Dog in the Manger

If you are a progressive these days, your options as a voter are rather limited. Guess what? If HR4694, aka the "Let the People Decide Clean Campaign Bill," passes, they will be more limited still.

During the last decade, rising frustration with the inefficacy of the Democratic Party has led many progressives to contemplate life as a Green or Independent. Growing numbers have dared to leave the party not only in spirit but in deed. Other progressives, whose disenchantment with the two major parties led them to abstain from voting entirely, have found political homes in these so-called "third parties" (really, they should be called minor parties, since there's certainly more than one).

What has the reaction of the Democratic Party leadership been? Have they reconsidered their priorities, their policies, their presentation, the types of politicians making up their cadre, their funding? No. If anything, they have managed to combine the worst aspects of "business as usual" with a push toward the right.

In the wake of the close race between Al Gore and Bush, a politically savvy party would have looked at the numbers of people voting Green and asked itself how it might tap into that voting bloc. This is, after all, what the GOP managed to do with the Christian right and the libertarians who voted Reform.

Unfortunately for all of us, and the country, the Democratic Party is not such a party.

Instead, what they did was to attack Greens and independents as "defectors" or "traitors" -- accusations they would never dream of leveling at voters on the rightward edge of the party. When those vicious accusations were ignored, or met with anger, they then suggested that not only did Democrats "own" progressive votes, that progressive voters who disagreed were doomed to political irrelevance. Third parties never succeed in a two-party system, they argued. Get over it, and get your butt back in the Democratic tent where it belongs.

Well, guess what. Not only are they still saying that, even though it's clear that increasing numbers of progressives are fleeing the party at an unprecedented rate, they are trying to write it into law.

Yes. They are trying to ensure that voters have no alternatives to politics as usual.

The so-called "Let the People Decide" bill claims to be about controlling corruption by replacing private funding with public monies. In practice, it is about making it impossible for a small party to gain the influence needed to become a larger one. Under this bill, public money is available only to those parties who manage to gain signatures equal to at least 10% of the previous vote for partial funding, and at least 20% for full funding. That's bad enough, but here's the kicker: "candidates who don't qualify for funding would be barred from spending any privately raised money on their campaigns."

You read that right. If you don't qualify for public funds, you don't get to use your own funds either.

So on the one hand, you have the two major parties, with all their influence and pull, getting public money. On the other, you have smaller parties, which have less power in the first place, not only being denied public funds but prohibited from using any money they manage to raise on their own.

Unwilling to adapt in order to make itself more appealing to progressives, the Democratic Party has decided that if it can't have their votes, no one can. "Let the People Decide"? Hardly. This is "my way or the highway." I guess they've learned something from the GOP after all.

Cross-posted at Shakespeare's Sister

Comments

[anbruch]

I love the way that politicians title their bills. Such honesty!

This one does look particularly pernicious. Fortunately, given the precedents, it probably won't stand up in court—money as political speech and all that. (Weird having to thank the conservatives for that...) But the Democrats are certainly playing the losers here, aren't they? If the bill actually sticks, it sort of ensures that they'll never have to come up with any ideas. Perhaps that is what they really want. Or rather that is what their corporate sponsors really want.

Depressing.

anbruch

[DM]

As much as I am an advocate of public financing, this is obviously not the way to do it. Unbelievable. Actually, it is quite believable! Of course this is the party that leaned on Paul Hackett to drop out of the Ohio Senate race. While I understand the rationale somewhat - wanting to avoid a potentially bruising primary and have the money to take on the Republican - it is nonetheless so stifling to our democracy and the voices that need to be heard.

I once made a semi-finalist list for an academic position in New Zealand. I would have happily accepted it. If only...(sigh)

[Rana]

Yes. The most depressing thing about politics today is the way it seems to have more in common with professional sports (money, fame, eyeballs) than with looking after the interests of citizens. It's not merely that "our" representatives are failing to do their job; it's that they don't even think that sort of thing IS their job.

[Chris Clarke]

Under this bill, public money is available only to those parties who manage to gain signatures equal to at least 10% of the previous vote for partial funding, and at least 20% for full funding.

It sucks, and it's typical, and it's why the Democrats will continue to lose paring by paring of their base.

And if there was ever a move that could peel enough angry Democrats away to give a progressive party signatures of ten percent of the electorate, this might be it.

[Rana]

Yes. And if that happens, well, then the Democrats can continue to blame the Greens and Independents for their own party's failures. If it doesn't, then they don't lose percentage points (though I believe they will lose votes to the apathy/disgust factor). They "win" either way, while we and the country lose.