Congress Doesn't Need More Conservative, Corporate-Friendly Democrats Like Shannon Hutcheson

Early this month, we took a look at the conservative establishment candidate, Shannon Hutcheson, who EMILY's List and the DCCC have recruited to prevent progressive Democrat, Mike Siegel, from beating Republican Michael McCaul in Texas' 10th district. Since the, I found the FEC document (above) showing what looks like coordination by the DCCC-- who still pretends to not interfere in primaries-- and EMILY's List, which always backs conservatives over progressives. The document shows EMILY's List's SuperPAC, Elect Democratic Women, and the DCCC both contributed $2,500 to Shannon Hutcheson's campaign on the same day (September 30, 2019).

Yesterday, Texas Observer reporter Justin Miller wrote about how Hutcheson's career will make her unelectable against McCaul but how EMILY's List backed her anyway. "My 2018 campaign with a grassroots army of hundreds of volunteers," Mike Siegel told us today, "turned a 'safe Republican' seat into a national battleground in 2020. We've lined up labor, environmental groups, progressive organizations, Democratic activists and thousands of small dollar donors, all committed to the work of defeating Michael McCaul. And even though a small group of DC organizations (with no feel for the Texas 10th) have lent their support to a primary opponent with a troubling record, we will still finish the job. We have the message and the movement behind us."

In its endorsement of Hutcheson, EMILY’s List cited her work at her law firm, “where she has fought for causes including reproductive justice, access to health care, and served as a voice for survivors of domestic abuse.” That experience seems important to Hutcheson, too. As a candidate, she’s emphasized her legal work for Planned Parenthood of Greater Texas, her working-class roots, and her ascent in the legal profession. As her campaign biography states, “having her own firm allowed Shannon the time and flexibility to work on the causes that are important to her.”

But Hutcheson’s professional, political, and voting history tells a different story. It shows that she voted in the 2010 GOP primary-- a referendum election cycle for Obama and the Affordable Care Act—and has made several campaign contributions to conservative judges. It shows that her bid is backed by her husband Mark Hutcheson’s high-powered property tax litigation firm, with ties to powerful Republican state lawmakers. And it shows that as a corporate lawyer, Hutcheson has defended a litany of businesses against claims of wrongdoing by aggrieved workers, women, and migrant detainees and advanced corporate interests. A testimonial on the law firm’s website quotes the CEO of a pipeline company saying, “You really did do a good job—and saved us a significant amount of money.”

That groups like EMILY’s List have rallied behind Hutcheson is emblematic of a deeper divide within the Democratic coalition-- between the establishment status quo who see socially liberal, business-friendly moderates as the key to expand the power of the party and the progressive left, which sees bold economic populism and grassroots movements as the way to advance a political agenda.

In 2010, Donald Dunn, a former guard at the T. Don Hutto private migrant detention center in Taylor, was tried and convicted of multiple misdemeanors for abuse of power, admitting that he groped female detainees while he transported them to bus stations and the Austin airport. Eight female victims were discovered, and the case put a national spotlight on the potential for sexual abuse of migrant detainees in federal custody. In October 2011, the ACLU filed a civil suit against ICE, the Corrections Corporation of America-- which operated the facility-- and Dunn, among others, on behalf of three victims.

Hutcheson’s law firm was hired to defend Dunn in what became a protracted legal battle. In early 2013, Hutcheson was named as Dunn’s lead attorney, court records show. By 2017, the case was settled out of court. It’s not clear whether CCA directly paid Hutcheson Bowers to defend Dunn; the campaign told The Observer that those specifics were covered by attorney-client privilege.

Hutcheson Bowers, which has just three attorneys, is also actively representing CCA (now called CoreCivic) in a lawsuit by Martha Gonzalez, a Mexican migrant who says that she was illegally forced to work while in Texas detention camps run by the company. Hutcheson’s campaign said that though she does not recall doing any work on the case, it was not immediately able to conclusively rule out any direct involvement the candidate might have had.

The CCA case is far from the only questionable litigation with which Hutcheson has been involved. In 2014, she was hired to defend the Texas Attorney General’s Office against a discrimination claim filed under the Equal Pay Act. A female attorney at the center of the case alleges that, despite having the same level of experience and doing a job that was equal to if not more difficult than her male colleagues’, she was paid “substantially lower” than them and was passed over more often for promotions, according to the court filing. The case went to mediation and was eventually settled.

Hutcheson was also hired by the Association for Student Conduct Administration-- a group of university officials who handle sexual assault cases-- to investigate a case within its own ranks. In February 2016, Jill Creighton, an ASCA board member, alleged that Jason Casares, a former president of the organization, had sexually assaulted her after the two had drinks at a professional convention in late 2015. As Mother Jones reported, Creighton said Casares made unwanted sexual contact with her after she had too much to drink; Casares denied the allegations but eventually resigned from his position at Indiana University. In response to Creighton’s allegations, ASCA launched an internal investigation, hiring Hutcheson to lead it.

Creighton criticized the investigation, saying it failed to follow ASCA’s own best practices. Hutcheson was said to have leaned on “ancillary witnesses” and did not attempt to track down potential third-party witnesses. After a six-week investigation and at least $30,000 in expenses, Hutcheson released a report ruling that Creighton’s allegations “could not be substantiated.” Creighton was shocked when she read the report.

“At no moment was I provided with fairness,” Creighton told Mother Jones. “The report blames me for being in the same hotel room, blames me for not crying out for help in the moment, blames me for not taking physical pictures [of my injuries]... and blames me for confronting him.”

Hutcheson’s campaign declined to make her available for an interview for this story but emailed a written statement in response to questions about the cases she’s worked on. “As the co-founder of a women-owned law firm, my goal is fair outcomes for everyone. My job is to ensure employers are complying with laws to create an equitable workplace for employees,” the statement read.

Hutcheson’s campaign has taken care to highlight her working-class roots and struggles to pay off mountains of student loan debt. On Labor Day, her campaign sent an email describing how she “grew up in a union family.” Her mother was a Houston teacher, her father was a post office worker, and her uncle was an autoworker for General Motors. “I have lived the difference between the good times and the hard times, and it almost always came down to a good job,” the email read. “Things are harder these days. Solid, good-paying jobs are harder to come by. And, now they don’t often come with affordable healthcare benefits, let alone pensions or retirement benefits. It seems like working Texas families are under constant attack.”

But Hutcheson’s career as a lawyer has repeatedly put her on the opposite side of the table from workers who have tried to fight back against similar attacks.

Hutcheson has criticized what she saw as federal overreach by agencies charged with enforcing the country’s labor laws. In a 2014 report entitled “Agencies Run Amuck [sic]: Defending Against Federal Investigations,” she bemoans that President Barack Obama’s Department of Labor “is not shy in exercising its power” to investigate potential labor violations. “In fact,” she wrote, “the past decade has seen a steady increase in the amounts of back wages recovered annually. This trend is unlikely to end under current U.S. Labor Secretary, Tony [sic] Perez.”

Tom Perez, Obama’s second-term labor secretary, was unabashedly pro-union and took an aggressive, innovative approach to enforcing labor law. Perez is now the national committee chair for the Democratic Party.

As an attorney, Hucheson has defended a host of companies in cases where workers alleged wage theft, age, gender, and racial discrimination, as well as violations of the Americans with Disabilities Act. In October 2018, she defended a tire shop against an employee’s claim that his wages were stolen. The case was settled in mediation.

