First The Good News...

I had dinner Thursday night with JD Scholten to talk about... his next steps. Will he take on Joni Ernest for the U.S. Senate seat next year? Or will he complete what he started last year and oust Steve King from Congress? Something else? When I got home, I scanned the Des Moines Register to see what's going on there. The first thing I ran across was an op-ed by former Maryland governor Martin O'Malley taking himself out of contention for the presidential nomination. "Oh, good," I thought. Another centrist not wasting everyone's time. But I kept reading. He's on Team Beto. He explained why: "In 2016, my long-shot presidential candidacy found its flame extinguished between a rock and an angry place in my own party. America wasn’t in the mood for new leadership. We were in a mood of anger, rage and retribution. And in this mood, Donald Trump’s candidacy rose. It was good for ratings, and good for the Russians; but, bad for America. And, we got what we got." Ummm... He ran against Hillary and Bernie, not Trumpanzee. Maybe it was different in his fantasies.

"But now," he wrote, "there is a different mood in our nation. People are looking for a new leader who can bring us together. They are looking for a unifier and a healer. They are looking for a leader of principle, and they are now looking for a fearless vision." He admits though, that "the anxieties about the future are higher than ever.  Our whole world-- and our country with it-- is experiencing the growing pains of a third Industrial Revolution. And this one will change the future of work as much as the last two. Perhaps, even more so."

The way to best judge how a candidate will be in office is to look at their record. Even when one of my gay friends and almost all of my women friends were absolutely swooning over Beto when he was running against Ted Cruz and Blue America was encouraging contributions to his cause, I would ask them if they could name one accomplishment in Beto's record or even if they knew he had served in Congress for 6 years. No one knew and no one could. Beto was a decent centrist backbencher who had caught the zeitgeist last year because Cruz is such a great foil.

Did it really matter if he would have been a great senator or not? He certainly would have been better than the two Schumer picked and managed to elect-- two of Congress' worst members, Kyrsten Sinema Blue Dog-AZ) and freshmen Jacky Rosen (NV) whose photo could adorn the Roget's Thesaurus page forte antonym of "courageous." Low bar... and, it's true, as far as I can tell, he did seem to grow as a candidate. But in the end, he lost and won't be in Congress. So why not run for president instead? Kevin de León's senate campaign never caught on all that much with the media. Feinstein saw to that. But his record is a billion times better than Beto's. No one is asking him to consider running for president now. He'd make a much better senator than Feinstein-- and a much better president than either Trump or Beto.

By the way all that pink beige (I'm color blond) in the map above was where Kevin won and all that blue in the map below was where Beto won. Beto spent $45,356,406 and Kevin spent $1,725,911.

Back to O'Malley's case for Beto: "In his courageous run for U.S. Senate in Texas, O’Rourke ran a disciplined and principled campaign that also managed to be raw, authentic, and real. He spoke to the American values of honesty, compassion for one another, and courage in the face of a rapidly changing future. These are the American values alive and well in the hearts of our young people. These are the values which tell us where America is headed. And with these values, O’Rourke very nearly defeated the incumbent senator and Republican runner-up for president-- in Texas. The fearless vision and unifying message which brought people together in Texas also sparked imaginations all across our country. And, I believe, will again-- if Beto O’Rourke runs for president."

You might expect a centrist hack nothing like O'Malley to tamp down the very idea of policy and agenda. He doesn't disappoint. It's an issues-free Op-Ed. It's about beating the boogie-man, not about presenting an alternative. Maybe that's why O'Malley-- who presented himself as a basically policy null "unifier"-- never took off in 2016 and only managed to win one congressional endorsement (Eric Swalwell), no states, no delegates, 0.54% of the votes in the Iowa caucuses, 667 votes in New Hampshire (compared to 152,193 for Bernie and 95,355 for Hillary, the other corporate candidate). Before finally withdrawing he was encouraging another corporatist, Joe Biden, to jump into the race and he was insisting Bernie agenda was not "pragmatic"-- one of the words-- like pie-in-the-sky-- that vision-free centrists use to rail against progressivism. His case for himself, in the first debate, was that voters wanted a fresh face. But what is a fresh face? Someone who has never accomplished anything significant previously, so is basically unknown? "We cannot be this dissatisfied with our gridlocked national politics and an economy where 70 percent of us are earning the same or less than we were 12 years ago," he insisted, "and think that a resort to old names is going to move us forward. I respect what Secretary Clinton and her husband have done for our country. But our country needs new leadership to move forward."

In his vote-for-Beto op-ed he wrote the same blather: "The challenges we face will not solve themselves. Building an economy that works for all of us, reversing climate change, passing immigration reform-- they all require leadership. O’Rourke has the wisdom to listen, the courage to lead, and a rock-solid faith in the powerful goodness of our nation. Because he is of a new generation, O’Rourke understands that a new way of governing-- with openness, transparency, and performance-- is called for to tackle our problems in the Information Age. And because he is from a border state, O’Rourke understands the enduring symbol of our country is not the barbed wire fence, it is the Statue of Liberty. So, while I will not be running in 2020, I would like to put my faith and trust in a fearless American future-- an American future large enough for all of our children.  Like so many other Americans, I believe we need new leadership to make that future a reality. And, I believe the new leader who can best bring us together and turn us around to create that better American future, is Beto O’Rourke."

Empty chit chat. Until this week, Beto was still a member of Congress-- one of the minority of Democrats who wasn't a sponsor of Medicare-For-All and one of the Democrats who refused to sign onto the Green New Deal. But good with generalities. And Kennedy-esque looks. Better bet-- one O'Malley and other corporatists would never want to see in office-- is Bernie, someone who stands for actual real things that would transform the country. And if you want to signal your agreement with what Bernie is working towards and contribute to his campaign... that's what the Blue America 2020 presidential thermometer on the right is for. Thursday, Common Dreams published an essay by Jon Queally on the nascent Bernie 2020 campaign. "While there has been no official announcement from Sanders at this point," he wrote, "the grassroots movement born during his 2016 run for the Democratic nomination is already gearing up for what they believe is now a certainty... Karen Bernal, a member of the Bernie Delegate Network and chair of the California Democratic Party's Progressive Caucus, believes at this point there is no other choice nearly as good. 'As the standard-bearer of policies finally considered mainstream by the base of our party,' Bernal said, 'the importance of his presence in the upcoming presidential election cycle cannot be overstated. Without him, the resistance to oligarchy and the war machine suffers. We need Bernie to keep speaking truth to and about power.'"

