Bernie On The Campaign Trail Today-- For Eric Kingson In Syracuse

Long before DFA, MoveOn or the nurses' national union came to their courageous decisions to support Bernie over Hillary, Blue America had made it's first-ever presidential election. No one's ever been good enough before but, we'd followed Bernie career in the House and Senate closely and on the day he announced-- we endorsed him, not as a lesser of two or more evils but as a genuinely great candidate we would have liked to see become president, despite how very, very long that shot was. Nonetheless, 1,557 Blue America members gave $57,889.60 (plus thousands more in monthly recurring contributions)-- about $37 each.

But at no time did we ever expect perfection from Bernie; no of us are that politically immature. Personally I was disappointed that Bernie didn't do more for the down-ballot candidates who were backing him. Sure, he did far, far more than Hillary did, but he didn't really have the capacity to get behind the dozens of House and Senate candidates-- let alone state legislative candidates-- who were backing him and running on his platform. There were some bone-headed moves-- like having a Wall Street, anti-Social Security creep, Shawn O'Connor up on the stage with him in New Hampshire several times, despite O'Connor's opportunism and despite the fact that his opponent in the primary was Carol Shea-Porter, a tried and true progressive (who may have hurt Bernie's feelings by backing Clinton).

Worse, was when Bernie's enthusiasm for Florida Senate candidate Alan Grayson suddenly chilled-- after he called Grayson and asked him to fly to Miami to introduce him at a rally-- when Schumer threatened Bernie with the loss of his committee chairmanship if he did anything against Patrick Murphy (as well as Schumercrats Ted Strickland in Ohio and fracking lobbyist Katie McGuinty in Pennsylvania. I felt sad for the revolution-- and sad for what Bernie probably had to go through over this crap. Grayson, arriving at the rally, was prevented from getting onstage, a Bernie staffer saying only that there had been a change of plans.

But he did send out e-mail endorsements for several candidates, including the excellent Zephyr Teachout and Eric Kingson in New York and Pramila Jayapal in Washington, whose primaries are coming up. His efforts have helped them raise competitive money and Teachout and Jayapal look like sure bets. He helped Lucy Flores in the same way but she was wiped out by an arguably even more progressive candidate, Ruben Kihuen, in Nevada two weeks ago. Of all these candidates, though, Kingson has the most difficult race-- against two unaccomplished establishment hacks, one backed by former Blue Dog Kirsten Gillibrand and Schumer and one backed by former Blue Dog Steve Israel. And Kingson is the candidate who Bernie actually knows and has worked with. Kingson, co-founder of SocialSecurityWorks, has been a witness the Democrats call when the GOP and New Dems try to cut Social Security. He was one of the people who came up with the concept of expanding Social Security, which even Obama and Hillary have very grudgingly come around to accept.



Now that Bernie is no longer on the road campaigning for himself, the first candidate he is campaigning for is Kingson. He's joining him for a rally at the Oncenter Convention Center ballroom at 4 p.m. today!

"It would have been enough if he had given me a statement of support," Kingson said in an interview Wednesday night after learning of the Sanders visit. "The reality is I'm very grateful and I'm excited. I think it will be quite significant for my campaign and the underlying values that we share."


...Last week, Sanders appointed Kingson to a committee that will help write the platform for the Democratic National Convention in July. Kingson will be one of five New York representatives on the national committee.

Kingson has been considered an underdog in the Democratic primary on Tuesday. He faces Colleen Deacon, 39, of Syracuse, and Syracuse lawyer Steve Williams, 53, of Baldwinsville. The winner will face U.S. Rep. John Katko, R-Camillus, in the November election.

Too late for Dave-- but not for Eric Kingson in NY-24

This kind of thing would have won Oregon's 5th congressional district primary for Berniecrat Dave McTeague and ridden Congress of the odious reactionary head Blue Dog Kurt Schrader, the congressman who actually introduced an amendment to cut Social Security benefits. Bernie won every single county in his district, beating Hillary decisively-- but his voters didn't know to vote down-ticket and Schrader won 67,124 (72.6%) to 25,289 (27.4%). Democrats and independents cast ballots for Bernie and for one of the reactionaries working to cut Social Security and Medicare and to pass the TPP. That augured poorly for the political revolution. Bernie's visit today to Syracuse renews my hope. Please consider contributing to Kingson's get out the vote efforts for next week here at the BernieCongress thermometer:

UPDATE: Bernie Pushing Hard In New York

Yesterday, Bernie's campaign sent this action alert to his supporters nationwide:

As Bernie has said many times, lasting progressive change can't come from the top down. It will require electing candidates up and down the ballot who aren't afraid to challenge the billionaire class and stand up for the rest of us.

We have a great opportunity to do just that with two Bernie-endorsed candidates running for Congress in New York-- but they're facing a critical primary election on Tuesday, June 28, and really need our help.

Can you get on the phone for an hour or two before Tuesday to make calls for Zephyr Teachout and Eric Kingson?

Zephyr Teachout literally wrote the book on political corruption. She understands better than anyone how special interests try to buy off politicians, and she's dedicated her career to fixing our broken political system. She stood up to the Albany establishment in 2014 when she ran for governor against an incumbent and got 35% of the vote. She also helped environmental advocates achieve a landmark victory with the statewide ban on fracking in New York.

Eric Kingson has been a leader in the fight to save and expand Social Security since day one. He's running for Congress because he's fed up with the wealthy and powerful interests that put profit ahead of the environment, ahead of investing in our nation's infrastructure, and ahead of supporting our public education system.

Zephyr and Eric's primaries both take place on Tuesday, and we need to make all the calls we can to help them win.

With your help, our political revolution will roll onwards. Fundamental changes to our entrenched political system will only be possible if we elect strong leaders at every level of our government who are ready to challenge the status quo. So we hope you can help out by making some calls for Zephyr Teachout or for Eric Kingson before Tuesday's primary.

