DCCC Clearing The Field For Rich "Ex"-Republican Gil Cisneros? Jay Chen Withdraws

DCCC doesn't care what OC voters want-- they insist on the corrupt lottery winner 

I was worried about the open CA-39 race (northeast Orange County) when Jay Chen, a solid progressive, suddenly jumped in (immediately after Ed Royce announced his retirement). Jay is a very strong candidate and my fear was that he would split the progressive vote between himself and Sam Jammal, allowing one of the self-funding carpetbaggers to win or-- worse, trigger a race pitting 2 Republicans against each other-- in November. Polls have been showing Jay as the front runner, with Sam close behind and the self-funders left in the dust. Nonetheless, the DCCC is ruthlessly trying to clear the field for the most pathetic candidate in the race, the conservative, incompetent "ex"-Republican lottery winner from Newport Coast, Gil Cisneros. It's all about the grotesque DCCC corruption and the money Cisneros is spreading around. He can't win but the DCCC doesn't care. they will do whatever they have to do to deliver the nomination to the weakest candidate.

Yesterday early in the morning, two e-mails arrived on Jay Chen letterhead. First a note from Jay explaining why he is dropping out and less than 5 minutes later one from Judy Chu and Mark Takano. Here are the relevant parts of both e-mails. First Jay's note:

[T]he reality is that with the top-two open primary system in California and a crowded field, the path for a Democratic victory is a narrow one. As of now 9 Democratic candidates and 7 Republican candidates have filed for a primary in which Republican turnout may remain higher than Democratic turnout. The probability of two Republicans advancing in November, and Democrats squandering a historic opportunity, is real.

We cannot let this chance slip by. The stakes are far too high, not just for our country, but also for a world that once looked to the United States as a beacon of hope and democracy. Instead, we are seeing a movement towards authoritarianism across the globe that is not just being condoned, but mimicked by the President of the United States.  The Republican-controlled Congress has done nothing to stop this degradation, which is why we must flip Congress, and we cannot flip Congress unless Democrats win this seat.

The greatest contribution I can make right now is to help consolidate the field, by stepping away from it. We cannot afford to let this seat slip away, and we must all put the greater good over personal ambition.

This was not an easy decision to make. Polling and endorsements show that I am the strongest Democrat for the open primary.  We have opened our office, hired staff, and made significant investments in this race. Many have upended their lives and made major contributions to see this campaign succeed. But after close consultation with mentors, friends, family and staff, we believe this difficult decision is the right decision, for us, for our district, and for the Democratic majority we need to guide our country.

So the DCCC pushed out the frontrunner for a rich carpetbagger. I wonder what they offered him? Backing in 2020 for Grace Napolitano's seat? Help with a run for the state legislature? God knows what these characters are up to! Speaking of which... Judy and Mark:

As Asian American leaders in Congress, we were very excited when Jay Chen announced his candidacy for the 39th Congressional District.

As the only Democratic candidate in this race that has ever run or held local office, and as the candidate that has lived in the district the longest, we are confident that Jay Chen is the best fit for this district. This is why we wholeheartedly endorsed his candidacy, and why Jay has garnered the grassroots support and key endorsements in this race. Congress is not an entry-level job, and Jay has shown the commitment to service and community that we need in Washington DC.

Winning the 39th District is key to Democratic chances to retake the House and stand up to President Donald Trump. Trump’s unpopular presidency has led to an unprecedented number of first-time candidates running across the country, including Southern California. While we are excited about the enthusiasm, we are also aware that with California’s top-two primary system, large numbers of Democratic candidates could split the vote and send two Republicans to the general election. District 39 faces that dilemma.

Jay Chen’s personal decision not to run, so that the Democratic vote can be consolidated instead of fractured, is a remarkable sacrifice for a greater cause that further speaks to his character. We applaud his selfless commitment to public service and thank all of his supporters who have backed him thus far. We believe this is the right decision and we look forward to supporting Jay again in the future.

Let's see who they'll back now. Will it be the ridiculous DCCC pick, Gil "4%" Cisneros, for whom the DCCC has fabricated a fake poll? Takano and Chu say they need a candidate not looking at Congress as an entry-level job and for someone from the district. Cisneros couldn't be more wrong for CA-39. Three out-of-district multimillionaires sniffed out an opportunity to have the word "congressman" on their business cards-- Gil Cisneros, Andy Thorburn and Mai Khan Tran. One openly refuses to live int he district. The other 2 have said they moved in, but neither appears to have actually done so by all accounts. Royce represented the area for 25 years, not including his time in the California legislature. The 3 major Republicans are all local elected officials with deep roots in the district.

The Democrats were never going to win this seat by carpetbagging. Before and after Royce, the strongest case Republicans have is that they have local roots, so they won't forget families in the 39th even as Washington becomes more distant and unresponsive.

The only local candidates have been Sam Jammal, Jay Chen and Phil Janowicz. Jay dropped out yesterday and Phil hasn't raised money and is yet to file. This leaves Sam as the only local candidate left in the field from the community. He is also the only candidate with experience in senior roles in government and business. And Sam is the only actual progressive in the race.

The 39th district is now fundamentally a question of whether Democrats will allow out-of-district multimillionaires to buy a congressional seat or upend the ability of the party to field a candidate in November due to California's top 2 primary system. Time and again carpetbaggers have been rejected in the 39th district and the out-of-district trio continues to not resonate in the field even as they have spent hundreds of thousands of dollars to date.

Democrats will not beat local Republicans whose politics are a poor fit with out-of-district candidates whose entire personal profiles are also a poor fit. Sam is the candidate that needs the progressive boost to give us any shot at the 39th. 

Democrats Who Want Reform Should Start With Their Own Party-- As Orange County Progressive Sam Jammal Is Trying To Do

Sam Jammal is in a very tough race in northeast Orange County (CA-39). The district is ripe for a red to blue switch-- Hillary beat Trump 51.5% to 42.9% (and people hate him more now than they did then); the PVI went from R+5 to dead even; and the long time GOP incumbent, Ed Royce, saw the writing on the wall and announced his retirement. But... before Sam can take on whichever one of the 4 or 5 Republicans the GOP nominates, he has to contend with at least 8 Democrats, many not even living in the district. Meanwhile, Jason Bresler, the political director of the DCCC, the "brains" behind the Laura Moser fiasco in Houston, is trying to push all the Democrats out of the race to clear a path for the most ridiculous candidate in the race, corrupt "ex"-Republican lottery winner Gil Cisneros.

The problem is that the dysfunctional DCCC is looking for the same old types of members that created the environment for Trump in the first place. Take, for example, the wealthy self-funders who barely understand the communities they seek to represent. This is just the self-funding in CA-39... as of December 31-- 10 months to go:

• Andy Thorburn- $2,335,900
• Gil Cisneros- $1,352,762
• Mai-Khanh Tran- $230,000
• Phil Janowicz- $152,287

This is why people don't trust Democrats-- its extremely hypocritical to run a bunch of millionaires all the time while criticizing the other side for being the party of the rich. No one really believes that congressional Democrats really understand or care about them. There are exceptions, but this isn't a group that inspires or makes you think they have our backs.

Our side never speaks about the economy because we don't want to piss off our donors. Our party obsesses over money much more than you usually hear about from Republicans-- although... when push comes to shove the operatives for both parties are cut from the same vile cloth. Many in DC say the DCCC is basically a fundraising apparatus while the NRCC is under control of Republicans who demand it at least appear to be more of an arm of an actual political party.

This week, Sam Jammal released a compelling but, alas, a largely ignored, white paper, "Washington is Broken-- Here is My Plan to Fix It."

Americans do not trust their government. This was a problem before Trump that has only gotten worse. Too may families are falling behind while our elected officials are only focused on raising funds, living large or scoring a political point. This is a problem because our challenges will only get worse with the rise of automation, but we do not have an elected class capable of addressing anything.

I am running where I grew up because I am concerned about my community and country. I know how Congress and the Executive Branch work-- I served in the highest roles. I learned how to pass good laws and stop bad ones. And, while we need this experience to stop the Trump agenda-- what we need most are new voices who will fix our broken government and restore trust.

