« Van Halen, Together Again | Main | Our Statistician is Marge Innovera »
September 29, 2007
Twice As Good
Katha Pollitt repeats the truth:
John Edwards is about the only presidential candidate who mentions the 36.5 million Americans--12.3 percent--who fall below the poverty line ($10,488 for a single person, $20,444 for a family of four), and the additional 19 percent who are what sociologist Katherine Newman calls the near poor--100 to 200 percent above the poverty line.
It's relevant to the issues we've been discussing today that a candidate like Edwards, who earnestly pushes substantial policy initiatives to deal with problems like poverty, isn't going to be a favorite of corporate lobbyists. Incrementalism and outright pro-lobbyist sentiment, which we've seen from Edwards' two main competitors, are the way to rake in the big money. Obviously, Edwards' decision to accept public funds is more a strategic choice than some kind of bold moral stand. But it's a strategic choice that resulted from his having taken bold moral stands in the past on issues like poverty and health care in the past. Those won him the love of ACORN and the SEIU -- and let's hope the SEIU has the courage to endorse the candidate their members voted for! -- but not the love of the bundlers who fill campaign coffers.
Back in 2006, when I was suggesting candidates for people to donate to on this blog, I tried to find the races where you'd get the most bang for your buck. These primarily involved underfunded candidates who were still running very close in the polls. As a progressive donor, you're basically trying to make the good effects of your donations per dollar spent as high as possible.
With the Edwards campaign, we now have a situation where federal matching funds will double any donation you make up to $250. The state spending caps that come with public financing apply mostly to advertising -- a candidate can still spend unlimited resources on his field operation or on having staff travel around the state.
This produces a really nice high-bang, low-buck situation -- your money is twice as good. If you feel like donating $10, it becomes $20. $20 becomes $40. $40 becomes $80. So if you want John Edwards to win, but you can only spare $10, this is a great time to give some money. You can donate through my ActBlue page if you don't have any objections to giving money in a werewolf-themed manner. I broke through the $250 ceiling some time ago, but I'm good for another $50 now.
Update: The case for Edwards is laid out in pretty embedded-video detail here at Daily Kos.
September 29, 2007 | Permalink
Comments
That's exactly right. In all this discussion of Edwards fund raising peo aren't admitting there is a reason why his fund raising numbes aren't as impressive as Obamas or Clintons- namely the issues he has choosent to make the center piece of his campaign and his decision unlike the other two to limit from where he obtains his money. Clinton certainly is out of the race with regard to being progressive as a candidate. Obama has a better shot at it, but even his strategy has relied on cozying up to big corp (and notte for those of you who will argue- that I say big corp not business) interests.
Posted by: akaison | Sep 29, 2007 10:25:26 PM
...and outright pro-lobbyist sentiment, which we've seen from Edwards' two main competitors, are the way to rake in the big money.
...and his decision unlike the other two to limit from where he obtains his money.
Where are you guys getting this stuff? Edwards and Obama have the same policy re. donations from lobbyists. Obama was on the stage next to Edwards at Yearly Kos when the two of them (together) articulated the case against lobbyists to Clinton. They guy's biggest accomplishment's in the US Senate have been in ethics and lobbying reform. He's pledged to ban any member of his administration from serving as a federal lobbyist throughout the duration of his term, as well as preventing any member of his administration from working on regulations or contracts related to their former employers.
The guy's also spent a significant chunk of his professional life actually working directly with those living in poverty, not from the comfort of a think tank, but on the ground as a highly educated (yet low-paid) community organizer.
John Edwards does not hold a monopoly over the issues of poverty and lobbying reform.
Posted by: Dave White | Sep 29, 2007 11:17:22 PM
Obama isn't the lobbyist defender of my formulation above -- that's Hillary. He's the incrementalist. You can see it in his tax plan and his health care plan, which doesn't offer a universal mandate.
Posted by: Neil the Ethical Werewolf | Sep 29, 2007 11:22:57 PM
Obama accepted lobbist dollars through the back end way- ie, spouses.
Posted by: akaison | Sep 29, 2007 11:27:55 PM
one of the things they say in law by the way is the enter the debate with clean hands- obama can not do this. while he doesn't eat from the trough to degree that Clinton has, it would b e untrue to claim he hasn't eatten from the trough.
Posted by: akaison | Sep 29, 2007 11:29:14 PM
Obama isn't the lobbyist defender of my formulation above -- that's Hillary. He's the incrementalist. You can see it in his tax plan and his health care plan, which doesn't offer a universal mandate.
Thanks for the clarification, though you may want to revise your initial post as it's ambiguously worded.
Also, I don't really see how "incrementalism" leads to "raking in the big money." If anything, the minutia of incrementalism will turn off those most likely to donate in a primary, ie the "true believers" who are looking for the most bold policy proposals out there to get them excited.
Remember, too, Obama's the candidate with the largest number of donations under $250.
Posted by: Dave White | Sep 29, 2007 11:31:53 PM
Obama accepted lobbist dollars through the back end way- ie, spouses.