On multiple occasions, Hutcheson has represented Austin-based NetSpend, a prepaid debit card company that has a reputation for high fees and has been charged by federal regulators with deceptive marketing tactics. In 2018, the Federal Trade Commission ordered the company to return $10 million to its customers. In one case, Hutcheson defended NetSpend from a man-- who wrote his legal complaint from behind bars-- contesting that the company defrauded him out of tens of thousands of dollars in Social Security benefits. That case was settled out of court.

Still, Hutcheson’s record hasn’t deterred Democratic insiders. In a statement to The Observer, EMILY’s List emphasized Hutcheson’s work for Planned Parenthood. ”She is the strongest candidate to beat Congressman McCaul and we are proud to support her,” spokesperson Benjamin Ray said. NARAL Pro-Choice America, another top reproductive rights group that also recently endorsed Hutcheson, echoed EMILY’s List. Hutcheson has “dedicated nearly a decade of her career to advocating for women and families, and we’re proud to support a candidate who will be a true champion for reproductive freedom in Congress.”

The EMILY’s List support could have a big payoff. The group has grown increasingly close with the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee—the official House campaign arm of the party establishment. As the Intercept has reported, some progressives have criticized EMILY’s List  for acting as a gatekeeper that elevates candidates who are favored by party insiders and have robust donor rolodexes-- the sort that the party believes are best positioned to win swing districts-- at the expense of grassroots progressives with fewer connections.

And Hutcheson is well-connected. Her campaign finance chair, Aimee Boone Cunningham-- a Planned Parenthood Texas activist and Container Store heir-- is a major Democratic Party donor who cut a $35,500 check to the DCCC in early 2019. Soon after, Hutcheson went to Washington to meet with DCCC officials, the Intercept reported.

But the endorsement from EMILY’s List was just the latest score for Hutcheson’s campaign. Texas state Senator Kirk Watson, a former Austin mayor and powerful figure in both the local party establishment and the legal community, also recently endorsed Hutcheson. A Watson staffer said the senator was on a plane and not available for comment.

Hutcheson is in a three-way primary with Siegel and Austin physician Pritesh Gandhi. She’s already raised a formidable sum-- nearly $535,000-- of campaign money. Almost half of that has come from big donors who gave more than $2,000; just $40,000 came from small donors, according to Federal Election Commission reports.

Large donors from Popp Hutcheson, the law firm where her husband, Mark, works, have contributed more than $75,000 to her campaign. As progressive activist and blogger Howie Klein first highlighted, the firm’s top partner, James Popp, is responsible for lobbying for and drafting property tax laws with loopholes big enough to let corporations shave off billions of dollars in tax savings, diverting hundreds of billions in potential tax revenue from state coffers.

Hutcheson has also made campaign contributions to a trio of Texas judges, including Scott Field, a self-described “constitutional conservative” who formerly served on the state’s Third Court of Appeals. There, he was part of a panel that granted a right-wing group’s request for an injunction to block Austin’s paid sick leave ordinance in 2018. They argued that mandatory compensation for sick leave is equivalent to a wage and therefore violates state minimum wage law. From 2011 to 2013, Hutcheson and her husband, as well as her law firm gave Fields $2,000, campaign finance records show.

In 2018, the 10th Congressional District was seen as a long shot. Thanks in part to the inroads made by Siegel, who came within 5 percentage points of ousting the powerful Republican incumbent, national Democrats now see it as a top 2020 swing district target and, as such, it’s likely to be one of the most competitive Democratic primary races.

Siegel, a former attorney for the city of Austin, is running again on a progressive platform that includes Medicare for All, the Green New Deal, and workers’ rights. But the DCCC hasn’t rallied behind the Berniecrat like it has for other Texas congressional candidates who are running again in competitive districts.

Siegel, who is trailing both of his Democratic opponents in fundraising,  believes that the DCCC-- which ostensibly stays neutral in party primaries-- prefers business-friendly types like Hutcheson. Asked to comment for this story, Siegel played up his experience advocating for the vulnerable as a public school teacher, union organizer, and civil rights lawyer. “The best way to see who someone will fight for in Congress is to look at their record,” he told The Observer. “We already have a representative who takes money from private immigration jails and abusive employers-- we don’t need another one.” 

Yesterday, Mike Siegel told us that "Like Jim Hightower says, it's not about right versus left, it's about top versus bottom. The folks supporting my opponent are out of touch with the people of this district-- people who suffer every day without health care or housing, who are oppressed by racist immigration and criminal justice policies, who are concerned about clean air and water and a livable climate. I'm fighting for these folks-- and there are more of us."

As you may know, Blue America has endorsed Mike Siegel for Congress, both in 2018 and again this year. We are certain that Mike is capable of defeating and replacing Michael McCaul this cycle. There is no question that corporate shills like Cheri Bustos would prefer to see McCaul keep his seat than see an independent-minded progressive like Siegel become a member of Congress. Please consider helping Mike Siegel's campaign by clicking on the Turning Texas Blue thermometer above. Bustos, EMILY's List and other conservatives-- including Republicans-- are financing Hutcheson. Siegel can use our help-- and he deserves it.

Maggie Toulouse Oliver versus The Machine, The Swamp, Schumer, The DC Stink

So far Blue America has only endorsed 3 candidates for the Senate in 2020, outstanding incumbent Jeff Merkley (D-OR) and two progressives in hot primary races against conservative Establishment shleps: Andrew Romanoff in Colorado and Maggie Toulouse Oliver in New Mexico, the current Secretary of State. Before Romanoff can get to incumbent Republican Cory Gardner he'll probably have to beat failed presidential candidate Frackenlooper. And before Maggie Oliver gets to whichever conservative loser the GOP spits out for the seat, she'll have to beat the DC Establishment candidate for the seat Ben Ray Luján.

Yesterday, Ryan Grim, reporting for The Intercept asked if New Mexico will go with the progressive or with the ex-head of the DCCC. "The party establishment," he wrote, "has already unified behind Ben Ray Luján, a New Mexico congressman, to fill the seat being vacated by Democratic Sen. Tom Udall, who is retiring. Luján-- who is assistant House speaker, a close ally of Speaker Nancy Pelosi, and the chair of the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee last cycle-- was quickly endorsed by Pelosi after announcing his bid in April. In an unusual move, the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee, rather than letting the primary play out, endorsed him as well."

Leave it to Schumer and the DSCC to always pick the more corporate and more conservative candidate! And the one most easily controlled by party leadership. Their move should be enough of a reason to contribute to Maggie's campaign immediately. (Please do so by tapping on the 2020 Blue America Senate thermometer on the right.) Maggie Toulouse Oliver is too progressive for Schumer's taste and too independent-minded and New Mexico-focussed for the transpartisan corrupt DC Establishment. As Ryan reminded his readers, "As the chair of the DCCC, Luján oversaw the party’s effort to beat back progressive challengers in open primaries across the country. Now, he faces such a challenge himself."

On August 13, the Working Families Party, which has become an increasingly potent player in the state’s politics, endorsed Maggie Toulouse Oliver, joined later by the Action PAC (a project affiliated with The Intercept columnist Shaun King). Oliver, a 43-year-old single mom whose children were on Medicaid when they were younger, began her career with the League of Conservation Voters and was elected secretary of state in 2014. An outspoken progressive, she backs a Green New Deal, Medicare for All, wants to abolish the Immigration and Customs Enforcement agency; as secretary of state, she enacted automatic voter registration and same-day registration.

