(update: Frank Russo reports that the Speaker of the Assembly will introduce various bills tomorrow regarding refinery capacity and gas prices.  I believe that this is an attempt to allay the Foundation for Taxpayer and Consumer Rights’ concerns; they have distributed petitions for a special session of the Legislature, after all.  I give tentative support to the Speaker’s efforts, and hope that it won’t befall the same fate as Joe Dunn’s bill last year, which never made it out of the Assembly.  This is the beginning of the fight, not the end.  The rest of my article, which deals with the CDP and really not the Speaker, holds.)

I appreciate all the comments in my somewhat provocative diary on Chevron’s $50,000 donation to the CDP and why I think there’s a better way to do business.  I’m no hallowed saint when it comes to politics, and I understand that right now it takes lots of cash.  But my main point is that money received from this particular company at this particular time with these particular underlying scenarios, whether taken in good faith or bad, will not do as much to reach new voters as it will alienate old ones.  People have every right to assume that a politician or a party who receives a large donation from a corporate entity will be expecting something in return, as the instances of such exchanges being consummated are too numerous to count.  And $50,000 buys 1 ad in LA during election season, maybe not all of it, but it drives hundreds of activists crazy, and every decline-to-state voter that hears about it just shakes their head and continues to believe the perception that “they’re all the same” in politics.  I know personally, from the reaction this has gotten, that people are upset.  It doesn’t mean they’ll stop working for the party, but maybe they’ll stuff one less envelope.  Maybe they’ll make one less phone call.  And maybe they just won’t feel as invested in a big-donor top-down party as they would in a small-donor bottom-up one.

more…

I don’t know if everyone’s aware of this, but the CDP has a horrible reputation in this state, if it has a reputation at all.  At a time when people are deserting the GOP in record numbers, we’re barely moving the needle.  The only way to turn this around is to erase this idea that both parties have their own special interests and that politics is politics and “a pox on both their houses.”  This donation, particularly from this company (I wonder how Steven Bing feels about it?), particularly with gas prices and oil co. profits both at an all-time high, particularly where the company is artificially decreasing supply like they’re OPEC, is to me a no-brainer.  It hurts the party.  To those who think that parties rise and fall on candidates rather than who gives the candidates money, I advise you to consult Wikipedia under “corruption, culture of,” which was universally given as the biggest reason for the Democratic success nationwide in 2006.  I fail to see why you would willingly invite comparison, when there’s a better way to raise money that brings more people into the donor pool and proud to be a part of the party at the same time. 

Further, something the party did in the past doesn’t innoculate it from future criticism.  Just supporting Prop. 87 and abandoning the issue when it loses is not enough.  The gas crisis is playing out right now.  CA Democrats have done nothing about it, haven’t really talked about it, since November, save for spending money on infrastructure bonds that call for more roads and make the problem worse.  Maviglio has said “just wait, we’re working on it” so we’ll see.  But I can’t help but believe that pressure LIKE WHAT I AM NOW DOING is a driving factor in that.

What this is all about is how the party can break with the past and move into the future.  Taking a stand on this particular contribution, coming up with a more innovative and respectable solution, will reap a hell of a lot more goodwill than $50,000 ever could.

There is a draft letter being circulated among delegates requesting respectfully that Chairman Torres returns this money and works on better funding solutions that are more about party growth.  If anyone would like to sign on to it, email me through the site and I’ll send you a copy.

(also available in blue)

I am fairly surprised that more has not been made in the blogosphere of the unwelcome news that Chevron is doing everything it can to buy off the California Democratic Party and some of its top legislators.  Outside of this small item in The Oil Drum, pretty much nobody has said a word about the fact that the CDP accepted a $50,000 check from a company that is attempting to artificially depress capacity and manipulate the energy market in a way that is shockingly similar to how Enron made themselves a fortune during the 2000-2001 energy crisis.  You can read the details here.

As a delegate to this party, I feel personally tainted by this donation.  I feel like there is a concerted effort to buy my silence.  It will not work, and I want to outline why I am respectfully asking this party, of which I am a member and to which I pay dues, to return the money.