Democratic Primary Voters Don't Like Flip-Flopping On Social Security-- And In Oregon, It's Not Just Trump Who Is-- Tuesday Is D-Day For Kurt Schrader

At least Trump doesn't support "saving" Social Security and Medicare by cutting the benefits, the way Paul Ryan, most Republicans and the Wall Street-owned New Dems do. Right? As with all policy matters involving Trump, who knows? At one time he said he opposed cuts to Social Security nut now that he's trying to corral support from the Republican Establishment-- not just approval from Paul Ryan by $100 million from anti-Social Security fanatic, half man/half pig Sheldon Adelson-- Trump now says he's open to cuts to Social Security and Medicare. Speaking Wednesday at the world capital of Let's Get Rid Of Social Security, the Pete Peterson Foundation, a top Trump advisor, Sam Clovis, said Trump would be open to a bipartisan look at entitlement spending and would consider changes to Social Security and Medicare if he is elected. "After the administration has been in place, then we will start to take a look at all of the programs, including entitlement programs like Social Security and Medicare... We'll take a hard look at those to start seeing what we can do in a bipartisan way," said Clovis. But "a bipartisan way" doesn't mean dealing with mainstream Democrats like Pelosi. It means dealing with the treacherous Republican wing of the Democratic Party, the New Dems and Blue Dogs. We'll come back to that in a moment.

On the campaign trail in Wisconsin last month, [Trump] attacked Republicans who he said would cut Social Security benefits.

"It's my absolute intention to leave Social Security the way it is," Trump said during a Republican debate in March. "I want to make our country rich again so we can afford it."

Trump has been using Social Security and Medicare as a bludgeon to beat up on Paul Ryan and has connected the dots for his followers over the months: "[Ryan is] so anti-Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security," Trump told them. Last week he responded to Ryan by tweeting "I am not ready to support Speaker Ryan's agenda."

As Morning Consult reported Thursday, this is getting more serious as Republicans huddled with Energy and Commerce Committee chairman Fred Upton behind closed doors last week, plotting how to eliminate the Affordable Care Act and cut Medicare benefits.

Medicare changes discussed at the meeting included enhancing Medicare Advantage, the private alternative to traditional fee-for-service Medicare, and raising the Medicare eligibility age... [L]eaders also talked about using per-capita caps to fund Medicaid.

..."A lot of it is just trying to understand what they’re trying to do. But it’s turning out to be more encompassing than what we expected. Previously, we only talked about the private marketplace and Medicaid expansion. Now, we’re actually adding in Medicare and the premium support-- the things Paul Ryan has been talking about for years," said Rep. John Fleming (R-La.), a member of the conservative House Freedom Caucus.

So what about the Democrats who are the Ryan side of the argument, the ones who want to cut Social Security and Medicare benefits and raise the retirement age? Almost no Democrats will publicly admit they're in that camp but when the head of the Blue Dogs, Oregon Congressman Kurt Schrader, offered an amendment on February 6, 2013 to accept the Simpson Bowles proposals that do just that, 54 right-of-center Democrats went along. Schrader's House Amendment 19 to HR 444 failed 75-348. Thankfully, many of the Democratic traitors were defeated at the polls and are no longer in Congress, but these are some of the Democrats who voted for a death sentence for Social Security that day:

• Ami Bera (New Dem-CA)
• Cheri Bustos (Blue Dog-IL)
• Gerry Connolly (New Dem-VA)
• Jim Cooper (Blue Dog-TN)
• Jim Costa (Blue Dog-CA)
• Joe Crowley (New Dem-NY)
• Henry Cuellar (Blue Dog-TX)
• Susan Davis (New Dem-CA)
• John Delaney (New Dem-MD)
• Denny Heck (New Dem-WA)
• Jim Himes (New Dem-CT)
• Steny Hoyer (MD)
• Derek Kilmer (New Dem-WA)
• Ron Kind (New Dem-WI)
• Rick Larsen (New Dem-WA)
• Dan Lipinski (Blue Dog-IL)
• Gregory Meeks (New Dem-NY)
• Scott Peters (New Dem-CA)
• Collin Peterson (Blue Dog-MN)
• Loretta Sanchez (Blue Dog-CA)
• Kurt Schrader (Blue Dog-OR)
• Terri Sewell (New Dem-AL)
• Adam Smith (New Dem-WA)
• Chris Van Hollen (MD)
• Filemon Vela (New Dem-TX)

New Dems Joe Garcia (FL) and Pete Gallego (TX) both voted for it as well and were subsequently defeated for reelection. I mention these two scumbags because both are trying to worm their way back into Congress this year. This would be an especially good year week to defeat Kurt Schrader, who has a strong progressive opponent, Dave McTeague. The two face off Tuesday. Bernie is expected to win in Oregon. If all his voters back McTeague, who is actively campaigning for Bernie-- while Schrader is a pledged Hillary SuperDelegate-- Schrader will be defeated and a major message about accountability will go out to every corrupt Democrat in Congress. McTeague and all the progressives on this list want to expand, not cut, Social Security:

How Pelosi's Incompetent DCCC Guarantees The GOP Will Control The House Again

Losers, Inc-- this is what's become of the Democratic Party in DC

The DCCC suffered another stunning defeat by local Democrats Tuesday. Once again their handpicked recruit-- this time some guy named Cory Simpson in West Virginia-- was rejected by local voters in West Virginia's second congressional district, who voted to nominate former state legislator Mark Hunt and tell Steve Israel and his corrupt Beltway party bosses to stay out of their affairs. The DCCC had put Simpson on their Red to Blue list, helped him raise money and sabotaged Hunt's fundraising capacity. In the run up to the 5-man primary, Simpson spent $126,414 to Hunt's $77,212. The DCCC refused to even meet with or even talk with Hunt or his campaign chairman, Steve McElroy, the well-respected former executive director of the West Virginia Democratic Party. Ironically, Hunt was the only person in the race who had ever been elected to anything and the DCCC's obsession with Simpson is a mystery to West Virginia Democrats.

Within hours of the stinging rebuke, the DCCC had removed WV-02 from it's Red to Blue website, refusing to replace Simpson with Hunt, just writing off the whole congressional district entirely and making it easier for Republican Alex Mooney to win reelection in November. (Mooney, hoping to face Simpson in November had run 3 robo-calls against Hunt just before the primary.)

So once again we see Pelosi's dismally failed DCCC using the same tactics they put in place after progressive grassroots candidate, Mary Ellen Balchunis, beat some DCCC stooge, Bill Golderer, 74-26%. In that race too, the DCCC wrote off the must-win race to take back PA-07 in the Philly suburbs. If the Democrats don't win seats like PA-07 and WV-02, there is no chance they will win back the House, no matter how gigantically Hillary or Bernie stomps Trump.

