21st Century Democrats was founded as a PAC in 1985 by Iowa Senator Tom Harkin, Representative Dale Evans of Illinois, and Jim Hightower of Texas – the populist organizer, columnist, author, and Texas Ag Commissioner from 1982-1991. The founders are no longer active in the organization, but its mission remains ” to give progressive and populist candidates the support they need to win elections”
21st Century Dems has emerged as one of the most biggest PACs on the national scene. In 2004, they raised $7 million – according to Wikipedia, only three progressive national PACs raised more money that year (ACT, EMILY’s List, and MoveOn). Traditionally, PACs are all about raising money, and clearly 21st Century Dems has grown into a powerhouse in that field.
But, rather untraditionally, 21st Century Dems’ focus is recruiting and training field organizers, and helping campaigns with voter targeting, training volunteers, and supplying organizers. In 2004, they partnered with Democracy for America to organize grassroots campaign training sessions for local DFA groups around the country. Although I unfortunately didn’t have a chance to attend any of these, the reports I heard on DFA lists and blogs were very positive.
Another unusual aspect of 21st Century Dems is their endorsement program and philosophy. Rather than looking for pre-existing “winnability” or “viability”, they look for worthwhile candidates that they believe they can make viable. And, like DFA, they pick races all up and down the ballot, from municipal to federal.
We choose tough racesâraces that other political action committees shy away from because theyâre hard to win. We are guided by the core Democratic values that put people first.
Our mission is to seek out, train and support extraordinary, visionary leaders who are the courageous, risk-takers of our time standing for the greatness of our country. As part of our mission, we support extraordinary candidates who lead by example, who unwaveringly stand for their values, who reach out to all Americans, and who think outside of the box. Our candidates are not poll dependent, selfish, and power hungry. They are the bold leaders that these tumultuous times demand. Our candidates arenât afraid of fighting the tough battles, not playing politics as usual, and standing alone when it is the right thing to do. Our candidates lead. They are committed to moving the hearts and minds of Americans by inspiring them with a bold vision of whatâs possible for our country and our world, and are the kind of leaders who get things done.
In 2005, they endorsed only 7 candidates in 4 states nationwide – and 4 of those candidates won.
To summarize, 21st Century Democrats is an experienced, powerful organization that picks great progressive candidates, supplies their campaigns with significant amounts of both money and organizing strength, and makes tough races winnable. They are known for fighting tough elections and winning a majority of those they choose to compete in. Their support gives the John Bonifaz campaign significant strength and credibility.
(As I noted at the top, I’m starting a new role with the Bonifaz campaign. I’ve been volunteering for him on and off for a while. Starting this week, I will also be a part time paid campaign blogger at johnbonifaz.com. I’ll be writing a lot about election reform issues there, and will continue covering other issues and campaigns here on Blue Mass Group. I plan to write more about what I think about the role and paid blogging, in a future post here.)
I am not comfortable with forums like BlueMassGroup providing knowing access to paid political operatives. I am not sure if there is any way to effectively control such things, but it seems like bad form. Most campaigns now have their own pro PR people. I think it would be better if they stuck to their campaign sites, where everyone can be clear that they are posting for cash.
<
p>
Regarding 21st Centry Democrats, I wonder about why none of the prominent founders are no longer involved. I love Harkin and especially Hightower, but question why they quit. Who is in charge now and where do they get their money? (P.S. Please no sourcing to Wikipedia. Recent events suggest a questionable value of any info found there.) And I find it a little bit contradictory that the Bonifaz campaign with its admirable focus on grass roots and keeping special interest money out of politics, is trumpeting the support of A) a PAC that B) is all about raising money.
<
p>
I hope that the Bonifaz campaign will do several things as it moves ahead:
<
p>
1) Get some backing in Massachusetts. The campaign is raising moat of its money from inside the Beltway, NYC, and California. He has been endorsed by a Chicago congressman, but nobody from Massachusetts. Personally, I have been impressed by Barney Frank’s comments regarding Bonifaz’s opponent, both politically and as a matter of progressive politics.
<
p>
2) Explain Bonifaz’s Democratic credentials. i.e. Why did Bonifaz back Ralph Nader in 2000? Why run in the Deomcratic primary at all, as opposed to making a truly independent run, like Christy Mihos?
<
p>
3) Expand his platform I. I understand Mr. Bonifaz feels voting rights are being denied here in Massachusetts, and that he wants to pass a voter bill of rights. I am wondering what specific powers (other than advocating for legislation) of the Secretary he would use to expand/protect voting rights.
<
p>
4) Expand his platform II. I have asked this of the campaign in the past and have yet to get a response. Where is Mr. Bonifaz on securities regualtion? What criticisms does he have of the incumbent?
<
p>
Finally, something I am wondering as a longtime progressive Democrat. Will Mr. Bonifaz pledge to support the winner of the Democratic primary in the general election, or will he once again drift off to back into his historic advocacy of the Greens?