DWT California Voter Guide For Tuesday (Reprise)

We published this a few weeks ago for early voters but I figured I'd run it again-- with a bonus video at the end-- for Californians going to the polls on Tuesday. First and foremost on our list is the U.S. Senate race, in which we strongly back Kevin de León against fossilized conservative incumbent Dianne Feinstein.

We don't usually back better of two evil candidates-- which is what the Democratic Party usually encourages, particularly on the federal level. But, this year, because of the existential threat from Trump, we are doing just that. Vote for every Democrat and against every Republican-- even for candidates as lacking in anything to recommend them as Andrew Janz and Gil Cisneros. There I said it!. That said, we are genuinely excited about some Democrats, especially Katie Porter, the progressive running in Orange County (CA-45), Ammar Campa-Najjar, the progressive running for Congress in San Diego County (CA-50) and Jovanka Beckles, the progressive running for state Assembly in the East Bay. All of our California faves are on the Blue America thermometer on the right. Prediction: Gavin Newsom will win and any progressive who voted for him will be very, very sorry. For state Superintendent of Schools, there's a really good candidate: Tony Thurmond and a really bad canddiate, the charter school guy, Marshall Tuck. OK, that's the easy stuff. Now the statewide propositions:

• Prop 1- YES-- authorizes $4 billion in bonds to fund affordable housing for low-income families, seniors, people with disabilities, farmworkers and veterans.
• Prop 2- YES-- authorizes $2 billion in bonds to provide supportive housing (i.e. ,mental health and drug rehab) for homeless Californians with mental illness.
• Prop 3- NO-- an $8 billion boondoggle for Big Agriculture, while causing environmental problems.
• Prop 4- YES-- authorizes $1.5 billion in bonds to fund building, renovating and equipping children’s hospitals.
• Prop 5- NO-- another boondoggle, this one for wealthy developers and older rich homeowners-- expands Prop 13.
• Prop 6- NO-- overturns the increase in gas taxes and vehicle fees that fund transportation infrastructure. Bad for Climate Change and deincentivizes electric car development.
• Prop 7- YES or NO-- empowers the legislature to adopt permanent daylight saving time, eliminating standard time in the future if it Congress gives the OK.
• Prop 8- YES-- requires notoriously profiteering dialysis centers to stop cheating their patients and to accept Medicare and Medicaid without discrimination.
• Prop 10- YES-- allows cities, towns and counties to pass and strengthen rent control laws by repealing the Costa-Hawkins Rental Housing Act.
• Prop 11- NO-- An anti-union proposal that allows private ambulance companies to require workers to remain on-call during meal and rest breaks.
• Prop 12- YES-- an animal welfare measure set ting reasonable minimum floor space for pigs, calves and hens at one square foot.

L.A. County has Measure W, an excellent idea to fund rainwater capture, cleaning and storage projects in order to grow the county's local water supply. Vote YES.

And the city of L.A. has two measures, both worth supporting. Measure B amends the City’s charter to permit Los Angeles to establish a public bank. Vote YES.

Measure E sets the City’s primary election on the same date as the State’s primary election. Vote YES.

Feinstein TV Ad Proves We Need Kevin de León

-by Dorothy Reik
President, Progressive Democrats of the Santa Monica Mountains

Dianne Feinstein has no trouble stealing. In her latest commercial she even steals Kevin de Leon's campaign motto-- "California Values"-- as if she mirrors our values the way Kevin does! But she cannot steal his legislative accomplishments. After 24 years in the Senate you would think that Dianne Feinstein would have a laundry list bills signed into law that have helped her constituents but that is not the case. She points to three things-- money for subways, money for water and her long ago sunsetted assault weapons ban. What she does not point out is how she steered government contracts to hubby Richard Blum-- they have quite a lucrative partnership. Thanks to profits earned during her "service" on the Defense Appropriations Committee she and Blum were able to buy a $16 million mansion in San Francisco for weekends while spending the week in her $7 million dollar home in DC. Nice. And more recently (she was thrown of the Defense Appropriation Committee when her steering of contracts was discovered) Blum has gotten contracts on California's high speed rail and the selling off of our beautiful post offices-- one even went to Donald Trump!

Meanwhile Kevin de León in just a few short years has a list of accomplishments as long as your arm and, when he gets to DC, he will continue on his trajectory starting with endorsing Bernie Sanders' Medicare for All bill opposed by Feinstein. In his years in the Senate, two as the President Pro Tem, he has helped Californians more than her highness has in 24 years. He passed SB100 to mandate that California reach 100% renewable energy by 2045. He wrote and passed SB 54 to protect our immigrants and when Trump challenged it in court Kevin's bill, carefully crafted to withstand such an assault, was confirmed.

He insured that California would lead in achieving the $15 an hour wage by negotiating a bill instead of taking a chance on a proposition.

As we watch another shooting, this time in Pittsburgh, Kevin can take credit for authoring SB 1235 requiring background checks for buying or selling AMMUNITION! And he worked on No Place Like Home, legislation to provide permanent housing for the homeless with mental issues-- the only way they can get well-- because you cannot get will while you are living on the streets!

He created retirement security for low wage workers by passing the Secure Choice Retirement-Savings Program-- the first in that nation! And he saved the Disclose Act from dying in the Senate. And he has started us on the road to free public college working hard to pass AB19 to insure the first year of Community College will be free-- one step at a time we will get to four years of free college!

His foreign policy advisors include Jodie Evans of CODEPINK-- so we can be sure Kevin will not be voting for endless wars as Feinstein did and he will not be voting to secretly spy on American citizens as Feinstein also did. She only objected to the spying when she herself got spied on!

Kevin has traveled up and down California, meeting voters and listening to their concerns. He has been to corners of the state Feinstein has never even heard of! And if the "non-likely" voters turn out on Tuesday we could be fortunate enough to have a Senator who will stand up to Trump and his fascists in Washington just as he has stood up to them here in California. There is no better Senator for California than Kevin de León. We cannot let this opportunity slip away only to have Gavin Newsom appoint some worthless Blue Dog [note from editor: Adam Schiff recently left the Blue Dogs and joined the other half of the Republican wing of the Democratic Partry, the New Dems] once Feinstein decides to retire to her mansion on the Knob Hill.

