Slowly but surely, the Democrats are getting it. The Democracy Alliance is putting money into the nurturing of progressive groups that are building for the future.
Alliance officials initially reviewed about 600 liberal and Democratic-leaning organizations. Then, about 40 of those groups were invited to apply for an endorsement — with a requirement that they submit detailed business plans and internal financial information. Those groups were then screened by a panel of alliance staff members, donors and outside experts, including some with expertise in philanthropy rather than politics. So far, according to people familiar with the alliance, 25 groups have received its blessing.
This type of effort is long overdue.
In 2003, the 19 progressive organizations with budgets exceeding $1 million spent a total of $75 million, he said. In contrast, the 24 national think tanks on the right had $170 million in spending, along with state-based policy centers’ $50 million and campus-based conservative policy organizations’ $75 million to $100 million, according to [Democracy Alliance co-founder Rob] Stein.
Liberal groups have been disproportionately dependent on one-year foundation grants for specific projects, Stein said, while the money flowing to conservative groups has often involved donors’ long-term commitments with no strings attached. Stein noted that of 200 major conservative donors, about half sit on the boards of the think tanks they give to, increasing the strength of their commitment.
Of course, any effort like this is sure to have its critics and of course, those critics are mostly Democrats, allowing the Post reporters to put a lot of “buts” in the story today.
But the large checks and demanding style wielded by Democracy Alliance organizers in recent months have caused unease among Washington’s community of Democratic-linked organizations. The alliance has required organizations that receive its endorsement to sign agreements shielding the identity of donors. Public interest groups said the alliance represents a large source of undisclosed and unaccountable political influence.
Democracy Alliance also has left some Washington political activists concerned about what they perceive as a distinctly liberal tilt to the group’s funding decisions. Some activists said they worry that the alliance’s new clout may lead to groups with a more centrist ideology becoming starved for resources.
… But the alliance’s early months have been marked by occasional turmoil, according to several people who are now or have recently been affiliated with the group. Made up of billionaires and millionaires who are accustomed to calling the shots, the group at times has gotten bogged down in disputes about its funding priorities and mission, participants said.
… But some consider Democracy Alliance’s hidden influence troubling, regardless of its ideological orientation. Unlike election campaigns, which must detail contributions and spending, most of the think tanks and not-for-profit groups funded by the alliance are exempt from public disclosure laws.
“It is a huge problem,” said Sheila Krumholz, the acting executive director of the nonpartisan Center for Responsive Politics. She noted that for decades “all kinds of Democrats and liberals were complaining that corporations and individuals were carrying on these stealth campaigns to fund right-wing think tanks and advocacy groups. Just as it was then, it is a problem today.”
But schmut. Let the Center for Responsive Politics and other watchdog groups complain. It hasn’t stopped the right-wing radicals and it should stop progressives. No matter that it might be a “problem today,” it is also smart politics.
Those most threatened will be the hacks who call themselves Democratic consultants and single-issue groups.
…Some Democratic political consultants privately fear that the sums being spent by alliance donors will mean less money spent on winning elections in 2006 and 2008.
… A key task will be to develop multi-issue think tanks, instead of single-issue groups, like NARAL Pro-Choice America, that now dominate Democratic circles, [political science professor at City College of New York Andrew] says.
Two concerns I share are one, will these groups be tied solely to the Democratic Party instead of being independent think tanks that will influence the Democratic Party, and two, will they make the necessary investments at the local level?
“These proposed new groups are designed to enhance the prospect of a political party,” says [Executive Vice President of the libertarian Cato Institute David] Boaz. “That’s the wrong approach.”
But Rich says more liberal think tanks will enrich the marketplace of ideas. And even Boaz welcomes that. “We do understand the benefits of competition,” he says.
Your damn right it’s about competing. It’s about winning elections as well as crafting progressive ideas. It can’t be one or the other.
Will Virginia Democrats step up? There’s an interesting template at the Center for Progressive Leadership where a fellowship has been created.
The Fellowship begins in January of 2007. Throughout the Fellowship, each Fellow will work with experts, seasoned professionals, elected officials, and trainers to develop their personal leadership skills through four main activities:
· Skills Coaching one-on-one and in small groups
· Group Workshops across the state
· Political Networking
· Personal MentorshipThis advanced political leadership course will focus on key political skills like raising money, crafting a compelling message, and communicating with the media; however, the program will also focus on long term personal development like political strategic planning, network building, expanding your base of support, and leading from your own values.
In addition, Fellows will have the opportunity to meet and work with some of the top political and organizational leaders from across the state. Through the mentoring program, group workshops, and networking events, Fellows will develop deep connections to the other Fellows in the program and active leaders across the state of Pennsylvania.
Right now, Virginia Democrats seem unwilling to invest in such long-range planning. All their dollars are focused on the next election cycle. Sending more direct mail pieces in the eight weeks before the election is overemphasized, in my opinion. Granted, there are endemic problems with Virginia Democrats: They often lack the cash to invest in the long-term. They also value consensus over winning elections to the point of letting single issue groups inhibit the development of a coherent grand strategy to win over moderate Republicans and independents. And now, with populous Northern Virginia turning reliably blue and two successive Democratic governors, there’s a tendency to stay the course and hope for the best. But beyond a couple of Democratic House and Senate seats, I don’t see a majority General Assembly, certainly not the House, unless aggressive idea and message development are pursued with the same passion as GOTV and brochure production.
That stems in part from the Virginia Democrats buying into the media game of money equaling viability. If a candidate has cash, then she must be viable. If she doesn’t, she’s toast. Judy Feder is considered more of a threat to Frank Wolf because of fund raising prowess than is Andy Hurst is to Tom Davis because of his dollar disadvantage. But money spend in campaigns only gets you so far. The ability to think and plan long-term, to develop a coherent strategy and a passion for changing the nature of the debate — which is what conservatives did for 40 years to gain power — is precisely what we need at the local and state level, where the next generation of U.S. congressmen, senators and presidents are nurtured.