Accountable to the public? Or accountable to the rank and file of the Democratic party and the voting constituencies who most look to it for effective representation?

These are different types of accountability. The first, accountability to the public, mostly seems of concern to the media when the billionaires are Democrats. I don't, for instance, remember much worrying over accountability for the powerful interests and wealthy players, many later represented in Ronald Reagan's "Kitchen Cabinet," who spent years supporting him (financially) while grooming him for the presidency. Nor much concern about accountability (to the public) in the relationship between the Bushes and Ken Lay -- until after W was in office, Enron was a disaster, and the administration's support helped its energy trading abuses wreck serious damage to the economies of California and the Pacific Northwest.

That kind of accountability -- accountability for the pursuit of their self-interest -- needs to, always and consistently, be applied to the wealthy backers of both parties. But rarely is.

But the second type of accountability -- to the party and its (less individually powerful) constituencies -- is, I think, more of an issue for the Democrats.

Why? Because the Republican party's powerful backers are straight-forward in their pursuit of their own best interest. They follow their self-interest and sell support for it to their rank and file. During the 1980 presidential campaign, for instance, I worked for an ad agency that represented one of the nation's largest defense contractors. Our client was a significant behind the scenes Reagan supporter and its executives were jubilantly up front about the reasons for their support -- big increases in defense spending and lower taxes. They took this position because it benefited them -- not because they thought they were representing, and thought it would benefit, lower middle class Evangelicals in Alabama. But, if required in pursuing their self-interest, they certainly knew how to, and had the money to, make an argument (that at least sounded plausible)for why it might benefit those Evangelicals too.

Wealthy Democrats on the other hand most often claim to be working, and sincerely intend to and believe themselves to be working -- and speaking -- in the common interest or the best interest of others.

And this, while perhaps noble, can be dangerous to the best interests of others.

In a political conversation, shaped by the gigantic cost of media access, the huge voices of the wealthy few, in either party, drown out everything else.

So when those Democratic billionaires, through the media time they buy, the consultants they support, the surrogates they put before the public, decide to speak for the rest of us, they sure as hell better know what they're talking about. And we, and they, have to make sure that when they speak, and act, they are correctly representing and furthering our interests rather than, out of ignorance, arrogance, prejudice, lack of experience, etc., undermining them.

I find the points and analysis you present immaterial. If there 100 millionaires who give money or are active Democrats, what is this of any significance.

Actually, I don't understand the whole hoopla around your book. I am as progress as one can get (without crossing the Chavez line) and find your arguments ignorable.

=== On the other hand, the Democracy Alliance has from the start operated under intense secrecy, on the theory that private citizens can do whatever they want with their money, and they’re not answerable to anyone but the IRS. I reject that notion. ===

Actually, you might be surprised to know that's not true--I was. In the course of researching the book, I found, for instance, a very long multi-part series from the Washington Post in the mid-'70s on Joseph Coors and the organizations he was funding, including the Heritage Foundation. (It was actually written by a guy who was later a professor of mine.) It was suprisingly prescient, even tough Coors and other funders refused to cooperate. I just thought I'd share that. In any event, whatever work was or wasn't done on the conservative donors hardly seems like a reason not to demand some transparency from the funders in my book. Thanks for your thoughts.

Join The Argument.
www.mattbai.com

Millionaire-oriented intermediary politics is a very real problem in Texas.

The TDP is operated for the benefit of one creditor: A wealthy, bored, essentially retired Dallas trial lawyer who resides in North Carolina and mostly piddles around in national campaigns -- specifically the EDWARDS campaign.

In Bernard CORNWELL's "Copperhead" series, there is a rich planter who raises a Confederate "Legion" named after himself but has to be promoted to Brigadier and given a staff-job in Richmond so as to not reduce the actual effectiveness of his unit and interfere with its own and LEE's competent officers.

The cornpone Democratic parties of ex-Confederate states are politically-correct and even cringing-liberal now, but the Texas one is still just a Jim Crow patronage-chain. It tries to govern in coalition with the GOP, but has no patronage to dispense as a party. The GOP here "don't need no stinkin' coaltion" now that they are a "majority" in this state with the lowest and most economically biased political participation rate in the nation.

Indeed, check out "earmarks" in Harris County:

The "Democratic Congress" allocates more earmarks to junior GOP reps than to senior Dem reps here.

No, this is a "red state" by virtue of a dysfunctional Democratic party, operating under a Jim Crow election code that we preserved but that is deeply subversive of our own latent Democratic majority.

The pathetic part is at least three more rich, bored lawyers operate independently of the party. A brace of other candidates -- much more credible than trial lawyers can be by their very nature -- are routinely sabotaged by a state and national party that says it "targets" races scientifically but actually simply maximizes the income of a few pimp-consultants who win by losing with their their max $/vote "best-efforts" media-campaigns.

But, that economic insantity is true of "infrastructure" regardless of the source. For instance, in the course of turning the DNC field staff over to the DCCC HQ staff in Texas, Howard DEAN did force the state party to buy a costly "voter file" package from his cronies in Boston, not, say, ICKES' cronies in Chicago.

