the table. So, the only way to get it in the bill is through the Budget Committee markup of the bill (which will happen next week sometime), after someone proves that there are 216 votes for a reconciliation fix that includes a public option. That isn't much time, but it also isn't entirely impossible.
Now, given that the House is apparently going to have to find the votes for health reform without the Stupak bloc, there are good reasons to think that the House does not have 216 votes for a health reform reconciliation fix without the public option. The Democratic leadership is going to have to find votes for passage among a number of Representatives who voted against the House health reform bill back in November. You can see the list of those members here, and it is not a pretty one when you are looking for about a dozen votes in favor of a health reform bill that includes a public option.
That is the task ahead for the public option--find 216 votes in about five days. CREDO and the PCCC have already sent out action alerts urging people to start this last ditch effort. If you haven't already received an email from them, visit their websites, and join in.
Did progressive organizations and members of Congress get completely rolled in the health reform negotiations? Nope.
By comparing the current state of health reform legislation to the most conservative proposals that were passed out of Congressional committee, a healthy list of concessions progressives forced out of the right-wing of the party becomes visible. If there were no alterations from the most conservative health reform proposals that were passed out of Congressional committees in 2009, then the current state of health reform legislation would have:
$125 billion less for Medicaid, CHIP and exchange subsidies (total across all three programs);
Numerous exceptions to Medicaid eligibility even for people below 133% of the federal poverty level (FPL from here on out);
No minimum medical loss ratio for health insurance plans, instead of an 85% minimum medical loss ratio;
The Stupak amendment, instead of the Stupak state opt-out that is in the Senate bill;
No extra money for federally funded Community Health Centers, instead of increased funding to provide primary care to 16.2 million patients annually;
An excise tax on high end insurance plans would start in 2013 (giving most unions no time to renegotiate contracts), and a lower threshold (making it less progressive);
No 2.9% tax increase on unearned income, making the funding mechanism for the overall bill less progressive;
A stronger individual mandate and fewer responsibilities for employers;
No national exchange, instead of what appears to be both a state-based and a national exchange in the proposal form the White House.
Does this list of concessions mean that progressive health reform activists have won resounding victories up to this point? Certainly not--the current state of health reform legislation is far from ideal, and much closer to the right-wing proposals that passed Congressional committees in 2009 than the left-wing proposals that passed out of committee.
(Even the best proposals that passed out of committee are a far cry from what many progressives wanted. Then again, there are some conservative Democrats who want no reform at all. As such, I am only looking at proposals that passed committee, since those were the only viable proposals on either side.)
Still, it is an impressive list that should make any progressive activist who participated in the health reform fight proud, even if dissatisfied. You really did improve the bill, and have the opportunity to keep improving it.
In the extended entry, I provide extensive justification for this list of progressive improvements to the health care bill. I do so by comparing the most progressive, and least progressive, proposals to be passed either out of a Congressional committee, or by the full House or Senate in 2009, to the current state of health reform legislation. This analysis looks at ten key fights legislative fights over health reform that have occurred over the past year:
The public option;
Repealing the health insurance industry's anti-trust exemption;
Instituting a minimum medical loss ratio for insurance policies;
Expanding primary care in low-income areas through Community Health Centers;
Medicaid expansion;
Exchange subsidy levels;
Tax structure for funding the bill;
Insurance exchange structure;
Reproductive rights;
Mandate
It is a lengthy post, but in order to develop a comprehensive list of ways that progressives had improved such a large piece of legislation requires a lot of detail. I have no doubt that there are some areas where my analysis could be cleaned up quite a bit, but at the very least I hope this is a good starting point in an important discussion. So many people who poured their guts into this effort need to know what they achieved, because if this bill passes they achieved quite a bit.
President Obama has proposed a whopping $54 billion in loan guarantees for the construction of new nuclear power plants.
What does that mean? If the costly new nuclear plants aren't finished, then taxpayers cover the huge financial loss.
If they are built, then we're stuck with power plants that generate overpriced electricity and create deadly radioactive waste that will remain toxic for thousands of years.
Either way, the nuclear industry wins, and we lose.