West Virginia's second district snakes clear across the state, starting in the DC suburbs around Martinsburg, shooting right through the rural center of the state,to metropolitan Charleston, and ends at the Ohio border. It's the least Republican of the state's districts, and Mooney, a Maryland carpetbagger and an undistinguished freshman/backbencher, won his race with a 47% plurality in 2014, a year Republicans swept the state, and is widely viewed as a good target for the Democrats in November. But the DCCC would rather see Mooney win than help Hunt. During the race, they pressured the West Virginia state party to assist Simpson, which it did-- while professing strict neutrality. Luckily for Hunt, virtually every labor union in the state, from the AFL-CIO, the American Federation of Teachers AFSCME and the Communications Workers of America to the building trades unions, endorsed his campaign and stood up to the DCCC's efforts to get them behind their candidate.

Next week, the DCCC may see another slap in the face from voters, this time in Oregon, where progressive Bernie-backer, Dave McTeague, is running against the very right-of-center head of the Blue Dogs, Kurt Schrader. Schrader has over $1.5 million in cash on hand and has already spent $442,433 to McTeague's modest $30,629 in expenditures (and mere $991 cash on hand.) Blue America has endorsed McTeague and you can contribute to his campaign by tapping the thermometer on the right. Peter Wong covered the campaign in Oregon's 5th congressional district for the Portland Tribune earlier in the week, pointing out that McTeague is counting on a big turnout for Bernie to help him win the seat.

“We raised enough money to communicate district-wide with Democrats,” said McTeague, who had a left-of-center approach when he was a state representative from Milwaukie from 1985 to 1995. “That mailer links my campaign with the issues raised by Sen. Sanders. There is going to be a strong vote for Sen. Sanders and I am supportive of his program.

“Congressman Schrader is disconnected from the Democratic grassroots. There is tremendous concern across the district with his voting record-- and the word gets around.”

But Schrader, a centrist state senator from Canby until his election to the U.S. House in 2008, said the 5th is one of a relative handful of the 435 districts that are almost evenly divided between registered Democrats and Republicans.

“So I can’t be crazy,” he said. “I have to listen to everybody.”

By "crazy," Schrader means sticking up for the progressive values and principles of Franklin and Eleanor Roosevelt, which his voting record shows he absolutely abhors. He votes with the Republicans on core issues more than almost any other Democrat in the House and is rated a solid "F" by ProgressivePunch. Obviously, Schrader has endorsed Clinton, the candidate of the status quo. McTeague, who is also being backed by the Working Families Party, emphasizes that his issues and Bernie's issues are on the same page and lists these three as examples, each of which differentiates him from Schrader:

• Opposition to the 12-nation trade agreement known as the Trans-Pacific Partnership. Schrader has said favorable things about it though it’s opposed by labor unions and supported by agricultural interests and voted in 2015 for the fast-track authority to negotiate an agreement that Congress can only vote up or down without amendments.

• Opposition to Schrader’s support of tighter restrictions on the entry of Syrian refugees.

• Opposition to changes in Medicare and Social Security, federal entitlement programs that Schrader seeks to rework to lessen their effects on future federal budgets. Schrader opposes Republican proposals he says would harm post-World War II baby boomers heading into retirement.

Schrader was also the Democrat who introduced the failed Simpson-Bowles amendment to cut Social Security benefits, something McTeague vehemently opposes.

After Oregon, the DCCC faces stiff opposition to some of their most corrupt and conservative candidates in New Jersey, where Alex Law is challenging that state's most right-wing Democrat, Donald Norcross; Iowa, where Republican-masquerading-as-a-Democrat Monica Vernon is the DCCC candidate against Pat Murphy; California, where the DCCC parachuted in some Orange County lawyer, Bryan Caforio, to sabotage the official Democratic Party candidate, progressive Lou Vince; and then in Florida, where progressive hero Tim Canova faces off against venal bribe-taker Debbie Wasserman Schultz. You can support Alex Law, Dave McTeague, Pat Murphy, Lou Vince and Tim Canova here:

Trade Policies That Send American Jobs Overseas Are Republican Policies That New Dems And Blue Dogs Support

It became clear during the 2008 Democratic primary that Obama knew what was wrong with NAFTA and knew he could use it effectively as a weapon against his neoliberal, free-trade-supporting opponent, Hillary Clinton. Once Obama got into office he seems to have forgot his NAFTA-related trade promises-- and worse. We'll get to the TPP in a moment. Recall that on November 17, 1993-- quite late at night-- the House voted on NAFTA, the George H.W. Bush "free trade" bill that he tried to pass but couldn't. Bill Clinton assured Wall Street he would get done. And it got done. Clinton hired Rahm Emanuel, then a little known White House aide already fashioning himself an image as a bully and an asshole, to ride roughshod over reticent Democrats opposing job killing "free" trade policies. With Tom DeLay working one side of the aisle and Emanuel working the other side, they bribed, blackmailed and beat up enough Members of the House to get NAFTA passed 234-200. 132 Republicans and 102 Democrats voted for it. 156 Democrats (+ Independent Bernie Sanders) voted no, as did 43 Republicans.

These Wall Street-backed trade deals are part of the Republican agenda and one of the problems with the bribed, conservative Democrats-- like Hillary Clinton-- is that they sell themselves to these policies over and over for cash. Yes, I know she always loves to say that the $42,160,423 she's taken in campaign contributions from the Finance Sector-- which doesn't even touch the millions she and her husband have been paid personally in lightly-disguised personal bribes in the form of "speaker's fees," for the speeches she refuses to let the public see now-- never influenced her on policy. Ever hear of a politician say that the bribes they took influenced a decision they made. You don't believe it when Paul Ryan or Mitch McConnell says it; why would you believe it when Hillary Clinton, who takes far more in bribes from Wall Street than both of them combined and supports the same ugly trade policy agenda they do, says it?

When the House voted on fast track authority for TPP last June it passed 219-211, 191 Republicans and just 28 Democrats-- virtually all from the corrupt Blue Dog/New Dem/Clinton wing of the party-- voted for it. This was pure Republican/Wall Street legislation that was backed with the slime of the Democratic Party-- your Debbie Wasserman Schultzes, your Kurt Schraders, Gregory Meeks, Ami Beras, Jim Himes, Ron Kinds, John Delaneys, Jim Coopers (the Nashville Blue Dog who is one of the new Dems left in Congress who voted for NAFTA)-- Team Hillary!

