The Privatization of the Democratic Party

By Harold Meyerson

Published May 14, 2004, issue of May 14, 2004.
  • Print
  • Share Share

The Democratic establishment is concerned about where presumptive presidential candidate John Kerry stands as his campaign moves toward summer. The Bush re-election effort has spent some of its fortune establishing a formidable field operation in the battleground states, where in some cases the Kerry campaign has yet to even designate state coordinators.

In Ohio, to name one supposed trouble spot, the Bush campaign has signed up thousands of precinct coordinators, while the Kerry campaign is still nowhere in evidence. But the alarm is overstated, because the Democrats have been active in Ohio for half a year, and have registered more new voters — roughly a quarter million by last count — than the vaunted Republican operation.

The Democrats haven’t done it through the official party apparatus, which hasn’t got the bucks and in any case isn’t anyone’s idea of a first-rate operation. They’ve done it through the 527s.

The 527s, as any self-respecting political junkie knows, are independent political operations that have arisen as a result of the enactment of the McCain-Feingold campaign finance reform act. McCain-Feingold forbids donations to official party committees for voter registration and mobilization efforts, the avenue by which major donors such as labor unions traditionally gave “soft money.” To pick up the slack, independent operations called 527s — named after the section of the tax code under which they’re established — have arisen. They’ve already succeeded in putting enough ads on the air in the battleground states to mitigate the funding advantage that the Bush campaign has over Kerry’s.

This “privatization of the Democratic Party” — as the response to the McCain-Feingold act has been called by financier George Soros, the largest single donor to these 527s — does more than merely reallocate the money. It also puts it in more capable hands.

Guiding most of the field operations is Steve Rosenthal, until last year the political director of the AFL-CIO. When John Sweeney took the helm at the federation in 1995, he pledged to turn around labor’s decline in organizing new members and at the ballot box. The first task has not been realized; most international unions have found that organizing new members is beyond them, absent a reform of labor laws enabling workers to join unions without fear of firing.

But labor’s performance at the polls has improved markedly. Whereas voters from union households constituted a scant 14% of the electorate in 1994, the last national election before Sweeney took over, they amounted to 26% of the turnout in 2002. Sweeney plowed far more resources into the endeavor, but his best move was to hire Rosenthal, who proved to be the master of voter mobilization and persuasion.

The 2002 election showed, however, that while labor was turning out its voters, much of the rest of the Democratic Party base was still underperforming — along with the Democratic congressional leadership, which waged a themeless and deadening campaign. So Rosenthal moved across the street from the AFL-CIO’s headquarters and started up a couple of 527s — one entirely with union funding, the other with funding from such wealthy individuals as Soros — to begin the task of identifying and registering voters.

For months before the Republicans had hired a soul, labor-backed operations were on the ground in key states. Unlike most precinct operations, these campaigns call on voters several times, identify their key concerns and get them germane materials on the candidates — but it’s been the repeat visits that have proven key.

In a dry run for next November, one such operation in Pennsylvania registered 86,000 new voters in Philadelphia’s black and Latino communities — a stunning figure in a city of just 1.5 million — enabling embattled Democratic Mayor John Street to win re-election with a stunning 59% of the vote. Other Rosenthal operations have long been at work in minority communities of such swing-state cities as St. Louis, Orlando and Cleveland.

At the same time that the 527s are building the Democratic base, the AFL-CIO itself has committed to spend more money than ever on its own get-out-the-vote campaign and has already begun to flood battleground states with staffers. If the Kerry campaign hasn’t been as fast as the Bush operation to staff up in the field, it may be because Kerry’s operatives know that there’s been a Democratic field operation humming along for months.

At least two international unions are even looking beyond the battleground states this year — amazingly enough, into Texas. Both the Service Employees International Union and the Hotel and Restaurant Employees will be part of an operation registering and mobilizing Latino voters in Texas. The move will coincide with the onset of some unionization efforts in this staunchly anti-union state, the most prominent of which is the SEIU’s plan to bring one of its celebrated “Justice for Janitors” campaigns to Houston.

Unions in California played a key role in the state’s evolution over the past decade into a Democratic stronghold. Now unions — or at least the SEIU, the most successful and ambitious union of our time — are looking South. If they have anywhere near the success they’ve had in California organizing new immigrants and bringing them into the political process — a project that they know will be difficult and long — come November they could put Texas back into play or even nudge it into the Democratic column.

That would be Karl Rove’s ultimate nightmare.

Harold Meyerson is editor at large of The American Prospect, a columnist for The Washington Post and political editor of the L.A. Weekly.






Find us on Facebook!
  • Novelist Sayed Kashua finds it hard to write about the heartbreak of Gaza from the plush confines of Debra Winger's Manhattan pad. Tough to argue with that, whichever side of the conflict you are on.
  • "I’ve never bought illegal drugs, but I imagine a small-time drug deal to feel a bit like buying hummus underground in Brooklyn."
  • We try to show things that get less exposed to the public here. We don’t look to document things that are nice or that people would like. We don’t try to show this place as a beautiful place.”
  • A new Gallup poll shows that only 25% of Americans under 35 support the war in #Gaza. Does this statistic worry you?
  • “You will stomp us into the dirt,” is how her mother responded to Anya Ulinich’s new tragicomic graphic novel. Paul Berger has a more open view of ‘Lena Finkle’s Magic Barrel." What do you think?
  • PHOTOS: Hundreds of protesters marched through lower Manhattan yesterday demanding an end to American support for Israel’s operation in #Gaza.
  • Does #Hamas have to lose for there to be peace? Read the latest analysis by J.J. Goldberg.
  • This is what the rockets over Israel and Gaza look like from space:
  • "Israel should not let captives languish or corpses rot. It should do everything in its power to recover people and bodies. Jewish law places a premium on pidyon shvuyim, “the redemption of captives,” and proper burial. But not when the price will lead to more death and more kidnappings." Do you agree?
  • Slate.com's Allison Benedikt wrote that Taglit-Birthright Israel is partly to blame for the death of American IDF volunteer Max Steinberg. This is why she's wrong:
  • Israeli soldiers want you to buy them socks. And snacks. And backpacks. And underwear. And pizza. So claim dozens of fundraising campaigns launched by American Jewish and Israeli charities since the start of the current wave of crisis and conflict in Israel and Gaza.
  • The sign reads: “Dogs are allowed in this establishment but Zionists are not under any circumstances.”
  • Is Twitter Israel's new worst enemy?
  • More than 50 former Israeli soldiers have refused to serve in the current ground operation in #Gaza.
  • "My wife and I are both half-Jewish. Both of us very much felt and feel American first and Jewish second. We are currently debating whether we should send our daughter to a Jewish pre-K and kindergarten program or to a public one. Pros? Give her a Jewish community and identity that she could build on throughout her life. Cons? Costs a lot of money; She will enter school with the idea that being Jewish makes her different somehow instead of something that you do after or in addition to regular school. Maybe a Shabbat sing-along would be enough?"
  • from-cache

Would you like to receive updates about new stories?




















We will not share your e-mail address or other personal information.

Already subscribed? Manage your subscription.