The Lujáns, on the other hand, are a political dynasty in New Mexico and arrived in the region as Spanish colonial settlers long before it was part of the United States. Ben Ray’s father, Ben Luján, was speaker of the New Mexico House. Michelle Luján Grisham serves as the state’s governor, and her uncle, Manuel Luján Jr., was a Republican who served in the U.S. House and as George H.W. Bush’s interior secretary. Eugene Luján was chief justice of the New Mexico Supreme Court.

The New Mexico race is the first serious attempt in 2020 by progressives to take the 2018 House primary playbook and port it over to a Senate campaign. For the DSCC to so quickly get behind Luján reflects a less secure party power structure, one that feels under siege in Washington from a rising progressive wing.

At a meeting on August 14 of major progressive groups in the state, Eric Griego of New Mexico WFP pushed for the movement to unify around Oliver, he said, but the groups-- representing unions, the environment, and reproductive rights-- were worried about taking on Luján and are so far staying out. “They’re looking at the bare-knuckle politics,” he told The Intercept. “Their heart is with Maggie, and everybody is scared shitless to get in the race.”

There's an asymmetry in how the parties approach primaries in relatively uncompetitive states. Republicans tend to fill open red Senate seats with true believers and ultraconservatives, as the party’s business wing and its activist base are largely aligned on major ideological questions. In the Democratic Party, the corporate donor base and party activists are at odds, with the former typically out-muscling the latter, which tilts the balance of power toward moderates in the Senate Democratic caucus.

Establishment Democrats often argue that they would prefer to elect more progressive candidates, but the demands of pragmatism, and the tilt of the electorate, require them to support centrist candidates with corporate backing. A 2018 academic study, however, cast significant doubt on that claim, offering evidence that those party leaders prefer centrist candidates but mask that preference in the language of pragmatism.

The tendencies on either side have had drastic implications, as Senate Republicans have moved to reshape the Senate into a vehicle for minority dominance, and Senate Democrats have largely attempted to hew to Senate norms. It took former Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid some five years to do modest filibuster reform, as he worked to overcome objections from inside his caucus to changing Senate rules. At the first hint of opposition to Supreme Court nominee Neil Gorsuch, Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell quickly ended the filibuster for Supreme Court nominees.

One obstacle for progressives in blue states is that they often have to run, in primaries, against candidates who aren’t obviously objectionable to Democratic voters-- and have major backing from high-dollar donors. That combination is difficult to beat. Leading into the primary election between former New York Rep. Joe Crowley and Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, for instance, there was no upsurge in local or national opinion that there was something terribly wrong with Crowley. Sure, he was heavily backed by corporate donors, but he largely voted the right way on the House floor. Only in victory has Ocasio-Cortez been able to demonstrate the genuine difference between the two to a national audience.

Oliver faces the same challenge in New Mexico. “It’s not easy because he’s not somebody that people dislike. He’s not the enemy, but he’s not the best possible option,” said Heather Brewer, Oliver’s campaign manager. “There’s nothing wrong with Ben Ray Luján, but there’s something right about electing the first woman and a strong progressive from the blue state of New Mexico.”

And Luján has become even less wrong since running for Senate. After chairing the DCCC for three cycles and raising extraordinary sums of corporate money, he quickly raised some $200,000 of corporate PAC money for his Senate campaign. Yet after Oliver swore off corporate PAC money, Luján made the pledge too (though he has declined to return what he has already taken). Lujan also signed on to the Green New Deal, introduced by Ocasio-Cortez in February, after launching his campaign. Though he had never before supported former Rep. John Conyers’s Medicare for All legislation, in June, he finally co-sponsored the one written by Rep. Pramila Jayapal (D-WA) which earned him Jayapal’s endorsement.

Still, he hasn’t moved left on everything. Though Luján is the highest-ranking Hispanic lawmaker in Congress, and has condemned Trump’s policy of separating families and caging children, he has not aimed his fire squarely at ICE. Oliver is more outspoken on the question and has called for Immigration and Customs Enforcement to be abolished, with its responsibilities distributed to other agencies that do not act as rogue secret police forces.

And while Oliver has been calling for the impeachment of Donald Trump, Luján has hewed to the Pelosi line that it’s premature to move forward. “On the books, he’s got a decent record; he’s not bad, we could do worse,” Griego said. “He’s a consummate inside player, and a really loyal soldier to Pelosi.”

New Mexico has become increasingly progressive in recent years and, as the GOP has faded as a political force, leftist activists have focused their energy on corporate Democrats. The biggest win so far came in 2018 against Debbie Rodella, a powerful state lawmaker who was a one-woman obstacle to progress. WFP recruited and backed an insurgent challenger, Susan Herrera, who stunned the state by ousting her in a state House primary. WFP and other progressive allies are again focused on a handful of corporate-backed Democrats at the state level in 2020, even as the groups aren’t united behind Oliver.

The race for Oliver could come down to whether she can win the backing of reproductive rights groups and win heavily among women, who not only lean Democratic but tend to be more active on behalf of candidates than men. Getting the backing of EMILY’s List is critical; the organization’s brand is so strong with female donors that if a candidate doesn’t have that endorsement, it’s hard for them to raise money. Call back when you have their endorsement, multiple candidates have been told repeatedly during their own runs.

EMILY’s List endorsed Oliver’s run for secretary of state, but backing her against Luján would require the group to challenge the Democratic power structure, of which EMILY’s List is a part. Still, EMILY’s List staying out of the race would also be politically difficult. Only 56 women have served in the Senate in the entire history of the upper chamber, with just 25 serving today. And Luján, as chair of the DCCC, angered pro-choice groups by arguing that opposition to reproductive rights should not be a litmus test for candidates (but quickly backtracked under fire).

The longer it takes for Oliver to win the backing, the harder it becomes to raise the kind of money she’ll need to compete against Luján. (EMILY stands for “Early Money Is Like Yeast.”) Luján has raised more than $1.6 million so far to Oliver’s roughly $200,000, a disparity that was flagged by the progressive groups this week in their argument for why they should stay neutral.

Brewer said she was hopeful the campaign would earn the support of EMILY’s List. “I would assume given they’re a strong organization that supports pro-choice women, that that is their only consideration in how they make decisions,” she said. “I couldn’t speak to how Washington insiders might be trying to manipulate that.” And, Brewer argued, New Mexico races are relatively inexpensive; Oliver will be able to get her message out statewide for just a few million dollars, which Brewer was confident they could comfortably raise.

Ben Ray, a coincidentally named spokesperson for EMILY’s List, said that no decision had been made. “Our endorsements are a rolling process,” he said. “We are always happy to see strong women leaders like Maggie get in races like this.” (Rolling is one way to describe it; while outside activists often perceive EMILY’s List as dragging its feet, its endorsement process is cumbersome and laborious, involving a choice council that is difficult to convene at one time.)

Oliver, meanwhile, is also hoping to lock down national progressive endorsements from groups like Justice Democrats, MoveOn, the Progressive Change Campaign Committee, Democracy for America, the local Indivisible, and more. That could make up for the lack of support from other mainline progressive groups afraid to take on the party establishment.

Sad about Pramila. I didn't know that.