Ironically, the DEAN package -- he is a doctor not an engineer -- is a fine package for running a few, targeted, single-member district campaigns in dinky states. It cannot be deployed or maintained on the scale of even North Carolina much less Texas, and it is useless for (a) developing the latent majority statewide or (b) running a straight-ticket "sweep" campaign in, say, Harris County, Texas, which is begger than 25 of the dinky states.

Remember those earmarks: The junior GOP reps do not so much get them as the bond-lawyers and lawyer-lobbyists who run the bi-partisan, political "ATM machines". They get these and allocate them to their clients. Both the Dems and Reps involved are of essentially no significance.

This lawyer-mediated, hence legal, corruption is a regime that alienates at least three other bored, rich millionaire trial-lawyers. But, it also feeds a Republican "populism" that allows the GOP to raise money as the patronage party with actual patronage but to run against a "government" that is thoroughly identified with Democratic "by-standers".

As a practical matter, the TDP is run by a former legislative aide for a former DCCC honcho, now self-styled "Politico", Martin FROST.

The TDP central staff control a field staff that is funded by the DNC. The net result: The DNC-funded, "party-building", field staff implemented the "targeted campaign" strategy in 2006 and minimized the "Blue Wave".

In fact, the party narrowed and channeled money and efforts into delivering two more "Bush Dogs" -- Ciro RODRIGUEZ and Nick LAMPSON to the Steny HOYER camp.

Currently, the DNC-funded field staff are busy maintaining a facade of support for the EDWARDS campaign, pandering to trial lawyers, and trying to co-opt the net-roots into helping to perpetuate the racial patronage-chain that passes for a party.

What passes for "party-building" are, first, attempts to "leverage" the one source of high-dollar with a variety of high-overhead, low-dollar fund-raising deals: These are sleazy telemarketing and direct-mail exemplars of segemented marketing.

Second, the HQ and field staff are piddling around with the "voter file", the wrong tool, and, for instance, not paying attention to matters involving the statewide voter-roll -- the right tool for GOP vote-suppression -- that the state and national party do not even fathom, much less have a plan to counter.

Look a party of doctors, lawyers, and preachers throwing around terms like "infrastructure" while playing petty games is infuriating to every other profession, especially accountants and engineers who, for instance, know the difference between a "file" and a "database".

But, also, there is simply nothing republican or democratic about a patronage-chain or, worse, a patronage-chain with no patronage, just a stupid foil for GOP pseudo-populists.

I look forward to reading BAI's book.

But, it probably won't be as good as Cornwell's, you know where every rich, bored planter bought raised a few hundred light-horse and made themselves a Colonel. LEE and JACKSON had to send the expensively-educated peacocks somewhere out of the way, dismount the men, and use the horses for wagons and caissons.

Even then, it did not work. Those idiots in Richmond would not arm the blacks and let Lincoln free the slaves here, eventually, rather than getting LEE to liberate them in Maryland.

Hell, I would rather fight for oil than for the vanity and cowardice of a smug, complacent, cowardly elite -- and that is just the Democratic enablers, not the GOP I cannot refer to further without using profanity.

::JRBehrman

Yeah, it's worrisome. But even though this doesn't express my views about transparency, I can see why the Democracy Alliance people don't want it.

For one thing, their own outsie-of-the-mainstream beliefs can reflect badly on the people and initiatives they want to fund. In 2004 Soros' support for the legalization of marijuana and his support of John kerry was twisted by Denny Hastert, on national television into: "George Soros gets his money from drug cartels and then gives it to John Kerry."

And of course on Fox news, of all places, we're told that Soros is funding some sort of liberal army that's out to destroy Bill O'Reilly.

Imagine it... a hedge fund manager dismissed as a radical. But it's working. It's getting to be that George Soros is the new Noahm Chomsky -- beloeved by college kids but otherwise unfairly protrayed as a crackpot extremist.

The thing is, the secrecy makes all of this worse. Ultimately, the billionaires have to trust the progressive rank and file to protect them a bit in the court of public opinion.

thosethingswesay.blogspot.com

C'mon, it's important for us to discuss how we want to proceed on our side.

Yes, we should all know much more and be aware of the funders of the right and how the Kochs poison both our politics and their oil companies release benzene in Texas. Can't we do both? Why can't someone choose to write about one side and not the other?

Soros isn't exactly secretive about where he gives...and the treatment he has received would certainly reinforce Democracy Alliance members' desire for secrecy.

Soros is a real hero. Someone who made a fortune and is spending in on real ways to spread democracy throughout the world, financing elections infrastructure and civic engagement capacity-building all across the globe. All that he has accomplished, however, is ignored by vicious reactionary republicans who feel compelled to demonize everyone who opposes them, so he is accused of being a Nazi collaborator while a child (a child!!!) and the list goes on.

Why would anyone volunteer their name in this atmosphere -- particularly when those on the left who are getting money from his foundations and from him directly are so unenthusiastic about his work and do such a poor job of sticking up for him when these ridiculous charges are made. There seems to be a pathological need on the left to denigrate our financial supporters to prove we aren't bought - so we collude in the right's mistreatment with our silence.