Tell President Obama to stop the nuclear power boondoggle.
Nuclear power creates deadly radioactive waste, from the mining process onwards. It's got a scary history: think Chernobyl and Three Mile Island.
Just recently, a nuclear plant in Vermont was ordered shut down after radioactive tritium, which is linked to cancer, leaked from the plant into local water supplies.
Nuclear power is so financially risky that even Wall Street won't bet on it. It's a public health and financial disaster waiting to happen.
Instead, our government should promote energy efficiency and a decentralized power system based on safe, clean, renewable energy.
Tell President Obama today: don't risk our future with nuclear power subsidies!
Human Rights activists from more than 25 countries gathered in Washington last week for a meeting designed to mobilize greater support for those struggling to advance respect for basic freedoms in fragile new democracies and repressive authoritarian states. They had a packed agenda, including a meeting with President Obama and senior National Security Council staff at the White House.
It happened once, twice; I trust the third time could not charm me more. I have witnessed the power of a gesture, one made without words. I have seen the light that glows when people connect in quiet ways. Now experienced on more than one occasion, I have come to appreciate the peaceful power of consistent communication. I had not fully acknowledged what could be accomplished until I arrived on the scene, alone. Then I saw it. I felt it. I could hardly believe that a single steadfast individual, could convey a message without words, and still receive such a resounding response. Yet, while there, it occurred. I was struck by what had not been apparent for near a decade. The stance of a quiet soul, stated calmly, clearly, and with care, can move more persons than I ever imagined.
In the post below this one, I asked if teabaggers (and some lefties) would work to support Scott Brown in the Massachusetts Senate campaign. This is because Brown's unlikely, though not impossible, victory in the January 19th special election is pretty much the only chance left to defeat the health care reform bill.
So, what action are the teabaggers planning for that week? Why, a completely unrelated, entirely symbolic, national strike to protest President Obama's one-year anniversary in office. From The Hill:
Tea Party activists are planning to go on a "national strike" later this month to protest both President Barack Obama and the businesses and other groups that support him.
Their effort, which focuses primarilly on corporations that "employ individuals backing the leftist agenda," will occur in major cities on January 20 -- the date President Barack Obama was inaugurated last year, according to Allen Hardage, who is leading the campaign.
That's very cute. From the "official" statement:
On January 20, 2010 we will demonstrate our power and reach to those companies who employ individuals backing the leftist agenda in every major city, every congressional district and every small rural town in America to spread one unified message. That message is simple: Stop funding socialism. When they refuse to stop backing the major opponents of Liberty, liberal media outlets and socialist leaning elected officials, then we proceed to financially cripple them.
Yeah--demonstrate your power to stop socialism by completing ignoring the one chance you actually have to stop what you consider the biggest instance of socialism in the "Democratic-Socialist" agenda. Opt instead for a type of action that will have no impact except to identify yourself as someone who hates Obama:
Fred Taub, president of Cleveland-based Boycott Watch, said the national strike sounds like a one-day boycott - something he said never works.
"If I choose not to buy gas on Tuesday, I'm going to have to buy gas on Monday or Wednesday instead," he said. "I still have to eat. These one-day boycotts are completely and totally ineffective."
Who cares about effectiveness? This isn't about effectiveness-this is about identifying yourself as someone who hates Obama!
This helps explain why the teabaggers are taking a pass on action that could actually stop "socialism," and opting instead for ineffective, symbolic, identity-based actions: they don't care about actual issues or legislation. Whereas only 6% of Democrats and Independents,a nd 10% of "others" consider health care reform "not at all" important in determining their vote, 51% of Republicans hold that position.
That is a remarkable, stunning, and very important poll finding. It also helps explain the mentality of the current conservative, Republican and teaparty opposition. It isn't about issues, or policies, or legislation. For many, even a majority, it is just about demonstrating that they hate you (and yes, I mean you). Everything else is simply a sideshow.
In 2004 I began speaking at rallies and forums around the country on issues of peace and justice, something I've done off-and-on ever since. Up through 2008, it was extremely unusual for questions from the audience to consist of pure defeatism. In 2009, it was rare to get through a Q&A; session without being asked what the point was of trying.