Our system is functionally pay-to- play and Members of Congress operate in the dark while making decisions that are making things so much harder for the rest of us. Ed Royce was a part of the problem, but this is about more than just replacing him with a Democrat.

To pass good laws, we need to make Congress work again. Here are my ideas on fixing Congress:

Fix How Campaign Finance Works: Money is destroying American politics. Whether its special interests like the NRA using their resources to block gun control or the parade of millionaires trying to buy and influence elections across America, our democracy is in real danger.

• Repeal Citizens United – This must be the top priority of Congress. While it will take years for aconstitutional amendment to pass, the process must start immediately.
• End Dark Money in Politics – While Citizens United opened the floodgates of money in politics, this doesn’t mean this money can’t be regulated or lack transparency. All donors and money spent to influence elections must be disclosed. Every Democrat must take a pledge to oppose any dark money spending on their behalf – we must show leadership otherwise we are no different than Republicans. I oppose any dark money used on my behalf in June and hope my Democratic opponents will pledge the same.
• End the Self-Funding Circus that has become Democratic Politics –The Democratic Party must move away from its obsession with self-funders and institute a pledge from self-funding candidates to cap their personal donations at the same rate they would otherwise be able to support another candidate. A wealthy candidate for office should have to raise funds and build an operation like everyone else. This shows people beyond your consultants want you in office.

We can’t put a “For Sale” sign on our elections and tie party support to the highest bidder. The obsession with self-funders is hypocritical-- how can we be opposed to unlimited funds from the Koch brothers but not from our own millionaires?
• Cap Individual Donations and Corporate Donations the Same – The maximum for a corporate PAC is $5,000 in a primary. For an individual, the maximum is $2,700. This is backwards. Corporate PACs contributions should be capped at the same rate as individuals. I have pledged to not take PAC money from the oil and natural gas industries because I worked in clean energy and saw their undue influence. We must level the playing field.
• Establish a Public Financing Match Program – Candidates meeting a certain threshold-- say $200,000 raised-- should be able to participate in public financing match. While I am not wedded to the base line number, there should be a minimum threshold that pushes the candidate to do the work of raising money and shows community support. At the same time, a job requirement of running for Congress shouldn’t be that you are a millionaire or have wealthy friends.
• Ban on Contributions from Government Contractors – If you are receiving a contract from the federal government, you should not be able to finance the campaigns of those who fund these contracts. We spend so much money funding special interest projects when we really need to be funding our schools, roads and public safety. Banning these contributions will keep government hones and is critical as we face tighter budgets in the coming years.
• Ban PAC Trips – An open secret to get around rules prohibiting private interests from funding congressional travel are PAC trips. Members of Congress in both parties will hold destination weekends where wealthy donors and lobbyists pay for a weekend getaway with the Member of Congress. The Member of Congress and their family receives a few nice meals paid for by their donors and a free vacation. This is wrong on so many levels and must be banned.

Fix How Congress Works: Congress is fundamentally broken and needs new rules to restore public trust. We are well past replacing Republicans with Democrats as the needed fix. We need steps to hold Congress accountable and make them responsive to us.

• Establish Congressional Term Limits – No one should spend a generation in office, which was the case with Congressman Ed Royce. We need a government responsive to changes in our community. If elected and re-elected, I pledge to serve no more than 5 terms (10 years) in Congress. If you can’t make improvements to our country in 10 years, you have no business collecting a check from taxpayers. While there are examples of Members of Congress who have served for 20 years and contributed immensely, there are also dozens of examples of Members of Congress who literally do nothing other than show up to work, yet have the advantage of incumbency to prevent challengers. We cant do this anymore-- our country and economy are changing too rapidly to be a retirement home.
• Ban on Member or Member Spouse Lobbying or Family Enrichment – Too many Members of Congress are enriching themselves and their family. Public service should be about helping your community, not a path to being a millionaire. There should be a 10-year ban on lobbying for any Member of Congress, their spouse and their children on the federal level. We also must fix our campaign finance laws to ban any spouse, child or family-owned enterprise from being paid by a candidate for federal office. There are already prohibitions on using congressional funds to pay family members, but too many Members of Congress get around this prohibition through their campaign accounts.
• No Secret Settlements – Members of Congress must be prohibited from using tax dollars to settle sexual harassment or any workplace discrimination claims. Likewise, no campaign funds should be used for these settlements. If a Member of Congress is forced to settle a claim, the claim must be made public. Voters deserve to know if their Congressman is harasser.
• No Budget, No Pay – In any other job, you don’t get paid if you fail to do your job. The same should go for Congress. If Congress fails to pass a budget and spending bills-- which is now the norm in DC-- they should not be paid until an agreement is reached. Likewise, if there is a shutdown, Members of Congress should be held responsible for paying the cost of maintaining their offices out of their personal bank accounts until an agreement is reached. Taxpayers shouldn’t foot the bill for incompetence.
• Make Schedules Public and Hold Monthly Townhalls – While I can’t mandate this across Congress, I can lead by example. My schedule will always be made public because I believe in a transparent government. Voters should know who I am meeting with and when. I will also hold monthly town halls throughout the district to make sure everyone knows what government is doing and how we can fix it.
• Allow Tele-Voting – Members of Congress should be allowed to vote remotely, which will enable them to meet with constituents before key votes, instead of lobbyist, congressional leadership and special interests. Backroom deals have undermined families in the 39 th district and across the country. We have the technology where Members of Congress can vote where they live-- let’s use it so Congress is connected to communities.
• Cut the Size of Congressional Staff by a Third – As a former Chief of Staff, I saw firsthand how much we waste taxpayer dollars on oversized staffs who functionally do all the work for the Member of Congress. If you are in Congress, you should be competent enough to read legislation yourself and decide on how to vote. Some of the greatest legislative accomplishments in our nation’s history were driven by Members of Congress with very small staff. The growing bureaucracy in the legislative branch is only meant to make sure lobbyists can have their meetings taken, which, in turn, opens the door to campaign contributions. Congressional offices shouldn’t be a vehicle for fundraising. Staff should be focused on helping constituents, not serving lobbyists or doing the work for the Member of Congress.
• No Congressional Pensions – For decades, Congress has failed to ensure our seniors have a secure retirement and now Republicans are trying to cut Social Security. Congress is willing to cut Social Security because their retirement is already covered by the taxpayers. If Members of Congress were forced to rely on Social Security like the rest of us, you can bet that they will make sure the program is solvent.

Sam seems almost to be despairing about where his own party is headed. But he isn't. He's optimistic that he and other reformers are going to clean up the DC Democrats. "I am running," he told us today, "out of concern over the direction of our country and Congress. Donald Trump is the most urgent concern, but I worked up there long enough to see how broken DC is. The truth is that Democrats haven't been much better or, at least, make it really hard for people to see that we are on their side. This doesn't work as so many families in my community are falling behind and don't trust our government. We need new voices that are willing to actually push for change and know how to do it." And this week Indivisible CA-39 conducted a poll showing the two grassroots progressives-- Jay Chen and Sam Jammal-- way ahead of Gil Cisneros, the feeble conservative who the DCCC is desperately trying to shove down everyones' throats. If corrupt right-of-center DCCC staffers like Kyle Layman and Jason Bresler insist on interfering and "clearing the field," they should clear out the one puppet they have in the race who will do whatever they tell him to, self-funding lottery winner and potato chip taster Gil "4%" Cisneros. By December 31, he had already let his consultants rip him off to the tune of $588,850-- for 4% of the vote! The DCCC should be ashamed for backing this foolish and unqualified man.

Judy Chu Had A Lot Of Reasons To Endorse Jay Chen-- Here's Her Guest Post On Them

Rep. Judy Chu-- We need more congressmembers like her

Even among 100 or 200 or 300... or 435 there got to be one person who is the very best. Or maybe two people tied for very best. But in this case, it isn't a tie, A former Blue America endorsee who won her congressional seat, Judy Chu, has the single best Progressive Punch crucial vote score-- both for her entire career and for the current 2011-12 session. Here's the top 10:

Judy has been a real leader in Southern California politics as well, helping to elect independent-minded progressives like herself. She's endorsed all three of the California Blue America candidates, Lee Rogers, Alan Lowenthal and Jay Chen. Yesterday she sent us a guest post about her reasons for supporting Jay. Please give it a look and if you back Judy's ideas, consider making a contribution on the same Blue America page that first helped send Judy to Congress.