We don’t wish to “effectively control such things.” Cos has disclosed his position, which is all we ask of any paid campaign person. I think that clears your bar of “everyone can be clear that they are posting for cash”. Obviously you’ve been able to keep an independent mind on this matter; why not trust the other readers to do the same?
This is an open forum. We do ask that paid campaign personnel disclose their relationship, which Cos and others (such as Christy Mach from Andrea Silbert’s campaign) have done when they’ve posted here. Seems to me it behooves those of us who want to stay informed about important races in this state to hear directly from the candidates!
“And I find it a little bit contradictory that the Bonifaz campaign with its admirable focus on grass roots and keeping special interest money out of politics, is trumpeting the support of A) a PAC that B) is all about raising money”
<
p>
PACs are there to raise money, and at this point in time almost every major organization has a PAC, whether they are a 501c6/Union or a 501c3/4 Non-Profit. They have PACs so that they can help get candidates elected who resemble their platforms/fight for their issues. This is in no way contradictory to grassroots focus of the Bonifaz campaign or any other campaign. In order for candidates to put out an effective grassroots organization they need money, and sadly at this point money plays a pivotal role in who gets elected. All of the deomcratic candidates running state-wide are raising money so that they can campaign and compete with republicans over TV & radio come the Fall. Because of how late the Primary is in MA, candidates who win their primary have less than 2 monthes to reach out to MA voters, and the most effective way to do so in a short period of time is through TV.
<
p>
I am a huge advocate of campaign finance reform, but we need to make sure we elect people who are going to be willing to fight fot it, and at this point that means by raising alot of money. Yes, I know this is contradictory – but it is reality. PACs like 21st Century Democrats are there to help get progressive candidates elected. The only difference between a n individual giving to a candidate or a PAC that supports candidates is that an individual can give $5000 to a PAC and $2000 to a candidate. I for one am happy that they are giving candidates the money that I don’t have to give.
Your comment covers a huge swathe of ground not directly related to my post, and each part of the answer could be a whole post in itself, so I’ll leave those mostly for later. I do want to briefly address the topic of being paid and posting here. As I said, I plan a longer post on that topic later on too. However, I think it’s silly to dismiss me as a “paid PR person” – that somehow implies they tell me what to say and I’m only saying it because they pay me. They actually pay me very very little, but that’s beside the point.
<
p>
The point is, the entire time I’ve been on Blue Mass Group, I’ve been covering campaigns that I am heavily involved in. On some of them, I was strictly a volunteer (Tim Schofield, Pat Jehlen). On others, I was being paid for something (Jesse Gordon: I was the full time field & web person and ran the GOTV; Claire Naughton: I was paid to design and maintain their web site). I’ve always disclosed when I’m part of a campaign, and whether I’m a volunteer or being paid, or both. Blue Mass Group finds it valuable to have this kind of on the ground coverage, and the readers know me and my perspective.
<
p>
If you’ve been reading for a while, you know that a) I’ve posted about campaigns that paid me in the past, b) the level of coverage I do is not proportional to pay: for example, I covered the Jehlen campaign far more than Jesse Gordon’s, c) my involvement in campaigns is also not always proportional to pay: I spent significantly more time on Jehlen’s campaign than on Naughton’s.
<
p>
P.S. I’m about as committed a Democrat as you can find these days, and I supported Nader in 2000. Heck, this was Massachusetts, it’s not like it even mattered to Gore whether people with Green-leaning views voted for him. I also tried to talk Nader out of running in 2004. I can’t speak for John Bonifaz on this, but I think taking a cheap shot at someone running as a Democrat for supporting Nader in 2000, especially in Massachusetts, is puerile.
I concede part of the point on paid staffers posting. If fact, I’ll go beyond your position. Upon reflection, it occurs to me that it is the substance of the post that matters. That the author is paid or unpaid, anonymous or not, is irrelevant to a well-sourced post. Your post on the endorsement was just such a post, though I welcome any further information that I requested vis a vis the endorsement post. I recognize too, that seeking information about Mr. Bonifaz’s positions on anything other than voting irregularities in Mass. was not directly related to the endorsement post. Still, it would be great to hear something about historic preservation, securities regulation, corps, etc.
<
p>
On the Nader front, it appears I have struck a nerve. That’s where the discussion veered away from facts, positions, and experience. Raising the Nader is a cheap shot or puerile. I don’t think you’ll find too many Dems in Mass who think support of Nader is irrelevant to their evaluation of any person seeking a Democratic nomination.
<
p>
You are seeking a pass on your support of Nader, apparently grounded in the notion that it was OK if you were from Mass because Mass was in the bag for Gore. As a longtime progressive Democrat, I am quite frankly tired of people with this dismissive attitude. I am many of my friends did not take the easy out. We recognized how important it was to stop Bush, and we rolled up our sleevesand got to work for Gore, regardless of any minor differences any one of us had with his campaign. We pounded the pavement up in New Hampshire for Gore for weeks leading up to the election. (We did the same in 2004.) Maybe if a few more Naderites didi the same, the state of the nation and the Democratic Party would be much better today. Puerile cheap shot? Please.