DWT California Voter Guide

I should have gotten this out earlier. Apologies to anyone who already voted. First and foremost on our list is the U.S. Senate race, in which we strongly back Kevin de León against fossilized conservative incumbent Dianne Feinstein.

We don't usually back better of two evil candidates-- which is what the Democratic Party usually encourages, particularly on the federal level. But, this year, because of the existential threat from Trump, we are doing just that. Vote for every Democrat and against every Republican. Period. That said, we are genuinely excited about some Democrats, especially Katie Porter, the progressive running in Orange County (CA-45), Ammar Campa-Najjar, the progressive running for Congress in San Diego County (CA-50) and Jovanka Beckles, the progressive running for state Assembly in the East Bay. All of our California faves are on the Blue America thermometer on the right. OK, that's the easy stuff. Now the statewide propositions:

• Prop 1- YES-- authorizes $4 billion in bonds to fund affordable housing for low-income families, seniors, people with disabilities, farmworkers and veterans.
• Prop 2- YES-- authorizes $2 billion in bonds to provide supportive housing (i.e. ,mental health and drug rehab) for homeless Californians with mental illness.
• Prop 3- NO-- an $8 billion boondoggle for Big Agriculture, while causing environmental problems.
• Prop 4- YES-- authorizes $1.5 billion in bonds to fund building, renovating and equipping children’s hospitals.
• Prop 5- NO-- another boondoggle, this one for wealthy developers and older rich homeowners-- expands Prop 13.
• Prop 6- NO-- overturns the increase in gas taxes and vehicle fees that fund transportation infrastructure. Bad for Climate Change and deincentivizes electric car development.
• Prop 7- YES or NO-- empowers the legislature to adopt permanent daylight saving time, eliminating standard time in the future if it Congress gives the OK.
• Prop 8- YES-- requires notoriously profiteering dialysis centers to stop cheating their patients and to accept Medicare and Medicaid without discrimination.
• Prop 10- YES-- allows cities, towns and counties to pass and strengthen rent control laws by repealing the Costa-Hawkins Rental Housing Act.
• Prop 11- NO-- An anti-union proposal that allows private ambulance companies to require workers to remain on-call during meal and rest breaks.
• Prop 12- YES-- an animal welfare measure set ting reasonable minimum floor space for pigs, calves and hens at one square foot.

L.A. County has Measure W, an excellent idea to fund rainwater capture, cleaning and storage projects in order to grow the county's local water supply. Vote YES.

And the city of L.A. has two measures, both worth supporting. Measure B amends the City’s charter to permit Los Angeles to establish a public bank. Vote YES.

Measure E sets the City’s primary election on the same date as the State’s primary election. Vote YES.

Slimy Conservatives Avoid Debates-- And When They Get Forced Into One... They ALWAYS Work To Limit Voter Access

Ted Cruz fancies himself a world champion debater. But somehow the political equivalent of a kindergarten toddler kicked his ass during the 2016 Republican primary season. Now he's up against a young congressman from El Paso, Beto O'Rourke and Beto beat him in every debate they've had so far-- hands down. When CNN invited Cruz and Beto to participate in an hour-long nationally televised town hall on October 18, Cruz refused and Beto accepted. Therefore Beto gets a one hour free segment on CNN at 9 PM (CT), worth millions of dollars, about 2 weeks before the election and right in the middle of early voting.

Believe it or not, the California conservative in the Senate race here, Dianne Feinstein, is even worse than Cruz. Feinstein is incapable of debating state Senator Kevin de León, her opponent in the D vs D general election. De León and virtually every major media outlet in the state have tried to get her to debate and she's dodged over and over-- just like she has for the past 2 decades of not debating.

Humiliated by the press, she finally agreed-- but to one with virtually no chance that anyone will see it. The "discussion" (absolutely not a debate) will take place at noon on Wednesday, October 17, sponsored by the Public Policy Institute. The only way to watch it is by registering on their obscure website. No TV or radio coverage will be allowed to broadcast it. Feinstein only agreed to do this if de León is not permitted to address her directly.

In the sprawling 36th district of Texas, east of Houston, Dayna Steele has been trying to get Brian Babin to debate for months. He refuses. Much like Feinstein, he allowed a private, non-broadcast "discussion"-- actually an endorsement screening--where he farted out his right-wing talking points and left. Dayna is still trying to get a real debate but Babin, a dentist and congressional backbencher with not a single accomplishment other than pulling some teeth, has adamantly refused.

Another cowardly conservative, Mimi Walters in Orange County (CA-45), has been hiding out and avoiding a debate, which Katie Porter keeps calling for. Katie's campaign manager, Erica Kwiatkowski, told us that "Walters is refusing to debate Katie Porter on key issues because she cannot defend her record of voting 99% of the time with Donald Trump, including to raise taxes for middle-class families, allowing oil drilling off Orange County coasts, and to take away healthcare from Orange County families including those with pre-existing conditions. Mimi has repeatedly refused to participate in town hall meetings with district residents and now won’t debate the issues that matter to voters."

Hoppy

Kendra Fershee is the progressive Democrat running in northern West Virginia (WV-01, a seat occupied by entrenched Trumpist David McKinely. He doesn't want to debate. Kendra laughed when I asked her and told me he won't even say her name. She told me her campaign has "been hounding him for a debate for months; he's completely ignored every request from us, and from other groups that have asked. But on Monday, he was quoted in the WVU student newspaper saying he would debate me if there's a neutral third party host willing to do it. So, I went on the biggest radio show in the state yesterday and the (somewhat conservative) host of that show (Hoppy Kercheval) called on Rep. McKinley to debate me. Hoppy has made at least two debate request inquiries of the Congressman in the last 72 hours and has been ignored. We have also asked the Wheeling Intelligencer to inquire of Rep. McKinley (that's the paper in his hometown), which has indicated that they may be willing to host as well. This morning, the WVU student newspaper ran a story about how the Congressman has ignored Hoppy's inquiries, and the largest newspaper in the state, the Charleston Gazette Mail, is working on a second story about how none of the Republican House of Representatives candidates will debate their opponents in West Virginia.

Jess King (PA-11) finally got her conservative opponent to debate on Monday. "It took time for the hosts to nail down our opponent," she said, "but he's agreed to two more. He is refusing to do any other forums though, so we are attending them without him."