Edwards returns donations from lobbyist spouses? I didn't think that was feasible (a lot easier to check your donation list against the list of registered lobbyists than it is to investigate who they're married to).
one of the things they say in law by the way is the enter the debate with clean hands- obama can not do this. while he doesn't eat from the trough to degree that Clinton has, it would b e untrue to claim he hasn't eatten from the trough.
So did Edwards not take money from lobbyists during his initial Senate run? I'm not sure I've seen either way. Why didn't he work during his term for lobbyist reform?
Posted by: Dave White | Sep 29, 2007 11:34:56 PM
so we are playing unless someone has never taken lobbist money then that means they can't decide this cycle - which by the way I notice you casually gloss over the relevant point- that means they can't talk about it. See Dave. i have little patience for the selectivity that you play. It's revelant to me what Edwards is doing now. not what he did in 1998. Just like I don't care what Obama did back in 2002 with regard to the Iraqi war when he has voted for funding now.
Posted by: akaison | Sep 30, 2007 1:06:47 AM
by the way, it seems between the two candidates one is headed more progressive, and the other less. It's funny you are obsessed with the past while I am obessed with now and the future.
Posted by: akaison | Sep 30, 2007 1:07:30 AM
and if we are on that subject of present action- we got a candidate who couldn't bother to show up the Iran vote and couldn't give a straight answer on the foreign policy.
Posted by: akaison | Sep 30, 2007 1:09:25 AM
Obama isn't the "Lobbyists are the greatest Americans EVA!!!1! candidate. That is Hillary Clinton. Obama might not be pure in this matter, but let's not pretend he's as bad as Clinton is. I'd gladly take a President Obama over another President Clinton.
Posted by: soullite | Sep 30, 2007 8:37:07 AM
Dave White, Edwards did not accept money from PACs or lobbyists in his 1998 Senate run. He was outspent by $2.6 million, and he still won handily. He also beat a better financed establishment Democrat in the primary.
Posted by: Clark | Sep 30, 2007 8:53:16 AM
so we are playing unless someone has never taken lobbist money then that means they can't decide this cycle - which by the way I notice you casually gloss over the relevant point- that means they can't talk about it.so we are playing unless someone has never taken lobbist money then that means they can't decide this cycle - which by the way I notice you casually gloss over the relevant point- that means they can't talk about it.
Well I'm confused, because Obama has made the same no money from PACs, no money from lobbyist pledge this cycle that Edwards has made. They have the same policy. I had assumed by saying Obama can't enter with "clean hands" you were referring to his Senate campaign, since he hasn't accepted these donations this election, though he did in 2002.
Dave White, Edwards did not accept money from PACs or lobbyists in his 1998 Senate run.
Thanks for the info, I Googled post-post and found the same information. And while that's certainly noble of him, I'm still bummed out that Edwards never worked in the Senate on lobbyist reform if he clearly understood the corrupting influences. The fact that Obama did take money from lobbyists in 2002, then actively worked against their interests by taking the lead on a series of concrete legislative reforms to curb their influence gives me future hope that Obama will be more effective on this issue as President.
Taking a "no-lobbyist" approach during your own campaign is certainly noble, though it only eliminates their influence over one politician; working actively to legislate against lobbyists and for reforming ethics in the Senate (through a couple of bills that went on to be signed into Law) helps curb lobbyist influence over the system as a whole.
To get back to the original point, Obama's current rhetoric is anti-lobbyist (just like Edwards) and his legislative record is heavily anti-lobbyist (unlike Edwards) and I don't see how these two together would endear him to the "elites" and thus explain his fundraising success.
Posted by: Dave White | Sep 30, 2007 10:24:20 AM
yes you are confused because you seem to ignore that Obama has taken money from the wife of lobbists this cycle. If Obama's rhectoric is as strong as Edwards, it's because as with Clinton, Obama was lead here by Edwards. You and others gloss over Edwards leadership even while feigning your candidate is already there when in fact it was Edwards who lead them, this campaign cycle (underline this), there.
ANd I didn't say he was as bad as Clinton, but that's rather not the point. At any other jucture Obama supporters like to talk about how pure he is, but here "not as bad" seems to be the mantra. It's fine, but it's not exactly pure. And it's not exactly the BEST candidate. If we are going to go for good enough rather than best, I guess that's okay too, but it seems like a pretty crappy standard for so-called progressives.
Posted by: akaison | Sep 30, 2007 10:34:42 AM
yes you are confused because you seem to ignore that Obama has taken money from the wife of lobbists this cycle.
I addressed this earlier and this is actually a "problem" (I don't see it as too problematic) for any candidate who has a no-lobbyist pledge, just logistically; when you're getting hundreds of thousands of donations, it's easy to check your list against the federal lobbyist list, though extremely difficult to investigate who they are married to. I imagine Edwards has taken money from lobbyist spouses as well. Has he not?
I'll be clear, I don't think Obama is good enough, I think Obama is the best. Even before Edwards was talking this cycle about the corrupting influences of lobbyists, Obama was actively legislating against it.