Guest Post

-by Rep. Judy Chu (D-CA)

When I was elected to Congress in 2008, I stayed up until 6 a.m. casting my first vote on health care reform. Since that time, Republicans have been doing nothing but trying to shut down critical programs, and every day I have to work harder to defend them. I need an ally in Congress. I need someone who shares my views, and is not afraid to do what is right. That is why I support Jay Chen for Congress.

I got my start in politics on the Garvey Unified School Board and education remains near and dear to my heart. As a member of the House Education and Labor Committee, I see all the problems that our public education system faces today and shudder at the thought that so many want to get rid of the Department of Education. Public education is the key to our nation’s success and it is crucial to strengthen our schools. This is something Jay Chen understands. He currently serves on the school board of the same district he was raised and taught in.

I know that Jay will work hard to heighten our education quality and standards, as well as making learning more accessible. As a Hacienda La Puente school board member, Jay pushed for Mandarin and Spanish language immersion classes at the elementary school level and understands what our kids need to compete in a global economy. He has created free SAT-prep workshops and college preparation classes in order to offer everyone a fair chance at higher education. Jay has a proven record of creating higher student achievement-- all without teacher furloughs or layoffs. Though at times he has faced Republican backlash for doing so, Jay has gone above and beyond his role in the school board to serve the 39th district’s public schools and education staff.

I joined the small business committee because small businesses are the heart of our economy. It goes without saying that there are problems in a growing and complex industrial society. As a businessman himself, Jay sees business as a source of positive, progressive change. He is committed to bringing jobs back, supporting small businesses and preparing our children to compete abroad are common-sense solutions to strengthen America during this uncertain time.

Right now, Congress has taken the wrong direction by attacking worker’s rights. Our country is built on the sweat of our construction workers, farmers, nurses, cooks and retail cashiers. I support working with labor to solve problems, build stronger workplaces and give working families a real voice-- and I know that Jay will be an ally in this movement. As a staunch supporter of the Employment Rights Act, Jay has shown his dedication to the rights of workers and the jobs that drive our country forward.

I am currently the only Chinese American in Congress and know that we need our Congress to better represent those that it serves. If elected, Jay will be the second member of Chinese-Taiwanese descent in Congress, and will represent one of America’s fastest growing minority communities within his district. A son of two Taiwanese immigrants, Jay has seen first-hand what the American Dream means for our millions of individuals who come to our shores, and the difficulties they face in achieving that dream. I know Jay will fight for equality and cultural tolerance. He stood alongside me when I advocated the Statement of Regret for the Chinese Exclusion laws, discriminatory laws adopted 130 years ago that imposed severe restrictions on Chinese immigration and naturalization.

The 39th District of California deserves a representative who is on the right side of the issues, who intimately knows the district, and who is well versed on issues of national security. As an intelligence officer with the U.S. Navy Reserves, Jay Chen is uniquely qualified to make important decisions regarding the safety of our homeland, and to address issues that directly affect our servicemen and women.

This is why I support Jay Chen’s bid for Congress this November. Jay Chen is a strong progressive who stands for accessible education, empowerment for disenfranchised communities and human dignity for minorities regardless of socioeconomic background or sexual orientation. That is why I ask you to join me in supporting his bid for Congress this November.

Professor Jacob Hacker Gives Wall Street Shill Ed Royce A Little Lesson In Economics

Not many DC pundits are following the campaign in California's suburban 39th congressional district (Hacienda Heights, Buena Park, La Habra, Rowland Heights, Diamond Bar, Chino, Yorba Linda, Fullerton. Brea and Placentia). It's a swing district where McCain edged Obama 49-47% under the new boundaries. Ed Royce didn't represent much of it, although he's being called the incumbent. And the challenger is Jay Chen, a local school board president and committed smart progressive. This summer he was endorsed by Blue America.

Royce is basically known for two things: his devotion to his Wall Street paymasters and his fervent, divisive racism and bigotry. Here's a new sign Royce or one of his supporters has put up around the district:

This is what Jay said when he saw it:

Yes, we were as confused as you when we first saw this sign in La Habra Heights yesterday. Only U.S. citizens can run for public office, so what are these folks getting at? Are they taking a jab at my birthplace city, Kalamazoo? I know it's a funny sounding name, but it's no worse than Honolulu, and it's not like anyone ever gets worked up about people being born in that city.

  Change can be hard to come by for many people, and it can illicit the worst kind of fears and reactions. In the last two weeks I've been accused of being a "Commie," of wanting to get rid of 401(k)s, and of wanting to tax your wheelchairs. Our yard signs have disappeared in record numbers. It's not pleasant, but this viciousness confirms my opponent's vulnerability, and validates my decision to run.

There couldn't be two more different candidates anywhere than Jay Chen and Ed Royce. Royce is one of Congress' leading proponents of the Austerity Agenda (the new way of talking about Voodoo Economics and Trickle Down) that is failing so miserably in Greece, Spain, Ireland, Portugal and across Europe and Jay has embraced policies for economic growth which have been talked about as "Prosperity Economics." Royce has been on the attack, distorting Jay's proposals and the whole package of proposals put forth by Jacob Hacker and Nate Loewentheil, claiming, for example, that the intent is to "do away with tax deductions for 401ks and force worker and employers to contribute to government-run 401ks." That's a flat out lie, as Jacob Hacker pointed out himself:

Congressman Royce is criticizing a made-up proposal that bears no resemblance to the framework for retirement security that we outline in Prosperity Economics. We do not say tax breaks for 401ks should be ended, and we certainly do not argue that workers and employers should be asked to contribute to “government-run 401ks.”

  This isn’t about government taking over anything. For half of workers, there’s nothing to take over because they don’t have a retirement plan. If we can work with the private sector to fill that huge void, that would be terrific. But if the market fails to solve this problem, the answer can’t be “tough luck.” Every American should have a secure and adequate retirement. They certainly do not today. Prosperity Economics is about ensuring that working families get more, not less.

  Where employers are offering a retirement plan of some kind now, we need to ask them to do better. Where they are not, we need to provide vehicles for private retirement savings that provide some security against market risks. As we argue in Prosperity Economics, we can do this through three steps. First, for the half of workers at private companies who have no opportunity for tax favored retirement savings on the job, we need to guarantee them a chance to save. Second, for the tens of millions of middle- and low-income people who now get little or no savings incentives under federal law, we need to give them the same sorts of tax breaks that upper income Americans get. Finally, to deal with how little is being put away for retirement, we need to insist upon shared responsibility, with employers and workers contributing, along with federal tax incentives.

Instead of demonizing constructive discussion of a problem that most Americans rightly see as dire, our leaders need to focus on making private retirement plans work for working families, because they surely are not working for far too many people today.

You can find all 16 of the candidates Blue America has identified who have been campaigning to protect Americans from the toxic Austerity Agenda Wall Street shills like Royce are trying to mandate in this country. This is what Jay told us about it after he had read Hacker's and Loewentheil's work:

Prosperity Economics brings us back to the principles that make our country great. These ideas, such as investing in infrastructure, education, and our social safety nets, and limiting the power of corporations to distort our political system, are not new or radical, they are part of the original formula that drove the unparalleled success our nation has enjoyed until recently.

But these ideas are now under constant attack, as is the prosperity of our nation, by corporate interests who continue to push a "trickle-down" theory that is already a proven failure. These special interests have made it a point to confuse wealth accumulation with job creation, and the result is a drastic increase in income inequality unseen in modern times.

In the meantime, our middle class, which is the true engine of economic growth and stability, continues to shrink. We simply cannot cut our way to prosperity anymore than we can drill our way out of oil dependence. We need leaders who understand how smart, sound investment made us the great nation we are today, and how prosperity economics can ensure our leadership in the world for generations to come.