Mike Siegel's campaign arranged for the League of Women Voters chapters in Houston and Austin to moderate debates. "McCaul," he told me, "refused to participate. His lack of participation is in the context of him not holding any public events in ten years. No town halls, no opportunities to respond to questions from the public. He even refused to respond to a Houston Chronicle candidate questionnaire, so their online voting guide has nothing from him. I'm about to enter a Chronicle editorial board screening. We'll see if he shows."

Up in Maine, the biggest congressional district east of the Mississippi is up for grabs, ME-02, a largely rural, spread-out swing district. It's very helpful for voters to get an idea of who the candidates are beyond just "R" and "D," which is why debates are so important. The incumbent, Trump enabler Bruce Poliquin, actually did a debate with progressive Democrat Jared Golden. He must have been shocked when his canned talking points failed to land any punches and Golden's issue-oriented approach wont day. Poliquin immediately pulled out of the next debate.

Is Dianne Feinstein Still Fit To Serve? A Debate Might Help The Voters Decide-- Which Is Why She Refuses

I've been following Dianne Feinstein's sordid-- as in corrupt-- conservative-- as in from the Republican wing of the Democratic Party-- career ever since she was a member of the San Francisco Board of Supervisors, as a close friend of mine, also a member, used to complain about her bitterly. That friend was Harvey Milk and his assassination-- and that of Mayor George Moscone (unlike Feinstein, a progressive)-- opened the door to Feinstein's political climb to the top. There were times, I hear, that she did debate her electoral opponents. Maybe it was back when she was in the Continental Congress or when California was first made a state. But in the last decade or so I've never found anyone who recalls her debating anyone. Nor does she debate anyone in the Senate. She just sails along, claiming her collegiality works wonders-- though it didn't work on her pal Susan Collins last week-- and that her so-called "mastery of Senate procedures" gets Republicans to compromise-- though that didn't work last week either.

Her time is up. She should retire already, not wait 'til corporate whore Gavin Newsom is in place to appoint another conservaDem, Adam Schiff, when Feinstein "suddenly" decides she has had enough in a year or so. People see right through her gambit-- anything but a progressive, now and forever. That's always been her motto. This is the DiFi I always knew, the one who was always delighted to use Republican talking points to appeal to conservatives and bigots:



Back to that debate problem. San Francisco political write, Joe Garofoli seems to think she may debate Kevin de León. I hope he's right... but I doubt it. She's neither intellectually or physically capable of a debate-- or even a detailed policy discussion. Garofoli in the SF Chronicle:

The last time Sen. Dianne Feinstein debated an opponent in a Senate election was in 2000. That means no voter under age 35 has had the privilege of deciding whom to send to Washington after seeing California’s senior senator match wits with a campaign foe.

We’re a little more than a month from election day, and so far, Feinstein’s debate-free campaign streak lives on-- though maybe not for long. It’s possible she’ll actually share a stage with her opponent and fellow Democrat, state Sen. Kevin de León.

We’ve seen DiFi’s debate tap dance before. Six years ago, I asked Bill Carrick, Feinstein’s longtime campaign consultant, why she wouldn’t debate her opponent that year, Republican Elizabeth Emken, whom Feinstein was drubbing in the polls.

“I don’t know if this makes much sense,” he told me. After all, Carrick said, Feinstein didn’t debate state Sen. Dick Mountjoy in 2006, “and he was an elective officeholder.”

When I called Carrick this week, it seemed that little had changed.

“Oh, come on,” Carrick told me. “I couldn’t have got you to cover an Emken debate if I brought you there with a police escort.”

He could have at least tried. Who could turn down a police escort? Especially if he threw in a pizza.

But let’s be real: de León is no Emken.

Emken had never held political office. De León is the former state Senate president pro tem and has been endorsed by the California Democratic Party’s executive board. De León has also been endorsed by three California House members-- including Rep. Ro Khanna of Fremont-- along with five members of the Board of Supervisors in Feinstein’s hometown of San Francisco and the 2.1 million-member California Labor Federation.

I heard Feinstein promise The Chronicle’s editorial board in April that she would debate her opponent. Every major news outlet in the state, including The Chronicle, has offered to co-host a throw-down. De León even volunteered to travel to Washington, D.C., to debate Feinstein, since she says she has been too busy with the Supreme Court confirmation hearings to participate.

(By the way, the hearings didn’t stop fellow Senate Judiciary Committee member Sen. Ted Cruz from scheduling three debates with his Democratic challenger in Texas, Rep. Beto O’Rourke.)

“You’ve got to be able to walk and chew gum at the same time. Voters deserve the dignity and respect of a conversation about the issues that affect them,” de León spokesman Jonathan Underland told me. “In California, we hold elections, not coronations.”

Carrick insisted that “there will be a debate.” And indeed, there may be some sort of event featuring de Leon and Feinstein in mid-October. A spokeswoman for the nonpartisan Public Policy Institute of California told the Chronicle on Wednesday that the organization is “very close” to finalizing a date in San Francisco. Terms are still being negotiated, but it could end up being a “conversation” in which a moderator would ask questions and the candidates would have timed responses.

Whether that's a debate is a debate unto itself.

California needs a fighter in DC. We've had enough of Miss Cordiality. And we need someone who can understand the problems Californians have, not another crooked billionaire or whatever the hell she is now. Is there any reason we can't have someone as good as Elizabeth Warren?

Odd There Are So Few Members Of The Working Class In Congress? Remember, The System Is Rigged

In the last few weeks, I've been complaining that the elites who control both parties recruit elites like themselves to recruit and to support. When someone from the working class self-selects and manages to win a primary, those elites are more likely to turn up their nose at them than to support them. After Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez won her primary about a member of the House elite club in New York, I sensed that the House Democrats were more vicious in their reaction than even the House Republicans were. I remember thinking to myself, self, I sure hope she has a thick skin! Ultimately though, I know what will happen. Pelosi and her cronies will try to coop her.

It was a similar story with Randy Bryce in Wisconsin. Bryce built his own @IronStache working class brand. The DCCC chuckled. Then he raised more money and got more press than any DCCC knucklehead they recruited from anywhere in the country. No one cared about any of their shit candidates-- most of whom seemed to be rolling off some kind of white collar assembly-line in the basement of DCCC headquarters in DC. Instead they cared about Bryce. The DCCC sniffed around to see if they could bottle what he was doing. Once they realized they couldn't-- and saw that he didn't "even" graduate from college and that he wore work boots to their soirees and wanted to talk about labor unions "too much," they dropped him like a hot potato. Ryan's corporately-sponsored SuperPAC saw a chance to keep the seat red. So far, they've poured $1.8 million into the district-- and announced today that they plan on spending another $1.2 million-- on behalf of their corporate lawyer Ryan clone, Bryan Steil (a complete nothing), almost all of it to smear Bryce. Neither the DCCC nor Pelosi's PAC has responded. They've decided to let him die on the vine, another damn member of the working class trying to crash their club. They want him to learn his place-- and fuck WI-01.