As Grim implied, Luján is a follower-- never a leader, never an independent thinker. This campaign has been funny inasmuch as whatever Oliver does, Luján follows. He's always opposed Medicare-for-All but decided to back it because she did and because it polls well. He's always opposed the Green New Deal but decided to back it because she did and because it polls well. And now, he's suddenly backing impeachment, many months after most Democrats have-- and after he looked like a fool because Maggie did and he didn't... and voters were noticing. It's fine that Luján has decided to copy everything Maggie does. Maggie does good things. But what happens if he gets into the Senate and starts copying Schumer-- which is exactly what Schumer is counting on. That won't be nearly as good. New Mexico deserves an independent-minded Senator like Tom Udall, not some hack career politician.

Of Course EMILY's List Doesn't Hate Women-- Just Progressive Women

Progressives back Alexandria and Zephyr-- why doesn't EMILY's List?

EMILY's List didn't endorse Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez during her primary against corrupt Democratic hack and Queens machine boss Joe Crowley. Par for the course. EMILY's List rarely backs cutting edge women candidates. They still haven't endorsed Ocasio-Cortez for the general. Jess King is another progressive candidate-- who won her primary-- who EMILY's List won't endorse. Nor will they back Detroit's proven progressive champion Rashida Tlaib. Pro-choice women Democrats, so why the cold shoulder?

The ultimate identity politics group, backs progressive women where it makes them look good-- like Elizabeth Warren, Stacey Abrams, Tammy Baldwin or Marie Hirono but what they specialize in is right-of-center corporate Democrats like Blue Dog chief Kyrsten Sinema (AZ), Blue Dogs Cheri Bustos (IL), Gretchen Driskell (MI), Gwen Graham (FL), Kathy Manning (NC) and Stephanie Murphy (FL), as well as candidates like NRA poster child Ann Kirkpatrick (AZ), Mob-affiliated socialite Susie Lee (NV) and conservatives Like Dianne Feinstein (CA), Gina Raimondo (RI), Jacky Rosen (NV) and Claire McCaskill (MO).

Yesterday, Chuck Todd's First Read got the day going with a comparison between how EMILY's List and Bernie are handling the primaries. No love lost between them from the 2016 primary when EMILY's List aggressively backed Clinton against him and then went bonkers when Bernie was invited to speak at a women's conference the following year.

Bernie endorses progressives regardless of gender. EMILY's List is furious that in today's Michigan primary he's backing the progressive (make) candidate for governor, Abdul El Sayed, while they're backing a garden variety status quo Democrat, Gretchen Whitmer. Also today, EMILY's list has another uninspiring status quo "moderate" (Sharice Davids), while Bernie is backing Brent Wilder. Coming up this month in Florida's gubernatorial contest, EMILY's List backs Republican-lite Blue Dog Gwen Graham, while Bernie endorsed the progressive in the race, Andrew Gillum. (To call Bernie anti-women in that race would be the same as calling EMILY's List anti-black.)

"It’s completely fair to note," noted Todd, "that Sanders has chosen candidates who align with his own policy priorities over more moderate competitors. And he did pick Stacey Abrams in Georgia (who won her primary) and Marie Newman in IL-3 (who lost)-- but so did most national Democratic groups, including EMILY’s List" (although EMILY's List dragged its feet on Newman, jumping in long after Bernie and progressive groups backed her)... "Critics of EMILY’s List have suggested that the well-funded group simply picks primary winners and losers from afar. “We don’t want to be supportive of candidates who simply raise money from the wealthy and then put 30-second ads on TV,” Sanders suggested in a rally for Welder." That's a perfect description of EMILY's List.

Today, The Intercept noted that EMILY’s List just suddenly announced it had endorsed Letitia James (the Cuomo Machine candidate) for New York attorney general, "an unusual move for the women’s group that tends to shy away from races with more than one viable woman in the primary. [It] came about without a competitive process or the typical trappings of interviews with candidates or even questionnaires." Clearly, the aggressively progressive and independent-minded Zephyr Teachout was a high profile candidate who the status quo conservatives at EMILY's List just could not bear.

Suggestion: if you want to help more fantastic women-- women who will execute their duties the way Pramila Jayapal and Judy Chu do, for example-- get elected to Congress, that 2018 congressional thermometer above, has the cream of the crop, although, from both genders. They wouldn't be on the list if they didn't need some help today.

Does The DCCC Have Its Own Troll Farm?

So who is Patrick Karlsson? No really... who is he (or who are they)? If he were a person, he would be a superman who doesn't need any sleep and who would "automatically" tweet as soon as someone would say anything positive about Laura Moser (like "Patrick Karlsson"-- not a Swede-- does). About 3 or 4 days before the primary, he popped up and went on the warpath against Moser. A pseudonym for Ben Ray Lujan or Nancy Pelosi? Nah. Jason Bresler? That sounds possible.

I never heard of him until today when I was told he's part of what looks like a concerted effort to continue the DCCC's shocking smear of Laura, one of the 2 Democrats-- the progressive one-- who made it into the TX-07 runoff. When I looked him up to read his tweets myself, this popped up on my screen:

So I had a friend look him up and BOOM! No problem at all finding tweets like this by the troll:

So I guess I'm blocked... by an account I never heard of and that doesn't appear to belong to an actual person. Wouldn't that be just like the DCCC (or EMILY's List)? I guess no one at the DCCC cares that Bernie said he's "especially distressed that the DCCC tried to do negative attacks against a very respectable and intelligent candidate who is running a serious campaign. That’s just not acceptable. I suspect that it backfired on them, and I hope they don’t do it again." They keep going with the negativity-- except not on their own website this time. They're trying to destroy Laura's character, using really vile tactics right out of the Lee Atwater/Karl Rover playbook-- going right for her strengths and turning them into weaknesses. Laura is the progressive in this race, running against an anti-union corporate Dem, EMILY's List shill Elizabeth Pannill Fletcher. So the DCCC trolls are painting her as a racist, tearing her down and tearing her down in the ugliest possible ways. [Don't quote me on this but I think her husband is a person of color.]

Someone told me about another possible DCCC troll, an account called Paradigm Shift Suki (@freeandclear1). I had never heard of it and went to check it when I was told the account was the source of endless smears against Laura. When I did, this was the message:

You are blocked from following @freeandclear1 and viewing @freeandclear1's Tweets. Learn more.

The DCCC and EMILY's List are setting the table in such a way that will absolutely guarantee one winner in November, John Culberson-- and what's most tragic about all this is that THEY KNOW IT AND DON'T GIVE A RAT'S ASS. They would much rather have a conservative Republican in Congress than a progressive.

The DCCC is the worst den of iniquity in Washington. As Bernie said over the weekend in Texas. "I detest that type of politics and I think most Americans do... That is to my mind, absolutely unacceptable. And it’s got to end." But it won't stop, not while unaccountable, corrupt DC characters like Pelosi, Hoyer and Crowley control the party. Please consider helping to teach the DCCC a lesson they badly-- oh so badly-- need to learn by contributing to Laura's campaign at the Take Back Texas ActBlue thermometer on the left.

DCCC Comes Out Of The Closet As The Progressive-Hating Attack Machine It's Been For Over A Decade

Jason Westin: Above the ugly DCCC fray in Houston

It isn't hard to figure out why I'd be attracted to Jonathan Tilove's headline in the Austin American-Statesman a few days ago... Nancy Pelosi’s 'cold-blooded' warning to Democratic primary voters: 'If the person who can’t win, wins, it’s not a priority race for us anymore.'. That's old DCCC standard operating procedure: if their corrupt conservative candidate doesn't win the primary, the DCCC abandons the district to the Republicans. Ever since Pelosi took control of the DCCC, that's how it's been run. She never admits it though. So why did she in Texas? Senility?