Well, I can't have everything, right? Thanks.

Join The Argument.
www.mattbai.com

It is a very popular right wing talking point and the bumper sticker version (shorter Bai?):

Soros= bad lefty billionaires

Ya' don't hear any criticism of all the righty billionaires, from the Catholic fundies to the old school Birchers to the Ahmansons and the list just goes on and on and on.

Want secrecy? Try getting into the annual Conservative soiree. Dobson don't want no stinking press in there while he kibbitzes with all those dirty sinners like Grover.

That kind of levity that's just fine by me. ;)

Why?
Fair and Balanced my friend.
Repeating right wing talking points about the evil Soros does nothing to promote Dem ideas that I can see.
And if billionaires want to spend money on worthy causes for others instead of self, what the hell is wrong with that? Must the very wealthy always be selfish? What about the Rockefellers, the Fords, the Vanderbilts, Carnegie, Pew, etc. "public interest" funders? Are they under suspicion just because there was no immediate financial self benefit to their largesse? Bill Gates can send me several millions and I promise to never tell if he so wishes seeing as I'm a great progressive cause.

The Koch family Birchers are and have been evil and self serving but somehow deserve no scorn? I don't understand why that would be when those who try to support good causes are somehow suspicious!

Too much money in the political process is bad and corrupting. Corporatocracy is not democracy. But the Democracy Alliance donating money to bring balance to the massive inputs from the righty billions for the past 40 years is nto a bad thing. When the Fascist Alliance is shut down, I'm pretty sure the Democracy Alliance will be willing to abandon arms.

Matt,

One of your issues with Social Security is that it "punish[es] the self-employed (who didn’t even exist in the 1930s)". As Emma Zahn explained in an excellent comment it is true that the self-employed pay more, but the effect is only about 1% of earnings. Sure, that's not perfectly equitable, but is that really such a big deal? (Or are you looking at this ignoring employer contributions? If so, IMHO, that's pure demagoguery.)

Your parenthetical about the 30s is also strange. As Zahn pointed out, before the Reagan era revamp of Social Security under Greenspan, the self-employed actually had a big discount.

This reminds me a bit of the misleading statements that Russert and other pundits are so fond of, that people are living so much longer than they did in the 30's as if the Roosevelt administration didn't know that life expectancy was increasing. In fact, as your colleague Paul Krugman has documented, the FDR era demographers if anything erred a little on the conservative side: In 1934, they estimated that 12.7% of Americans would be over 65 in 2000, the number turned out to be 12.4%.

On a more trivial note, of course the self-employed existed in the 1930's. What you meant to say is they weren't covered by Social Security until 1950.

(You've been very good at replying to questions. So if you already addressed this somewhere and I missed it, my apologies.)

It seems to me that what is needed is some kind of "AFL-CIO" of progressive organizations. By banding together under a common umbrella group, the progressive organizations could raise more money and have the power to focus that money on specific candidates or issues.

MoveOn got a lot of donations for their General Betray Us ad. Moreover the Democrats, by voting to condemn MoveOn, continue to alienate their own base in their search for the ever-elusive "bi-partisan" support. I suspect that in the next election, more political donations will find their way to MoveOn or other progressive organizations instead of going to the DCCC.

Starting a third party is an uphill battle; and everyone usually starts at the top by trying to get a third party candidate elected President. What is needed is a broad national coalition of organizations with common ideals and principles who can work together to get progressive candidates elected and who have enough financial clout to break the corporate monopoly on the news.

Possibly MoveOn, VoteVets, True Majority, NARAL, the Sierra Club, the ACLU -- and any other progressive organization -- could get together and hammer out some kind of coalition that presented a united front for progressive values.

Progressives can not count on the Democratic party to represent their interests.

Democracy? Try cash-ocracy...

There's a lot here that I think makes sense. It's a strong set of observations. I do have to say, though, that while I appreciate your having the discussion, I don't think you can summarize the "takeaway" from a 300-page book without reading it. I'm just saying, there's a lot more there, and if you have this level of interest, I wish yuu'd just take the time to digest it all, rather than try to get me to got through the Cliff's Notes. It reads really quickly, I promise, and as the other posters have all said, it's fun. And when you're done, I'd be glad to have a longer conversation ovr at my website. Thanks.

Join The Argument.
www.mattbai.com

Re: 1. Yes, there were some self-employed then, but they were mostly business owners, I presume, and not nearly at the numbers that they are now.

Most doctors, dentists, lawyers and other professional people were self-employed back then too. It's only been in the last generation or two that the professions have been herded into employee status. Also, small business owners were not exactly a negligible group in the 30s, well before the rise of the big chain stores, resturants etc.

Re: OK, it's a 1 percent punishment, but not when you consider that the self-employed pay both parts of the tax, whereas other workers pay just one.

Ultimately though the "employers share" comes out of the worker's income; it represents wages that the employee must forego.