Pressure from Bernie forced her to finally back away from the TPP treaty she's ardently supported and even helped negotiate. Few people believe her opposition will last longer than the campaign. If she gets into the White House, all those millions she's gotten from the banksters will dictate that she pushes it through, perhaps with some much-ballyhooed but superficial adjustments. The dishonesty of the Democratic political establishment when it comes to trade policy-- part of the pathology exposed by Thomas Frank in his new book, Listen, Liberal: Or, What Ever Happened To The Party Of The People-- speaks loudly to the abandonment of working families and their interests by the Establishment/Hillary-wing of the party. Earlier in the week, Lee Fang, writing for The Intercept exposed how Japanese government lobbyists in America are gaming the system in favor of the TPP here in America at the same time that the Boston Globe exposed how the Obama administration has been using the old unethical Rahm techniques to push the TPP forward.

New Balance is renewing its opposition to the far-reaching Pacific Rim trade deal, saying the Obama administration reneged on a promise to give the sneaker maker a fair shot at military business if it stopped bad-mouthing the agreement.

After several years of resistance to the Trans-Pacific Partnership, a pact aimed at making it easier to conduct trade among the United States and 11 other countries, the Boston company had gone quiet last year. New Balance officials say one big reason is that they were told the Department of Defense would give them serious consideration for a contract to outfit recruits with athletic shoes.

But no order has been placed, and New Balance officials say the Pentagon is intentionally delaying any purchase.

New Balance is reviving its fight against the trade deal, which would, in part, gradually phase out tariffs on shoes made in Vietnam. A loss of those tariffs, the company says, would make imports cheaper and jeopardize its factory jobs in New England.

The administration has made the pact a priority. It could be voted on by Congress later this year, though possibly not until after the November elections.

...The company employs about 1,400 people at its five New England factories-- one in Brighton, one in Lawrence, and three in Maine. Company officials say they are looking to add workers to those plants, and they see a major military contract, with potentially as many as 200,000 shoe orders a year, as a way to help reach that goal.

One of the worst of the congressional Dems-- if you want to call him that-- on the Wall Street neoliberal trade agenda is Oregon Blue Dog Kurt Schrader, one of the 28 Democrats to cross the aisle and vote with the GOP on Fast Track authority. His opponent in the Oregon primary is Dave McTeague, a Bernie-backing former state legislator. Former Oregon Congressman Les AuCoin endorsed McTeague pointing out that "Oregon doesn't need a self-proclaimed Blue Dog Democrat," adding that it's "time for a real Democrat in Oregon's 5th District" and asserting what anyone who watches Congress carefully already knows, namely that Schrader is nothing but a "Democratic impostor who now holds the seat for the special interests."

Democrat Dave McTeague and Blue Dog Kurt Schrader debate the TPP

McTeague, who has said Shrader's supporting for the job-killing trade bills was a big part of the motivation for running, attacked Schrader for his vote on the Panama Free Trade that led directly to the Mossack Fonseca financial scandals. McTeague: "Congressman Kurt Schrader’s vote for the Panama U.S. Trade Deal aids and abets Panama’s status as a tax haven for the rich and corporations to hide their assets from U.S. taxation... Once again, Congressman Schrader ignored the testimony of organized labor and citizen groups like Public Citizen. They objected to the Panama deal chiefly because of that country’s role as a haven for money laundering and tax avoidance by U.S. corporations. The AFL-CIO warned Schrader and others, that 'Panama is known as a tax haven with a history of attracting money launderers and tax dodgers.' Schrader should know that Panama is one of the world’s major tax havens where 400,000 foreign firms and numerous wealthy individuals use its dual tax system, banking secrecy and shady incorporation laws to dodge taxes. Panama is also used by Mexican and Colombian cartels’ for money laundering operations according to the U.S. State Department. This trade deal did nothing to curb Panama’s status as a tax haven where many U.S. firms are incorporated, avoiding their obligations at home. Instead Congressman Schrader rewarded Panama with a trade deal worth billions."

Last week when McTeague and Schrader faced off in front of the Willamette Week editorial board, they sparred over trade deals like the TPP, with McTeague emphasizing how it undermines labor rights, environmental protections and consumer rights, while Schrader just spewing all the same old lies that Clinton was using to defend it before she finally raised the white flag and agreed it sucks and that she'd oppose it. If you'd like to help Dave McTeague and the other congressional candidates running, along with Bernie, against the TPP and the neoliberal "free" trade agenda, the thermometer will take you to the place:

Conservatives Are Still Working Across The Aisle To Wreck Social Security

As the Republican Party has, over the past 3 decades moved further and further right, a certain kind of conservative Democrat unenamored of a progressive world view, has moved in into to fill the void on the center-right that the GOP has abandoned for their more and more commonplace, Hate Talk Radio-driven extremism. Conservatives have always loathed Social Security and have tried to stop it and undermine it since it was first proposed. Ayn Rand Republicans like Paul Ryan are convinced from their adolescent adventures with her books that Social Security and other social safety net programs make Americans weaker and cost their wealthy political financiers too much in taxes. And Republicans have whined for decades that Democrats have used Social Security as a cudgel against them every time an election rolled around. Unfortunately, now that Blue Dogs, the DLC, Third Way and the Wall Street owned-and-operated New Dems has sullied the Democratic brand, voters are confused about which party stands for what.

Most, but not all, Democrats still abhor moving away from Social Security and conservative establishment Democrats who have tried doing it have gotten burned. Yesterday, at HuffPo, Daniel Marans wrote that conservative Dems who have backed Republican proposals to cut Social Security are being treated the way Democrats have long treated Republicans. It's stung corrupt establishment types like Patrick Murphy and Chris Van Hollen, both of whom have advocated for cuts to benefits. Murphy and Von Hollen, as well as other conservaDems have tried to dial back their support for Simpson Bowles and its proposals to wreck Social Security. Clinton has been very careful to pretend she's progressive on issues like Social Security while she's in a fierce primary battle with one of Congress' staunchest advocates for expanding it. But some incumbents from her wing of the party are finding themselves easy targets for progressives appealing to Democratic primary voters. Marans dealt mostly with Senate races, but this is playing out in the House primary battles as well.

Democratic Senate candidates in several key races are attacking their opponents for being weak on Social Security. Only this time their opponents are not Republicans-- they are Democrats in contentious primaries across the country.

Social Security is an issue of interest to voters in both parties that could play a role in this year’s elections.