Who would call these ideas "Communistic?" The same kind of dangerous right-wing fanatics and John Birchers like Ed Royce who called President Eisenhower a Communist when he made similar proposals at a time when government was working proactively to help build a solid American middle class. Below is the latest attack piece Royce sent out against Jay. Please consider contributing to Jay's campaign so he can fight back against these right-wing distortions and lies.

The CFPB Is Protecting Consumers From Financial Predators-- So The GOP Wants To Kill It

The campaign ad above is from Wayne Powell, the intrepid Democrat Steve Israel refuses to allow the DCCC to help take on Eric Cantor. Luckily we have men and women like Powell who are undaunted by corrupt Beltway Insiders-- like Cantor and Israel-- and work to  represent the interests of ordinary working families anyway. DCCC or not, Powell is hammering Cantor mercilessly. Cantor and his cronies, especially his cronies on the House Financial Services Committee, opposed the creation of the Consumer Financial Protection Board, opposed the appointment of, first Elizabeth Warren and then Rich Cordray to head it, and have worked hard to make sure it would be unfunded, unmanned and ineffective. But Cantor and his fellow bankster shills in Congress have failed.

Yesterday the Bureau announced that it had ordered American Express to refund $85 million it had bilked from consumers with illegal credit card practices. American Express has its own PAC and spends massive amounts of money bribing Members of Congress, mostly Republicans (59%) but corrupt conservatives on both sides of the aisle. So far this cycle they have given federal candidates $436,700 and they sure hone right in on the Members of Congress with the sleaziest sense of ethics. The largest reported bribes ($10,000 each) went to powerful members who always put the banksters first and the consumers last:

• Spencer Bachus (R-AL), Chairman, Financial Services Committee 

• John Boehner (R-OH), Speaker

• Joe Crowley (New Dem chairman-NY), shadiest Democrat on the Ways & Means Committee

• Ron Kind (New Dem vice-chair-WI), second shadiest Democrat on the Ways & Means Committee

• Gregory Meeks (New Dem-NY), member of the Financial Services Committee; just named by CREW one of Congress' most corrupt members for 2011-12

• Mel Watt (D-NC), member of the House Financial Services Committee

Other members known throughout Washington for being for sale who have received inordinately large sums of money from American Express include:

• Dave Camp (R-MI)- $5,000

• Eric Cantor (R-VA)- $6,000 (In 2010 Cantor got $10,000)

• Scott Garrett (R-NJ)- $6,500

• Jeb Hensarling (R-TX)- $7,500

• Steny Hoyer (D-MS)- $5,000

• Jim Matheson (Blue Dog-UT)- $8,000

• Ed Royce (R-CA)- $7,000

• Aaron Schock (R-IL)- $5,000

• Debbie Wasserman Schultz (New Dem-FL)- $7,500

Just in the past 4 years American Express has discovered Patrick McHenry, one of the sleaziest members of the House Financial Services Committee and known throughout Washington as a complete lackey for the banking industry. Since he does their bidding anyway, they just give him a thousand here and a thousand there. McHenry's in a tough reelection campaign this year, being challenged by a reform-oriented straight-shooter, Rep. Patsy Keever who told us that she was "not surprised to see that the American Express PAC contributed to Patrick McHenry during this election cycle. In fact, PACs have contributed more than $500,000 to his campaign so far.”

Right after the ruling former (and future) Congresswoman Carol Shea-Porter told us she was delighted: "I am thrilled to hear that the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau has once again done its job of protecting Americans from illegal financial practices. As a member of Congress, I was proud to vote for the CFPB's creation under the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act of 2010.

My opponent voted to weaken the CFPB (H.R. 1315) and opposes Dodd-Frank. His new position on the Financial Services Committee means he has more power than ever to support Big Finance at the expense of his constituents. I look forward to his removal from this committee, and to protecting middle class families once again when I am elected to Congress this November."

Ed Royce takes far more than McHenry and Guinta do and his opponent, Jay Chen, has been focused like a laser on consumer protection.

"The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau has proven its importance by obtaining $85 million in refunds for mistreated consumers. Unfortunately, representatives like Ed Royce have opposed the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau from the very beginning, after taking millions in campaign contributions from the entities that the Bureau is supposed to monitor. We need leaders who will look out for consumers and the middle class, not just the financial institutions who are profiting off of them."

Hammer, meet nail; nail meet head. And basically that just what happened yesterday. The CFPB announced an enforcement action with orders requiring three American Express subsidiaries to refund an estimated $85 million to approximately 250,000 customers for illegal card practices. This action is the result of a multi-part federal investigation which found that at every stage of the consumer experience, from marketing, to enrollment, to payment, to debt collection, American Express violated consumer protection laws. That's why Republicans and conservative New Dems want to kill the bureau. It messes with their lucrative sources of bribery. The bill originally pass the House at the end of 2009 223-202, every single Republican voting NO, along with 27 Democrats, mostly corrupt Blue Dogs and New Dems, but a few progressives who felt the bill didn't go far enough to protect consumers. Among the Democrats who sold out to the banks (who are running for reelection in November) were Ben Chandler (Blue Dog-KY), Henry Cuellar (Blue Dog-TX), Ann Kirkpatrick (AZ), Mike McIntyre (Blue Dog/New Dem-NC), and Kurt Schrader (Blue Dog/New Dem-OR). Most of the Democrats who voted against the Consumer Protection Bureau were defeated in 2010 or are retiring, many to become lobbyists.

This is from a press statement by the CFPB: "Several American Express companies violated consumer protection laws and those laws were violated at all stages of the game-- from the moment a consumer shopped for a card to the moment the consumer got a phone call about long overdue debt," said CFPB Director Richard Cordray. “Today's orders require the American Express companies to fully refund about $85 million to consumers and it requires them to make specific changes in their business practices. The American Express companies will identify the harmed customers, notify them, and make sure they get back their money.” 

  

 •         Deceived consumers who signed up for the American Express “Blue Sky” credit card program: Consumers were sometimes led to believe they would receive $300 in addition to bonus points if they signed up for this American Express Centurion Bank program. But consumers who met the qualifications did not receive the $300. This violates federal laws prohibiting deceptive practices.

 •         Charged unlawful late fees: American Express Centurion Bank and American Express Bank, FSB billed late fees on certain cards based on a percentage of the debt in violation of the Credit CARD Act.

 •         Unlawfully discriminated against new account applicants on the basis of age:  American Express Centurion Bank used a credit scoring system that treated charge card applicants differently on the basis of age. For a period of time, the bank did not fully implement the system for applicants over the age of 35. This violated the Equal Credit Opportunity Act because it requires credit scoring systems that take age into account to be properly designed and implemented.

 •         Failed to report consumer disputes to consumer reporting agencies: American Express Centurion Bank and American Express Bank, FSB failed to report the existence of certain customer disputes to credit bureaus, which is a violation of the Fair Credit Reporting Act.

 •         Misled consumers about debt collection: All three of the American Express subsidiaries deceived consumers into believing there were certain benefits to paying off old debt. Consumers were wrongly told that if they paid off the old debt, the payment would be reported to credit bureaus and could improve their credit scores. In fact, American Express was not reporting the payments and the debts were so old that even if they had tried to report them, many of the payments would not have appeared on these consumers’ credit reports or affected their credit scores. American Express also told some consumers that a portion of their debt would be waived or forgiven if they accepted certain settlement offers.  But for customers who applied for a new American Express card, the company was not really forgiving or waiving the debt.

  

Aside from a $25.7 million fine, American Express has to pay restitution to consumers who were misled into paying old debt because they thought it would be reported to the credit bureaus. They'll reimbursed all the money American Express tricked out of them, plus interest. One of my favorite parts of the ruling is that consumers who were falsely promised their debt would be forgiven and who were denied new credit cards because the debt was not really forgiven, will receive $100 and a pre-approved offer for a new card with terms the CFPB and the FDIC find acceptable. If the consumer already paid the waived or forgiven amount in order to get a new card, they will be refunded that amount plus interest. Consumers who were tricked into paying illegal "late fees" are getting their money back as well (with interest) and American Express so-called Blue Sky customers who were promised $300 for signing up-- and then never got it-- will each now get the $300. 