Re: We are entering a new era where even "regular" employees are being treated as conditional workers. They get no benefits,

At least for skilled work, most consulting firms do provide benefits, although the consultant usually must pay for them directly.

Right. All of which is why, rather than try to force employers to somehow behave like they used to, I think we need to think about a modern social contract, starting with healthcare and pensions that aren't tied to an employer.

As for this argument about regular workers forgoing wages, that may well be, and I'm no economist, but I've not heard of anyone going to self-employed status and suddenly being given a salary hike because they no longer cost money in healthcare. Have you?

The only other thing I'd say, again, is that I think this isn't only an economic issue--it's a quality of life and freedom issue. I don't know why progressives won't get behind that. A new kind of social contract should mean not just more security if you leave your employer, but more control over your life.

Anyway, thanks.

Join The Argument.
www.mattbai.com

Thanks for the detailed reply. This time, I'll give you one out of three. ;)

Re #2: Uh, no. The 1% number does take into account that the self-employed must pay the employer portion. I'm not sure if you're being coy or if you honestly don't understand the economics here, but Emma Zahn explained it nicely. The basic point is that if you are an employee, economically it doesn't much matter what the employer/employee breakdown is. If the self-employed only had to pay the employee portion, that would constitute a massive subsidy for the self-employed. Now maybe as a public policy matter you think we should subsidize the self-employed; if so, that's fine, but make the case straightforwardly.

Re #1. It's neither here nor there, but there were a great many self-employed in the 30's. Most of them were farmers. Not that this has much to do with Social Security, which didn't apply to the self-employed until the 50's.

Re #3. Eloquently put. I agree with what you said, modulo the payroll tax per my comments above.

My father was a highly skilled craftsman, union, of course, who worked, for a very wide variety of employers on a huge number of projects, all over the country and the world, in the 50s, 60s and 70s. I can't tell you how many jobs he had over the course of his career -- but, about midway through that career, when I was in high school, he had to, for a security clearance required for a project in Thule, Greenland, recreate his entire employment history to date and asked me to help him type it up. The count was already well over 60 at that point.

Despite the fact that his work life was mobile in the extreme, portability of benefits was never an issue -- because he was a member of a union and had what was called a "traveling card."

I bring this up only to 1) point out that the "assembly line worker" is not the only (or the oldest) union model, 2) make the point that the common assumption of incompatibility between organizing and the modern economy's need for flexibility should not go unquestioned.

My father, when he was alive, would have been amused by the idea that there ever was a time, or could ever be a time, when workers were anything other than "conditional." He was a strong union man, but he didn't belong to a union because he believed for one second it would guarantee him work -- he knew that only his skills (and a robust economy) could do that. But, he also knew that skills alone can't guarantee fair compensation. What he expected to get from his union was leverage, a seat at the negotiating table, and a voice in the national dialogue.

Workers, including the most highly skilled, can't expect to get any of those things handed down to them from above -- by politicians or employers. They are going to have to take the risk of standing up for themselves, and standing with others, to demand a place at the table. And, of course, they will have to, as you have tried to do here, come up with some ideas to put on the table.

Repeating right wing talking points about the evil Soros does nothing to promote Dem ideas that I can see.

Can you point to the place on this thread where you think someone is doing that? I'd sincerely like to know, so I don't use the same language inadvertently.

I can only offer small anecdotal personal experience. When I spent a lot of time on another forum, during all the Social Security hullabaloo that Josh covered, there were several young people, all techie types, all politically liberal in many ways, who were very strongly in support of reform of some kind of Social Security. Change of that system doesn't appeal to me in the least beyond raising the age of benefits as the age of lifespan changes. But reform along the lines of more control over one's own paid in funds seems to appeal to certain types of young workers who have only had the experience of very independent, self-employed work, and expect to be able to make their own choices on everything regarding personal life. Same mindset would of course make them in favor of health insurance being both not tied to an employer, and yet still offering a lot of personal choice.

I am a DA partner. I don't think that DA is particularly secretive. The DA website lists the board members --- this information wasn't always there, but certainly anyone in politics who wanted to know who was on the board could find out. How the organization operates has been reported widely, before Matt's book as well as in the book. Some reports are accurate, and some are not, just like any other topic in the press.

There are thousands of donors in the US who contribute large sums to political organizations: progressive, conservative, libertarian, populist, or otherwise. Most of those donors are people you have never heard of (like me). A relatively small number of them are DA partners, most of whom you have also never heard of.

Matt may have "breached the wall of secrecy" around roughly 100 of those people to the extent of their DA participation (although most DA partners also do lots of stuff outside DA as well), but that's still only a tiny sliver of political philanthropy (and political philanthropy, itself, is only a small slice of overall political giving, which includes direct contributions to candidates, PACs, hiring lobbyists, etc.). And I'm not convinced that DA is really so important or significant that it deserves this degree of special attention (although it is flattering to DA to suggest that it is so unique and special that it does). When those same DA partners were giving the same millions of dollars to many of the same groups (or similar groups) before DA ever existed, did that mean that their giving was less important?