But it is also a key front in a war for the soul of the Democratic Party in which the populist, progressive wing is increasingly on the march against the party’s business-friendly elite. And the popularity in this year’s primary season of running against even the slightest openness to Social Security cuts is the latest sign that the former group, sometimes nicknamed the Elizabeth Warren wing, is ascendant.

The campaign of California Senate candidate and state Attorney General Kamala Harris (D) is hinting it will soon play the Social Security card in earnest against her top opponent, Rep. Loretta Sanchez (D-Calif.).

Harris’ campaign points to remarks by Sanchez expressing support for a “grand bargain” to reduce the debt modeled on the recommendations of the Bowles-Simpson commission, which was appointed by President Barack Obama. Major cuts to Social Security benefits, including raising the retirement age and cutting the cost-of-living adjustment, were among the bipartisan commission’s most controversial proposals.

“I mean, the reality is we do have to take a look at everything,” Sanchez told Fox News’ Megyn Kelly in October 2013, “as Simpson-Bowles did in their report and said, ‘Listen, you have got to put everything on the table-- entitlements, defense, everything else.’”

Sanchez added that she is “a member of the Blue Dog Coalition, that’s Democratic fiscal conservatives. And we endorse the Bowles-Simpson plan.”

Sanchez stands by her openness to broker a deal that includes Social Security cuts.

New Dems are less willing to publicly admit they're on the same page, but they are-- and that includes some of the most right-wing Democrats in the House, like Republican-lite Californians Ami Bera, Jim Costa and Scott Peters, each of whom was denied an endorsement by the California Labor Federation last week, as well as Sean Patrick Maloney (New Dem-NY) and, of course, Patrick Murphy (FL). Murphy's position on Social Security-- he's a rich spoiled Republican who recently decided to pretend to be a Democrat-- is typical of the New Dems. Watch:



"Grayson is pinning his hopes on a record of staunch opposition to Social Security cuts," wrote Marans, "and support for benefits expansion. Grayson told Politico Pro that Murphy became active as a freshman in 2013 in budget compromise efforts that would have cut Social Security." Murphy, panic-stricken, denies it and refuses to debate Grayson for exactly that reason.

Similarly Chris Van Hollen has also signaled he's willing to compromise away-- Republican style-- Social Security benefits the same way Murphy has. His progressive primary opponent, Rep. Donna Edwards, has voted against doing any such thing and her very first TV ad in the Senate race has been to remind Maryland voters that Van Hollen is no more their friend than Paul Ryan or Mitch McConnell are, each of whose stated positions-- to "save" Social Security by cutting benefits-- are identical to Van Hollen's (and Murphy's).

A Pew study released on March 31 found that opposition to Social Security cuts is the only position shared by a majority of the supporters of all of the presidential candidates in both parties.

So when liberal groups first began to mobilize against cuts in the Bowles-Simpson era, they found fertile ground for changing the policy conversation. Progressives argued that Social Security should actually be expanded to address a growing retirement income deficit.

Elizabeth Warren’s impassioned November 2013 speech embracing benefits expansion became a turning point that helped move the idea into the mainstream. The New York Times editorial board endorsed Social Security expansion in January. And both Democratic presidential candidates have pledged to increase benefits, not cut them.

Alex Lawson, executive director of Social Security Works, one of the groups that led the charge to make Social Security expansion a progressive priority, called the era when Democrats flirted with bipartisan deals to cut the program an “aberration.”

Democratic Senate candidates’ punishment of opponents who were part of those efforts in any way is a vindication of the political, as well as the “obvious policy and moral” argument Social Security Works has made since 2010, according to Lawson.

Lawson said putting a political price on past support for Bowles-Simpson “is not an ideological purity thing. This is about millions of Americans somehow getting by on benefits of $14, $15, $16,000 a year and elected officials thinking they can cut benefits.”

The founder of Lawson's outfit, SocialSecurityWorks is Eric Kingson, who is running for a Syracuse-based upstate New York congressional seat held by anti-Social Security Republican-- a would-be privatizer-- John Katko. Eric also has two plodding Democratic establishment primary opponents who are versions of Van Hollen and Murphy. Kingson is in no mood to compromise away the earned benefits of working men and women in need of the social safety net. In explaining what motivated his run for Congress, he told us, "No question, I want to keep fighting powerful interest groups advocating cuts to Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid, when the average benefit of today’s retirees is just $16,000, and when these benefits need to be expanded, not cut.  I want to continue the work of blocking cuts and laying the foundation for expanding Social Security as an instrument of social justice... [D]don’t believe the 'chattering class' intonations about not being able to afford Social Security, that it is going broke. Social Security has three streams of income, two of them ongoing no matter what-- contributions from the earnings of workers and income from treating some Social Security benefits as taxable. It’s an extraordinary efficient system. Less than 1% of its expenditures go toward paying for its administration (hmm… imagine what percentages Wall Street and financial managers would take if they could get their hands on our Social Security!). Today’s Social Security expenditures represent only 5.1% of GDP; and will be roughly 6.2% of GDP at the height of the retirement of baby boomers in 2035 and about the same until the end of the century. As a growing number of Democrats propose, if Congress passed legislation requiring millionaires and billionaires to make the same payroll contribution of 6.2% on all their earnings (just like everyone earning under $118,500 do today), roughly three-quarters of the projected shortfall would disappear overnight. And there are many other reasonable revenue changes that can and should provide resources for expanding benefits for today’s workers and today’s Social Security beneficiaries."

Eric promises to work for a program of Social Security expansion that includes these 7 point:

• increase monthly Social Security benefits by roughly $100;
• assure that Social Security’s cost-of-living-adjustment fully maintains the purchasing power of benefits;
• strengthen Medicare, including adding dental, hearing and eyesight protections;
• expand home and community services that support people of all ages with severe disabilities and their caregivers;
• lower the age of eligibility for Medicare;
• increase minimum wages to a living wage which will result in more income today and a larger Social Security benefit in the future; and
• add paid family leave to Social Security to support those needing time away from work to care for family members or when sick.

