At long last, we're rolling out our Political Action Committee. That means we’re going to raise money and send it to candidates for office that we think worthy. We hope you’ll contribute – up to the maximum of $500. There's a Google Checkout box in the left hand column.
Why BMG PAC? Why now?
Politics in Massachusetts is in a state of particularly low repute. Three House Speakers in a row have been indicted. Despite the passage of an ethics reform bill, we so often receive only reluctant half-measures from a legislature that seems more interested in protecting special interests — including its own institutional prerogatives.
The political danger in Massachusetts is not one of wild-eyed ideology. Rather, it is complacency. Without a regular challenge, elected officials become too comfortable, and do not fear that next primary challenge or election; or when they fear a turf-protecting special interest more than the wrath of the voting public. Furthermore, pressing issues often simply get pushed to the sideline, and difficult choices are deferred. Where’s the courage? Where’s the imagination?
To counter this, we wish to pull leaders to a new center of political gravity, and to encourage political entrepreneurship, both of careers and in ideas. We will use a traditional and rather blunt instrument:Campaign money. The PAC is an attempt to provide some small counterbalance to the established interest groups, and to reward vision and courage. We want to steer leaders to act in the broad public interest. We wish to encourage challengers of integrity and imagination to challenge lackluster incumbents; and to reassure courageous incumbents that someone’s got their backs.
This community consists of a good cross-section of politically-involved citizens. We are the taxpayers and users of government services: We are the ones with kids in the schools; we drive the roads; we take the T; we have family members with special needs. We want the best value for our tax dollar. Our interests are in effective and efficient government.
So, what kind of candidate are we looking for? BMG PAC candidates will possess:
- Broadly progressive values: BMG PAC candidates will favor policies that are inclusive, just, and compassionate.
- Integrity: They will follow the letter and spirit of the law; and have an innate sense of mission and decency that pre-empts temptations to use the office for personal gain.
- Independence: Our candidates will represent the broad public interest at all times. They will not be intimidated by special interests, nor serve the institution of Beacon Hill at the expense of sound policy. They will disdain the “seat-at-the-table” mentality that privileges the insider, lobbyist culture; rather, they will encourage citizen engagement.
- Imagination and Boldness: A BMG-PAC candidate will bring bold, innovative, well-researched, and feasible ideas to the table, expanding the conversation and the range of possibilities. The candidate will not shrink from difficult decisions.
- Accountability: Our candidates will understand that a dollar of revenue must produce a dollar of public value.
What kinds of policies might a BMG PAC candidate champion at the state level? Just by way of example …
- Progressive taxation
- Innovation in education; addressing inequities
- A real, long-term solution to MBTA woes, including debt
- Real, ongoing pension reform
- Encouraging entrepreneurship; cutting unnecessary red tape
- Boldly addressing health care costs
What’s the difference between donating directly to a candidate, and donating to BMG PAC? It’s pretty simple: Power and Clarity. When a person donates money, it could be for any number of reasons. BMG PAC gives money to a candidate with the expectation that your values will be represented.
We welcome your suggestions for candidates worthy of BMG PAC support — let us know in the comments! And we will doubtless submit questionnaires to prospective candidates.
And right now we need your financial support, up to the amount of $500, in order to give this new organization the clout it needs to encourage reform. Donate securely by credit card via the “Support BMG PAC” box in the left-hand sidebar, or send a check to BMG PAC, PO Box 877, Medford, MA 02155. Thank you!
Are you only planning on donating to candidates to state level offices (statewide offices or state leg?) or to local offices as well (city and county)? Also are you only donating to Democratic candidates or would you consider donating to third party and Republican candidates that support your stated goals? You didn’t mention social issues, would they impact your support for a candidate even if he/she agreed on the other principles?
<
p>Lastly I give a hearty huzzah! to these efforts, I have been saying for years that a truly progressive coalition should emerge that fights for open, honest, and accountable government first and takes on the entrenched establishment that has stifled Beacon Hill and our state for far too long. Good luck!
Here’s what we’ve got so far.
<
p>1. I’d imagine that most of our focus will be on State House races. But that’s not a hard-and-fast rule, and we’ll probably jump into the occasional municipal or county-level race as well.
<
p>2. Again, no hard and fast rules here. I would cautiously predict that most of our support will go to Democratic candidates, but that’s not a given.
<
p>3. Social issues fall under what Charley described as “policies that are inclusive, just, and compassionate.” So yes, they absolutely will figure in our evaluations of candidates.