Next time you ask yourself about how much of a difference there is between Democrats and Republicans, remember-- there are some really bad Democrats (and sleazy powermongers like Steve Israel, Debbie Wasserman Schultz and Joe Crowley are working overtime to recruit more) but legislation like this could only have been enacted by progressive Democrats. And only Democrats would have ever enforced it. Does that mean we should back Blue Dogs and New Dems? Of course not. They may not always be as bad as Republicans, but they are always bad. Whenever possible, they should be replaced with progressives. That's why Beto O'Rourke's win against Silvestre Reyes in TX-16 (El Paso) was one of the most significant events of this election cycle. It's important to support reformers like Patsy Keever, Carol Shea-Porter, Beto O'Rourke and Jay Chen.

Ed Royce-- Hiding In The Shadows, Working For Wall Street Against Main Street

Ed Royce was first elected to Congress in 1992. Before that he was a longtime student taking out deferments to avoid fighting in Vietnam and then a corporate tax manager who worked at figuring out loopholes so his clients wouldn't have to pay their fair share of taxes. One of the worst extremists in California, Royce is a raving racist lunatic and bigot but is one of the least known Members of Congress and certainly the least known of anyone who's been in there so long. He operates in stealth for his masters, the Wall Street banksters. He's perfectly positioned as a senior member of the House Financial Services Committee to work against the interests of consumers trying to get a fair shake from the financial titans who bankroll him. Royce has sabotaged and attempted to destroy every single piece of reform legislation that aims to protect consumers from financial predators. A fanatic supporter of the European Austerity agenda that is failing in country after country-- and has Spain's middle-class scavenging from garbage cans now-- he fourth ranking Republican on the committee, he has been continuously passed over for a subcommittee chair because ever Republicans recognize that he's too extreme and that his anti-family positions would cause too much  pain to the middle class. Instead he's the fourth ranking Republican on the Capital Markets and Government Sponsored Enterprises Committee behind a freshman and two other less senior members and the third-ranking Republican on the Financial Institutions And Consumer Credit Committee, again behind a freshman and a chairman with less seniority than himself.

But he still does enough on behalf of his Wall Street patrons that they reward him handsomely. So far in this cycle-- as he gears up to fight off a challenge by independent-minded progressive reformer Jay Chen, Royce has raised $2,119,652, spent $2,442,152 and is sitting on another $2,012,085 left over from previous races. Only 2% of his money comes from small donors, one of the lowest percentages of anyone in Congress. As you can see above, his donors primarily, almost exclusively, come from the banking and insurance sector. And as you can see above, his 5 biggest donors are all criminal enterprises prospering by ripping off consumers. This year he's taken $742,391 from business-oriented PACs and another $52,600 from extreme right wing ideological groups. He is one of the few senior Members of Congress who has signed up for the Tea Party Caucus led by Michele Bachmann.

Jay Chen has raised slightly over half a million dollars and he is a Blue America-endorsed candidate. He told us he is "amused by the amount of attack mail Royce has been sending against me. You would think that after 20 years in office he would have some accomplishments to mention, instead he just wants to lie about my record. Royce is determined to hold his seat and do the bidding of the big banks that finance his election, and he will say anything to get re-elected so that he can continue to push trickle-down economics that favor the very rich."  To avoid a primary against one of his crooked Orange County cronies, Gary Miller, Royce abandoned his district and is running in the 39th, most of whose voters have never heard of him. Both Royce and Miller have helped the California Republican Party finance a voter registration fraud scheme that started in Florida by notorious GOP election thief Nathan Sproul is now infecting voter rolls all over Southern California.

This week, Royce-- again, one of Congress' most virulent adherents of Austerity-- spent thousands of dollars on mailers accusing Jay Chen's support for Prosperity Economics as "a radical plan to alter the American economy." Watch Jay's statement up top and judge for yourself how deranged Royce's accusations about him are. And here's what Jay had to say about Prosperity Economics that Royce finds so offensive:

Prosperity Economics brings us back to the principles that make our country great. These ideas, such as investing in infrastructure, education, and our social safety nets, and limiting the power of corporations to distort our political system, are not new or radical, they are part of the original formula that drove the unparalleled success our nation has enjoyed until recently.

But these ideas are now under constant attack, as is the prosperity of our nation, by corporate interests who continue to push a "trickle-down" theory that is already a proven failure. These special interests have made it a point to confuse wealth accumulation with job creation, and the result is a drastic increase in income inequality unseen in modern times.

In the meantime, our middle class, which is the true engine of economic growth and stability, continues to shrink. We simply cannot cut our way to prosperity anymore than we can drill our way out of oil dependence. We need leaders who understand how smart, sound investment made us the great nation we are today, and how prosperity economics can ensure our leadership in the world for generations to come.

We have two very clear visions for this country. Jay wants government to help create opportunities for ordinary working people to prosper. Royce wants to do away with regulations so that corporations can completely dominate society. Royce is hiding behind an onslaught of negative campaign ads paid for by the crooked Wall Street interests that most benefit by his Law of the Jungle philosophy. No debates, no public forums, just slanderous, unhinged barrages of mail with doctored, unflattering pictures of Jay. Jay's team put together an excellent website that exposes the real Ed Royce, MeetEdRoyce.com, which gives the full picture of this odious and toxic character who has hidden in the shadows long enough.

Jay continues to answer Royce's baseless and inflammatory charges by sticking to the issues that motivated him to get into the race in the first place. "Veterans," he told us, "can't afford another two years of Ed Royce ignoring their needs and voting against their services. The middle class cannot afford another two years of Royce voting to increase their taxes and cut off access to higher education. Women can't afford to allow his radical redefinition of 'forcible rape' to dictate their health care. And seniors can't afford the Ryan budget plan that he endorses, which will force seniors to pay thousands more for health insurance." If you'd like to help Jay Chen replace Royce in Congress, you can do that here on our ActBlue page. I might add that Sunday is the last day of the FEC quarter and a contribution now is especially helpful and appreciated.

Top 10 "Underground" House Races Party "Pros" Inside The Beltway Aren't Paying Any Attention To

Yes, Steve Israel is "reptilian," but whose side is he on?

Sarah Jaffe at Alternet seems a lot more tuned in than the DCCC or Cook. She looked at 10 congressional races this week that could spell big gains for progressives-- not reactionary Blue Dogs and New Dems or even just garden variety lockstep Democrats-- in November. She examined 10 independent-minded progressives who stand out from the pack but who the DCCC is either ignoring, sabotaging or just paying lip service to.

One of the candidates Jaffe focuses on is Patsy Keever and yesterday the Keever camp sent out a press release to local media asking them to take a look:

Two days ago Sarah Jaffe, associate editor at AlterNet, released her top 10 list of under-the-radar Congressional races to watch. The battle here in NC-10 between Patsy Keever and Patrick McHenry rated a spot on the list.
 
She writes, “North Carolina redistricted notorious Blue Dog Heath Shuler out of Congress […] But that might wind up helping Patsy Keever, who's facing off in the 10th against Patrick McHenry.” The article also quotes Alex Pareene at Salon as saying that McHenry was “born to be cheerfully corrupt: He’s a product of the College Republicans, an organization that trains little Lee Atwaters, Karl Roves and Grover Norquists in the arts of scorched-earth campaigning and wholly irresponsible 'governing' on behalf of the monied interests that bought you your job.”
 
“I think that the article is on target,” said Keever's campaign manager Bruce Mulkey. “We are running a very well-organized, people powered campaign, and Patsy is being met with enthusiasm wherever she goes. I hope the pundits are paying attention on November 6, because I think they’re going to be in for a big surprise.”

These are the kinds of candidates being supported by Blue America and if you;d like to help, you can find them all either here or here. These were the 10 races Jaffe says are "flying under the radar, where you just might see an upset." She starts with the most winnable race in America that the DCCC is ignoring, Lee Rogers' courageous battle against backward and corrupt House armed Services Committee Chairman, Buck McKeon:

1. CA-25: Democrat Lee Rogers vs Republican Buck McKeon

Buck McKeon is a trifecta of loathsome: a Republican in a district that Obama won in 2008 who got preferential treatment from housing-bubble blowers Countrywide, and who, as the Chair of the House Armed Services Committee, refused to hold hearings on sexual assault at the Air Force's training facility at Lackland. He was also one of the forces behind California's anti-gay Proposition 8, and is the co-chair of the House drone caucus (for real).