And in 2004 I was in NH just about every weekend for Kerry, and spent 14 days in Ohio, including election day, and gave around $17000 to Democrats and allied groups.
<
p>
You want to kick me out of the party too, along with everyone else who didn’t vote Democrat in every single race in his/her life? I hope you enjoy losing.
I was living in Indiana, Gore wasn’t going to win there, and I didn’t see much responsiveness in the party for important ideas that Nader represented (past tense only). It was a protest vote. (Blame the Electoral College, too.) I may have been wrong. Obviously, in retrospect, it would have been better to work within the party, but I wasn’t doing anything for any party back then. I was cynical, jaded, and maybe a little complacent, and I guess that I and many others didn’t really feel that the Dem Party had a place for us back in 2000.
<
p>
But why question people’s Dem credentials? It’s especially silly to question Cos’s, since I would guess he busts his butt for Dems more than 95% of the readers of this blog.
<
p>
The party works for us; we don’t exist for the party. To my mind, working within the Democratic Party — becoming the Democratic Party — is clearly the best way to effect the change we seek. But it didn’t always seem that way.
I’m not “seeking a pass” from you, obviously. I’m fairly comfortable with my choices, and with my work and commitment to the Democratic party. I do, however, want to challenge your use of the term “dismissive attitude” as regards supporting Nader in 2000. There was nothing dismissive about it. To begin with, I wasn’t a Democrat at the time, I was a Green. I switched to the Democratic party a couple of years laters, based on new developments and a solid belief that at this point in time, the Democratic Party is the best vehicle within which to pursue my goals for the state and the country. I did not feel that way in 2000.
<
p>
I also thought Gore was a terrible candidate, and to the extent that I preferred Democrats to Republicans (which I did), I feared a Gore presidency would seriously weaken and undermine the Democratic Party. I knew I wouldn’t like Bush’s presidency, but I didn’t predict quite how bad a disaster it would be, and I did predict that he would undermine and weaken the Republican party. Honestly, I was ambivalent about the contest between the two of them, not knowing if I preferred a Gore, who I thought would be a bit better but spell long term weakness for Democrats, or Bush, who I thought would be somewhat worse but spell long term weakness for Republicans. In addition to that ambivalence, I also knew that Massachusetts was 100% safe for Gore no matter what I did, and that supporting Nader here wouldn’t affect which of them won the presidency. And, as I said, I was a Green at the time. So, I supported Gore in 2000. I think it was a logical, well thought out choice. There was nothing dismissive about it.
<
p>
The thing I am franky quite tired of, and actually very pissed off about, is the “party loyalty” attitude that so many people have, both in the Democratic Party and the Green Party. The attitude of party above all, even above the actual goals one is trying to achieve. The sneering, condescending attitude towards anyone who would even consider another party, let alone ever have actually been a supporter of that party and now dares to not only have changed their mind, but to actually consider themselves legitimate in their newly chosen party. Greens too often think of those who have left as barely short of traitors. Democrats, on the other hand, too often think of newcomers to their party with such negative attitudes that it’s as if they’d rather nobody ever switch from another party to the Democrats. That weakens the party. And it’s particularly ironic when I’m the target of attitudes like this, given the literally many thousands of hours I’ve spent volunteering for Democratic candidates, and many thousands of doors I’ve knocked for Democrats, in the past few years.
OK so I struck a nerve with several people. First, I am happy and grateful for all the work (and money) that the posters above have put in on behalf of Democrats in 2004 and beyond. (I think you can make a pretty good argument that Kerry was more flawed than Gore, but the 2000 election and its outcome did, if nothing else, provide a everyone with a cleal understanding of how important the stakes are in presidential elections. Like it or not, in a two party, winner-take-all electoral system, sometimes it is all about backing the les objectionable candidate. It is not sneering or condescending to question anyone’s decision to back Nader. It is quite reasonable to ask why and to believe that it was a bad decision that led in part to a very bad long-term outcome for the nation.
<
p>
And I am pleased whenever a new, articulate progressive voice signs up for the Democratic party. I would never expect (and never said) anyone to back a candidate that he/she found fundamentally offensive. Nonetheless, it is reasonable to ask about Democratic credentials, as it does provide some insights into a person’s background, politcs, and motivations. For example, I think we can all agree that it’s OK to question Zell Miller’s Deomcratic bonafides. And Andrea Cabral could legitimately be questioned as to her conversion. It does not disqualify her from consideration, but it is something I wanted to know more about.
<
p>
I do think it is completely fair to ask candidates like Mr. Bonifaz why they seek the Democratic nomination, especially against a guy who has never been supported by the establishment. Deval Patrick, never before active in Mass Dem politics, has done a fine job articulating why he is seeking the Deomcratic nomination for Governor. In contrast, as Christy Mihos has demonstrated, one does not have to pursue a party nomination in order to be a serious candidate for office. Independents in Maine and Connecticut has acquited themselves quite well. We have had a good discussion about what are fair questions to ask candidates. I am now hoping to get answers to some of those questions.