(I was working on a similar post, but I’ll still post my own, with all CA data and some other miscellany. – promoted by Brian Leubitz)

The problem with most scorecards is that they are written by lobbyists concerned with always getting the votes of potential supporters. Thus, there is an equal weighting while in the real world not all votes are equal. In fact, regardless of everything else, some votes are dealbreakers and when they show up on scorecards as one of 12 votes or something, it looks silly. However, Progressive Punch has a new “when the chips are down” scorecard. After the flip is the ratings of CA’s congressional delegation, in descending order.

Senate:

92.86 Boxer, Barbara
90.45 Feinstein, Dianne

House:

100.00 Pelosi, Nancy
98.43 Sánchez, Linda T.
97.49 Capps, Lois
97.18 Lee, Barbara
96.43 Richardson, Laura
96.24 Solis, Hilda L.
95.92 Woolsey, Lynn C.
95.91 Filner, Bob
95.30 Matsui, Doris O.
95.19 Becerra, Xavier
94.98 Farr, Sam
94.67 Honda, Michael M.
94.65 Lofgren, Zoe
94.03 Roybal-Allard, Lucille
93.42 Napolitano, Grace F.
93.42 Thompson, Mike
93.38 Eshoo, Anna G.
93.31 Waters, Maxine
93.20 Miller, George
93.10 Davis, Susan A.
93.10 Tauscher, Ellen O.
92.79 Sherman, Brad
92.45 Schiff, Adam B.
92.38 Berman, Howard L.
91.80 Watson, Diane E.
90.51 Lantos, Tom
90.28 Baca, Joe
90.19 Sanchez, Loretta
89.49 Waxman, Henry A.
87.74 Stark, Fortney Pete
84.86 Cardoza, Dennis A.
83.86 Harman, Jane
82.97 Costa, Jim
82.45 McNerney, Jerry

I’m guessing that at tonight’s Calitics’ Actblue Celebrations there will be a lot of discussion about the votes to condemn MoveOn. The CA delegation split 50-50 in the senate and 16 yea and 17 nay in the house — wedged successfully by the GOP in half. After the flip is the scorecard.

Senate
Yea
Diane Feinstein

Nay
Barbara Boxer

House
Yea
Joe Baca (CA-43)
Dennis Cardoza (CA-18)
Jim Costa (CA-20)
Susan Davis (CA-53)
Anna Eshoo (CA-14)
Sam Farr (CA-17)
Jane Harman (CA-36)
Tom Lantos (CA-12)
Jerry McNerney (CA-11)
Grace Napolitano (CA-38)
Laura Richardson (CA-37)
Lucille Roybal-Allard (CA-34)
Loretta Sanchez (CA-47)
Adam Schiff (CA-29)
Ellen Tauscher (CA-10)
Mike Thompson (CA-1)

Nay
Xavier Becerra (CA-31)
Howard Berman (CA-28)
Lois Capps (CA-23)
Bob Filner (CA-51)
Mike Honda (CA-15)
Barbara Lee (CA-9)
Zoe Lofgren (CA-16)
Doris Matsui (CA-5)
George Miller (CA-7)
Linda Sanchez (CA-39)
Brad Sherman (CA-27)
Hilda Solis (CA-32)
Pete Stark (CA-13)
Maxine Waters (CA-35)
Diane Watson (CA-33)
Henry Waxman (CA-30)
Lynn Woolsey (CA-6)

Fresno peace activists are taking it to Jim Costa.  A coordinated effort from throughout the region is coming together

to “pressure Democratic Representative Jim Costa to vote NO on the September bill to continue funding the occupation of Iraq.” [Peace Fresno president Bill] Simon wrote that “each group will take one day a week to picket in front of Costa’s office and perhaps to go into the office to say ‘No more funding’. We will also encourage passers by to call their Congressman and Senators.”

Rep. Lynn Woolsey recently said that moderate Democrats need to hear the message that people in their district care.  In Fresno, the message is getting through to local activists.  Jean Hays, President of WILPF (Women’s International League for Peace and Freedom) explains the strategy: “Some say Congress is not listening to us; we say maybe WE ARE NOT TALKING LOUD ENOUGH!!”