Tilove didn't understand what she was even doing in his office sitting around for an interminable interview. "She had done public events in Houston over the weekend, and had another, later in the day Monday, in San Antonio. In Austin," he wrote, "it was just private meetings, and this interview. They talked about TX-21, the open Austin/San Antonio district where a wealthy Republican, Joseph Kopser, is pretending-- a little-- to be a Democrat during the primary so that he can beat progressive stalwart Derrick Crowe. The establishment-- par for the corse-- favors Kopser. Tilove had written that story a couple weeks ago. At the time, he had written that "The race for the party’s nomination in the 21st Congressional District has emerged as a microcosm of the sharp division among Democrats across the nation in how to respond to Trump-- do they nominate a candidate like Joseph Kopser, a former Army Ranger turned tech entrepreneur who the smart party money says can appeal to folks in the middle who rarely if ever vote Democratic but are offended by Trump, or go with a candidate who taps the outraged passions on the left, like Derrick Crowe, Elliott McFadden or Mary Wilson?"

Pelosi explained the DCCC theory of the battle for control of the House:

[I]f you’re an incumbent and you’re a chairman, and your votes have been terrible this last year you go home and masquerade as some kind of a moderate but you’ve been up here enabling nothing to come up on guns, nothing to come up on immigration, all these terrible things, well you’re thinking, “I’ve had a nice career, I’m respected in my community, nobody knows how I’ve voted, but they’re going to tell them in this election and I’m going to have to spend a lot of money to win, and I’m probably going to be in the minority, I think I’ll teach in the university.

So they get the retirements. We get the A-plus recruits. And so 36 of them, I think, maybe it’s changed since this morning, around 36 of them have said they are not running, 7 or 8 of them are committee chairman who are not running. So they see the handwriting on the wall.

... [I]t’s not even a recruitment because so many of these people self-recruited-- veterans, academics elected officials, private sector people, so many people coming forward. Forty-five happens to be one of our best recruiters. I have never in my whole political life seen anything like the energy at he grassroots level. You saw that at the march and that was organic, it wasn’t political, they did it and now they’re showing how they want to participate And this past year, all of those people helped us fend off the challenge to the Affordable Care Act, we couldn’t defeat the tax bill, but we won the argument so far.

So we have something like a hundred races, a hundred races, far too many, that are better than any of those special elections, because those special elections were in Republican districts, where hates those Cabinet officers, or Murphy had to resign, right away, your computers turned off, get out of the building kind of resign.

...So, out of that hundred, we have to reduce that down about two-thirds of that to get down to the 24 we need, perhaps 30, 35, you know I’d like to have more than the 24. Right now, today  we could do that. But 100 is too much. In other words, we’d rather double down and win than spread too thinly and lose by a little.

The value of that is, say you’re a slacker, you’re not the candidate we need you to be, you say, “Sunday’s I always play golf.”

“Oh really, not on our time.”

And then we say, we have other places we can go.

So many women candidates.

So candidates know, this is almost like a competition. They have to do their share. This isn’t an entitlement program. We need people to run, oh you’re good, you look good for the district here’s the money, No, they have to work. How do you connect with your constituents. That’s the most important thing. First of all, it’s you would win, but even before that, chronologically, show you are going to represent them. How are you going know them, how are they going to know you.

We have  a great (Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee) chairman, Ben Ray Luján, who is from New Mexico, very talented, very respected by the members.

She's completely delusional... living in her own fantasy world. She got one thing right: Luján is from New Mexico. But he is not "very talented"-- he's the opposite of that-- and he is not "very respected by the members." Many of them think he's an idiot.

Back to her endless babbling to the poor reporter in Austin: "Forgive me for using this word,  you have to be very cold-blooded about how you make these decisions about the races because everybody’s so great, but one in five children lives in poverty in America and we have to have our best fighters go out there to win.So today we would win. Texas is really  important to us. We have always invested in Texas because Texas will make the difference as to what the future of our country is. Imagine Texas just turning purple even. Wow. We’re one of the few national committees that actually does invest in Texas because we have prospects, and we believe in turning Texas blue, purple, whatever the color."

She's crazy as a loon. The House Democrats elected Jared Polis DCCC Regional Vice Chair for the area that includes Texas, Colorado and New Mexico. He ignored his duties 100% and then decided to run for governor of Colorado. He resigned as regional vice chair. Luján, Pelosi and Hoyer decided to ignore pleas to replace him immediately from people who really did think Texas is key to the 2018 midterms. They refused. It's been over a year and it's the only region without a vice chair. It allows the notoriously corrupt DCCC staff to run wild. And it allowed Luján, Pelosi and Hoyer to handle the area directly. Here's what that means to Hoyer, for example.

PELOSI: We have five races.

(The Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee has targeted five seats in Texas, now held by Republicans, that it would like to flip. In addition to Smith’s seat in the 21st, they are John Culberson’s seat in the 7th CD, Will Hurd’s seat in the 23rd, Pete Sessions’ seat in the 32nd, and, most recently, John Carter’s seat in the 31st.)

I’ll talk to you  after the primary or the runoff. We think we have a couple of prospects in the Houston area, one in  Dallas, in the Valley. I have a little broader list than the cold-blooded list of the committee, so I’m still hopeful of a little more.

Pelosi is handed a binder by Aguilar, the aide, who executive director of Nancy Pelosi for Congress, with a list of the races and the Democratic candidates competing in each.

So they’re all multi-candidates. So we’ll see. this is about the choice of the people in those districts about who they want.

Could she identify the preferred candidates?

PELOSI: I wouldn’t think of doing that.

There are candidates who match the districts.

...How can I say this in a nice way? We have to be cold-blooded in what we do. In other words, if the wrong person wins-- well nobody’s wrong-- but if the person who can’t win, wins, it’s not a priority race for us anymore, because we’ve got 100 races.

For the Democratic aspirants in the Texas 7, 21, 23, 24, 31 and 32, the March 6 primary is the time to show and prove.

...Show us your strength or your weakness in a race.

Now people have their own enthusiasm, their own enthusiasm that they bring to it and they might be able to created something.

I hope for a wave, but I believe you make your wave. You make your wave.

Since it’s the Olympics, this is what I tell them. In one second, you’re gold, silver, bronze or nothing. These races are tough. They are tight, you win by 300 votes, 1,000 votes, this isn’t like, I’m riding a wave here and it’s just a question of hail fellow well met, combed hair. You have to go door to door to door to door, over and over again so people see what’s in your heart your sincerity, Authenticity is bigger than any amount of intellectual prowess, because people think you can buy that anyway. You can hire that. But conviction, courage, that’s who you are.

It’s always that way but even mores this year because of our friend in the White House, the great organizer.

Her theory behind the races exploded yesterday in Houston when the DCCC did something publicly that it usually only-- and always-- does behind the scenes where no one can watch. It viciously attacked a progressive candidate, Laura Moser, to benefit an establishment corporate shill in the primary. And DCCC appendage, EMILY's List, joined, albeit to benefit it's own establishment corporate shill. [Note: Blue America isn't backing any of these candidates. Our candidate is the other progressive, award-winning cancer researcher and doctor, Jason Westin.] But what the DCCC and EMILY's List are doing to Laura is a story that must be told.