Nor, obviously, are Alexandria and Randy the only working class candidates being ignored by the DCCC. Nate McMurray has a good shot to win his western New York race. He's an excellent candidate and his Republican opponent was just indicted on dozens of serious fraud charges. But the DCCC isn't interested. Nate isn't their kind of guy. His dad died when he was young and his mom at age 35 was suddenly raising seven kids. They certainly struggled. Today, Nate, whose own struggle included working his way through college scrubbing bathrooms, told us he still cuts his own grass. "I know what it's like to work dead end jobs and worry about your family, about the finances of your family. My first priority is to help working families like mine growing up. I'm running against a man that inherited millions and exploited his public position to make money. I don't think he can relate to the people of this region. And that's why I want to go to Congress to fight for families like mine."

The guy in the video up top, Nick Carnes, wrote a book about why Congress has virtually no one who made a living with his or her hands, The Cash Ceiling: Why Only the Rich Run for Office-- and What We Can Do About It and yesterday The Guardian published a piece by him Why are so few US politicians from the working class? "Contrary to the ideal of a government of and by the people," he wrote, "new research shows Americans are almost always governed by the very privileged." He understands the significance of Bryce and Ocasio-Cortez. "This year," he continued, "at least two races for seats in the US House of Representatives will feature high-profile candidates with significant experience in working-class jobs – the manual labor, service industry and clerical jobs that make up over half of the American labor force. In Wisconsin’s first congressional district, the Democratic nominee is a delivery-driver-turned-ironworker named Randy Bryce, nicknamed “Ironstache”, who takes credit for “scaring off” Paul Ryan. In New York’s 14th congressional district, a former bartender and waitress named Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez recently made headlines for her stunning primary-election upset over incumbent Democrat Joe Crowley. Candidates like Bryce and Ocasio-Cortez-- politicians with significant experience in the kinds of jobs most Americans punch in for every day-- are genuine anomalies in 2018, and in US politics more generally."

The president is the billionaire head of a global business empire. His cabinet is mostly millionaires. Most members of Congress are millionaires. Most supreme court justices are millionaires. Millionaires make up less than 3% of the general public, but have unified majority control of all three branches of the federal government. Working-class Americans, on the other hand, make up about half of the country. But they have never held more than 2% of the seats in any Congress since the nation was founded.

The root cause-- and one of the reasons that candidates such as Bryce and Ocasio-Cortez raise eyebrows-- is that workers almost never run, even at the state and local levels. In nationwide surveys of people campaigning for state legislatures in 2012 and 2014, candidates from working-class jobs made up just 4% of both Republican and Democratic candidates. In California-- the one state that offers detailed data on the occupational backgrounds of candidates at the local level-- between 1995 and 2011, workers made up just 4% of candidates for county and local office.

So why are so few workers running? In a democracy like ours where almost any citizen can stand for elected office, why are the vast majority of candidates drawn from the ranks of white-collar professionals, and usually affluent or wealthy ones at that?... Just as working-class people in the general public tend to be more pro-worker (and business owners tend to be more pro-business, farmers tend to be more pro-farm, etc), politicians from different social classes tend to bring different perspectives with them to public office, especially when it comes to economic issues. In confidential surveys of state legislators, leaders from the working class in both parties are 20 to 50 percentage points more likely to support policies such as social welfare programs, regulation of the private sector, government-backed healthcare and efforts to reduce economic inequality. In scorecards that rank how members of Congress vote on economic legislation, those from the working class consistently earn significantly higher marks from pro-worker groups like the AFL-CIO and lower marks from business groups like the Chamber of Commerce.

Bryce: "There’s no question: if we want people in Congress who will legislate on our behalf they need to understand what working people go through. The problem is that we have auctions, not elections. Until we have meaningful campaign election reform we probably won’t see many working people drop their lives and try to run. It’s not easy, but it needs to be done."

These differences, coupled with the virtual absence of working-class people in our political institutions, ultimately have enormous consequences for public policy. States with fewer legislators from the working class spend billions less on social welfare each year, offer less generous unemployment benefits and tax corporations at lower rates. Towns with fewer working-class people on their city councils devote smaller shares of their budgets to social safety net programs; an analysis I conducted in 2013 suggested that cities nationwide would spend approximately $22.5bn more on social assistance programs each year if their councils were made up of the same mix of classes as the people they represent. Unfortunately, we can’t write off white-collar government as politically inconsequential. As the old saying goes, when the working class isn’t at the table, it’s often on the menu.

We also can’t dismiss government by the privileged as an inevitable byproduct of some deficiency on the part of working-class people themselves. It sounds odd to have to state this, but to the contrary, workers and professionals alike tend to have the qualities voters want – traits like honesty, compassion and a strong work ethic – at about the same rates. And when working-class Americans hold office, they tend to do about as well as professionals on objective measures of government performance. Between 1996 and 2001, for instance, towns governed by majority-working-class city councils were indistinguishable from other cities in terms of their rates of population growth, revenue growth, school spending, and debt. The idea that workers don’t hold office because they lack the necessary skills simply doesn’t add up. If just 1% of working-class Americans had what it takes to govern, that would be more than enough potential politicians to staff every office in the United States.

Last, we also can’t blame government by the privileged on some preference for affluent leaders on the part of American voters. When working-class candidates run, voters tend to like them just fine. Between 1945 and 2008, members of Congress from the working class earned about as many votes as those from white-collar careers. In surveys embedded with randomized control trials, voters are just as likely to say that they would vote for a working-class candidate as they are to pick an otherwise-identical white-collar candidate. When voters are asked directly why they think so few working-class people hold office, “workers are less qualified” is the least popular answer; around 75% of people surveyed in 2014 said that working-class candidates tended to be at least as qualified as white-collar professionals. When workers run, they don’t face a class-biased electorate.

Nonetheless, they seldom run. But researchers and reformers are starting to understand why-- and to identify interventions that might give working-class Americans more of a seat at the table in government.