This is how we apply pressure and bring about change.

There was a great discussion over the weekend at DailyKos sparked by Major Danby’s How to be a more effective irrational pressure group diary.  The diary and subsequent discussion explored the best pressure points at which to apply pressure in order to bring about political movement.  It fits nicely with the OpenLeft conversations about the Bush Dog campaign that has included much hand-wringing over the potentially negative consequences of belligerence.  But note that this is in-your-face activism without a threatening stick.  These aren’t people calling for Rep. Costa’s head.  They aren’t screaming for a primary campaign.  They’re simply constituents calling on their representative to do the right thing.

This is what the Bush Dog campaign, and responsible citizenship in the first place, is all about.  It’s about both insisting that your representative do the right thing and demonstrating that when they do the right thing, there will be support at home and at the ballot box.  This may be tough love, but it most certainly is love.  It’s validation not only that it’s ok to do the right thing, not only that people expect it of Costa, but that people have faith that he has the willingness and capacity to do the right thing.

The response will be interesting to see, both immediately and in his votes.  He’ll have plenty of opportunity to change his voting habits on the Occupation of Iraq in the coming weeks.  In the meantime, it’s an encouraging sign to see people taking to the streets in a visible way to protest this occupation and to reassure Representative Costa that there’s support to end this outrage.  The people are behind you Rep. Costa.  Where are you?

Also at OpenLeft

Chris Bowers and Matt Stoller have started the Bush Dog Project to identify those Democrats who have voted with the President on the major issues that have the rank and file screaming betrayal; specifically, the Capitulation Bill giving Bush billions more for Iraq, and the FISA bill allowing Alberto Gonzales to wiretap American citizens without a warrant.  These are overwhelmingly unpopular positions at odds with most of the American people, to say nothing of Democrats.  Yet 38 “Bush Dog” Democrats voted for both of these bills, including one member of Congress from California: Jim Costa.

Costa is a member of the Blue Dogs but not the New Democrat Coalition.  He’s in one of the most Democratic seats out of the 38, with a Cook PVI of +4.6, so he’s wildly out of step with his constituency.  CA-20, Costa’s district, runs along I-5 through Fresno, Kings and Kern Counties in the Central Valley.  It includes the city of Fresno.  Democrats have held this seat for a while, but Costa was only elected in 2004, replacing Cal Dooley (who was also something of a Bush Dog, having voted to authorize the war in Iraq, a vote he now regrets).  While Costa had a mildly difficult battle winning the open seat against Roy Ashburn in 2004 (he won 54-46%), he faced no Republican opposition in 2006.

So we have a somewhat new legislator in a traditionally New Democrat seat, but it’s in a district that gave Al Gore his largest margin of victory outside of the urban metropolises.  And it’s 63% Latino.  So there’s no excuse for Costa to be so in line with President Bush on the major issues, and certainly no excuse for him voting to throw the Fourth Amendment overboard and drown it (Incidentally, AT&T has given him a lot of money over the years.  Do with that information what you will.).  This is also important because the Central Valley needs to return to being a more prominently Democratic area, and Jim Costa needs to be the standard bearer for that because this is the most Democratic district in the region.  So he must hear from his constituents about their displeasure with his being a rubber stamp for failed Bush Administration initiatives and the taking away of our civil liberties.  This will ultimately make us a stronger party.

Leading up to the election last November, Chris Bowers initiated the Use It or Lose It project, urging unopposed members of Congress to contribute their money to the DCCC in support of other competitive races.  In addition, I found 64 more districts with token opposition (Republican had raised less than $10,000 total).  California’s districts, safely drawn as many of them are, were well represented on these two lists, and while many of California’s Democrats were very supportive, not all of them were.  Our representatives have a responsibility to support the party as a whole whenever possible, and sitting on piles of cash is both a waste and a betrayal of good faith.  Here’s a look at how the delegation performed so that we can start applying pressure where necessary.