Let's start by going right to the source, Ben Ray Luján, who the delusional Pelosi says is "from New Mexico, very talented, very respected by the members." She forgot to mention "very bloodthirsty" when it comes to progressives. Right on the DCCC website... ammo for the Republicans if TX-07 voters decide to nominate Moser:

Democratic voters need to hear that Laura Moser is not going to change Washington. She is a Washington insider, who begrudgingly moved to Houston to run for Congress. In fact, she wrote in the Washingtonian magazine, “I’d rather have my teeth pulled out without anesthesia” than live in Texas. As of January 2018, she claimed Washington, DC to be her primary residence in order to get a tax break. And she has paid her husband’s Washington, DC political consulting firm over $50,000 from campaign contributions; meaning 1 of every 6 dollars raised has gone to her husband’s DC company.

PROOF POINTS

Moser just moved to Texas from Washington, DC. (BACKUP)

In a November 2014 article, Moser said she’d rather have her “teeth pulled without anesthesia” than live in Texas. (BACKUP)

As of January 2018, Moser was still receiving the DC Homestead Exemption on her property in Washington, DC. (BACKUP)

In 2017, Moser paid over $50,000 in campaign money to her husband’s DC consulting firm. More than 1 of every 6 dollars spent by her campaign went straight into her husband’s DC company’s bank account. (BACKUP)

No one has ever seen the DCCC go after a legitimate Democratic primary candidate so viciously in such a public way before. And Ryan Grim pointed out how the despicable EMILY's List piled on immediately.

EMILY's List is dumping big money into an upcoming Democratic primary in Texas’s 7th Congressional District, pitting the women’s group against a pro-choice woman who was, in the months after the election of Donald Trump, a face of the resistance.

Laura Moser, as creator of the popular text-messaging program Daily Action, gave hundreds of thousands of despondent progressives a single political action to take each day. Her project was emblematic of the new energy forming around the movement against Trump, led primarily by women and often by moms. (Moser is both.)

It was those types of activists EMILY’s List spent 2017 encouraging to make first-time bids for office. But that doesn’t mean EMILY’s List will get behind them. Also running is Lizzie Pannill Fletcher, a corporate lawyer who is backed by Houston mega-donor Sherry Merfish. EMILY’s List endorsed her in November.

The 7th District includes parts of Houston and its wealthy western suburbs, and Merfish and her husband, Gerald Merfish, are among the city’s leading philanthropists. Gerald Merfish owns and runs a steel pipe company in the oil-rich region and Sherry Merfish, who worked for decades for EMILY’s List, is a major donor to the Democratic Party and to EMILY’s List.

...The Houston district is one of scores where crosscurrents of the Democratic Party are colliding. Democrats, who in the past have had difficulty fielding a single credible candidate even in winnable districts, have at least four serious contenders in the race to replace Republican John Culberson. Moser, who has more than 10,000 donors — more than 90 percent of whom are small givers — and cancer researcher Jason Westin make up the progressive flank, while Fletcher and Alex Triantaphyllis are running more moderate campaigns. Triantaphyllis, a former Goldman Sachs analyst who doesn’t live in the district, has the backing of some establishment elements of the party.

“Alex T has been open about being the chosen candidate of the [Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee],” said Daniel Cohen, president of Indivisible Houston, who is not endorsing any particular candidate. (The DCCC has not officially endorsed a candidate in the primary, though its support can come in less public ways.)

...With both Fletcher and Moser battling for a spot in the two-person runoff, and Westin surging in the race, EMILY’s List’s endorsement of Fletcher could end up having the paradoxical effect of producing a runoff between the two men. EMILY’s List, while expending resources in several competitive primaries between women, has also stayed out of other races that pit a pro-choice woman against an anti-choice man. Despite significant pressure, the group held out on endorsing Marie Newman against Democratic incumbent Daniel Lipinski, only shifting course when it became clear the SEIU would be breaking with Lipinski.

The group has also declined to endorse the pro-choice Kara Eastman running against anti-choice Democrat Brad Ashford; the same is true for Lupe Valdez running against Andrew White for Texas governor. (White says that he believes Roe v. Wade is the law of the land and that his religious beliefs would not influence how he approached the issue, but he is far from a champion of reproductive rights.)

The support of first Merfish and then EMILY’s List for Fletcher raises questions about whether the endorsement was made at the behest of a major donor or because the organization truly believed Fletcher is the stronger candidate.

Abby Livingston, political reporter for the widely read Texas Tribune is covering this disgraceful attack by the establishment against Moser. "The campaign arm of Democrats in the U.S. House of Representatives set its sights on a surprising target Thursday: Democratic congressional hopeful Laura Moser. The Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee posted negative research on Moser, a Houston journalist vying among six other Democrats in the March 6 primary to unseat Republican U.S. Rep. John Culberson. Democrats locally and nationally have worried that Moser is too liberal to carry a race that has emerged in recent months as one of the most competitive races in the country."

DCCC spokeswoman Meredith Kelly went even further in a statement to the Texas Tribune.

"Voters in Houston have organized for over a year to hold Rep. Culberson accountable and win this Clinton district," Kelly said.

Then, referring to a 2014 Washingtonian magazine piece in which Moser wrote that she would rather have a tooth pulled without anesthesia than move to Paris, Texas, Kelly added:"Unfortunately, Laura Moser’s outright disgust for life in Texas disqualifies her as a general election candidate, and would rob voters of their opportunity to flip Texas’ 7th in November.”

Later Thursday evening, Moser obliquely responded to the allegations on Twitter, quoting former First Lady Michelle Obama: "When they go low, we go high."

Later in the evening, she expanded her comments in a statement.

"We're used to tough talk here in Texas, but it's disappointing to hear it from Washington operatives trying to tell Texans what to do. These kind of tactics are why people hate politics," she said. "The days where party bosses picked the candidates in their smoke filled rooms are over. DC needs to let Houston vote."

"This is a landmark year in Texas and in states all across the country," she added. "We have a real chance to not only flip District 7, but bring some sanity back to Congress and resist the erratic extremism holding our White House hostage."

"It's a lot to ask, and we can't do any of it by throwing mud and tearing each other down. This is not the time to be a house divided."

Until this point, the DCCC so far this cycle has gone to great lengths to avoid the impression it was taking sides in primaries across the country. A Democratic source did point out to the Tribune that the campaign committee made a similar effort in a 2014 California House race.

A former Democratic operative emailed the Tribune suggesting that the posting was intended to signal to allied groups where and how to make paid attacks.

UPDATE: Note From A Progressive Congressmember

Dear Howie:

This is shocking to me. Apart from the unfairness of it, what if she wins anyway? They’ve kneecapped her. Didn’t they notice what happened when McConnell spent $7 million against Roy Moore, and then he became the nominee?

AFL-CIO vs EMILY's List In Texas: "Anybody But Lizzie"

EMILY's List always manages to find the worst women to back. Here you have a Blue Dog, a New Dem and a union buster. Why not top notch progressives like Nina Ahmad and Jess King?