...First, workers seldom run for public office in the US because of the fundamental personal burdens associated with campaigning – doing so always takes a great deal of time and energy, and working-class Americans are far less likely to have the time and energy to spare. When I surveyed seemingly qualified working-class and white-collar citizens, the biggest gap in their reported concerns about running wasn’t a fear about being able to raise enough money, or a difference in raw political ambition, it was a more fundamental concern about losing out on income and work in order to campaign. As one worker (who herself had run for city council and won) put it, “When you are working 40 hours a week and working 40 hours on the campaign, it’s too much.”

Second, and partly as a result, the party and interest group leaders who help people launch political careers often pass over workers in favor of more familiar white-collar candidates. In a 2013 survey of the leaders of county-level political parties, most were quite open about their preference for white-collar candidates. More than 30% said workers are worse at campaigning, more than half said that workers were harder to recruit and two-thirds of local party leaders worried that workers would make bad fundraisers. One survey item even asked party leaders to compare two hypothetical candidates; when evaluating equally qualified workers and professionals, party leaders were consistently more likely to back the white-collar candidate. Qualified working-class Americans almost never appear on your ballot in part because powerful people are less likely to encourage or support them.

White-collar government isn’t caused by voters, or some deficiency on the part of workers or even the soaring costs associated with political campaigns. It is caused by the simple reality that campaigning requires taking time off work and getting help from political elites, and working-class Americans often can’t do either.

From a reform standpoint, that is actually good news. Making public office more accessible to a broad cross-section of the economy won’t require significantly changing our laws or electoral institutions. People who work in and around government just need to devote more attention and resources to qualified working-class candidates.

Political parties and activist organizations already know how to do exactly that. Just a generation ago, women made up around 2% of Congress-- today that number is closer to 20%. What changed? Party leaders and interest groups began devoting time and resources to female candidates, working to identify talented women, and helping them overcome the obstacles that prevented them from running.

When pro-worker organizations have attempted similar interventions targeting working-class candidates, the results have been extremely promising. In New Jersey, for instance, the state affiliate of the AFL-CIO runs a well-established “labor candidates school” that has trained working-class candidates for more than 700 state and local elections. Graduates of this pioneering program have won 75% of the elections in which they have run and have gone on to have long and effective careers in public office. Organizations that understand the challenges facing workers and that invest in overcoming them seem to have found the key to helping the working class break through America’s cash ceiling.

A half century ago, women were anomalies in congressional elections, and in American political institutions more generally. Today they aren’t. Ironworkers and restaurant servers don’t have to be either.

Alan Grayson, who devoted much of his political life protecting and trying to improve Social Security and Medicare, grew up in the Bronx, a stone's throw from Alexandria Ocasio's district. Years ago he told me how he had put himself through Harvard by cleaning the toilets at night his classmates used. This morning I asked him if he thought this whole thing is a genuine problem. Oh, he does. This is what he told me.

First, working-class leaders can be great leaders. Think of Lech Walesa, an electrician, who almost brought down the entire Communist system.

Second, the absence of the working class from elected office has a huge impact on public policy. That’s why mortgage interest is deductible and rent is not, for instance.

Third, the great majority of candidates in both parties are people who don’t have to show up for work each day, whether they are lawyers, businessmen, retired, or simply rich. It’s very difficult to campaign for a major office and work full-time at the same time. In some cases, it’s also difficult for an elected official to live on the official salary. For instance, when Bill Clinton was elected governor, his salary was $35,000 a year [insert inevitable Hillary-futures-trading snark here].

Finally, both parties do discriminate against working-class candidates, not so much on the basis of elitism, but primarily because working-class candidates can’t self-fund, which is a fundamental consideration on both sides. (Another unspoken consideration is that workers have much lower turnout in elections.)  Despite the fact that both parties raise more than a quarter of a billion dollars for House candidates alone each cycle, they still have the mindset of being money-takers, not money-givers. There is no infrastructure whatsoever to raise money for working-class candidates, the way that there is for women, minority and LGBT candidates. It doesn’t have to be that way; if the unions were to decide, for instance, that they would back only working-class candidates (the way that some women donors give only to women candidates), then that alone would make a huge difference.

Nice song, huh? Ready for another version?



Great, huh? Now are you ready for a Senate candidate with a working class background? When's the last time any of us saw that? It's been a while. As on the June 30 FEC reporting deadline, Kevin de León had raised $1,310,851. His opponent, Dianne Feinstein, wrote herself a check for $5 million-- and then raised another ten million, only $886,109 from the kind of small donors who have given to Kevin's campaign.

If there a too few men and women with working class backgrounds in the House, you can imagine the scarcity in the Senate. It's what drew Blue America so strongly to Jeff Merkley of Oregon. Today our working class hero is even closer to home, like I said, Kevin de León here in California. Earlier today, Kevin told us that "for a very long time, wealth and privilege were prerequisites for any U.S. Senate hopeful. And while I don't begrudge my opponent her background, I take a different perspective as the youngest child of a single immigrant mother with a third-grade education, a woman who worked her fingers to the bone in very wealthy enclaves near San Diego. I learned the value of hard work by watching my mother’s ethic. She didn’t have access to venture capital for a startup that would potentially change the world as we know it. But she changed the world in the sense that I was born from her, and I became the only person of color in 133 years to lead the California State Senate. And ever since, I have passed laws that lift up working people like my mother. At the end of the day, my politics are about opportunity. That’s what people want, and right now we have a system that’s rigged against the majority of Americans."

You're getting an idea why we're so enthusiastic about Kevin's campaign, why we endorsed him and why we're urging DWT readers to contribute to that campaign by clicking on the 2018 Senate thermometer just above. Before you watch the stunning video below, just read one more quick paragraph, from Kevin:

"I shouldn’t be critiqued for my situation, and no one should besmirch the senior senator from California for being one of the wealthiest members of the Senate, or for being a billionaire. It is what it is. But, just as my background has informed my priorities, California's senior senator's background has influenced hers. For a very long time, the incumbent senior senator from California has had an anti-immigrant record and used anti-immigrant rhetoric. And that has helped feed this anti-immigrant hysteria at a national level for a very long time-- voting for a wall back in 2006, before Donald Trump entered the scene. And that is something I can't help but criticize."

Do You Want Your Congressional Candidate To Co-Sponsor Medicare-For-All?