<
p>Thanks for the positive words! Hope you’ll consider supporting BMG PAC.
Thanks for the answers. I suspect I won’t have any money to donate for quite sometime though as I am still a broke college student.
are very helpful. The more people we have participating, even at very low dollar amounts, the more clout we have. So even five bucks makes a big difference.
<
p>Something to think about.
How important is electability to your candidate selection? Are you only donating to incumbents/challengers with a good shot or is there another criteria?
<
p>My own take is that a BMG PAC endorsement as well as financial/grassroots support could lend itself well in pushing second or third tier challengers into the forefront and giving their campaigns a big boost and momentum. Remember the example of Avi Green v Tim Toomey, you don’t need to win the election to make an impact if you move the incumbent to start embracing progressive principles.
I’ve never been a fan of electability as a means of evaluating candidates, because in large part it boils down to an assessment (and usually a fairly uninformed one) of what other people are going to do. Just because my neighbor is not going to vote for Candidate X doesn’t mean that I shouldn’t, yet that’s essentially what one is doing by deciding not to vote for Candidate X because of a sense that he/she is not “electable.”
<
p>That said, we don’t plan to support people running what look like vanity candidacies. We want our candidates to be serious contenders. We suspect that not all of them will win. Indeed, BMG PAC may take the BMG Kiss Of Death to a whole new level! 😉
… reasonable to not worry about electability in evaluating candidates per se, but I would also think it’s a legitimate concern when calculating ‘bang for the buck’. In this way it’s not an evaluation of the candidate, but the strategy for spending cash.
I’d roughly consider “viability” to translate into how many hours a candidate is willing to put into the campaign. If the candidate’s the type of person to get down and dirty and run a real spirited campaign, I’d consider that a viable enough campaign to give a little money if they’re right on the issues and have some compelling reason to be supported by BMG, even if they aren’t seen as “legitimate” by the press or mainstream establishment.
<
p>I honestly think the best example of this is Sean Garballey — He was, what? 23 when he won? Against stiff competition, just out of college? Who would have thought that a “legitimate” challenge… and yet he ran a strong campaign and worked his butt off to convince the voters that he was legitimate, even if media or establishment had their doubts.
<
p>Then, on the other hand, I’ve seen plenty of “legitimate” campaigns, even with compelling candidates, which didn’t amount to much because the candidate didn’t have the time to run. There are lots of ways to get your boots on the ground and make your case to the voters, including more than one way to skin the proverbial cat (even if some are more effective than others), but if a candidate isn’t willing to put on those boots and get out there, it’s going to be very difficult for them to win the race.
Just plugged in a tasty little donation and the system works flawlessly. Come on down, New England progressives. 🙂
I will give you all of my disposable income this week, which is $25.00 (I hope). : )
I mean discretionary income.
<
p>I really love the candidate qualities you describe. That’s exactly what I’m looking for too. I hope you make it your permanent mission statement.
<
p>I wish you the greatest success with this endeavor.
🙂
(Really.)
<
p>SoapBlox sites walk a line between advocacy and journalism, even the mediocre ones. Did the editors discuss this dilemma, and was there any concern that this pushes BMG further to the advocacy side of the line?
<
p>Or is that just a hopelessly dated notion?
<
p>I remember one of my journalism textbooks at dear ol’ Keene State saying something to the effect of:
<
p>
<
p>And I think it was 1985 when I read that.
<
p>Either way, congratulations! But I am curious.
<
p>
Didn’t that go out around the same time as Windows 98? 😉
<
p>Seriously, I’m not sure I understand your comment. We’ve always been very clear that this site is in large part about advocacy. We endorse candidates. We try to raise money for candidates we like. We are opinionated and we try to be up-front about where we are coming from. We are not, and don’t pretend to be, “objective,” whatever that means.
I come at this as someone who has always dabbled in both politics and journalism. To me, the two worlds are mutually incompatible, and if I’m working in one, the other is on hold. And — again, to me — a site such as this has to live up to journalistic standards (or try to).
<
p>But, if I read you right, you feel comfortably placed in the political camp.
<
p>Before someone calls me naive — I know many reporters, especially political reporters, are partisan. But they’re not supposed to be. I consider blogging a subset of political reporting.
<
p>But to each his own, and blog on.
<
p>
That’s one way of looking at it. But it’s not our way, and it never has been.
if by “journalistic standards” you mean getting our facts right and having them be verifiable, yes, absolutely we try to do that, and I think we’ve generally done a pretty good job of it.
