It's Bad Enough We Have Trump Threatening Democracy-- Now There's Cheri Bustos, A Dangerous Blue Dog At The DCCC

Eric Levitz's column in New York Magazine over the weekend, House Democratic Establishment Declares War On Democracy is exactly the kind of headline Pelosi, Hoyer and Cheri Bustos deserve. Their latest little trick-- under cover of the Mueller Report hysteria-- deserves lots of exposure so the Democratic grassroots starts to understand that when you contribute to the DCCC, you are contributing to the enemy. "The American political system," wrote Levitz, "is dominated by a two-party duopoly that uses its control over election laws to suppress challenges to its power. That statement might sound like Nader-ite agit-prop, but it is a plain fact, widely recognized by scholars of comparative politics."

He goes right to the heart of the problem-- the accountability to voters that each corrupt party's establishment tried to undermine. "[T]hanks to partisan polarization, most American voters live in congressional districts where there is no serious two-party competition... These conditions are decidedly less than ideal, from a democratic perspective. But they can nevertheless be reconciled (at least, to an extent) with competitive elections and government accountability-- so long as voters can vigorously contest power within each major party. A Democratic House incumbent representing a district in New York City will be all but invulnerable in a general election. But if Democrats encourage intraparty democracy, then that incumbent’s constituents will still be able to hold him or her accountable in a contested primary. Unfortunately for our republic, the House Democratic leadership signaled Thursday that it believes democracy has no place within the Democratic Party."

How do you liked dem apples? Bustos' DCCC, always stinking of corruption-- especially now that a Rahm Emanuel protégée is running the show again-- is making an early move to deter primary challenges against sitting incumbents. They're threatening to put Democratic Party-allied political firms out of business if they help Democratic challengers primary incumbents. As we saw over the weekend, dozens of current members were first elected by beating incumbents. It's an old trick they've been using, in a more sneaky way, for over a decade.

The new protocol, intentionally debuted early in the off-year before most campaign hiring begins, presents a stark financial deterrent to the country’s top firms that provide essential services ranging from polling to TV advertising to strategy. It could cripple would-be primary opponents’ ability to entice top talent to join their staff. The DCCC independent-expenditure arm doles out millions in contracts to consultants and drives more revenue toward them by connecting campaigns with vetted operatives.

“The DCCC is often times the gatekeeper for consultants to get to candidates, ” said Ian Russell, a campaign media strategist and former top official at the committee. “Unless you have a steady stream of income coming from another source, it would be very difficult to navigate the House world if you were shut out by the DCCC."

The DCCC's rationale for this move is straightforward: The organization exists to maximize the Democratic Party's chances of holding congressional majorities-- and since (all else being equal) incumbents are much more likely to win general elections than newcomers, protecting incumbents is a core part of its mission.

"All things," though, are never equal and this is more a bullshit excuse than an actual cogent rationale. It leaves out that in deep blue districts, where Republicans have no chance to win, it's a blessing to get rid of a sack of shit incumbent and replace him with someone better-- as Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez did with Joe Crowley last year. I think Levitz would agree with me on this. He wrote that "This argument may be coherent, but it is not credible. For example, if preserving majorities were its sole concern, the DCCC could discriminate against vendors who assisted primary challenges in competitive districts, while welcoming those that aided progressive insurgents in safe 'blue' ones. This isn’t an idle point. Two of the progressive groups that are currently recruiting 2020 primary challengers-- Justice Democrats and Data for Progress-- have declared their intention to target moderate [Levitz means "conservative"] Democrats in (relatively) safe districts, like Texas representative Henry Cuellar, and Massachusetts’s Stephen Lynch. You don’t need an across-the-board blacklist to protect Democratic majorities, only to insulate Democratic incumbents from intraparty competition."

What’s more, it’s far from clear that the DCCC’s policy will even succeed on its intended. The small-dollar donor armies that have freed Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez from the burden of fundraising-- and filled the coffers of Bernie Sanders’s nascent 2020 campaign-- aren’t going anywhere. And neither are progressive interest groups like NARAL Pro-Choice America, which backed Marie Newman’s attempt to oust pro-life Illinois Democrat Dan Lipinski last year. The DCCC can’t eliminate the demand for political operatives who are willing to assist left-wing primary challenges. And by limiting the supply, the Democratic establishment threatens to give a monopoly to its most ideologically committed adversaries, and thus, accelerate the growth of upstart firms like Grassroots Analytics and Data for Progress.

But all these considerations are secondary. The principal problem with the DCCC’s policy is that-- in a political system where interparty competition is already severely limited-- suppressing intraparty competition in all House races is an unforgivable infringement on democracy.

There is no equivalence between the two major parties’ attitudes toward democracy. And for supporters of self-government, there is no viable alternative to vying for power beneath Team Blue’s tent. But a Democratic Party that uses its market power to suppress electoral competition does not deserve its name.

Whaam! Pow! by Roy Lichtenstein

Yesterday, The Intercept ran a guest post by Monica Klein (no relation), a communications strategist and founding partner at Seneca Strategies, a consulting firm focused on progressive, diverse and female candidates. She's on the front line of the DCCC's and Cheri Bustos' newest assault against democracy. She wrote that six hours after the DCCC "announced that it was blacklisting firms that work with primary challengers, I met with a potential client who was considering a Democratic primary. The client told me that two consultants dropped out that morning-- and now the candidate may not run at all." For the DCCC-- mission accomplished!