I respectfully would disagree with Matt if he claims that the disclosure or publicity obligations of donors who become DA partners are any different from those of any other political donor. If he's arguing that all donations to all political groups should be public, I would have no problem with that (I'm happy to tell anyone who wants to know, the groups that I support), but it doesn't really have anything to do with the DA specifically.

To me, the DA is like a political advisor. It doesn't control any of my money, it just makes recommendations about good things to do with it. Then I choose whether or not I agree. My relationship with DA is like George Soros's relationship with Michael Vachon. And I don't expect that whenever the two of them meet they put out a press release to let everyone know what they talked about.

DA needs to be somewhat closed to non-partners for a few reasons. Because it needs dues from partners in order to have any staff and do anything at all, and so participation is a benefit of partnership. Because, while some groups are offended when they don't get recommended by DA, the number of groups that would find something to be offended about if every internal discussion at DA were completely open would be that much greater, and that would be divisive and harmful. And because, from the point of view of the partners, one of the things they are seeking is the interaction with other like-minded people.

But I don't think there needs to be any secrecy about what DA does (as opposed to the privacy of the individual meetings or interactions between partners and staff), and to the extent that that secrecy can be reduced (or has been reduced by Matt's book) then I think that is a good thing.

David, good to see you in this discussion, and I appreciate your comments.

I do think the DA has some special obligation to be transparent, because it isn't simply acting as a funnel to groups that have always received the same donations; it's actually seeking to control which groups get those donations and to channel that money in the proportions that it deems most efficient. As such, it's exercizing a disproportionate control over the progressive landscape, and that is its goal, after all--to coordinate and direct resources under a single strategic vision. This means that some groups will gain money while some will lose. That unified approach makes the organization very influential, and for that reason I do believe that the right course--and the one in keeping with the Alliance's own stated principles--is to be open about its membership and its portfolio. Of course, it's my job to think that way--there would be something wrong with me if I didn't.

All that said, the book ended on a very positive note for the DA, because I think it was reaching a more stable phase, and also one with more transparency. (There's even a website now.) So this, like everything else, is in a constant state of evolution.

Thanks again for taking part.

Join The Argument.
www.mattbai.com

When someone buys a widget factory the whole society certainly cares how it is run, although the oversight varies some whether privately held or not.

When it comes to politics, the last thing any society needs is secrecy, cabals, hidden agendas, lack of responsibility for actions. That's part of the problem with the trends in society, political and economic, today as already pointed out.

We need and must have transparency (and honesty), the more the better without preventing function, from the president and administration, the legislative bodies, and the party apparatus. Money being the lubricant, the sources and disbursements necessarily require to be seen to prevent corruption or illegalities.

Otherwise we might as well build a society as the incumbent and his cadre would like to have it.

Soros and other billionaries can play a powerful role by providing startup money, on a competitive bid basis, to jumpstart or ramp up grassroots network-building and mobilization around publicly identified, high priority issues. Specific examples are:

*UHC moving towards single-payer financing
*publicly financed alternative energy research and development
*election integrity

The funding should be with the understanding that within, say, five years, these networks would need to become self-sustaining if they plan to continue to exist once the seed money is spent.

I note that Mark Schmitt indicated (as an addendum to one of his earlier posts in this discussion) that while working for Soros he advocated non-issue specific infrastructure building. If he's checking in here, I am curious to know whether he thinks issue-specific or non-issue specific infrastructure building is the preferred way to go now. Likewise if you, Matt, and others have thoughts on this.

If one objection is that, if billionaries can fund "progressive" (I'd argue that they are "public interest" causes which have trouble getting traction because of collective action problems and because they are up against powerful special interests or built-in political inertia) causes they can do so for regressive ones, my reply would be that they already do.

True, though I think "sincerity" is a bit of a stretch.

It's more like an addiction. They're drunk on wealth, status, power, etc. And like all addictions, it becomes an irrational preoccupation and gains a momentum of its own.

For example, do alcoholics "sincerely" argue it's a good thing? No. Not really. Everyone knows deep down it's a bad idea.

But they'll still passionately, and even angrily argue for it if pressed! Especially if drunk. Doubly so if surrounded by peers at the bar having a good time of it.

That's the whole point. To be able to get drunk enough to tell yourself it's great and surround oneself with the like minded. There's a Pavlovian quality to it.

Does Lee Raymond really thin keeping the US addicted to oil and stifling alternative energy is good? No. But it's fundamentally what he does by definition of his position in life, which he surely enjoys, and I'm sure he's adept at not thinking about it. Did all the ENRON execs really think what they did was right? No. But they were enjoying the party and didn't want to think about it because then the party might have to end.

So far, I have been doing OK in the everyone's-a-consultant, manage-your-own-risk, winner-take all economy. Of course I am under 50; quite a few of my colleagues have been shocked to find that the jobs and calls stop coming once they hit that barrier and they can't work the 20 hour days anyway. But still, there is no question that some percentage of the population does quite well under this model.

I am concerned about the citizens who _can't_ handle this way of life. Quite a few of my high school classmates literally went from 12th grade into the steel mills, where they put in 8-for-8 and built fairly decent lives for themselves and (eventually) their families. They had no desire and no innate ability to become world-trotting high-tech consultants - which is fine, because there are many different types of people in the world and a strong society requires them all.

