Why Dean is the Best DNC Chair Choice: Individual vs. Corporate Donations

[dpbrown]

In 2000, the DNC raised about $35 million in small donations. It raised $150 million from corporate sponsors. That's the McAuliffe legacy - pandering to the DLC-wing and furthering the deathly-ill "privatization über alles" American version of capitalism that's doomed to failure and taking us with it.

In 2004, due to the effect of Dean, not McAuliffe, the majority of DNC funding came from small donations, $248 million, while corporate donations dropped to $105 million, while for the first time since the mid-1970s, the DNC outraised the RNC.

One key to making the Democratic Party into a viable opposition party is to ween itself from its untenable reliance on the corporate handout - freeing it to do the work of bringing back a healthy American capitalism neither cannibalizing the public sector, nor degrading the American standard of living.

Whether Dean understands that or not, his demonstrated capacity to PRACTICALLY transform the fundraising mechanism of the Democratic Party demonstrates both effectiveness in fundraising, AND an internalization of a KEY transformation that the Democrats need to undergo regarding their relationship to corporate handouts, and the "favors" they require.

Of the candidates running, Dean is, in my opinion, the Chair who will bring about the healthiest and best opposition party.

Dan Brown
Saint Paul, Minnesota

[LoZoccolo]

1. Why do we need Dean to get more individual donations?

It seems to me - and I think he would agree - that it was the people who donated that brought in all that money.

[w13rd0]

2. And many of those that did so...

...were brought in by Dean. I for one won't be making any further contributions to the DNC unless the chair is reform-minded. I was one of those small contributors, and Dean was the reason, his campaign helped me aquire the habit. I now set aside a fixed amount each month to contribute to charitable causes (non-partisan), and another amount for partisan causes. Before this last election cycle, I'd read that it's far less than 1% of the voting public that gives monetarily to campaign efforts. We can change that, but not with more corporate whores who just want to shill for the big donors. They spend their time appealing to GE for money, and I know that even if they do ask me for money too, they aren't acting in my best interests, because they play for pay, and they'll choose GE over me.

[mistertrickster]

6. Ditto that, the excitement of a true grassroots campaign brought in

a lot of folks like me who had pretty much given up on both parties.

If the Democrats don't pick Dean, I won't abandon the party (what choice do I have). But I donated to the DNC after Dean dropped out several times, and I won't be donating again until they put some firebreathers in their leadership.

If Democrats have to appease big business at the expense of the working and middle class, it's doomed to failure; e.g., it will continue AS IT HAS BEEN.

[acmejack]

4. Dean is the catalyst1

Dr. Dean has drawn many who have never previously participated in the process to the Democratic fold. He has motivated people such as myself to break with tradition and donate to the party. Most importantly, he isn't beholden to the corporate interests.

[Zensea]

5. It is the people

I'm one of those people.
The question is what got those people to donate, that would give the answer.
I thought of an analogy for this. I live in NYC. When I'm walking down the street I see homeless people asking for money all the time. Do I give money to every single homeless person I see? Nope. Who do I give the money to? Usually I give it to UHO which is a homeless organization because I feel that is the most useful way to help. Sometimes I give it to an individual homeless person if there is something about them that gives me the sense that they are for real and not just scamming.
Apply this to the Democratic Party. If the Democratic Party puts leaders into place whose philosophy I basically agree with (I'm not a purist) I'll give the party money. If an individual runs for President who I have a strong sense is not scamming me, I'll give to that candidacy.

[Cheswick2.0]

12. I think that should be clear to anyone

because he believes in grassroots donations and many of the others would be perfectly happy to go back to doing things the old way.

[dpbrown]

21. Relying on the corporate dole will be the death of the Democrats

There's already one party that does corrupt corporations better than the Democrats ever will. The only hope the Democrats have is to tap into the true depth of populism running through the nation.

[Eric J in MN]

3. The two categories of donations are "small" and "corporate?"

Can't an individual donation be big or a corporate donation be small?

How do you decide which category to apply to a donation?