The timing of the DCCC’s blacklist is not remotely coincidental. In the first quarter of an off-year, many potential candidates decide whether to jump into a race. If campaign staff dries up before day one, a once-daunting campaign can feel impossible.

This is precisely what the DCCC wants. The committee is hoping that these young women will stop contemplating challenges against Democratic incumbents. We can’t allow the DCCC to succeed and block these brave challengers.

Like many women in their 20s across America, I feel inexplicably hopeful and manifestly seen when I watch Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez take on the stale and insular political dynamics of Washington. We feel spoken for and welcome to speak when we see one of our own-- a young, fearless woman in fire engine-red lipstick-- transfigure politics from a bureaucratic, impervious institution for old white men into her own bully pulpit for affordable health care, green jobs, and living wages. We cannot imagine a Washington without her.

You may recall that last cycle, Blue America was asking you to contribute to AOC's insurgent campaign. And then, on top of that, we used our Independent Expenditure money to help her in her long shot bid because we felt sure that if she could win it would do something really amazing-- replace one of Congress' very worst members with someone with the potential to be the very best member. And that potential is unfolding day by day before our eyes. This cycle we are busy drafting more great candidates to challenge lousy incumbents. If you click on the thermometer on the right, you can see who they are, where they're running and... if you want to, you can chip in to help their campaigns. With the help of blog readers like you, Blue America has been helping recruit and elect insurgent candidates since 2006. I have a feeling this is going to be a very big year for us. OK, back to the other Klein:

Ocasio-Cortez’s unapologetic energy in Washington cannot be separated from her decision to run against Joe Crowley in Queens, New York. Every action Ocasio-Cortez takes carries the same fearlessness that prompted her not to wait her turn. Our party desperately needs countless more Ocasio-Cortezes who won’t wait until their representative is done serving-- especially when these elected officials have stopped “serving” anyone but themselves and their donors. And we need a national party that encourages and supports firms that work with new progressive challengers.

Yet instead of embracing Ocasio-Cortez and the fresh path she has opened, the DCCC and other national “Democratic” organizations are wrapping their arms more tightly around the heavily white, male incumbent Democrats in Washington.

As astounding as Ocasio-Cortez’s meteoric rise was, part of the now-infamous story is how she did it with just grassroots volunteers and minimal campaign infrastructure. Imagine how many Ocasio-Cortezes we could have if the Democratic Party was supporting firms that work with progressive challengers-- instead of threatening us with extinction. There’s a reason why Ocasio-Cortez’s rise seems like a political fairytale to many of us. As consultants, we frequently see talented candidates struggle to gain momentum because of inadequate support. Yes, it’s possible to run a campaign with little paid staff and a team of tireless volunteers. But when your opponent has top-tier fundraisers, pollsters, and digital and communications support, you’re inevitably at a forbidding disadvantage.

For those of us who work in politics, launching a campaign can feel like second nature. But for potential candidates who are new to the political arena, experienced staff can provide a key guiding hand-- especially during those critical early months. Outsider candidates without political experience-- say, a former bartender or a public school teacher-- are precisely the types of leaders we need more of in Washington, and exactly the types of candidates who benefit the most from early campaign guidance.

In the past year alone, I’ve had clients return from meetings with national Democratic organizations dissuaded because they were told that they have no chance of winning and shouldn’t try. I’ve had clients threatened by New York’s Democratic establishment, their donors scared off and their campaign funding dried up. I’ve watched clients struggle to find talented staffers who are willing to work with a primary challenger-- and then mocked for making simple campaign missteps. Time after time, the leaders of the Democratic Party who purport to pursue a strong Democratic majority are throwing up roadblocks that make running a viable campaign near-impossible. Yes, there are the shining stars like Ocasio-Cortez who manage to break through. But imagine how many more potential candidates now won’t even try.

As campaign consultants, we must keep working with primary challengers-- lifting them up, connecting them to critical early resources, and providing the guidance and support they need to run a successful campaign. But the DCCC needs to do its part. Stop threatening firms with financial ruin if they work with Democratic incumbents and challengers alike. Instead of protecting ineffective Democrats, offer primary challengers access to the resources they need.

At a time when Democrats have largely failed to stir national political excitement, we should encourage reflection and promote debate within our own party. We should recruit and support primary challengers like Ocasio-Cortez across the nation. Yet the DCCC’s efforts to suppress primaries and punish firms for working with challengers accomplish the opposite.

Representatives who are effectively serving their communities should have nothing to fear from a primary challenge. On the other hand, throwing up ridiculous roadblocks and consulting bans is more telling than ever. The old guard of the Democratic Party is petrified-- because their record is flimsy, their vision outdated, and their bank accounts filled with corporate donations. This fear is the clearest signal we have that it’s time for a new generation of Democratic leaders. Bring on the primaries.

Shahid Buttar, a progressive activist and attorney in San Francisco is the Democrat running against Pelosi in 2020. Last he night be told me that "If Democratic incumbents did the job of representing their constituents, they would not need to fear primary challenges. Strong-arming consultants and staff by insisting on loyalty to party insiders reeks not only of machine politics but also corporate control. As an American who came to our country seeking freedom & opportunity, I believe very strongly that we should embrace democracy instead of running from it. Ultimately, if the centrist leadership is so afraid of the challenge we present, we'd invite them to contest a free & fair election. Unfortunately Democratic leaders appear content to repeat the tactics used by predatory monopolists to erect barriers to entry, undermining not only potential competitors like our campaign challenging Pelosi from the left, but also the competitive electoral process, and the voters denied a full spectrum of options as a result of their machinations."