So why aren't we hearing more about his opponent, surgeon Lee Rogers? As could be expected, Rogers is running heavy on health care, leaning on his experience with the system-- he says that 75 percent of his patients (he's a podiatrist) are on Medicare-- and calling for improvements to the Affordable Care Act. He's called for keeping drug addicts out of prison, getting out of Afghanistan, and investing in infrastructure. As Blue America's Howie Klein notes, McKeon hasn't had real competition in a while, so this race could get interesting.

2. NY-23: Democrat Nate Shinagawa vs Republican Tom Reed

Nate Shinagawa is running as both the Democratic and Working Families Party candidate in upstate New York's 23rd district against Republican Tom Reed. He is one of the youngest candidates for Congress this year (just 28 years old) and a former student labor activist. He's already spent six years in the Tompkins County legislature, and has been an outspoken critic of fracking-- a practice his opponent is all for-- which New York Governor Cuomo would like to open up in his district.

In addition to welcoming fracking in his backyard, Reed was one of the GOP members of Congress on an infamous trip to Israel, where in addition to enjoying the hospitality of AIPAC's nonprofit offshoot the American Israel Education Foundation, at least one legislator copped to going skinny-dipping in the Sea of Galilee. (Reed says that he and his wife were “appropriately clothed.”) He's been cited as a possible future GOP “star” from New York, and he's a big fan of Paul Ryan and his (wildly unpopular, especially in New York) budget.

3. PA-16: Democrat Aryanna Strader vs Republican Joe Pitts

Joe Pitts's name is familiar to anyone who cares about reproductive justice-- along with Democrat Bart Stupak, the Pennsylvania Republican was the author of the infamous Stupak-Pitts amendment to the health care reform bill-- a sneak attack on abortion rights that would've restricted access to abortion coverage in private health insurance plans.

Pitts should be a huge target for Democrats, but despite a leftward trend in his district and a bit of redistricting that might make it even more likely to swing Democratic, they're not pushing very hard. But Aryanna Strader is. She's a 29-year-old veteran, a mom, and a small business owner, and she leaves no question where she stands on reproductive freedoms-- she argues that Pitts “started the war on women's health.”

There are two independents running in the 16th as well-- Jim Bednarski, a former Republican who apparently wants to win the seat without fundraising, and John A. Murphy, who called Strader the Democrats' Sarah Palin. Pitts is smoking his competition when it comes to fundraising, though-- which might make one wonder about the Democrats' commitment to electing pro-choice politicians, since there's plenty of money being funneled into other Pennsylvania races, including Mark Critz's race at the other end of Pennsylvania-- despite his support for Pitts' H.R. 358, dubbed the “Let Women Die Act” because it would, well, let women die if their doctors were opposed to abortion.

4. MI-11: Democrat Syed Taj vs Republican Kerry Bentivolio

If this district sounds familiar, it's because Thaddeus McCotter resigned from it earlier this year after a chunk of the signatures qualifying him for the primary ballot were found to be fraudulent. (Four of his staffers were charged with violating election law.) Dr. Syed Taj is one of several M.D.'s running for Congress this year on their practical health care experience. He's skipping the special election for the remaining weeks of McCotter's term (really, weeks), choosing to focus on the general, where he's facing a Tea Party candidate, Kerry Bentivolio, who's well, unique-- Mother Jones describes him as “a reindeer rancher, Santa impersonator, and political novice who once starred in a low-budget movie suggesting that 9/11 was an inside job.” A former teacher, he's facing questions about his treatment of students, and he got a chunk of funding for his campaign from a 21-year-old Ron Paul fanboy
.
Taj has spent over 40 years as a doctor, including a stint as Chief of Medicine at Oakwood Hospital in Dearborn. He's been endorsed by the Detroit Free Press, the Detroit News, Representative Keith Ellison, Senator Debbie Stabenow, the Michigan Nurses Association and the American Federation of Teachers.

5. WV-01: Democrat Sue Thorn vs Republican David McKinley

West Virginia is coal country, and any political battle in the state is likely to have Big Coal's dirty fingers all over the race. Sue Thorn's challenge to David McKinley is no exception. Multimillionaire McKinley (what is it with these rich members of Congress in some of the poorest districts?) has gotten a good chunk of his campaign cash from Murray Energy, the company whose Utah mine at Crandall Canyon collapsed and killed nine people-- and which got slapped with the largest fines ever from the Mine Safety and Health Administration (until the 2010 explosion at Upper Big Branch mine right in West Virginia, that is).

McKinley tries to claim that Thorn doesn't support coal mining and works under a big picture of a miner-- but Jack Spadaro, former head of the National Mine Safety and Health Academy, doesn't buy that:

There's no question about that, he's a hypocrite. He may say that and have that poster in his office, but he hasn't done anything to further the interests of miners and to make their workplace safe.

Meanwhile, Thorn has pointed out that McKinley's voted against stronger protections against black lung (which is having a resurgence) and better safety regulations. And she spent her Labor Day at events with actual workers, not just pictures of them.

6. WI-01: Democrat Rob Zerban vs Republican Paul Ryan

Paul Ryan's busy running for Veep, of course-- but just in case, he's also running for reelection in his House district. And Rob Zerban would like to take that job from him as well. Zerban's probably the first serious challenge Ryan has faced in Wisconsin since his election; he's raised over $1.4 million for his race so far, and points out that Obama carried the district in 2008 (and still would have even after redistricting). He told AlterNet's Joshua Holland:

I’ve lived my version of the American dream. I was only able to do that because our government was there when I needed help. I realize that being a successful small business owner-- someone who employed 45 people, providing excellent wages and benefits-- I realize that this isn’t something I accomplished all on my own. Our government helped me get an education on Pell Grants and loans, I was able to go on and start these small businesses. I want to make sure economic opportunity exists for everybody in this country, not just the wealthy and the well-connected.

Zerban's wife is a teacher and they were both part of the Capitol protests against Scott Walker's anti-union bill. He endorses a “Medicare for All” single-payer system, noting that people don't start small businesses, in part, because of the sky-high costs of health insurance.

Ryan's selection to the presidential ticket may have helped put other Congressional races in play for the Democrats-- it'd be pretty funny if he managed to lose his own, too.

7. NC-10: Democrat Patsy Keever vs Republican Patrick McHenry

North Carolina redistricted notorious Blue Dog Heath Shuler out of Congress(Shuler decided to step down after some of the more Democratic-leaning parts of his 11th district were sliced out and dropped into the neighboring 10th). But that might wind up helping Patsy Keever, who's facing off in the 10th against Patrick McHenry, described by Alex Pareene at Salon as “born to be cheerfully corrupt: He’s a product of the College Republicans, an organization that trains little Lee Atwaters, Karl Roves and Grover Norquists in the arts of scorched-earth campaigning and wholly irresponsible 'governing' on behalf of the monied interests that bought you your job.”

Keever, on the other hand, won a primary over more conservative Asheville mayor Terry Bellamy (who had the backing of the national party). The former schoolteacher is a sharp critic of the corporate education reform policy currently being celebrated at both party conventions, writing recently:

Vouchers and charter schools are not the answer. Defunding good programs and instituting unfunded mandates are not the answer. Adding more students to each classroom while decreasing support systems for teachers is not the answer.

Howie Klein notes that unlike Hayden Rogers, the anti-gay, anti-choice candidate (and Shuler's Chief of Staff) now running in the 11th district, Keever's getting little support from the Democratic party in the 10th. This, even though she strongly opposed North Carolina's anti-gay marriage Amendment One and was endorsed as pro-choice by NARAL. Interestingly, the DCCC named Rogers a “Red to Blue” candidate, which gives him additional funding even though he's running to replace his old boss, a theoretical Democrat, while Keever's running against an honest-to-goodness Republican.