[mistertrickster]

7. I think the point is that corporation donate because they want

something in return--profits. Individuals donate because of what they believe--values. (In general that is, Bush donors are walking corporations, so there's no real difference.)

If Dems mainly represent corp. interests, and Reps completely represent corp. interests, who's looking out for your and my individual interest.

Uh, that would be NO ONE. And that's essentially what we've got now, and why 40 percent of potential voters didn't even go to the polls last time.

[Cheswick2.0]

13. no personal donation can be over 2000 dollars

[Eric J in MN]

17. And no direct corporate donations are allowed at all.

A corporate exectutive can donate.

A corporation can donate to an organization which helps a candidate.

But a corporation couldn't give to the Kerry campaign or the Bush campaign.

[Kolesar]

8. I wonder how much Ross Perot brought in in 1992?

He had a pretty inspired grassroots base that wanted him. I saw an analogy with Dr. Dean, the anti-Bush, who had a very compelling message. Are we going to open our wallets again for "just whoever the DNC is advocating" even if Dean is running it? We will not have this psychopath Bush as a rallying point next time.

[CindyDale]

9. Yes, I do give Dean credit for waking us up to how much

we could raise by donating. Dean did do that. Unfortunatly, we still lost.

I think he's innovative, though, and that is something that is going to be needed. He'd also be good at pulling people together, marshalling them.

Are any of the others really extrordinary? I've only heard people say they don't mind them, but no real enthusiasm. I don't know much about them, but I doubt that anti-choice guy will get it. Who does he think he is saying the Dems have to get someone like him who will oppress women? LOL

[CindyDale]

10. Geez all those typos! I am getting too sloppy!

[w4rma]

11. There will be an all new psychopath who will further Bush's agenda (nt)

[janx]

15. That is a very good question.

The difference is that Dean will run things from the bottom up, so the state and local DNC organizations will have much more say in matters. They'll get money to run campaigns fit for their states and communities.

[dpbrown]

14. Corollary: Debunking 'Centrism' (it's really 'corporatism' the DLC way)

http://www.thenation.com/doc.mhtml?i=20050103&s=sirota

Debunking 'Centrism'
by DAVID SIROTA

(from the January 3, 2005 issue)

Looking out over Washington, DC, from his plush office, Al From is once again foaming at the mouth. The CEO of the corporate-sponsored Democratic Leadership Council and his wealthy cronies are in their regular postelection attack mode. Despite wins by economic populists in red states like Colorado and Montana this year, the DLC is claiming like a broken record that progressive policies are hurting the Democratic Party.

From's group is funded by huge contributions from multinationals like Philip Morris, Texaco, Enron and Merck, which have all, at one point or another, slathered the DLC with cash. Those resources have been used to push a nakedly corporate agenda under the guise of "centrism" while allowing the DLC to parrot GOP criticism of populist Democrats as far-left extremists. Worse, the mainstream media follow suit, characterizing progressive positions on everything from trade to healthcare to taxes as ultra-liberal. As the AP recently claimed, "party liberals argue that the party must energize its base by moving to the left" while "the DLC and other centrist groups argue that the party must court moderates and find a way to compete in the Midwest and South."

Is this really true? Is a corporate agenda really "centrism"? Or is it only "centrist" among Washington's media elite, influence peddlers and out-of-touch political class?

(clip)

Read the entire article at the link above.

Dan Brown
Saint Paul, Minnesota

[saltpoint]

16. I acknowledge that money talks and also that our Chair --

-- has to be a pretty good systems man or systems woman to make it all come together in all 50 states.

Got no quarrel with those points.

But I support Dean for the Chair post because he can do the money and he can do the system, but he's idea-fueled.

He is a mature adult still inflamed with IDEAS.

That's what's missing with Terry McAuliffe.

Dean is driven by ideas. That's why we need him.

[dpbrown]

19. Ideas are what are going to rejuvenate the party

Not warmed over corporate handouts.

Dean will bring energy and organization to the party.

[googly]

18. Dean is the best choice for PRESIDENT....but I will take

whatever high position he can get into.

[dpbrown]

20. His skills are particularly what the national party needs right now

Especially in the activism department.