I don’t think I have to go into how Chevron controls the oil market in California by owning most of the refineries, and that in another era that would rightly be called a trust.  I don’t need to discuss their record profits or their expenditures of $44 million to defeat ballot propositions like Prop. 87 and Prop. 89 last year, or their consistently greedy profit-taking at a time of record gas prices throughout the state, or how they refuse to increase refining capacity to keep that profit artificially high.  And I don’t need to explain how corporations aren’t in the business of charity, and that every expenditure they make has a stated outcome, whether for public relations purposes or to engender favorable legislation or just to keep government off their backs while they continue to rake in billions.  What I can talk about is the poverty of imagination that leads the CDP to take a gift like this.

What bothers me most about taking a fat corporate donation like this, from the very interest group you fought tooth and nail against on Prop. 87 just 6 months ago, is how LAZY it is.  There are an unlimited amount of ways to raise $50,000 that not only show no appearance of impropriety or corporate favoritism, but bring people into the process and grow the party, which are the key metrics for politics in the 21st century.  If you really needed $50,000 in a state of 37 million people, how about this: ask 50,000 to give a dollar to specifically ensure that the CDP won’t be beholden to big corporate money.  You can hold dollar parties and write about how giving citizens a stake brings them closer to the party.  And in return for that dollar, you could give people prominent space on the CDP website to upload a minute of video about what problems facing California most affect them.  Then, once the money is collected, PUBLICLY REBUFF Chevron by telling them that their donation has been paid by the people.  Not only would you be seen as populist folk heroes, you would be investing in the party by allowing 50,000 Calfornians get a share and a stake.  That’s called people power.  The new metrics for the Presidential campaigns, for example, are not just money but numbers of donors, because that shows a broad base of support.  A party that gets rich off fat $50,000 checks is a mile wide and an inch deep.  We already have a party like that in California.  It’s called the Republican Party.  And I expect them and their leaders to take hundreds of thousands from the oil industry, as Arnold has.

If that corporate money were even drilled in to infrastructure and party building, that would be something.  But typically, it’s not.  And the party that continues on a traditional model of collecting big corporate checks and running big broadcast ads will be obsolete in a new media environment.  Stoller:

We need to figure out new metrics for receiving party support aside from money and polling.  Perhaps opt-in email addresses acquired?  Friends on MySpace?  Newly registered voters (I like this one)?  Chatter across blogs using sites such as Blogpulse?

I’m not sure, but the whole landscape of politics is shifting.  It’s like an entirely new grammar is emerging, but we’re not there yet.

A “dollar party” strategy, that could spread virally through social networking sites (is the CDP even on MySpace or Facebook?), that would bind more people to the party in a small way and set up a core of activists for GOTV, that would allow a press release that says “50,000 donors!” instead of hiding the fact that one polluting Big Oil ripoff artist gave you 50,000 dollars… would simply be a forward-thinking way to grow the party and gather attention.

I’m sure that there are a host of conciliators and “my-party-right-or-wrong” types that have a problem with me sharing even a scintilla of disagreement with the state party (there’s another guy that believes in the silencing of any alternative voices, he resides at 1600 Penn. Ave, Wash, DC, 20500).  First of all, I would have them take a look at the rise of DTS voters and the lack of success in joining the progressive wave in 2006 and ask them where all that brushing aside criticism has gotten them.  But the second thing I would ask them is, why are you a Democrat?  What do you believe, if anything?  And how do you square that belief with the fact that one of the companies most committed to stopping any progress on global warming or reducing dependence on foreign oil just handed you – you! – a wad of money in order to shut you up?

The Speaker’s Office claims that these donations won’t impact Democrats’ ability to take a hard look at what Chevron is attempting to do on refining capacity, and that “tough” legislation is forthcoming.  I would hope so.  I cannot impact what individual candidates receive in gifts; at least, not until election season.  I can have an impact when it’s my party.  I’m a delegate and a member in good standing.  I know for a fact that members of the Party leadership read this site.  I’m asking those in charge at the CDP, nicely, to give back the Chevron money.  I want to work on innovative fundraising solutions that can simultaneously fund the important work of the party and bring it closer to the people whom it serves.  But like any addiction, the first step is admitting you have a problem.

Our friends at Democracy for America have launched this cycle’s first Grassroots All Star online vote. The email announcement actually comes from Congressman McNerney (full text after the jump). Charlie Brown is one of the candidates in the running and winning the vote will bring his campaign lots of new supporters and a pile of money. So take 30 seconds and support Charlie Brown:

http://www.democracyforamerica.com/allstars

In 2004, I ran for Congress and lost. In 2006, I ran again and won — defeating Richard Pombo, a seven-term Republican incumbent.