True enough, Edwards apparently made the same rhetorical points during his initial Senate run, but then didn't do anything once he came into power to act on those points. That does not give me faith he will effectively execute his rhetoric were he to be elected, at least with regards to lobby/ethics reform.
I really like Edwards, he makes a lot of great points. But looking at his rhetoric-to-accomplishments record as a Senate candidate to Senator doesn't give me future hope this his current progressive rhetoric will lead to the progressive administration he describes.
Posted by: Dave White | Sep 30, 2007 10:47:07 AM
so now we are left to your imagination rather than fact. And that in a nutshell is why democrats are as faith based as the GOP.
Posted by: akaison | Sep 30, 2007 11:05:22 AM
note by the way- you couldn't respond to the thrust of my point so you made up something about Edwards to get around it. And you don't have any proof of the shit you continue to make up about what he did or didn't do as a Senator. Support your candidate - just don't pretend to do it because you care about the issues being discussed. GOod luck.
Posted by: akaison | Sep 30, 2007 11:06:52 AM
so now we are left to your imagination rather than fact. And that in a nutshell is why democrats are as faith based as the GOP.
Has he not taken money from lobbyist spouses?
Posted by: Dave White | Sep 30, 2007 11:08:35 AM
note by the way- you couldn't respond to the thrust of my point so you made up something about Edwards to get around it. And you don't have any proof of the shit you continue to make up about what he did or didn't do as a Senator. Support your candidate
What did I make up? I apologize if I missed the thrust of your point, could you restate it maybe?
Here is a list of every bill John Edwards sponsored or cosponsored. If you look through, not one deals with lobbyist or ethics reform/
Posted by: Dave White | Sep 30, 2007 11:12:08 AM
Any time there is any doubt in the factual correctness of your argument, you fill in the gaps with your beliefs or cynacism rather than determining whether your beliefs are fact or your cynacism is deserved. I am simply not going to engage you in a tic for tac in which you keep moving the standard by which we are judging the candidates.
The question is whether or not any of the candidates as present candidates are living up to progressive values. Indeed, it's easy to talk like a progressive, but harder to live like one. Which has been living like one on this issue is the only relevant point being asked here. You gloss over that your candidate is not fully doing so, and try to dampen the fact that Edwards is.
It's clear that you would just shift the discussion further (ie, now requiring that Edwards co sponsored or sponsored a bill) to suit your already determined conclusion.
Posted by: akaison | Sep 30, 2007 11:27:47 AM
When I am deciding who to support, I look to their past record on the issues in addition to their rhetoric. Edwards is saying some good stuff, but I am unclear about his ability/determination to execute on those points by virtue of his past legislative experiences and successes. What facts am I missing?
Obama has, in fact, legislated against lobbyists, in keeping with his campaign rhetoric, and that is largely why I tend to give him the edge over Edwards on this issue. He has a record of past accomplishment on the issue that Edwards simply doesn't have.
I'm really unsure how I've shifted the discussion, injected any cynicism, or moved the standard by which I judge a candidate. I'm also unsure about which factual correctness of my argument are in doubt.
I also posted a bad link up there. Here are a lists of Edwards's bills throughout his term:
Posted by: Dave White | Sep 30, 2007 11:35:55 AM
The question is whether or not any of the candidates as present candidates are living up to progressive values. Indeed, it's easy to talk like a progressive, but harder to live like one. Which has been living like one on this issue is the only relevant point being asked here.
I'm not sure what you mean by this.,,
Posted by: Dave White | Sep 30, 2007 11:40:45 AM
Dan,
You made shit up about Edwards taking lobby money upthread- you can't see how that was based on what you wanted to believe? Jesus- like I said- I am tired of politics.
This is illustrative of you:
"Dave White, Edwards did not accept money from PACs or lobbyists in his 1998 Senate run.
Thanks for the info, I Googled post-post and found the same information. And while that's certainly noble of him, I'm still bummed out that Edwards never worked in the Senate on lobbyist reform if he clearly understood the corrupting influences. The fact that Obama did take money from lobbyists in 2002, then actively worked against their interests by taking the lead on a series of concrete legislative reforms to curb their influence gives me future hope that Obama will be more effective on this issue as President."
It's why I don't wish to continue this conversation, and will assume that I am right in assuming you will simply continue to shift the conversation as it suits your beliefs about whom you want to support. No one in their right mind would consider the present system as a sign of somone working to change things. Certainly not a candidate who has feed pressently from that same corrupted trough.
Posted by: akaison | Sep 30, 2007 11:41:59 AM
by the way- if you want an example this cylce- try Hsu.
Posted by: akaison | Sep 30, 2007 11:42:47 AM
Woa, I didn't "make shit up" about Edwards taking lobbyist money above, I asked if he had the same policy during his Senate run. I didn't accuse him, someone pointed out to me he did, and I thanked them for that information. I then went on to explain why I admire Obama's record on lobbyist reform in the Senate and why that record factors into my decision to support him as a candidate (a point I made in my initial post and have continued to make.)
I'm really not trying to shift any conversation.
Posted by: Dave White | Sep 30, 2007 11:47:28 AM
The comments to this entry are closed.