That's very different from what the Blue Dogs, New Dems and Republicans want. Another Blue America-backed candidate on the same page as Eric is fighting the good fight clear across the country from Syracuse. Former Oregon state legislator Dave McTeague is taking on the head of the Blue Dogs, Kurt Schrader who gives idiots like Loretta Sanchez their talking points. Last June the Northwest Labor Press exposed Schrader by reminding Oregonians that two years earlier (2013) Schrader "introduced legislation directing President Obama to follow the unofficial Simpson-Bowles recommendations. The recommendations included cutting Social Security benefits, shifting Medicare costs to beneficiaries, lowering tax rates for the wealthy and corporations, and increasing tax incentives for shipping jobs overseas." Schrader referred to AFL-CIO president Richard Trumka as "a bully" for standing up for working families and retired seniors. Last night McTeague told us that "Social Security is the most important safety net program ever enacted in the United States. It provides a minimal but base level of income for senior and disabled persons, without which millions would be completely destitute. I strongly oppose any cuts and oppose all efforts to 'privatize' the system. I support Sen. Bernie Sander's plan to lift the cap on income taxed for social security purposes. This allows us extend the solvency of Social Security for the next 50 years. With this we will be able to to expand benefits by an average of $65 a month; increase cost-of-living-adjustments; and lift more seniors out of poverty. This will help millions of people and make the underlying taxation for Social Security more progressive."

Alex Lawson from SocialSecurityWorks pointed out yesterday that "Greedy liars on Wall Street have used income inequality to build wealth and power for decades. They have used this wealth and power to attempt to dismantle our Social Security system, Medicare, Medicaid, and any regulations that stand between them and consolidating more power." The DCCC and DSCC oppose all of these candidates and are working furiously to undercut them and bolster the election efforts of the Patrick Murphys, Chris Van Hollens, Kurt Schraders and the others from the Republican-wing of the Democratic Party. Please consider supporting Alan Grayson, Donna Edwards, Dave McTeague, Eric Kingson and the other Social Security expansion supporters on the list of candidates you'll see by clicking on this lovely blue thermometer:

The Democratic Party Brand Is So Fouled By Blue Dogs And New Dems That Voters Don't Know The Difference Between The 2 Parties

Tom Steyer

Yesterday, Greg Sargent reported on how climate change and the debate over the long-term fate of the planet might end up exerting a bit of influence over the political agenda in this election cycle. He interviewed climate activist Tom Steyer, a well-meaning but naive billionaire who wastes immense sums of money by strictly following wrong-headed Beltway conventional wisdom that he thinks is worthwhile because his sources are the "higher-ups."

The Beltway-centric thought-process is always to go after Republicans and leave the primaries to the Chuck Schumers, Steve Israels and Wasserman Schultzes. A few days ago I had a long talk with the political director of one of the most beloved and respected Beltway progressive outfits. He told me his group had decided to not endorse in primaries and just put their energy into defeating Republicans. Couldn't have been stated better by Schumer or Hoyer themselves. My argument to him-- as it would be to Steyer-- is that the problem that has to be dealt with first and foremost is the toxicity within the Democratic Party, where many of the worst Democrats leading the party to adopt conservative stands are in unaccountable deep blue districts where Republicans don't even run serious candidates. Think about Debbie Wasserman Schultz, sitting in a South Florida D+9 district she drew herself for herself (when she was a state senator) that Obama won with 62%. She has never had a plausible GOP challenger and, until this year, she has never had a primary opponent. (This year a reform-minded law professor, Tim Canova, is running against her and Blue America has endorsed him and we urge you to find out more about him and to contribute to his campaign here.) The point, of course, is that the only way to hold an arrogant and corrupt party boss like Wasserman Schultz (or Chuck Schumer) accountable is with primaries.

To Steyer's case in particular, according to the just-released League of Conservation Voters 2015 environmental scorecard, there are 3 Senate Democrats-- Joe Donnelly (IN), to whom Steyer has contributed substantial money, Heidi Heitkamp (ND) and Joe Manchin (WV)-- plus 14 House Democrats who, on environmental issues, are pretty much Republicans with blue jerseys.

• Terri Sewell (New Dem-AL)- 71%
• Gwen Graham (Blue Dog-FL)- 69%
• Ted Deutch (FL)- 66%
• Zoe Lofgren (CA)- 66%
• Ann Kirkpatrick (New Dem-AZ)- 63%
• Gene Green (TX)- 63%
• Ruben Hinojosa (TX)- 60%
• Kyrsten Sinema (Blue Dog-AZ)- 60%
• Kurt Schrader (Blue Dog-OR)- 57%
• Sanford Bishop (Blue Dog-GA)- 54%
• Jim Costa (Blue Dog-CA)- 43%
• Brad Ashford (Blue Dog-NE)- 31%
• Henry Cuellar (Blue Dog-TX)- 20%
• Collin Peterson (Blue Dog-MN)- 14%

The last I heard, the only Democrat on this list with a primary challenge is chief Blue Dog Kurt Schrader (whose opponent, Dave McTeague, Blue America is backing, and who can be contributed to here). Meanwhile, batty Bay Area Pollution Queen Zoe Lofgren brags to her colleagues that she controls Steyer. Sargent reports that Steyer's PAC-- NextGen Climate Action commissioned a poll of Ohio voters that found, in Steyer's own words, that voters "don’t recognize that Republicans are opposed to a transition to clean energy."

More than half of respondents either think Republicans would be inclined to support this general goal or don’t know either way. More than half don’t know-- and only 47 percent do know-- that Democrats are substantially more committed to this goal than Republicans are. (As for Steyer’s specific pledge, Hillary Clinton and Bernie Sanders have signed it; no GOP candidates have).

Steer has contributed nothing to Bernie and a quarter million dollars to one of the Hillary PACs, perhaps unaware that every concession she makes on his issues is like pulling teeth and that the minute Bernie is no longer a threat she will be back to being the old triangulating Hillary with the "for sale" sign prominently displayed at all policy discussions. Sargent is much more sympathetic to Steyer's plight:

A lot of voters may not know that there is a dramatic asymmetry between the two parties on climate and energy issues. Democratic lawmakers and candidates overwhelmingly acknowledge the science and favor specific action to do something about it. Republican lawmakers and candidates overwhelmingly either deny the science, act noncommittal about it (what I’ve called “Climate Non-Committalism“), or acknowledge the science but are evasive as to what specific actions they could support to address the problem.

Steyer’s new poll also found that in Ohio, very large majorities support transitioning to 50 percent clean energy by 2030. (The poll’s wording is generous to the proposal, but it mirrors other polls that have found national majorities support prioritizing the development of alternative energy sources.) However, Democrats and climate activists have struggled to make the issue into one that actually influences votes.