When the pundits and power-brokers were telling us we could not defeat Pombo, thousands of Democracy for America supporters pushed back, voting to give me DFA’s 2006 “Grassroots All-Star” endorsement, a crucial turning point that provided our campaign with a major financial boost.

Today, seven excellent grassroots candidates will go head to head to win DFA’s first congressional endorsement of 2007. You can help me grow the Democratic majority in Congress in 2008 by voting for your next DFA Grassroots All-Star right now:

http://www.democracyforamerica.com/allstars

DFA’s early endorsement helped me win a seat in Congress, showing that bottom-up, people-powered grassroots organizing works. Your Grassroots All-Star vote changed the race, helping us attract significant early support from the netroots and crucial media attention.

Now, you can make a difference again. Democracy for America has put together a list of candidates that came extremely close last year, ran an excellent grassroots campaign, and have already thrown their hat back in the ring. These candidates need your help to finish what they started in 2006. It’s up to you to decide who DFA will support next.

Please vote today for DFA’s 2007 Grassroots All-Star:

http://www.democracyforamerica.com/allstars

Don’t stop there. We won the Grassroots All-Star competition in 2006 because our supporters spread the word about this important competition to their friends, family and neighbors. So, after you vote today, forward this message to your friends and ask them to support your candidate.

Getting out the vote is how you took back Congress in 2006 and it’s how we’ll grow our Democratic majority in 2008. You can get the ball rolling now by voting for your DFA Grassroots All-Star candidate today and telling your friends to do the same.

Thanks for everything you do,

Jerry McNerney
Member of Congress
2006 DFA Grassroots All-Star

(We’re still giving them the big bucks… But now they need to pay attention to what we have to say! Ya know, California’s about much more than just money. : ) – promoted by atdleft)

by Erik Love

April 15 was the deadline for the 2008 Presidential Candidates to submit their official first quarter fundraising reports.  Those of us following ATM Watch, the Courage Campaign project that monitors visits to California from the '08 candidates, are not surprised to learn that California gave more dollars to the campaigns than any other state.

None of the major candidates in the race is originally from California, which makes our generosity all the more impressive.  Californians donated some 20 million dollars to the presidential campaigns, with Democrats raising $8 for every $5 raised by the Republicans.  No other state gave as much to the campaigns.  

This is notable because it's been the pattern in presidential campaigns for so long — come to California for money, but go to Iowa for votes.  ATM Watch's goal to to change all that — to make California not just a place for political donations, but also a place where the candidates must tell us about their positions on the issues that we think are important.

Check out this interactive map to see specific California donations for each candidate in the race, and be sure to join us at ATM Watch to hold the candidates to account as they continue to visit our state.

Remember Jerry McNerney’s $300,000 fundraising goal? Well he came in at $345,352.52 with just under a quarter of a million dollars cash on hand (adjusted for debt).

In the fourth district, Charlie Brown raised $98,680.05 and is a few bucks shy of $125,000 COH (adjusted for debt).

The adjustment for debt matters most for John Doolittle. He raised $144,241.10 but with a staggering $172,490.84 in debt the congressman is actually $80,000 in the hole. This means Charlie Brown has a $200,000+ warchest advantage — against a sitting member of congress!

UPDATE: Speaking of which, guess where Charlie Brown is today…

Press Release (PDF)

Lt. Col. Charlie Brown Will Distribute Funds to Local Veterans Support Groups at Press Conference in Roseville on Monday
Brown asks Politicians, Businesses, and Individuals to “lead by example on troop support”

Roseville: Retired USAF Lt. Col. Charlie Brown will be presenting financial contributions to a number of local veterans support organizations at an event scheduled for Monday, April 16th at the Roseville Veterans Memorial Hall.

The event comes just days after Brown’s son deployed for his fourth rotation to Iraq, and in the wake of growing concerns about the wide spectrum of post-combat aftercare needs confronting veterans of Iraq and Afghanistan.

“We’ve all heard the troubling trends concerning PTSD, homelessness, suicide, divorce, and the myriad of otherchallenges that have faced past and current generations of veterans,” Brown said. “Many people may not be aware of the vital role that local groups play in delivering services to those in need, and how much they count on the support of private donors and volunteers.”

“This event is about highlighting their work, their needs, and what others can do to help,” Brown added. It’s about the shared obligation of people of all stripes-politicians, businesses, and individuals–to come together, put their money where their mouth is on troop support, and address  common challenge that will be with all of us for decades to come—no veteran left behind.”