Let’s begin with completely unchallenged Democrats from last cycle.  I’m not yet getting into what help these Democrats did or did not give the party or individual candidates (one thing at a time).  This is simply the raw numbers, but certainly a few things will jump out.

Unopposed (or unfunded Republican) and Cash on Hand (12/31/06):

CA-05 Doris Matsui  $78,466
CA-07 George Miller  $176,990
CA-12 Tom Lantos  $1,367,651
CA-14 Anna Eshoo  $341,669
CA-16 Zoe Lofgren  $147,670
CA-17 Sam Farr  $112,511
CA-20 Jim Costa  $205,014
CA-28 Howard Berman  $407,149
CA-29 Adam Schiff  $1,376,605
CA-31 Xavier Becerra  $448,286
CA-32 Hilda Solis  $143,566
CA-33 Diane Watson  $2,488
CA-34 Lucille Roybal-Allard  $38,943
CA-35 Maxine Waters  $101,768
CA-37 Juanita Millender-McDonald  N/A

Total: $4,948,776

So obviously, not all of these people are being miserly.  Diane Watson, for example, isn’t exactly going home to swim in money or anything.  There’s no way of knowing whether any of these districts will face a serious challenge in 2008, but with the exception of Jim Costa in CA-20, all of these districts have a PVI of D+12 or more and thus aren’t particularly vulnerable.  That means that the money is legitimately in play.  Some of these folks get it, some (Ahem Tom Lantos? Adam Schiff?) seem not to.

In addition to the above, there are several more California Democrats who faced only token opposition.  For our purposes here, I’m drawing a different (though still arbitrary) line at $25,000 in total money raised to establish “token” status.  Without a doubt, it’s tough to run a serious campaign in this state with $26,000, but I think the bar is low enough so as to not be debatable.

Token Republican Opposition and Cash on Hand (12/31/06):

CA-06 Lynn Woolsey  $24,531
CA-10 Ellen Tauscher  $211,924
CA-30 Henry Waxman  $652,596
CA-36 Jane Harman  $225,448
CA-38 Grace Napolitano  $194,155
CA-43 Joe Baca  $7,044
CA-51 Bob Filner  $6,369

Total: $1,322,067

Again offered without comment on extenuating circumstances (particularly with respect to primary challenges).  Again, not everyone has a deathgrip on the cash here.  Woolsey, Baca and Filner are clearly spending what they’ve got.  It’s important though that we make sure this commitment keeps up.  And again, there’s no way of knowing this far out where we’ll see a well-funded challenge, but Filner and Tauscher are the only ones on this list who represent districts with PVIs of single-digit Dem leanings, which means these folks for the most part don’t need to be worried about a tough Republican challenge.  Henry Waxman for example, and God bless his legislative ass-kicking, really doesn’t need that money to keep himself in office.  Spend it through the DCCC, spend it on local infrastructure, but don’t just let it rot.

This cannot be a last-minute project like last year.  We have to work towards creating a culture of support for the party whenever possible.  And if we have representatives who don’t feel that the country is better off with more Democrats in office, we need to know that sooner than later.  Last year, Marty Meehan (MA-05) sat on more than $5 million and then, when he wasn’t going to be able to run for Senate, took the money and went home.  We won’t miss him, but that money really might’ve helped, say, Larry Kissell or Charlie Brown.  This is what we’re trying to avoid.

This is not meant to be a one-way street.  Those who are not in need should pay in as much as possible, and those who are in need should take out as much as needed.  But it only works when the caucus buys into the idea that the financial health of the party is more important than the financial health of the individual.  Working together will be much more effective over the long haul than working as individuals, and it’s important to convey that message to our representatives.  So as you watch fundraising progress, and as you have opportunities to talk with your representatives, think about and ask about the degree to which they’re supporting the party as opposed to their own bank accounts.  House Dems are kicking some serious ass so far in 2007, which is great.  Let’s make sure that the DCCC gets the extra support from our Representatives that it deserves.