Except in the last 10-20 years we have been systematically breaking the compact of 1945-1965 and squeezing all the jobs and all the places for a substantial percentage of society right out of the economy. 4 of the 5 steel mills near my old neighborhood are gone and the fifth is highly automated. Good, solid jobs leading to a good solid middle-class life with /manageable risk/ are all being taken away and replaced with high-risk "opportunities". Funny how a high-risk life is more appealing when you already have $2 million in your trust fund from daddy.

sPh

AmericanDreamer writes:

Soros and other billionaries can play a powerful role by providing startup money, on a competitive bid basis, to jumpstart or ramp up grassroots network-building and mobilization around publicly identified, high priority issues. Specific examples are:
*UHC moving towards single-payer financing
*publicly financed alternative energy research and development
*election integrity

Of course, those donors are already doing all of these things. I could name several DA partners who are active in each of these areas. As well as others active in progressive politics who don't choose to belong to the DA. (Of course, most of these people are not really "billionaires"---I assume you use that just as a figure of speech, just as Matt does.) It's just a matter of what their particular interests are, and to some extent what personal expertise they have (you would rather see donors in a particular area who actually know something about that area, right?).

There is, of course, always ongoing discussion within the DA about which issue areas should be part of DA's priorities, and which not. DA simply doesn't have sufficient resources to work in all of these areas. I have my own list of neglected areas, as do you, and I'm sure many others. No two of those lists are the same, and that creates a challenge. The sum of all of the lists is way beyond what DA can support. But I am not sure that just because DA doesn't recommend any organizations in a particular area, that means that area is less well-funded (just as DA recommendation doesn't bring an instant stream of money---it's still up to the partners to contribute or not). It just means that those organizations have to appeal more directly to donors.

The one thing I'm not sure about is what you mean by "competitive bid". It doesn't really make sense to me to solicit proposals from several different "election integrity" organizations, and then try to measure which one can generate the most integrity per dollar. Any philanthropist, of course, has to make decisions about where their money is best spent. Large foundations tend to do this by soliciting formal proposals. Individuals tend to do it more through personal interactions and their own subjective determination of value. I am not sure that either approach is inherently superior to the other; both have their places.

Millionaires and billionaires are fantastic, so long as they are on the right side. Contrary to Republican bullshit, people don't hate the rich for their money. Nobody of any significance wants to punish the rich.

However, nobody amasses any significant amount of wealth without government. Suppose Gil Bates drove on public roads, studied at public schools, and deposited in the public sewers for free when he was growing up and not yet earning enough to pay taxes. If he rejected his obligation to cover the cost of younger generations doing the same, it would be damned annoying.

Gil didn't become a billionaire without the bundle of privileges and immunities of his corporation. If he took the attitude that he earned it all himself and never took a dime from anyone, and that it's unfair for the government to steal his rightful earnings and give it to losers who are poor because they're stupid and lazy, then Gil would be regarded as a selfish jerk.

People don't generally hate Gil, because he isn't like that. If Gil were an obnoxious douche bag, people would hate him for that reason, not for his money.

Matt writes:

I do think the DA has some special obligation to be transparent, because it isn't simply acting as a funnel to groups that have always received the same donations; it's actually seeking to control which groups get those donations and to channel that money in the proportions that it deems most efficient.

This is simply not true. DA does not, now, even have specific dollar targets for its partner organizations, much less any "control" over what funding level is achieved. Of course, the purpose of DA is to help its partners allocate their funding in a more efficient way, and, for example, when there is a significant perceived gap in the infrastructure, it is likely that DA staff and partners will attempt to persuade other partners to fill that gap. But DA does not have any "control" over whether this happens. All that DA has is persuasion, the same tool that any group uses when fundraising.

It is not accurate to say that the goal of DA is to direct funding under a single strategic vision. There are as many strategic visions within DA as there are partners. There are partners who have very different interests from mine, and don't contribute to any of the same groups. There are partners who are "Establishment", and partners who are "insurgents". There are partners who consider themselves moderate Republicans (if such a thing still exists).

Do DA recommendations have some influence with its partners? Sure, I hope so, otherwise what would be the point? But is the DA process less transparent than the "old way" (which is still predominant) of organizations making direct appeals to donors, exchanging board positions for large donations, etc.? It doesn't seem so to me, and so the DA seems a positive contribution to the funding landscape.

Let me continue on yet another point. I read some of Matt's book today, a section on Democracy Alliance. Now, I've said before this was overblown, in that the group didn't seem to me sufficiently important in the scheme of progressive movements. Call it my ignorance that I hadn't heard of them, but I'm still wondering. 

Now, a lot focuses on secrecy. As Matt himself says, a donor does not surrender certain rights to privacy. I'd add that secrecy may be impractical, if it impedes debate that'd foster better action. But I don't often know about billionaires and donors, and normally I worry most about secrecy in government: who is getting repaid with what? Thus, we complained about Cheney's energy commission not because an oil company was secretly planning to stick to oil and old technologies. We complained because they were shaping government. 