Brown, who is exploring the possibility of a second run for Congress in 2008, issued a challenge to supporters back on March 13th to help raise $25,000 online by the end of the month, with 10% of all proceeds going to support local community based organizations that serve veterans and their families. Monday’s event will distribute the funds generated by that campaign to the Sacramento Stand Down, Nevada County Stand Down, and Sierra College Veterans Club.

This just in from The Chicago Tribune:

Sen. Barack Obama raised at least $25 million dollars during the first quarter for his presidential campaign, a total surprisingly close to the $26 million collected by his chief rival for the Democratic nomination, Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton.

Obama actually may have raised more for the primary campaign than the former first lady, but that cannot be definitively known because the Clinton campaign has refused to say how much of its total is designated for the primary election versus the general election.

“This overwhelming response, in only a few short weeks, shows the hunger for a different kind of politics in this country and a belief at the grassroots level that Barack Obama can bring out the best in America to solve our problems,” said Penny Pritzker, Obama’s finance chair.

Oh, my! Watch out, everyone! This field is WIDE OPEN, and boy is it givine me hope! Follow me after the flip for more on this great development:

Now here’s some more good news from the Obama Campaign:

Obama raised $6.9 million-more than a quarter of his total-over the Internet from more than 50,000 online donors, the Illinois Democrat’s campaign said from Chicago this morning.

Overall, Obama received contributions from more than 100,000 individuals, his campaign said. Clinton received donations from about 50,000 people, while Edwards took in money from about 37,000 donors.

Obama’s campaign said that at least $23.5 million of its first-quarter collection would be available for the primary campaign, an important distinction because candidates are able to raise money now for both the primary and general elections.

Obviously, Obama has BROAD SUPPORT from throughout the nation, as over 100,000 PEOPLE across America have demonstrated their belief in Obama’s vision of hope, action, and change in this nation by giving donations to the Obama Campaign. And oh yes, he’s obviously enjoying plenty of success online as people use My.BarackObama.com to raise money, build community, and basically do great grassroots campaigning online. It’s just so exciting to see how Obama is taking all this grassroots support and running with it.

Now, I only hope that Obama uses all this money well. I hope he uses it to continue growing the grassroots here in California and elsewhere. I hope he uses this money to invest in building A REAL CAMPAIGN OF HOPE, ACTION, AND CHANGE that gives us all something to be excited about. After eight years of George W. Bush and his politics of division and destruction, it’s time for us to be excited and hopeful again.

cross-posted from the new ActBlue Blog. Thanks for making this post possible!

On Monday I posted a tip for spicing up ActBlue fundraising pages by embedding video into ‘asks’. This is a very powerful fundraising tactic–especially when the asker and audience have an existing relationship.

Over at Calitics, a great community blog in California, they’ve taken that suggestion and run with it. I’ve included a screenshot of their pitch to the right (click on it to view a bigger version in a new window). Besides the video, Calitics’ blogger Brian uses several of the principles of fundraising to make a really compelling plea for his candidates.  Some of the successful elements they have included:

1. Create Urgency- The pitch is for end-of-quarter donations.  Brian clearly states that there’s a deadline before which donors need to fundraise.  And he timed his pitch just a couple of days away from the end of quarter.
2. Be Specific- Rather than overloading their page with a dozen candidates, Brian stuck with three candidates that have a common theme.  The majority of ActBlue donors give to an entire page’s slate of candidates…remember that when choosing your slate of candidates.
3. Make it Personal- Brian, a Calitics blogger, is asking his own blog readers to donate. They have an existing relationship and a degree of trust built up. Potential donors are more likely to give when asked by someone they know and the pitch is personal.  They’re less likely to donate when spammed by someone they don’t know.
4. Think Longterm- The Calitics’ ask offers the option of giveing once or of setting up a recurring contribution. Recurring donations are growing in popularity on ActBlue, with over 1000 users having chosen that option for a variety of candidates.   If a donor can’t contribute a lump sum amount at once, recurring contributions allow them to invest in the page in installments.

Most of these elements are included in their Calitics ActBlue fundraising page as well. To improve the impact, some ideas might be to include the text from the Calitics post next to the video on their ActBlue fundraising page itself or add the recurring contribution buttons below the embedded video. If that happened, their ActBlue fundraising page could be e-mailed around to additional friends or registered users of the Calitics blog extending the end-of-Quarter ask into a new medium.