Mother Jones published a story the other day, , One of the Most Influential Unions in Texas Just Came Out Against a Rising Democratic Contender, the starts with two really wrong-headed assumptions: "With support from progressive groups like EMILY’s List, Houston attorney Lizzie Pannill Fletcher has proven herself a top Democratic contender to flip Texas Republican John Culberson’s congressional seat this fall." First of all, EMILY's List may have been a progressive group a decade ago... but not since then. In fact, if anything, EMILY's List is part of the establishment and conservative Democratic infrastructure. They generally back conservative women for office. No one cares about EMILY's List's endorsements outside the Beltway and in the clueless media, and the group generally hurts candidates-- by interfering in their campaigns and siphoning funds to connected consultants while demanding that funds not be spent on anything EMILY's List can't get a piece of (like field and voter registration drives)-- more than helps them. They are especially disrespectful, bullying and even tyrannical with women candidates of color.

An anti-Fletcher critique has been building in South Texas inside organized labor circles for at least a month. It's no secret that the DCCC favors one of her very conservative opponents, Jay Hulings, who was recruited by the Castro Machine in San Antonio, and has been endorsed by the New Dems and Blue Dogs, the Republican Wing of the Democratic Party. (If Hulings had different plumbing, EMILY's List wouldn't have even considered Fletcher.)

In a statement announcing its endorsements, the Texas AFL-CIO told members that it opposed Fletcher’s candidacy. The group’s opposition stems from a lawsuit that dates back to the mid-2000s and was resolved in 2016, during which Fletcher’s law firm, AZA, represented a Houston commercial cleaning company that won $5.3 million in damages from a labor union affiliated with the Texas AFL-CIO. (Fletcher is an AZA partner; an AZA associate, Adam Milasincic, is running in a state primary race as well.)

Zeph Capo, president of the Texas Gulf Coast Area Labor Federation (the Houston-area arm of the Texas AFL-CIO), said in a letter to the Harris County Democratic Party that AZA investigators intimidated immigrant workers who may have otherwise testified and humiliated those who did. Milasincic and other AZA lawyers turned the courtroom into an “anti-union and anti-immigrant circus,” according to the letter, which was published by the Texas Observer.

The Texas Observer explained the case a little more thoroughly and how the lawyers "hounded union witnesses with ridiculous and objectionable questions," and referred to witnesses as "union thugs" and "mob bosses." The lawyers turned the courtroom into "an anti-union and anti-immigrant circus, inflaming the prejudice of the jury against the janitors and their union," also hiring "investigators who intimidated a number of immigrant worker potential witnesses," some of whom opted not to testify or changed their testimony after being visited by investigators.

In 2007, Professional Janitorial Service (PJS) sued Service Employees International Union (SEIU) over disparaging claims the union made about the company to third parties. The case has its roots in the “Justice for Janitors” organizing campaign, a high-profile effort to unionize workers at Houston’s largest commercial cleaners more than a decade ago. After PJS balked at recognizing the union, SEIU began leveling accusations at the company. In court, PJS argued that some of the accusations-- such as those pertaining to forcing  employees to work off clock and firing janitors for engaging in union activities-- caused the company to lose business.

...“We believe that progressive voters and organizations should be aware of the work of this firm and these lawyers in undermining the rights and efforts of predominantly immigrant janitorial workers in the city of Houston to unionize,” the group wrote... The group has not made an endorsement in the 7th Congressional District, other than to say: “Anybody but Lizzie (Fletcher),” Capo said."

There are two progressive reformers in the race for the Democratic nomination, Dr. Jason Westin and activist Laura Moser.

EMILY's List Has A Silver Spoon Heiress They Want To Make Some Money Off By Pushing Her In A Congressional Race In Southern California

Sara Jacobs, the self-entitled heiress to the Qualcomm fortune, suddenly showed up in southern California a few weeks ago and declared what the race-- and Congress-- needs is another self-finding multimillionaire. And there's already a completely pointless multimillionaire in that race, Paul Kerr, a crony of one of California's worst (and richest) members, Scott Peters, who persuaded him to run. This is a district where the incredible grassroots work by Doug Applegate and his team last year exposed how weak Darrell Issa is-- and nearly beat him. The final vote wasn't declared 'til January-- last in the nation-- and Issa squeaked through 155,888 (50.3%) to 154,267 (49.7%). So Applegate announced he would finish what he started in 2016. But a vile gaggle of predatory super-rich scumbags, like Peters, started telling their friends it would be easy to roll over Applegate and then let the wave sweep them to victory against Issa with no real effort. Worst of all is Pelosi crony Ira Lechner, a failed Virginia political hack who persuaded one of his pals, Mike Levin-- who never lifted a finger against Issa previously-- to jump in, promising him that a thuggish political operative in Pasasda, Park Skelton, could "deliver" Pelosi and force Applegate out of the race. None of these people were in the Marines and don't understand that you don't "roll over" or "force" a Marine colonel, which is what today's frontrunner, Doug Applegate, is. So now, you have a totally spoiled heiress-- another one who has absolutely nothing to do with the district and until a few weeks ago was still living in Brooklyn with a bunch of hipsters-- jumping in too. Consultants are getting incredibly rich over the Southern California cash cows they're milking for all they're worth. And, of course, the vultures at EMILY's List are drooling. A few days ago San Diego Union-Tribune reporter Joshua Stewart took a closer look at the heiress and all her self-serving bogus claims. "Two years ago," he wrote, "Sara Jacobs, a Democrat who is now running for Congress, was turned down for a job working for Hillary Clinton’s presidential campaign-- that is, until a political fundraiser intervened on her behalf. The granddaughter of Qualcomm co-founder, billionaire philanthropist and major campaign donor Irwin Jacobs, Sara Jacobs wanted an unpaid position on Clinton’s policy team. Months passed without receiving a promising word from Clinton’s people, let alone getting a job. Then Mary Pat Bonner, one of the most prolific Democratic fundraisers in the history of elections, began lobbying top officials in the Clinton campaign to get Jacobs a job."

“‎I know I will be seeing you soon. Can I grab a couple minutes to talk about Sara Jacobs?” Bonner wrote in an April 14, 2015, email to John Podesta, the chairman of Clinton’s campaign. Jacobs later began working for the campaign as a foreign policy adviser-- a post for which Podesta says she was well qualified.

Bonner’s efforts on behalf of Jacobs are contained in a series of emails published by Wikileaks as a result of Russian hacking in last year’s election. The San Diego Union-Tribune found the emails in a routine check of Wikileaks for backgrounding of political candidates.

Jacobs, 28, earlier this month entered the race against Rep. Darrell Issa, R-Vista. Three other Democrats-- Doug Applegate, Mike Levin and Paul Kerr-- were already campaigning to represent a coastal district that runs from La Jolla to Dana Point.

It’s unclear how Bonner knew Jacobs, or was in a position to vouch for her abilities. Bonner did not return a request for comment.

Federal Election Commission records show that Bonner raised money for political committees that received large contributions from Jacobs’ grandparents, Irwin and Joan Jacobs. They gave a combined $400,000 to American Bridge 21st Century, plus another $50,000 to Ready for Hillary while Bonner raised money for those groups.

In 2012 Irwin Jacobs also gave $2 million to Priorities USA Action, which includes Bonner’s associate David Brock on its board. Priorities USA initially supported President Barack Obama’s re-election campaign, and later backed Clinton.

On April 15, one day after Bonner wrote to Podesta, Jacobs wrote to Clinton’s chairman herself.