As I read further, I found a second objection to the Alliance he hadn't mentioned here. Why are they following old donor models, where the GOP uses its money to fund scholars in their own think-tanks. And that one, too, angered me. The reason the right needs those pretend academic institutions is not to generate new debate and thus new ideas. It's to avoid the existing debate in academia. Liberals and scholars mostly have generated good ideas because they still believe in reality based thought.  

John 

http://www.haberarts.com/

It might at this point be valuable to throw in another group of billionaires, as highlighted in the news today. Thanks to Josh at TPM and to Yglesias, I'm directed to AP and NYT reports on Freedom Watch. And here two points stand out.

One is that they're not just secretive or influential. They're part of the system, out for themselves, and able to help ensure the continuance of GOP policies promoting their interests. Josh has more on this "well connected" group, as you'll see.  

The second is that they have a policy in mind, although I would not exactly call it an idea, and I doubt anyone here would call it a good idea. Its target, in sum, is Iran. 

I've some qualms about Nathan's post, since his ideas, which amount to support for unions and thus for progress through the workplace and specifically the unionized workplace. But we can quarrel over that, and they're not bad points. But can anyone quarrel with his conclusion here that it's about not "new ideas" but power? 

John 

http://www.haberarts.com/

Matt --

I guess I'll have to buy your book. Living and working in Seattle for the last 37 years -- in a very entrepreneurial and, arguably from WWII on, technology sophisticated economy, that's not really "post-industrial" because it never had the location or energy resources to be very "industrial" in the first place, and given my background as the daughter of a "boomer" (in the economic sense) trade unionist, a small business owner, and a marketing professional and working class feminist who went from typing pool to corner office, I find it hard to associate "progressive" or "left" politics with resistance to economic change. But, from your comments here, it seems that you do. At least in terms of some elements and some players in the Democratic Party. I presume the book will reveal why that's the case, and who those players are.

From my perspective, based in my experience, what distinguishes the progressive approach to the economy from the conservative one is that progressives accept the reality and inevitability of economic (and corresponding social) change and try to devise tools to help the majority of people and communities cope with and benefit from it.

Conservatives, on the other hand, being conservative, despite what they may (feel they have to) say or even believe, always have only one real agenda -- protecting and benefitting established financial interests and the established social order. I mean, come on, if that wasn't their agenda, they wouldn't be "conservative." Which is why, despite all their talk about entrepreneurship and small business, the "opportunity society," etc., their policies don't, in the real world where the rubber hits the road, actively support (in fact mostly work against) the best interest of the start up and small (most especially the self-financed) business, the independent contractor, the employee seeking both more flexibility and more dependable ways to fulfill family responsibilities, minorities seeking access to new and better opportunities, etc., etc., who you appear to be saying you see as the future of the "new" economy.

Even Republican claims to provide tax relief (that they say Democrats won't) to those groups -- which is pretty much the only policy prescription they offer -- prove to be mostly untrue if you actually look at the figures and the history.

For me, the important ideological and policy "argument" that's been taking place over the last 30-40 years (which, frankly, many if not most journalists don't seem to understand -- or, don't find it in their best interest to elucidate) is between those who, in order to best serve and protect limited, powerful, established financial interests in a volatile economic environment, want to eliminate or roll back the progressive gains of the last century -- that have an imperfect but proven record of helping a majority of Americans meet the above progressive objectives -- and those who believe it is vitally important, in the face of modern economic realities, to maintain, modernize, broaden and build on them.

Some of that argument has been and is taking place within the Democratic Party. And, I think, in terms of the party that is the argument that most concerns most of us here -- and that we believe must first be won. The argument between those who, for a variety of reasons including fear of past Republican electoral success, the influence of big and special interest money, local political realities, their base in regions with no or limited progressive history, short-term generational self-interest, and, in some cases because they are simply economically naive or blinkered by economic self-interest, have gone a long way toward buying conservative arguments and agreeing to throw the progressive baby out with the bath water -- and those who believe that that baby, in very concrete and important ways, represents the best interest of the broadest number of Americans and the country's future -- so we damn well better do everything we can to not only protect it, but to teach it to swim in the big, new ocean that is the modern world economy.

I'm afraid the "argument" you are talking about is the one we've heard far too often for far too long -- and that the mainstream media has seemingly wholeheartedly embraced. The one that mostly consists of telling progressives that "new" economic realities mean they have to shut up, stand down and stop making demands.

When I read the book, I hope I find that I'm being "knee-jerk" in my assumption and that you have a much more complicated story to tell.

I threw a lengthy response to the younger worker thing in the previous post.

Short version. Younger workers tend to support Social Security 'reform' because they have been cleverly sold that Social Security will simply not be there at all. Professor Barkely Rosser of JMU has consistently polled his students and not found one that knew that the current system is projected to return a better check than the current retiree with equivalent job history receives. (Scheduled benefits would be 160% relative to today, a cut to 75% of that on Depletion adds up to a check 120% of the one my Mom gets today). Not one understood, most equate 'Depletion' to 'Bankruptcy' and no check at all. In light of that it is easy to sell the message "Something is better than nothing" on Social Security and I would put much of the support to changes among the younger liberals down to that factor alone.