8. CA-39: Democrat Jay Chen vs Republican Ed Royce

Ed Royce is a longtime incumbent who's gotten more money from the financial sector than any other member of the California delegation; he's one of the few senior Republicans to actually join the Tea Party Caucus, has said that Arizona's “Papers, Please” anti-immigrant law should be the national standard, railed against multi-language ballots, and voted against extending the Voting Rights Act. But he's in a new district this time, and this one is 30 percent Asian-American and 30 percent Latino-- creating a perfect opening for Jay Chen to take a crack at defeating him.

Chen still faces an uphill battle, but the school board member and Navy Reservist is running on the issues that matter-- making education more accessible, better health care (he's ultimately a single-payer supporter) and financial regulation. He recorded Mandarin-language ads to urge the Chinese-American community to vote against Proposition 8, and even though the DCCC doesn't see fit to spend money on his race, he's determined to keep fighting.

9. PA-03: Democrat Missa Eaton vs Republican Mike Kelly

Missa Eaton is one of many educators running as a Democrat in a time of reduced funding for schools and universities. The daughter of a union bus driver, the assistant professor of psychology is challenging super-rich incumbent Mike Kelly and mentions the student debt crisis as one of her issues to tackle. She's also no slouch on trade policy, an issue that might not be sexy but is deeply important in the era of outsourcing.

Eaton's getting union support in her blue-collar western Pennsylvania district (represented, before Kelly, by Democrat Kathy Dahlkemper) and won the “Keystone Challenge” from the state Democratic Party.

Meanwhile, Mike Kelly compared the health insurance mandate to cover contraception to Pearl Harbor and September 11. No, really.

10. TX-16: Democrat Beto O'Rourke vs Republican Barbara Carrasco

Beto O'Rourke's already won one rough race this year-- his primary, where he knocked off conservative Democrat Silvestre Reyes, in part in a battle over drug policy. O'Rourke favors marijuana legalization and bluntly calls the drug war a “failure.” The El Paso city representative argued that marijuana prohibition only fuels the cartels and stokes violence just over the border. It didn't hurt that Reyes had other problems-- $600,000 in campaign funds steered to himself and family members, say, or a vote to defund Planned Parenthood. Tim Murphy at Mother Jones notes that try as Reyes might have to make drugs an issue in the campaign, the race was really won on the economy.

O'Rourke's also pushed for benefits for same-sex partners and is pro-choice, pro-contraception, and pro-health care. The district remains largely Democratic even after redistricting, but O'Rourke still has to go through Barbara Carrasco, a Republican whose website pledges that she'll “FIGHT for America's Free-Market Economy” and “PROTECT our Children-- Born and Unborn.”

"Ex"-Blue Dog Steve Israel, the head of the DCCC-- who Nancy Pelosi endearing refers to as "reptilian"-- would rather see Republicans win than watch more progressives get into the Democratic House caucus. He's not supporting these candidates and there is documentary evidence that he's personally told major Democratic big dollar donors to not give them any support or contributions. Nancy was sure right when she used the term "reptilian" to describe Israel, regardless of what she had in her heart, which no one can really know for sure anyway.


Once again, these are candidates who can win but who the DCCC is basically ignoring so they can fight for more anti-Choice, anti-gay, pro-Business conservative Democrats in the imagine of horrible Beltway hacks like Steve Israel, Joe Crowley, Steny Hoyer and Debbie Wasserman Schultz, careerists with their own corrupt agendas. If you'd like to help the progressive candidates win seats in Congress instead of more Blue Dogs, you can contribute here and here.

Americans For REAL Prosperity

Over the course of the last week, House candidates from every part of America have vowed to fight the failed Austerity agenda being pushed by Romney, Ryan and their Republican cronies in Congress. The full-- and growing-- list of candidates, with their statements, is on this page, where you will see an inspiring diversity of thought and approach. Patsy Keever, the intrepid Democratic state Rep from Asheville, NC, was the first to respond and she focused primarily on tending to the nation's infrastructure, something her opponent, Patrick McHenry, has blocked:

This country has faced the slowest economic recovery from the worst recession since the Great Depression. Our Congress has been hijacked by extremely radical members who refuse to come together to put the best interests of all Americans before party allegiance. This country needs its infrastructure re-built. Thirty percent of North Carolina’s bridges are structurally deficient, 215 of the state’s damns fall short of its safety standards, 27% of our highways are in poor condition and 54% of them are congested. These statistics have a wide-ranging and devastating impact on our economy. Small businesses need roads and bridges to support their work. People need safe and uncongested roads to get to their jobs. Infrastructure spending not only ensures that people who do have jobs can keep them, but it creates jobs for people who don’t have them. It is critical for our country to invest in its own future. We need leaders willing to work for the people, not merely their parties.

The most recent candidate to sign on, Beto O'Rourke, the independent-minded Democrat in El Paso, is also a big booster of infrastructure. He's concentrating on strengthening communities from the ground up, starting with employment opportunities:

In order to strengthen our nation and revive our economy, we need strong communities. That means investing in infrastructure, in innovation, and in the public resources that ensure our continued competitiveness.

And while we certainly should rigorously review spending, and ensure that we are delivering government services as effectively and efficiently as possible, we will not cut our way to prosperity.

When it comes to raising revenues-- let's put every special interest, loophole and deduction on the table and-- with our eyes wide open-- decide what our priorities are and how we're going to pay for them. Right now the wealthy and connected are best equipped to navigate, and at times bend, the tax system to their advantage. My vote is to have a transparent, progressive structure that gives struggling families the best shot at moving up the economic ladder and creating greater wealth and opportunity in their communities.

I've knocked on nearly 20,000 doors in my district since I started campaigning a year ago. The number one issue people talk to me about is the economy and their most pressing concern is finding a job.

That's why I'm committed to investing in our communities, getting people back to work and ensuring that everyone's paying their fair share to move this country forward.

William Greider also tackled the notion-- in great depth-- at The Nation. Like our candidates, he seems very impressed with the work Jacob Hacker has done on the Prosperity Economics proposal and he's looking for a strategy that's in an entirely different world than what you'll find from Beltway careerist organizations like the DCCC. Greider identifies the real task progressive Americans have right now-- reelecting Barack Obama and resetting his priorities.

The challenge is forbidding and doubtless sounds naïve to establishment politicians. But the risks of failure are huge. Faced with the growing fear that Obama will pursue a “grand bargain” with conservatives after the election, further compromising core principles, leading liberal-labor forces are toughening up their tactics. They see the prospect of re-election as a great opportunity to coax or push the president toward the fundamental economic reforms he ducked in his first term-- a source of great disappointment on the left.

Cynics may sneer at part of the strategy for renewal, but it’s a novel approach, and I think it may represent a meaningful turn in the road. Instead of bombing voters with hyped-up TV messages, progressive leaders are going for big ideas. They are rolling out a meaty agenda of economic reforms, giving voters a firm grasp of the issues that affect their lives and charting a path toward a prosperous, more secure future. The ultimate goal is long-term and larger than Obama: reviving small-d democracy and rebuilding the left by helping ordinary people regain their power as citizens. Is that still possible in our dysfunctional system? We are going to find out.

Organizers say Americans are hungry for liberal alternatives to the austerity agenda. People everywhere are tired of manipulative rhetoric. They want to hear serious proposals for how to restore prosperity and an equitable society. Trouble is, neither the president nor the Democratic Party much wants to talk about solutions that sound suspiciously liberal. Mitt Romney is mocked for not having a coherent plan for economic recovery, but Obama doesn’t have much of one either. “Fairness” is not a governing strategy. Frequent factory visits are not going to bring back manufacturing jobs.

...Hacker lays out the principal steps for restoring progressive taxation, re-regulating the financial system and breaking up the mega-banks. He does not pause to note that the Democratic Party has been deeply complicit in these scandals. But his report could be read as a “shadow platform” for a party that has drifted rightward and lost its way.

“This campaign is basically the choice between austerity-- more pain for working people-- or an economy of growth and jobs and prosperity,” AFL-CIO president Richard Trumka explains. “Our president is campaigning for that future. Professor Hacker’s agenda spells out how to get there-- the ideas and actions that deliver what people want and need in their lives. ... Our agenda is about governing solutions that work, that can heal our wounded country,” Trumka adds. “The conservative corporate machine will oppose nearly everything we propose. But we know from polls that people are overwhelmingly for these propositions-- typically with 75 to 90 percent support.” By arming people with the truth about debt reduction and who gets hurt, Trumka thinks, Hacker’s blueprint should have an immediate impact on postelection decisions.