...[G]etting these issues to motivate voters will remain a major challenge. Despite Steyer’s massive expenditures in 2014, Republicans won nearly all of the seriously contested Senate contests. Asked if he was more optimistic this time, Steyer insisted that last cycle’s expenditures were nonetheless meaningful, because it kept opinion moving in the direction of action, and predicted this shift would continue.

“There is no way that American opinion has changed the way it has without people putting up a big fight on this,” Steyer said. “We absolutely care about wins and losses. But we strongly believe that the American people are going to be the determinants of what we do on this. So when we see these polls, we see that as critical. We feel like this is a long fight.”

One crucial challenge along the way may be to get voters to appreciate that on these issues, there are stark, deeply consequential differences between the two parties.

UPDATE: I should also add that Steyer sees an opportunity in the fact that a lot of voters don’t appear to fully appreciate the differences between the parties on energy and climate issues. Because transitioning to clean energy and acting on climate appear to be popular in many polls, that could mean that Republicans face a political danger in their current stance, if Democrats and climate activists can successfully inform voters of the actual asymmetry between the parties on these issues.

That will be one of the goals of Steyer’s activities in this cycle.

Easy for me to spend his money for him, but if Steyer wants to see Democrats take his issues seriously-- in a meaningful way-- he should fund Dave McTeague's campaign against Kurt Schrader in Oregon and defeat one of the worst of the anti-environmental Democrats in Congress. (Bonus: McTeague has dedicated his life to environmental activism.) Tom, if you see this, you can tap the thermometer and contribute to McTeague, who was just endorsed by the Working Families Party, below. Even $5 and $10 contributions are sincerely appreciated. But if you want to actually beat Schrader and your own PAC is too busy, send the Blue America I.E. Committee a check at P.O. Box 27201, Los Angeles, CA 90027.

Does Anyone Still Feign Surprise When A Blue Dog Finally Comes Out As A Republican? Joe Baca's Running Again-- As A GOPer

Joe Baca was one of the worst members of Congress when he was in Congress-- a corrupt, conservative Blue Dog and NRA shill. Although he voted with the Republicans against core progressive values and principles virtually all the time, there is such an utter lack of party discipline that he was able to cross the aisle with complete impunity. No one really doubted that his political raison d'être was maintaining his position as a member of the Houses two biggest founts of bribery-- the Agriculture Committee and the Financial Services Committee. He was using congressional funds to enrich and promote his large ethics-free family and was widely known as a big sexist slob. Latinas in the House complained about his abusive behavior. But... conservative Democrats can do no wrong.

He had been first elected in 1998 and was defeated by Democrat Gloria McLeod, who he referred to as "a bimbo," in 2012 when anti-NRA crusader Michael Bloomberg dumped over $3 million worth of ads into the race against Baca. Two years later he stumbled around an adjoining district, CA-31, but was defeated in the primary. A sleazy coked up, New Dem, Pete Aguilar, won that race and Baca is running for the seat again-- this time as a Republican. Yes, he's a Republican now. Like all the Blue Dogs he always voted with the Republicans anyway, so why not? It's what Blue Dogs always do. After they suck immense amounts of resources out of the Democratic Party they eventually joining the GOP. The crackpot, right-winger who is the current governor of Georgia, Nathan Deal, started out as a Blue Dog before switching to the GOP. Dozens of Blue Dogs have become fence jumpers. It's what they are.

Baca claims his switch was caused by his "core Christian values." On switching, he also mouthed some GOP claptrap about being pro-growth and pro-business. "I’ve always been very conservative in nature... [it's] how I voted the majority of the time I was in office," he said. No kidding! You'd think House Democratic would have noticed. But... people like to forget that one of Pelosi's top lieutenants, failed DCCC head Steve Israel, was also a Blue Dog before joining the House leadership and he took it on himself to always protect his fellow Blue Dogs, spending millions and millions of DCCC dollars to try to keep them from being flushed down the toilet. (The vast majority of Blue Dogs have been flushed down the toilet.)

So now Baca is running against Aguilar. There's no good outcome in that race, but it'll cost the DCCC more money to help one corrupt conservative from defeating another corrupt conservative.

But, as we saw earlier this week, the biggest Blue Dog action this cycle is a challenge by progressive former state legislator Dave McTeague to Blue Dog chairman Kurt Schrader. Usually, the only way we get rid of Blue Dogs is when they're taken out by Republicans (or become Republicans). The opportunity in Oregon should be cherished and McTeague should be supported-- Blue America has endorsed him-- just as Tim Canova's campaign to oust New Dem Debbie Wasserman Schultz should be cherished and supported. (Blue America endorsed Tim too.)

Yesterday Thom Hartmann wrote about how important it is for real Democrats to work to drive DINOs from power inside the Democratic Party. His target was the very visible Wasserman Schultz. Who, outside of Oregon and DWT's readership, has even ever heard of Kurt Schrader?

[S]he should have resigned months ago, and she probably shouldn't have ever held the position in the first place. Not just because she's repeatedly and blatantly attempted to tip the scales in Hillary Clinton's favor during the Democratic primary, but also because, based on her words and her votes, she is exactly the type of so-called "centrist" corporate Democrat that the party needs to rid from its ranks.

To start, she's right now co-sponsoring a bill that would gut the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau's payday loan and car loan regulations, basically protecting loan sharks from regulations at the expense of low-income Americans. Never mind the fact that the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau is one of Barack Obama and Elizabeth Warren's major progressive achievements to reign in financial abuses.

She also just lifted the ban that President Obama himself put in place that bans lobbyists from donating to the Democratic National Committee, and her lifting of that ban officially ended one of the few remaining rules that stem the tide of corporate money into the Democratic Party.

In the most recent omnibus spending bill, she voted for one provision that prevents the Securities and Exchange Commission from writing rules that would require corporations to disclose political spending to shareholders. In the same bill, she voted for another provision that would make it impossible for the IRS to create rules to curb special interest donors from forming "social welfare organizations" to hide political spending.

Schultz was one of the 28 Democrats who voted for fast-tracking the Trans-Pacific Partnership, and she received $300,000 from interest groups backing the trade deal, presumably for that vote, according to the American Prospect.

Just after the Democratic party lost the House and Senate catastrophically back in 2014, Wasserman Schultz voted to eliminate that part of Dodd-Frank that had prevented big banks from using deposits to speculate in financial derivatives.