This was not an accident. After the last round of reform in 1983 Cato sponsored a set of proposals about how to sell privatization when next the system came to a crisis point. Some of these proposals are more cynical than others, the most cynical of all is the one set out by Butler and Germanis in Fall 1983 Social Security edition of the Cato Journal Social Security Reform; Achieving a 'Leninist' Strategy . A whole campaign of action is set out. First reassure current beneficiaries and those approaching retirement that their benefits are secure. Second push IRAs as a concept, make them seem a viable alternative. Three gather the stakeholders who will profit ("The business community, and financial institutions in particular, would be an obvious element in the constituency.") Fourth, scare the heck out of the young ("It is imperative, therefore, that they be informed about the problems inherent in the current system and that they be organized behind the private alternative."), 'informed' here being a synonym for 'duped'. You see all four points in the Bush 'Plan'.

It is all there. A conscious propaganda campaign ("The second main element in our reform strategy involves what one might crudely call guerrilla warfare against both the current Social Security system and the coalition that supports it.) to destroy support for Social Security among primarily the young. And if you have followed this since then you will see that this strategy has been carried out to the letter, you could cut and paste every Social Security statement ever made by Bush and most Op-Eds by almost anyone right out of Butler and Germanis.

It was a brilliant campaign almost perfectly carried out, certainly it seems to have worked on Mr. Bai, (who from his appearance anyway would seem to be right in the target audience). And it probably would have seen total success had it not been for the productivity and GDP boom of the 90's which in fact served to put Social Security firmly on the glidepath to Solvency. The very fact that people look at me like I am a lunatic when I say the system is as likely to be overfunded as underfunded, and that the underfunding in context not particularly a big deal, is really a tribute to Messieurs Butler and Germanis and their colleagues at Cato and elsewhere.

People tell me there is no way they could have put this one over, certainly somebody would have caught on. And of course some did, just as some figured out Saddam likely had no deployable WMDs even before Inspectors went in. But enough people have bought the myth and never even examined the math to make this almost work. After all "everyone knows ----".

The mid-70's? It might as well have been a thousand years ago! Haven't there been significant developments in the Scaife story since?

I often ask people to give to groups that I think deserve and need more funding, at the expense of other groups that are well-funded and/or not as essential. That is not at all the same thing as seeking to control where the funding goes. Persuading someone to do something is different from coercing them to do it.

The only sense in which DA coerces anyone to do anything is that DA partners agree on a minimum level of contribution to DA partner organizations, as a requirement of membership. This is, in my opinion, primarily a way of screening people who are serious about (and have capacity for) supporting progressive politics, rather than of raising more money. I think anyone who joins DA should be willing to fund DA organizations and still have money for non-DA organizations. Any of the "billionaires" that you refer to in your title (and even the more ordinary DA partners, very few of whom are billionaires) have the capacity for that. And most of the money raised through DA is actually contributions by partners in excess of the "required" amounts, so it's not the requirement that is generating most of the funds, it's the compelling need from the organizations.

I think there is a perspective among the progressive organizations that are dependent on funding from wealthy donors that getting past that "DA bar" is essential. And I can understand why they think that way. But I don't think it's really so true. (It might be more true for some kinds of organizations than for others.)

This is all somewhat orthogonal to your original point, as I obviously don't disagree that it's good for people in the progressive community to understand what DA is and what it does. Not least for the purpose of recruiting new members.

Looking from the outside in, what I see is an overriding need for enough issue-specific institutional muscle (support plus pressure) to serve as a countervailing force to the special interests which block reform at the federal level on key issues such as (but hardly limited to) the ones I mentioned.

It's unclear to me whether DA, and the projects it funds, share that view, and if so, how that influences funding decisions. I'd be interested in hearing a response to the same question from other progressive organizations--you just happen to be here now.

Progressives have not had a big win in a long time at the national level. Ineffectiveness feeds negativity, cynicism and disengagement. I see a lot of the first two of these in the blogosphere, but not just there. Hopefully the clouds are starting to lift.

Maybe put another way, how, as a practical, ongoing matter does DA distinguish between a strategy of helping many flowers bloom versus inadvertently creating or perpetuating excessive fragmentation of efforts? Individuals are going to pursue whatever their particular passions are. But that doesn't mean donors can't confer with one another to see if there is any consensus on issue priorities.

It isn't just that I envy the ability of the Republicans, with their Norquist group, to focus, coordinate, and make real priority decisions stick. Well...yes, it is.

Two questions for you--if you feel able and willing to respond:

*Is DA legally permitted to confer with Congressional leaders to try to anticipate more promising medium term (2-4 years, say) legislative openings? If so does it do so?

*As far as you know is there a shared, open-access database which pools self and external-evaluations of private donor-supported projects (DA and other groups)? Is there anyone trying to set something like this up, recognizing of course that it is always up to donors whether to release the information or not?