Thanks for answering.
at it’s base, a blog is an online diary… we all use diaries for different purposes, so the meaning of an individual blog is ultimately up to the individual blog owner. There really are political bloggers who consider themselves journalists, but I think most consider themselves online advocates. BMG sort of let that cat out of the bag a long, long time ago.
<
p>Universal Hub, on the other hand, is much more akin to what you describe — even if it’s less of a blog and more of a really good news aggregator. I just throw that out there so you can be ensured that there really is that impartial, objective Metro Boston area blog out there dishing out the important local news that individual newspapers alone are not able to do. And not only is that blog successful, it probably has a wider readership than BMG.
All my wars are laid away in books.
<
p>Sort of, anyway. And here, here, and sometimes here.
Is it unanimous among the three editors? Majority rules? Decision by vote among the entire BMG community?
Serious freep potential there.
will be made by the officers of the PAC, who also happen to be the editors of BMG. We will of course take into account the views of our esteemed commentariat as described by their ongoing posts and comments on the site. On particularly important issues, we may solicit votes from the community similar to the way MoveOn does from time to time, but bearing in mind that (as JimC notes above) such votes may not be totally reliable reflections of the views of the BMG community.
The Khazei endorsement is a clear indication that you don’t follow the “commentariat” in making decisions. What purpose, then, does the PAC serve? Wouldn’t people seeking to advance progressive causes be better off giving directly?
<
p>It’s possible that Bob was just being fractious when he declared that the “BLUE” in BMG is meaningless. However, having done so, it raises the question of whether any PAC decision involving him will be made in good faith.
Another step for the empowerment of progressives through social media.
<
p>Will the BMGPAC Donate to local candidates or national candidates more?
<
p>I assume local condidates since that’s where BMG can have the most impact.
relatively little focus outside state lines.
I think this is an important step. If it’s successful, it really could be a very important tool in the kit for the Massachusetts progressive movement. There’s something about money that most candidates take more seriously than volunteering and general support that I may never fully understand (because ultimately it is less important), but nevertheless, IMO, exists.
I’m particularly interested in breaking the Glodis conservative Democratic cabal in Central Massachusetts. But more broadly, if you seek out progressive candidates regardless of geography instead of focusing solely on Cambridge and environs that would be both inclusive and wise.
Why even ask a question like that? Of course they will. One of the editors currently lives far closer to Stockbridge than to Cambridge, and the editors have made clear that they’re interested in all kinds of things, none of which have the least bit to do with geography.
<
p>What is with the chip on the shoulder of folks outside the beltway, always looking for evidence that they’re somehow being shortchanged?
One can understand why people who live in outside metro Boston might, just possibly, feel shortchanged from time to time and could conceivably feel that a community like BMG might not pay as much attention to them as was appropriate, despite what you and others know to be true.
<
p>So the answer, Jim, as stomv writes, is that we’ll do our best to support progressive candidates wherever they are in the Commonwealth — as, indeed, we have tried to do to date.
<
p>Since it is true that traditional media coverage diminishes, in general, the farther one gets in MA from Boston, we’d appreciate it if you could post here about good candidates we might not know about.
At least I’ve never seen evidence of it. In fact, I constantly see plenty of specific evidence of the contrary. I just wrote the list, but don’t want to derail so I’ll hold it off for another thread.
Really love this idea. Its a bit of fighting fire with fire.
<
p>we need reform, and as important as it is to talk about reform on here, i think its a totally more powerful statement to have a pac.
<
p>Does this mean no more BMG kiss of death endorsements?
…or would it be possible for a Green, independent, or even progressive Republican to get the nod?
Link
I think this is a great step and I will lend my [meager] support when able. I don’t see any mention in your roll-out post of the environment, environmental values, conservation, and the like. Will you support candidates who believe that Massachusetts should continue to be a leader in environmental protection or will you support candidates who elevate business interests above environmental protection and are content with the Commonwealth being somewhere in the middle of the pack nationwide? Will you support candidates who believe that when the balance between the interests of business and the environment is even, that business doesn’t always get to win? I’m just wondering because I don’t see any consideration of these issues, and don’t think they fall into the “broadly progressive values” box.
Personally, I’d see that as part of “just and compassionate” policymaking; but regardless, absolutely we believe that candidates should, as you say, “believe that Massachusetts should continue to be a leader in environmental protection” and that “business doesn’t always get to win.”
to what David said, and to your concerns. ABSOLUTELY environment is critical, and a candidate’s pro-environment positions and attitudes are part and parcel of the kind of mentality we’re looking for.