Small-dollar donors didn't save democracy. They made it worse.

[brooklynite]

Washingtton Post

Small-dollar donors were supposed to save democracy. Reformers had hoped that grass-roots political fundraising — connected by the internet and united against corruption — would become a formidable force to counter the money that wealthy individuals funnel to candidates.

Only half of that would become true. Small-dollar donors are indeed powerful today — but they have made politics worse, not better.

This has manifested in different ways depending on the party. For Republicans, small-dollar donors have bankrolled bomb-throwers who treat Congress like the Thunderdome. For Democrats, they have wasted hundreds of millions of dollars on ridiculous, fantasy-driven campaigns. And even when they flood a race with cash, they do little to lessen the influence of big donors.

Democratic small-dollar donors present a different problem. While many of them strategically give to candidates in close, high-stakes races, too frequently they waste unthinkable sums of money trying to force high-profile Republicans out of safe seats.

Amy McGrath is the perfect case study. The Kentucky Democrat had almost no chance of beating Senate GOP leader Mitch McConnell in deep-red Kentucky. Yet small-dollar donors sent her more than $56 million.

[CaliforniaPeggy]

1. What a wonderful, upbeat message. I'm sure you're correct, even so.

So what are we small-dollar donors supposed to do?

[brooklynite]

2. Do what I do: be RATIONAL about the races you choose to give your small dollar donations to.

I'll donate to Adam Frisch NOT because I dislike Lauren Boebert, but because he can make a compelling case as to HOW he'll beat Laurent Boebert.

I model every competitive race in the country from US Senate down to State Auditor. And I contribute to the most competitive races where my dollars will do the most good.

[Bettie]

26. I think we're supposed to do what the rich people..."High dollar donors"

tell us to. They will tell us who their candidates are by the unlimited Super PAC money they give them.

Isn't that the baseline of our society these days? Do what the rich people want and fewer people get hurt...maybe, if it is profitable.

Our donations are chump change in a system where one billionaire can buy more "speech" than the rest of us combined.

[sinkingfeeling]

3. Well I guess David Byler thinks we should all just sit down and let those with the big bucks

make all of the decisions for us.

[spooky3]

4. Byler is a right winger, and this is an opinion piece

With some highly questionable interpretations of data. As noted by a WaPo reader (“Carrots and Peas”)

“ Byler is a conservative columnist who analyzes election data for WaPo.

WaPo does not publish a left-of-center columnist who analyzes election data.

Just a conservative one.

Before joining WaPo, Byler worked at the Weekly Standard and Real Clear Politics.

He is not a neutral election analyst.”

[Spazito]

8. Important information to know...

thanks for this, it is very informative.

[spooky3]

9. YW!

[brooklynite]

10. ...who analyzes the choice of small dollar donors in both Parties.

This has been going on for years, and plenty of folks here have posted about contributing to races that were hopeless from the start.

[spooky3]

15. He doesn't analyze these donations well. The readers point out

A number of flaws in the analysis, and I could add more.

The Post needs to hire someone whose degrees are in statistics or political science, and who is not a partisan.

[Silent3]

17. The analysis is from a suspect source and perhaps faulty, however...

...your response isn't helpful either.

Sometimes bad news is real. A provider of bad news is under no obligation to provide you with a solution to the bad news they bring.

Suppose you're trying to clear up a rash with the only ointment you have on hand. Someone tells you, "you know, that ointment won't help that kind of rash".

The proper response is NOT, "So, what am I supposed to do, stay up all night with this terrible itch?"

If the ointment doesn't work, it doesn't work. The person who told you the ointment won't work is not obligated to tell you what will work, and it might just be that nothing will work. The ointment is also not obligated to magically start working anyway because you don't have better options.

[leftstreet]

5. LOL Amy McGrath's campaigns were spectacular cash cows

Interesting article. Not sure I agree "small dollar donors" were ever expected by our overlords to "save democracy."

[The Magistrate]

6. There Is A Great Deal To This, Sir

Some of the blame seems to lie with the people seeking office. In our case, their spending on their own behalf far more than their actual chance of success deserves. Surely there are ways for candidates to contribute to party and to other candidates what 'excess' funds they receive. People congenitally over-rate their chances of success in some endeavor, but it's a privilege that can be, and has been, abused.

[brooklynite]

13. Understood, but part of the problem is that the candidates can frame their appeal TO the small donor

They know a lot of small dollar donors will respond emotionally to "I'm running against (Republican you hate) appeals.

[The Magistrate]

19. Frame It However They Like, Sir

But do with it what's best. What's practical politics about but channeling emotions?

Someone who appears credible running as a forlorn hope against a veritable beast makes a good focus. Everyone involved know what the end there will be, and even if you view doing this as fleecing the small donor, it seems there are always fresh sheep.