One other thing that might help the effort is to set a goal, similar to what the bloggers at Raising Kaine have done (screen shot at left again, click to enlarge). They are shooting for $20,000 to all their endorsed candidates by the end of the state quarter on Saturday, giving a real sense of momentum to their efforts. Adding some text about that immediate goal on their fundraising page would be perfect to tie it together with their blog posts.

While it is early in the cycle, bloggers can build upon their early adopters to make effective asks in creative ways that fit their audience. What ideas might you add?

This past week I had the chance to hear a classic Zack Exley rant, disguised as an apology.  Zack may have sold out and started consulting, but before he did that he worked on the John Kerry Internet team.  He and the rest of the Internet staffers screwed up royally.  Thanks to the Internet, they were raking in an extremely large percentage of the overall fundraising, mostly small donations.  At the same time, their requests for more of the candidate’s time were denied.  They may have asked to have Kerry pen his own emails, but it was not enough.  While large donors may have gotten personal attention, the distributed nature of the Internet meant that there was no one effectively lobbying for them.

What Zack admitted, in retrospect, that they should have done was threaten to quit en mass, until they got some love from the candidate.  He had the most interesting story to tell.  Penning emails on his behalf and the campaign manager lacked authenticity and as a result were very boring.  That was the difference from the magic of the Dean campaign.

It is the personal appeals and authenticity that drives much of ActBlue’s success.  It was mcjoan heading on a driving tour of the midwest, or jsw matching funds here at Calitics that drove their totals to $17 million this year.  ActBlue and the rise of the small donor gets some well-deserved love in the LAT today.

After a slow start in the 2004 elections, ActBlue caught on. Its users include the candidates themselves, individuals who want to donate to a particular state or national candidate, and up-and-coming “bundlers” mimicking, on a more modest scale, wealthy fundraisers who squeeze tens of thousands of dollars from friends and associates.

“It is all transparent. It’s all small donations,” DeBergalis said.

We know who is raising and how much they have raised.  They have the ability to place personal appeals right on the site, and much of the donations are driven by emails and blog posts.  Boxer, in particular, was an ActBlue superstar.

Sen. Barbara Boxer (D-Calif.) used ActBlue to raise $900,000 in 2006, doling it out to Democrats nationally. Candidates also use ActBlue to operate their online fundraising. Edwards makes heavy use of ActBlue, having raised $1.07 million so far in his quest for the Democratic presidential nomination. New Mexico Gov. Bill Richardson has raised more than $288,000.

In many instances, individuals set up pages on the ActBlue site and recruit friends to contribute, via credit card, to candidates they tout. ActBlue transmits the money to the selected candidates.

Nate de la Piedra, 24, a political science student at George Mason University in Fairfax, Va., is one such bundler. He figures he has raised $70,000 for state and federal candidates.

“It allows anybody to become a bundler,” de la Piedra said. He envisions the potential: Rather than have a handful of wealthy people raise money for a candidate, “why not have a finance committee of 1,000 people each raising $1,000?”

Edwards and Richardson are funneling most of their donations through ActBlue, though the “Coultercash” was run through a proprietary system. 

As the article makes clear, we are kicking the Republicans rear when it comes to small donor fundraising online.  It has created a new strength in our party, not those rich Hollywood donors giving in big chunks.  And its why blog posts like this on on the FlashReport are so out of touch and inaccurate.

This evidence should help despoil the view that Republicans are the party of the rich. Presently, today’s leftist Dem donors generally come from the idle leisure class. The overwhelming financial support Republicans get are from its middle class supporters.

Yes, there are some really rich Democrats, who shockingly believe that they should pay taxes for the greater good.  There are a heavy concentration of them here in California, which skews the national picture.  One cannot conclude that because there are rich Democratic donors that Republican’s donor base are middle class supporters.  It is the Democrats who are riding the wave of the small donor revolution, which is the opposite of what everyone expected with the passage of McCain-Feingold.  Nobody predicted the rise of online fundraising.

Now that we have it, we need to find ways to leverage it to our advantage, so that candidates are paying real attention to us.  We deserve a seat at the table and online organizing that MoveOn and the blogs are conducting are an expression of that leverage.  We are changing candidate’s behavior, as the Nevada debate campaign proved.  It will not be the last campaign of that nature.  Our blowups will be played out for everyone to watch, not quietly take place behind closed doors.