Not to mention the fact that even though 58 percent of people from both parties in Florida support legalizing medical marijuana, Debbie Wasserman Schultz still opposes legalizing medical marijuana. She says it's because marijuana is a gateway drug, but it might have more to do with the tens of thousands of dollars she's gotten from the alcohol industry since she's been in Congress.

That's just a glimpse at Wasserman Schultz' voting record, and it shows a pattern of voting for pro-corporate legislation and for legislation that opens our political system to even more political spending and corruption.

On defense and national security, she's supported Republican ideas like extraditing NSA whistleblower Edward Snowden back to the United States to be arrested and prosecuted because he "jeopardized millions of Americans,"and she voted to extend the Patriot Act.

But even if she did support truly progressive and Democratic causes, she's not even particularly good at rallying the party that she's supposed to be leading.

She even recently alienated part of the Democratic base when she told the the New York Times that young women aren't supporting Hillary Clinton because there's "a complacency among the generation of young women whose entire lives have been lived after Roe v. Wade was decided."

Back in 2014, before the Republicans took control of both chambers of Congress, Debbie Wasserman Schultz successfully depressed the Democratic base by telling Politico, "I'm not going to confidently predict that Democrats will take the House back." With that kind of leadership, Democrats didn't just not win the House, they also lost the Senate.

Considering her positions, though, she's probably more comfortable with a Republican-controlled Congress than a truly progressive Democratic Party.

Debbie Wasserman Schultz isn't the only Democrat-In-Name-Only (DINO) in the Democratic leadership. But as the DNC Chair, she is the highest-ranking DINO in the party.

Even if Bernie Sanders doesn't get the nomination, progressive Democrats need to stand up and challenge the corporate DINOs who currently run the party, like law professor and real progressive Tim Canova is doing with his primary challenge in Debbie Wasserman Schultz' district.

It's time to restore the Democratic wing of the Democratic Party, and we should start with the chair.

This cycle the 4 worst DINO incumbents with viable progressive primary challengers are Wasserman Schultz (FL), Kurt Schrader (OR), Lacy Clay (MO) and Donald Norcross (NJ). You can find their opponents-- respectively Tim Canova, Dave McTeague, Maria Chappelle-Nadal and Alex Law-- by tapping the thermometer below:

Replacing Blue Dog Kurt Schrader With A Proven Progressive Champion, Dave McTeague

Tim Canova, the intrepid Democrat challenging entrenched incumbent Debbie Wasserman Schultz in a deep blue district in South Florida, wrote that "primary challenges like mine are often the only effective way to force accountability on entrenched incumbents. Here at home, for instance, Florida’s 23rd Congressional District is seen as a safe Democratic seat. My opponent has been reelected over and over, and has never faced a primary challenger, ever! And with no primary challenger in a safely Democratic seat, there is no genuine discussion, much less debate, within our district as to the serious issues facing all of us, and the overall direction of our country."

Progressive activist and labor scholar Amy Dean sees Tim's campaign as a potential game changer: “If his insurgent campaign catches on, it could represent a serious problem for the Democratic Party establishment. It could signal an increasing willingness by grass-roots activists to use primary challenges to place champions for working people in office rather than accept lesser-evil candidates simply because they are incumbents.”

And Tim's campaign isn't the only race where Blue America is backing a proven progressive against an arrogant and out-of-touch incumbent. Alex Law is challenging the entire corrupt South Jersey political machine that has bolstered Chris Christie's administration by taking on boss George Norcross' conservative little brother Donald Norcross, whose first vote in Congress was to back the Keystone XL Pipeline. Missouri state Senator Maria Chappelle-Nadal, one of the heroes of Ferguson, is taking on William Lacy Clay, the kind of typical old school Democrat who has lost touch with his constituents while living the high life with his lobbyist buddies in DC.

And this week, we welcomed a new challenger on board, Oregon former state legislator Dave McTeague, who is going after a character every bit as destructive and reactionary as Debbie Wasserman Schultz or Lacy Clay-- head Blue Dog, Kurt Schrader, a Republican in every way but the "D" next to his name.

Inspired by Bernie Sander's principled campaign and his issues and incensed by Schrader's anti-environmental votes and his backing for the TPP and other job-killing corporate trade policies, McTeague decided it jump back into electoral politics, fully aware of the onerousness of the task of taking on an entrenched incumbent in a primary. But Oregon is one of the highest turn-out states in America-- 63% compared to 52.8% in New York, 51.7% in Arizona, 54.8% in California, 48.45 in Texas and 49.5% in Arkansas-- and the 5th district's voters are well-educated, environmentally-conscious and generally much more progressive than their Blue Dog congressman, who has an "F" rating from ProgressivePunch and a tense relationship with organized labor and with the environmental community. The League of Conservative Voters rates him as the most environmentally-unfriendly Democrat in Oregon's congressional delegation and he has been a big backer of clear-cut logging. The NRA, on the other hand, loves him and supports him-- because Schrader loves them and supports them.

When McTeague jumped into the race at the end of last month-- after attending a Schrader townhall where concerns about the TPP were cavalierly dismissed-- he told residents of the northern Willamette Valley, Salem, and coastal counties from Tillamook to Lincoln that he had joined Bernie's "political revolution to address growing income inequality and the decline of the middle class." He explained his reasons for running in a guest post here at DWT a few days ago:

These days a lot of voters, Democratic voters too, don’t feel represented by the Washington Establishment and want real change. This is evident in the success of Sen. Sanders’s insurgent presidential campaign, which I strongly support. The incumbent is the Co-Chair of the conservative Blue Dog Caucus. I would be a member of the Progressive Caucus.


I don’t have any illusions about this effort. Running against an entrenched incumbent is like taking on the Death Star in Star Wars especially one with access to a million or more dollars of PAC money. 
So why would I do this? Because a lot of Democratic and independent voters want real fundamental change, a political revolution, and they’re not willing to settle for politics as usual. Those Democrats and independents deserve to have a choice just as they have a choice for real change in the Presidential Primary.


My candidacy’s purpose is to provide Democratic primary voters a progressive alternative to the establishment incumbent. I will not accept any funding from any corporate Political Action Committees. I agree with Senator Bernie Sanders we have to overturn our current corrupt campaign finance system to make real fundamental changes.

This community has been fundamental in helping Tim Canova get his campaign off the ground. Let's do the same for Dave McTeague by contributing here at the Blue America ActBlue page.