Trump says his healthcare "plan"--he has no plan, just more gas-lighting-- is to give Americans "really great stuff" for really low prices. What he says and what Republicans have done and continue to do is exactly the opposite. This morning I was going back and forth with Alan Grayson on the best way forward for the American healthcare system. At one point he said that "We have to get past this whole misconception that you get only the healthcare you can afford. This is what keeps our life expectancy two years less than Canada’s, and four years less than Japan’s. Germany had what amounts to 'Medicare for All' back in 1883. In a sense, the greatest inequality in America is the fact that the rich live a decade longer than the poor. Being poor is bad enough; it shouldn’t be a death sentence."

While tone deaf Democratic congressional leaders Nancy Pelosi and Steny Hoyer have announced that their priority after the midterms in a conservative PAYGO system-- that was abandoned by the Republicans as a self-inflicted electoral death sentence-- Democratic voters are clamoring for Medicare-For-All. I'm sure you're familiar with these polling results by now:

More than half the Democrats in Congress-- yes, a majority-- have already signed on as co-sponsors of H.R. 676-- PAYGO would be a nearly insurmountable roadblock to moving forward on this. Today, Blue America is activating a new ActBlue page specifically for progressive candidates who are campaigning on Medicare-For-All and plan to sign onto to Medicare-For-All legislation in January after they are sworn in. If you click on the thermometer on the right, you'll see the page and the candidates who have asked to be part of this thing.

Our old friend, Congressman Matt Cartwright, is the only incumbent on the M4A page. His northeast Pennsylvania district was redrawn and he's in real jeopardy. He's also a co-sponsor of John Conyers' Medical-for-All bill. "The reason," he told us, "goes beyond compassion, and a desire to strengthen our nation by eliminating the healthcare insecurity of our citizens. It’s also about a practical concern for efficiency and effectiveness. Everyone knows why Medicare has the lowest administrative expenses in the business. Medicare doesn’t advertise on television. Medicare doesn’t sponsor professional golf tournaments. Medicare doesn’t waste money on legions of insurance executives with bloated salaries. So when someone tells you about the ten-year tax bill for Medicare for All, ask them what the collective ten year insurance premium bill is for all the for-profit health insurance companies in the country. And, more importantly, ask them why, when we spend far more money per capita on healthcare than any other nation in the world, we have far less in healthcare outcomes to show for it. Let’s try a better way."

Dayna Steele is running in a tough Texas district east of Houston. She reminded us that "it will cost $43 trillion over the next ten years to fund Medicare and Medicaid as it is-- which does not cover everyone. It will cost $36 trillion over the next ten years to fund Medicare For All-- which does cover everyone. You don't have to be a rocket scientist-- [which her husband happens to be]-- to do the math here. Healthy is cheaper than sick. Healthy people work, create opportunities for other healthy people, pay taxes, fund the infrastructure, and give back to their communities. We have a plan. A good plan. It's called Medicare-For-All and I'm ready to get to work on it!"

Mike Siegel's district (TX-10) starts on the other side of Houston and meanders all the way to Austin. Like Dayna, he's running against a reactionary anti-healthcare Republican. “Medicare for All is a moral imperative," he told us. "Here in Texas, 15% of the population is uninsured, including over 600,000 children. No American should live on the brink of economic ruin for lack of care. As one of the wealthiest nations in the world, we can afford to guarantee care, and we must. Not only will universal health care save lives, but it will boost our economy and innovation, our families and our peace of mind. We have a great opportunity to advance opportunity for all with a Democratic Congress in 2019, and it begins with health care.”

Kevin de Leon knows how to do it-- and will

Stephany Spaudling is a progressive African-American pastor running in a very white and pretty reactionary Colorado Springs-centered district. She's bringing them a message that some are hearing for the first time. "People in my District should never have to choose between paying rent or getting their medicine; nor should they have to wait three months or drive 3 hours to be seen by a provider. But this is happening across America. If we desire to be a leading nation well into the 21st century, we must come to see healthcare as a human right. It's why I'm committed to Medicare for All."

Kendra Fershee is running for a seat in northern West Virginia that is considered both Trump country and Bernie country. Kendra's platform emphasizes single payer. "Medicare protects our seniors," she said. "Medicare-for-All will protect our nation. We need to stand up for the future of America by fighting for a healthy and productive workforce, for businesses that carry the burden of expensive and inefficient insurance, and for people who can’t afford their medicine. Our freedom is at stake when people are struggling for survival.”

  JD has future constituents with a specialized problem since much of his district is rural. "Iowa farmers are struggling right now. At our farmer forums as much as we talk about low commodity prices, these trade wars or the future of our Ag economy, we talk about health care. The solution is Medicare-for-All."

Sarah Smith is in a D v D/Smith v Smith slugfest and she's running on Medicare-for-All. "'The right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness isn't satisfied by the ability to breathe. Medicare for All is the morally right thing to do.' That's one I’ve been telling people for a long time."

See that video below? Robert Greenwald of BraveNewFilms made it about Kara Eastman's healthcare experience that led her to being such a big proponent of Medicare-For-All. Watch the short film. It's very emotive and consider that she told us she supports "Medicare for All so that no American has to go through what my mom did, unable to leave her house for the final year of her life-- all because a pharmaceutical company demanded $2,500 for a single pill, and her insurance didn't want to cover it. That's wrong. Our current healthcare system puts a price on the value of a human life-- and in the richest country on earth, it does not have to be this way."

Video Was Adopted Fast By Bands And Labels With Nothing To Lose

What do Randy Bryce, Amy McGrath, MJ Hegar and Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez all have in common? Well, if you hit the links, you'll probably know what I'm talking about. None of those are expensive 30 second TV spots. No one ever heard of any of the candidates before those videos launched them onto the public consciousness. All have been seen by millions of people-- and all have brought in huge numbers of small, grassroots contributions.

Neither Paul Ryan nor Lyin' Bryan Steil, Randy's two GOP opponents, would ever or could ever do that kind of a video. Nor would Jim Gray-- much better known and very rich and favored opponent of McGrath-- or Andy Barr, the Republican she's duking it out with now. Ditto for John Carter in Texas and for Joe Crowley in Queens. Joe Crowley (D-NY), John Carter (R-TX), Andy Barr (R-KY), Jim Gray (D-KY), Paul Ryan (R-WI)/Lyin' Bryan Steil (R-WI) are all old school, very, very old school. They spend small fortunes for some hired guns to create basically meaningless, unmemorable 30 second TV spots for them that clutter up the airwaves and piss people off.