And the defeatism is so contagious that it will be hard for me to make it through 2010 if people don't shut up about how doomed we are. If current trends continue, by 2011 the only people showing up at forums on peace and justice will all be old enough to tell my grandparents they're too young to understand how pointless it is to try. And my grandparents are dead.
Most of the defeatist questions I get asked are more statements than questions, mostly informing those in the room of ways in which our nation is corrupted that we are all painfully aware of, but stated as much out of frustration and despair as out of any hope of hearing a miraculous solution articulated.
This week, we have something new for our Training Tuesday series. We still have plenty of videos left to come from Democracy for America's Campaign Academy, but a couple weekends back, we attended the Organizing 2.0 conference in New York. This conference was a unique opportunity for activists to learn about new media and online organizing from some of the greatest online organizers around.
Last weekend, I attended the Organizing 2.0 conference in New York, put together by Charles Lenchner of the Working Families Party. This conference brought people together to hear from some of the greatest minds in the online organizing world. I came out of it with lots of great footage, and today we are previewing some of it. The majority of the footage, however, will be featured in our Training Tuesday series. So check back Tuesday at 6:00pm for more Organizing 2.0 footage. We are also collecting all our Organizing 2.0 footage onto one page here. But if you are reading this, then you really should find the time to watch these videos.
I.e., a set of national demonstrations by which people will demonstrate not on any one or two particular issues which serves as a theme, but rather on any issue for which they believe that neither the Democrats nor Republicans represent them. Another way to think of this is: the protests are jointly directed at the Democratic and Republican parties, themselves. I've never heard of such a thing, so the novelty, alone, might make it significant.
I've already thought up my sign's slogan: "Down with the Dumbos, and down with the Jackasses! (If I want clowns running things, I can go to a circus.)"
Besides the Demonstration-As-Free-Speech-Expression aspect, and the (probably vain) hope that Congressional D's and R's will change course, such a demonstration COULD HELP FOSTER COOPERATION BETWEEN GROUPS THAT, THOUGH HAVING UNBRIDGEABLE GAPS IN SOME OF THEIR POSITIONS, WOULD DO WELL TO COLLABORATE IN THROWING OUT CORPORATIST SCOUNDRELS, OF BOTH PARTIES.
Voting bloc technology is going to make this more practical than it is, right now, but getting rid of UNECESSARY polarization could help us get a jump start on bottom-up, collaborative processes.
Another benefit is that it'll help Independents to realize their collective power.
Yet another benefit: I'll bet you could make an entertaining book and movie out of the demonstrations. Hopefully including a friendly competition of skits wherein the hypocrisy and apparent incompetence of members of the government (especially Presidents) is the subject - but the audience will not be told, ahead of time, the ideological orientation of the actors (if any). Think of political skits on "Saturday Night Live", but with more of a bite, and with an implicit motive of actually doing something about the situation. The idea here is educational as much as entertaining - instead of wallowing in the "aren't they stupid?" mudhole, Democrats can see that Republican voters aren't happy with Republican politicos, and vice versa, and often for some of the same reasons. Such a video and book might prove seminal as the public moves to an e-democracy.
Coverage originally posted by Will Urquhart at Sum of Change
Last week, we joined pro-choice activists from all across the country on Capitol Hill. They came to support health care reform and the public option, and they came to fight against the Stupak amendment and any bans on women's reproductive health coverage. The program began with rally, after which, the groups headed to scheduled meetings with their legislators. We tagged along with a group from Sister Song in New Orleans and joined them for the visit with Senator Mary Landrieu's office.
We have extensive coverage of the day's events, with plenty of full speeches.
Dr. Jillian Weiss, who has been writing frequently about the progress of ENDA in Congress, has a piece up over the postponement of the markup in the House. In it, she blames marriage equality activists such as myself for paying too much attention to, um, marriage equality:
It is 5 minutes to midnight on ENDA, with still a possibility of getting a vote this year if everyone pulls together, and what happens? Do we have LGBT and progressive media exploding with articles of protest and telling people how to lobby Congress effectively to get this moving?