[Bayard]

7. "fantasy-driven campaigns"

I don't appreciate that remark. Especially in regards to Amy McGrath. McConnell's approval rating in this state is down in the low 30's. I thought Amy had a real shot at beating that.

Rand Paul is leading Charles Booker at this point still, at least among rethuglicans. 73% of Dems say they'll vote for Booker, who leads in Louisville. Rand Paul leads in Eastern and Western KY, which figures.

[brooklynite]

11. "I thought Amy had a real shot"

I did not, based on McConnell's fundraising ability and prior electoral results. Didn't matter what his approval level was; he delivered the goods for the people who voted for him.

[Zeitghost]

18. She lost by 20 points

It was a fantasy...

[TwilightZone]

25. Approval ratings do not equate to electibility.

Plenty of people detest Donald Trump and voted for him anyway, some twice, because there's much more to electability than approval or lack thereof. The makeup of the electorate, the opponent, the partisan edge in the underlying numbers, etc.

McConnell had a built-in partisan edge of hundreds of thousands of voters based solely on the makeup of the electorate there, plus he had the inherent incumbent edge, which is not insignificant.

Hell, *everyone* hates Ted Cruz and he keeps getting reelected.

[edhopper]

12. Yeah, well,

[Hortensis]

14. Yup. We've watched "fantasy-driven" but heavily funded LW campaigns

help the Republicans achieve devastatingly dangerous and damaging majorities.

[leftstreet]

16. They're not always LW campaigns

Take Amy McGrath for example. LOL she ran so Republican-Lite she actually campaigned on replacing McConnell so she could help Trump push through his policies. Not exactly a hardcore leftist or anything

[Hortensis]

20. Oh, absolutely. No problem here with RWers sabotaging their awful goals!

The term "fantasy-driven" was taken from the OP, where it referred specifically to misdirected LW "grassroots" enthusiasms that derail our ability to achieve our goals.

[PortTack]

21. But how many big donors gave and gave to the gqp candidate of their choice and still lost

I venture to say many. Conservatives gave 30 million to win the WI state SCOTUS race. The dem won handily. Lots of races like this!

Money isn’t everything

[Fiendish Thingy]

22. Give up, little people, and let the Rich Folks run things

Fuck that shit.

[progressoid]

31. Yep. Just sit back and take it.

Fuck that shit is right.

[Casady1]

23. We won 8 out of 13

that is pretty good numbers.

[diva77]

24. It takes a while to build a movement with small donations

Our Revolution has been building momentum with more victories at each level of government per election cycle.

[brooklynite]

27. Name a race Our Revolution has won against an actual Republican.

[diva77]

28. Maxwell Frost

https://ballotpedia.org/Maxwell_Alejandro_Frost

There are more - google and you'll find them

[brooklynite]

29. Seriously? Florida 10? A D+14 district?

Whichever Democrat was nominated had an easy path to victory.

This is precisely why I'm not impressed with OR: they burn cash trying to make existing Democratic seats more left-wing, but do nothing to actually expand the number of Democrats.

[diva77]

30. I'm not up on the minutia of each and every race. Maxwell Frost is an extremely

talented now-incumbent who is helping push the agenda back to where Dems used to be - much more progressive and serving the people. Why keep electing corporate Dems? -- that's what we've got with Manchin -- too risky and not in our best interest on many issues. OR is doing a fantastic job. Best to look at the forest for the trees.

[brooklynite]

32. "Corporate Democrats"...It's been awhile since I've heard that one.

We didn't "get" corporate dems with Manchin: we GOT an otherwise unwinnable Senate seat with Manchin, who has voted for all of Biden's judicial appointments, voted to convict Trump etc. But maybe you've got an OA candidate to replace him?

[diva77]

35. It's not just about winning races -- it's about getting the message out to people and building a

movement. That's what the rethuglicans have done for the last 40 years. I don't think Dems should rest on their laurels with a Manchinesque candidate and dismiss the possibility of a more progressive agenda --e.g. climate change is an existential threat and we have to get Dems who favor solutions to get us off of fossil fuel. If we don't run candidates with a progressive message, it's not as if the corporate media is going to stir up a useful debate.

[Autumn]

33. Yeah. Only the wealthy and corporations should donate to get a candidate of their choice elected and

we little people should shut the fuck up and vote for whom they choose.


Fuck that bullshit with the fantasy-driven campaign nonsense. Only the wealthy deserve their fantasy lives?

[brooklynite]

34. Nobody's saying small donors SHOULDN'T contribute...

...the article points out the political impact of those choices.

Ever wonder how much the Koch Brothers spent on opponents of Nancy Pelosi or Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez? Not a penny. They're smart enough to know that success comes from making liberal Democrats irrelevant by picking off the vulnerable moderate ones in competitive districts and winning a majority.