I slip so often on the phone and refer to the Blue America candidates as "artists." That's because I'm from the music business and I deal with the candidates the same way I dealt with the artists of my label. Randy is like Neil Young, Alexandria is like Joni Mitchell, Ammar is like Billie Joe Armstrong, Kara is like Chaka Khan, Katie is like Madonna, Jared is like Ice-T... they all remind me of someone I had to deal with as a record company executive. In my earliest days in the music biz I had an indie label in San Francisco, 415 Records. My partner Chris and I rented some space in a dilapidated old fire house in the pre-gentrified Mission District and ran our label out of that. Who would ever think we could have a #1 record? And that's why I have that Buggles song up top. Let me explain.

Before MTV came along-- and there was no viable internet or social media at the time-- the only way to promote a song nationally was on radio. And the only way to get on radio was to pay immense bribes. It cost thousands of dollars to bring a song into the national top ten-- out of the question for a small company like 415 Records. We worked college radio and new wave specialty shows and sometimes we could break through on one or two big stations like WBCN in Boston or KROQ in L.A. But Top 40 or slickly formatted AOR? Not a chance. So along came MTV. The big record companies and big artists looked at it like some kind of alien life form-- interesting... but what kind of interplanetary disease was it carrying? Would it turn vicious and eat you? The big artists and labels-- like Joe Crowley and Jim Gray and Paul Ryan-- didn't make videos. We saw an opportunity and we quickly filled the void. We had massive hits (for us) with Romeo Void, the Red Rockers (our first #1), Translator and Wire Train (below).

The same folks who put together the smash Randy Bryce hit, just did one for California insurgent Kevin de León, the progressive candidate for the U.S. Senate seat held by Dianne Feinstein who's been in it since California first became a state in 1850. The video is spectacular-- emotive, compelling, incredibly powerful.-- easily one of the best this year.



You think Dianne Feinstein could or would ever do a video like that? You want to talk about "old school?" If enough California voters see it, Kevin's going to win-- even though Feinstein put $5,006,050 of her own loot into her campaign and raised another $10,000,000... compared to Kevin's $1,310,851. (Please contribute to Kevin's campaign here so he can get that out more widely.)

This week our old friend Eric Hogensen has some video tips for struggling political campaigns, 3 Tips for Using Affordable Videos for Your Campaign:

"Only a few years ago," he wrote, "videos were a medium that only large, TV-focused campaigns could afford. That's all changed. Videos are incredibly captivating, and thanks to several new services, producing them and getting views is easier than ever before. Here are our 3 tips for using inexpensive videos for your campaign.

1. Pick a service for creating simple videos.

There are many options to choose from. 30Second Explainer Videos creates short, animated videos for businesses, but the Whiteboard style also works great for candidate campaigns. There are also several companies (Rocketium, Animoto / Animaker, Showbox) that allow you to create your own videos in-house, even if you don't have any experience with editing. These cater well to social media feeds.

2. Plug your videos into social media.

Whether you are doing expensive, professionally-produced videos meant for television, or affordable explainer videos like the ones described above, you need to be advertising them on social media, particularly YouTube and Facebook. Services like HootSuite can help. Boosting the ads to your target audience is easy and, for local races, is one of the best ways to raise your name ID.

3. This can't wait until the last minute.

Developing your social video plan early will allow you to tell your story to voters over the course of several weeks. Plus you'll want to get registered as a political advertiser with Facebook right away. The process takes several weeks, so you'll want to start it at least a month before Election Day!

It's Time For California To Elect An Actual Progressive Leader To The U.S. Senate-- Meet Kevin de León

Please start by watching the two and a half minute video, the first for Kevin de León's Senate campaign. If it feels familiar it's because it was made by the same filmmakers who were responsible for the Randy Bryce video launch that electrified us all. This one is also very powerful, very emotive and compelling-- and uniquely Californian.

Blue America specializes in finding great state legislators and helping them become national leaders. Some of the best members of Congress showed what they could do in leadership positions in their state legislatures-- Ted Lieu, Pramila Jayapal, Jamie Raskin, Karen Bass, Jeff Merkley, Judy Chu, Keith Ellison... were all in leadership positions in state legislatures when we met them and started helping to promote them to national office. Now they are the hope of the Democratic Party and the hope of the United States. Kevin de León's record of accomplishment as president of the California state Senate-- on virtually every aspect of the progressive vision from Medicare-for-All to Climate Change amelioration-- led me to beg him to run for the Senate seat Dianne Feinstein has used to hinder and blockade the progressive agenda for 26 years.

I've known Dianne Feinstein long before that-- since she was the fake Democrat on the San Francisco Board of Supervisors trading grubby favors for cash from wealthy developers. When ardent progressives, Supervisor Harvey Milk and Mayor George Moscone were gunned down in City Hall, Feinstein made her big move, first as mayor and then senator, always using her elected positions to create mind-boggling business opportunities for Richard Blum, her husband. Today she's one of America's wealthiest politicians. And today she's 85 and unable to debate the issues with KDL. Unable. So instead, she's assembled a team of character assassins to denigrate Kevin and threaten anyone working in state politics that if they work for the KDL campaign their career is finished. She's assembled a truly vile warchest. Up against the $1,310,851 in grassroots money he's raised, she put together $15,263,210 (a third of which, $5,006,050, she just took from the money she and her husband have made from her influence-peddling).

It's time for her to go-- and she knows it. And she plans on it as well. She's done. She just wants one thing-- to keep "her" seat from falling into the hands of a progressive. If she wins this election, she'll retire quickly, allowing neoliberal corporate Democrat Gavin Newsom to appoint another conservative Democrat-- probably Blue Dog/New Dem Adam Schiff. Then when the special election comes, Schiff-- who has no electoral opposition in his (my) congressional district and has raised $4,624,476-- will be able to run as an incumbent. Yep... all packaged with a red ribbon bow on top.

The one spanner in the plan: the California Democratic Party, shockingly, rejected Feinstein's reelection bid and endorsed Kevin. This one will make a big difference. He's a real game-changer, a proven one. She's neither effective nor even awake and just a stalking horse for another conservative who will get in without being elected. So bad for a state like California! Anyway, see that Act Blue thermometer up top? Please tap on it and contribute what you feel comfortable giving to Kevin's campaign.