“I just spoke to Mary Pat Bonner, who let me know that I should send you my resume, which is attached. As I believe she told you, I'm very interested in working in the policy office of the campaign. Thank you so much for helping me with this, I really appreciate it,” Jacobs wrote.

Jacobs’ campaign provided a statement from Podesta attacking Wikileaks as an instrument of Russia.

"Before coming to our campaign, Sara Jacobs had already done excellent policy work at the United Nations and at the State Department, and she is well qualified and would make an excellent member of Congress,” Podesta said in the statement.

In addition to three internships, Jacobs had approximately 28 months of professional experience at the time, including a position with United Nations, UNICEF, and as a contractor working in the State Department. While a contractor, she provided support for “policy shaping and strategy support,” her resume says.

Jacobs also earned a master’s degree in international affairs from Columbia University and interned on Barack Obama’s re-election campaign finance team.

Bonner’s April 2015 email about Jacobs was not her last. In a June 16 email with “Sara Jacobs” as the subject line, Bonner asked Anne O’Leary, Clinton’s health and education adviser, if they could talk.

Two weeks later, Bonner wrote to O’Leary, “Hi there-- just checking back in on this. Sara said she hasn't heard from anyone yet. She is happy to start out in an unpaid position if you all are not making staff hires yet. Please let me know if there is anything we can do on our end,” Bonner wrote.

O’Leary replied, “I did try hard to run this through the process, but there is a hard line that we are not accept (sic) unpaid positions and we don't have any paid positions available on the policy team. I will certainly let you know if something changes.”

After receiving the rejection from O’Leary, Bonner once again reached out to Podesta.

“I just wanted to follow-up again on Sara Jacobs. I have attached her resume here and I am also attaching an email from Ann O'Leary who was working on this as well, but as we discussed, I don't think this will get done without your help. Thanks so much for all you are doing to help on this,” Bonner said in a July 30 email.

Wikileaks does not include any additional correspondence between Bonner and members of Clinton’s campaign about Jacobs after July 30.

She began interning for the campaign in November 2015 and although she was never paid, she didn't need the money because... well heiresses don't need money. Now she's trying to use her "experience" as an intern-- something given to her because of her family connections and their financial leverage-- to insert herself into the congressional race, potentially making it possible for Darrell Issa to keep his seat and flushing all the work Doug Applegate and his volunteer grassroots army has been doing for 3 years. But, heiresses don't have to worry about things like that... or about anything at all. All kinds of Hillary people are pushing her for another job she's not remotely qualified to do. And, like I said, EMILY's List is positively drooling about the one and only thing they care about: lining their own pockets.

I Know No One Wants To Read This Kind Of Stuff... But It's A Lazy Holiday Weekend Sunday

Friday evening, Rachel Maddow ended her MSNBC show moaning and groaning about a personal affront. Her new pal Kellyanne Conway had lied to her face about Roger Ailes being part of the Trump advisory team. I felt her pain. This is a post that's been stuck in my craw for a while-- from even before Kellyanne lied to Rachel's face-- and has been fighting hard to get unstuck and get out, as unseemly as it appears to be. There's no need to divulge any of the character's names; I just want to see if there's a general lesson to be learned that might be useful for someone down the road.

So one of the things Blue America has been doing for just over a decade now is endorsing candidates and helping raise grassroots money for them. When we endorse someone, I contribute from my own account personally and when there are a lot of candidates, it can mean a lot of money in a cycle. But more important than what it costs me is how seriously I take a recommendation that Blue America members contribute their scarce resources to someone. I take it to heart that the someone I'm vouching for better be good. This is the story of candidate X, a woman I've known for a very long time and who is pretty progressive in her heart, maybe not a Zephyr Teachout, Pramila Jayapal or Carol Shea Porter but someone whose instincts will always be right on every issue. I've sat and looked her in the eyes and feel confident of that. But on the character scale... I was never as sure. She's awfully friendly with some really shady political characters and I never got the idea that she would stand up very well to pressure from the establishment when push came to shove  I had a taste of it last year. She was a Bernie supporter and saw eye to eye on every issue with him. But when a Clinton operative told her they would recruit and back an opponent against her if she didn't endorse Hillary, she buckled in record time. Ugh. She was hardly alone in that little scenario.

Her campaign manager was an old friend of mine and we've fought on the same side of several elections together. But when he called and asked me for a Blue America endorsement-- following up on her own call asking for the endorsement-- I was hesistant. She already had a lot of money, is personally wealthy and had been endorsed by both the DCCC and EMILY's List. Did she really need our help as much as the candidates whose campaigns were struggling to just survive? He suggested that we just endorse her so they could use it for a press release and not worry about the contributions. I said I'd have to discuss it with the other Blue America principals and punted.

Eventually she drew a really corrupt and right-wing New Dem primary opponent who, if he beat her, would either get swept into office on Hillary's coattails and vote like a Republican (the way he did when he was in Congress, briefly, once before) or he would lose despite Hillary smashing Señor Trumpanzee in the district since he's such a thoroughly disliked candidate by independents in the district. So we said it was OK to use our name in a press release.

Months went by and the corrupt New Dem was gaining on her, overtaking her in some of the polling. The DCCC and EMILY's List made her fire her staff and they put their own people in, proven hacks who always lose elections. Her campaign immediately eschewed any discussion of populist issues and started looking more and more like a garden variety, empty suit, mystery meat DCCC campaign with an over-lay of EMIL's List nastiness. It was all downhill after that.

At one point, Blue America decided to do a special fundraising effort for our candidates in her state and I asked her if she wanted to participate. She said she did. I told her it would mean we would send out a letter to our members on a Sunday and then all the candidates would send out letters to their own lists  the next day and that we would follow up with another letter on Tuesday. She agreed as did the other candidates we wanted to raise money for. It went well and then I noticed when the other campaigns sent their letters out, she didn't. I asked her what was up and she said she'd get her people on it. "Her people," meant the DCCC and EMILY's List hacks. I got a bad feeling. And sure enough-- as I should have known-- an EMILY's List creep got back to me and said they had their own plans until the primary and had no time to send out the Blue America letter. (What went unsaid was that our letter was from a very progressive perspective that the campaign was not emphasizing any longer.)

I pointed out that all the candidates were in the exact same situation since they all had the same primary day and that the agreement was made before we started the process and that they should live up to their promise. At that point the candidate responded that there had been no agreement and that she knows how to fulfill a promise. (See, that's how I could empathize with Maddow when Kellyanne lied to her Friday.) It took me about a minute and a half to remove her name from the ActBlue page so that contributions coming in as splits wouldn't go to her.

A couple weeks later she lost her primary to the corrupt New Dem by 726 votes out of around 29,000 cast. No prizes for a close call though and I'm sure the EMILY's List and DCCC hacks are long gone and off destroying someone else's campaign from inside. Our page didn't raise a lot of money-- barely over 10 grand-- but there were 923 contributions-- and she got cut off after just 48. I wonder how many of those 923 contributors have have been voters who could have helped her close the 726 vote gap.

So what did I learn-- or re-learn since its happened again and again? Don't get too involved with candidates who are too weak to stand up to DCCC and EMILY's List operatives; they almost never win. (I worry that EMILY's List is going to screw up Hillary's campaign and that we'll wind up with President Trumpanzee. Whenever I see Stephanie Schriock on TV playing Hillary surrogate I wonder if Trump himself could have picked someone any better as a spokesperson for an opponent.)