...As the election season heats up, organized labor and allied groups are trying to walk a delicate line. On the one hand, they intend to push these comprehensive reform proposals aggressively on Congress and the White House, no matter who wins in November. On the other hand, they are committed to Obama’s re-election and anxious to avoid making problems for him. After the election, however, all bets are off. Liberals and labor will be ready to play hardball. Or so they say.

Progressive leaders think they have figured out how to get the president’s attention and compel him to take their agenda seriously. The familiar pattern in Obama’s first term was serial disappointment and occasional anger. The cautious president kept his distance on major decisions while vaguely expressing sympathy with liberal aspirations. He seemed more worried about upsetting independents in the ambivalent middle. He worked especially hard at courting corporate and financial titans.

Looking back, many liberal activists realize they were much too deferential when the White House seemed to take them for granted. Because the GOP was savaging and slandering Obama, trying to block everything he proposed, faithful supporters were reluctant to add to his grief. But they have belatedly concluded that Obama, like most politicians, sometimes needs a poke in the chest from his friends.

The pattern of Obama’s encounters with frustrated supporters suggests what succeeds is a smartly focused strategy of tactical pressuring—a willingness to get in his face, up the ante with direct action, and withhold affection until you get a meaningful response. The president and White House staffers insisted that impatient agitators would only hurt their cause, since Obama had already declared his sympathy for their goals. Overzealous pressure campaigns would make it harder for him to act.

Obama’s track record indicates the opposite: he doesn’t like to be pushed, and he resents it especially when the pressure comes from allies. But if they keep the heat on, he is more likely to address their grievances. On at least four notable issues of great concern to Democratic constituencies—immigration reform, gays in the military, the Keystone pipeline and same-sex marriage—the pattern of sustained pressure and protest aimed at the president led him to “evolve” in his views. Instead of offering mere rhetoric, he responded concretely to their demands.

Two years ago, immigration advocates lost patience with the administration’s aggressive approach to deportation and its foot-dragging on the DREAM Act. They escalated the terms of their complaints in harsh and highly visible ways and started marching en masse. Bhargava, a leading organizer of the pro-immigration forces, told the president face-to-face at a White House meeting that the administration was presiding over a “moral catastrophe.” The president rebuked Bhargava for exaggeration and ingratitude and became “pissy” with immigration advocates in other meetings.

In June, nonetheless, Obama announced a great victory for immigrants’ rights. At the president’s command, the Department of Homeland Security stopped deporting DREAM Act–eligible young people-- as many as 1.5 million-- and arranged to provide work permits for them. This was a very big deal: the largest legalization of undocumented immigrants since Ronald Reagan’s sweeping amnesty in 1986. Certainly the approaching election had something to do with Obama’s change of heart. (That is what elections are for.) But it was the advocates’ persistence that persuaded the nervous White House to go for it. As the Obama team discovered, good policy can also be good politics.

Similar tactics produced similar victories-- or at least forward motion-- on the other issues. Liberal-labor forces intend to adapt these lessons as they push for the fundamental reforms enumerated in the Hacker blueprint. They recognize that they cannot easily emulate the model unless they go to work at the grassroots, building a popular base of citizens who are mobilized to demand action. Right now, the economic reformers lack the level of sophistication and solidarity that helped deliver results for gays, Latinos and environmentalists in recent years. Americans do not need to be told about their pain and insecurity. They need to learn how to do something about it.

...But will labor and other mediating organizations actually follow through with the plan? Can they establish enough distance from the Democrats and the White House to advance an effective pressure campaign? Skeptics doubt it. They recall earlier moments of crisis when similar declarations of independence were voiced but nothing much changed. This time is different, and for important reasons I think the results will be different too.

For one thing, the economic crisis has severely altered the political context. The new circumstances are especially adverse for working people, but an adequate response from government has not been forthcoming. As the broad middle class festered in desperation and bitterness in the wake of the crash, Democrats, including the president, were surprisingly restrained. The White House seemed reluctant to advocate aggressive measures that might alienate independents or upset financial interests and other malefactors.

Then Occupy Wall Street came along and blew away Obama’s soft talk. Now, candidate Obama has wisely adapted Occupy’s brilliantly succinct message as his own. He does not have the nerve to invoke “the 99 percent,” but his rhetoric of fairness plays to the same music. Occupy likewise became a wake-up call for labor liberals. When people in the streets began shouting what the left had been too shy to broadcast forcefully, unions got a welcome jolt. Soon enough, they began shouting too.

With any luck, this surge of energy and enthusiasm-- and the attendant rejection of 1 percent politics, as embodied by Mitt Romney-- will propel Obama to a second term. But some activists are already worried about what will happen if Obama wins. Will he abandon his “inner liberal” again and opt for a grand bargain with Republicans that will do brutal damage to the liberal legacy and long-loyal constituencies?

These enduring suspicions reveal the fraught nature of the marriage between organized labor and the Democratic Party. Unless the party renews its vows and honors them, this marriage may be headed for a trial separation.

For more than three decades, the union movement has faithfully turned out labor votes and raised many millions to finance Democratic campaigns. But as its membership shrank, it gradually became weaker and more dependent on the Democratic Party. Union membership was decimated by globalized production and the business campaign to destroy workers’ rights. But the Democrats became less reliable as the defenders of labor at precisely the moment labor really needed them.

Dissident union leaders and rank-and-file workers repeatedly complained that labor was getting the worse end of the bargain. Unions should put aside party loyalty, they argued, and free themselves to pursue more combative and radical strategies in both politics and the workplace. Labor leaders mostly resisted the demands-- partly out of inertia, but also because they understood how vulnerable union members would be if they lost their political allies.

This dilemma has finally reached the breaking point: labor and its liberal allies must chart a new course or face extinction. Given their weakened condition, it is especially difficult to imagine a reinvigorated labor movement or a more independent approach to politics. But the status quo looks like a loser for sure.

A different strategy might start with people on the ground who have no voice at all, represented by neither unions nor politicians. In order to launch a mass movement for economic justice, organized labor would have to relearn some of the things it used to know, including how to wage a campaign to address large economic grievances and speak for working people everywhere.

Jacob Hacker makes the basic point that securing shared prosperity necessarily requires the restoration of democracy. A strategy that gives voice to the people who cannot be heard amid the clamor of big-money politics would not just be about winning elections; it would apply as well to the workplace and financial markets, to corporations and governing institutions. The excluded who need to gain a voice and power might not add up to 99 percent, but they surely represent a majority large enough to change the country.

That said... let me invite you again to our Americans For REAL Prosperity page and ask you to take a look at what the candidates there have to say about these ideas. Jay Chen is running against egregious Wall Street shill Ed Royce in a new southern California district. The DCCC has expressed no particular interest in the race, even though it's certainly winnable. Jay is an enthusiastic supporter of Prosperity Economics and I'll leave you with his statement-- and The Clash:

"When I first read up on Prosperity Economics, I thought someone must have really taken a liking to my stump speeches. The ideas espoused by Professor Jacob Hacker and Nate Loewentheil are completely aligned with my core beliefs for getting our country and economy back on track. These beliefs, which include investing in infrastructure, education, and our social safety nets, and limiting the power of corporations to distort our political system, are not new. They are part of the original formula that drove the unparalleled success our nation has enjoyed up until recently.

But these ideas are now under constant attack, as is the prosperity of our nation, by corporate interests and social extremists whose ultimate goal is to increase income inequality and cultural disharmony. Wealth accumulation has now been confused with job creation, and the right wants to slash government services further to grow the war machine. All the while our middle class, which is the true engine of economic growth and stability, continues to shrink. We simply cannot cut our way to prosperity anymore than we can drill our way out of oil dependence. We need leaders who understand how smart, sound investment made us the great nation we are today, and how prosperity economics can ensure our leadership in the world for generations to come."