Nope. Instead, a NY marriage vote that was known to be doomed sucks all the oxygen out of the room. The D.C. city council preliminary vote on marriage and a possible marriage vote in NJ are also in the news. But unlike most mornings when I crank up my Google machine, there are no news articles this morning on ENDA, anywhere.
A couple of things:
1. Let me say first that I immensely respect Jill's work on this issue, which has been tremendous. Let me also ask that you call Chairman Miller's office at (202) 224-3121 and ask that he take up ENDA as an urgent priority.
2. I reject blame placed upon people who choose to focus on an issue and pound on it. In the first place is prioritization. By my own estimate, probably 80% of my posts and online organizing in the past three months have related to marriage equality. I focused on marriage in the Corzine race, Maine, New York State, DC, California, and New Jersey. I did this in part because of prioritization. At least 4/6 of those fights, in my view, were a more urgent priority than ENDA. Maine and Corzine happened on Nov 3rd and there is no way to change that. A deal was cut to have a vote in NYS before the end of the year. NJ needs to happen lest we get screwed the next several years by Christie. That's not mine or anyone else's fault, that's the nature of the beast and the timeline of elections, and that is part of the reason I chose to focus on them over ENDA.
3. I chose ME as my priority just as Jill is entitled to choose ENDA as hers. Yet it's my fault, in part, that a markup got postponed because I asked people to focus on equally- perhaps more important and urgent- fights? By Jill's logic, I suppose I'm entitled to write a post blaming Jill for helping lose NYS because she "sucked all the oxygen out of the room" at The Bilerico Project around ENDA. I suppose it's also my fault we don't have the votes on DOMA, DADT hasn't advanced and children are still starving in Africa because I've been asking folks to help with other issues.
ENDA is not the only important fight in the world. I would also direct attention to Chris' piece last night on how to build your own netroots organization. If you are upset by the perpetual suckitude of marriage activists like me for, you know, working on marriage too much, go build your own effort, and I am more than happy to help where I can.
4. I raised money to go to Maine in part because I didn't see enough attention being paid to the race- most of the energy was around health care- just as Jill said she started working on ENDA because no one was working on it, so I respect that. But I would never write a post blaming bloggers like Chris or Mike or anyone else for helping lose Maine because they think health care is important, and it captured people's attention. They have a right to care about what they want, as do readers like you. It's not like they or I were sitting on our asses when we could have helped. And you have to actually reach out and ask for help, sometimes.
5. On her organizing in general, we've gotten pretty good at whip counts here at OpenLeft recently. For Jill to list 45 Senators as "unconfirmed" over ENDA is odd. Who in the world expects bigots like McConnell and Sessions and Cornyn, who have opposed ENDA and every other piece of LGBT rights legislation for years, to suddenly come around? Not only does this amount to a waste of people's resources, when a Texas activist thinks it's suddenly important to spend time lobbying Cornyn, but it makes things seem not as up to date as they should be. Fixing this would help.
So I find this kind of circular firing blame game unhelpful. I have limited time to write and mobilize, and a right to prioritize issues. We all do. ENDA is far from over, and blaming activists like me for a House committee markup postponement is misdirected. Better would be to channel the losses over marriage into "hey folks, we just got screwed on marriage in multiple places and we're about to get screwed on ENDA- let's make sure we don't" activism. And to build your own efforts through methods like Chris' recommendations, reach out, and stop saying your priorities are more important than others'.
Do you think that existing Democratic and progressive organizations suck? Do find them pathetic, ineffective, beholden to status quo power structures, and generally lacking in vision? Do you want to start your own organization to fill the vacuum created by this suckitude?
If so, then against my better judgment as an (occasionally) professional consultant, allow me to provide you with a free, five-step guide to creating your own progressive organization. You know, that organization that will be free of all the mistakes and errors that the pathetic, ineffective, sell-out organizations currently in existence keep repeating.
For less than $1,000 a month, you can provide yourself with all of the necessary tools to get your organization going. In the extended entry, I explain how.
