Turns Out Democrats Are Better at Outside Money Too

     I know some will no doubt see this as hypocrisy. I too was bitterly opposed to the Citizens United decision. Still, in a world of nuclear weapons can you just go cold turkey? Jamelle Bouie argues the Dems should feel no guilt about joining the arms race.

     "Democrats made effective use of super PACs in the 2012 election, deploying devastating ads that harmed Mitt Romney in key states like Ohio, and helping congressional Democrats capitalize on major missteps by their opponents (see Akin, Todd). Now Democratic donors are gearing up for the next round of elections, in an effort to make these outside groups even more influential:

Shortly after Election Day, House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi, New York Sen. Chuck Schumer and top White House aides spoke at a three-day secret meeting of major Democratic donors and officials from liberal outside groups gearing up for 2014, POLITICO has learned....

Their goal: a permanent network of officially blessed independent groups that leverages liberals’ increasing acceptance and appreciation of outside money to compete with a much-better-funded Republican shadow party.

     "This, of course, leaves Democrats open to charges of hypocrisy. After all, liberals form of the bulk of the opposition to Citizens United — the Supreme Court ruling that opened the doors to the proliferation of mega-donors and outside groups — and have been fighting for campaign finance reform at all levels of government. It’s hard to reconcile this with efforts to bolster the position of groups that can raise huge sums from a handful of wealthy donors. Indeed, several donors and organizers see the tensions inherent in this project:

“There will always be in the Democratic Party and the progressive community a skepticism about outside money writ large,” said [Priorities USA official Rodell] Mollineau, whose group is considering jumping into governors’ races and possibly state legislative and ballot campaigns. “But I also think there were converts won over this last election cycle, and there is now a sense that we need to compete with super PACs and outside groups, and we can win elections if we do.”

     "This gets to the key point worth remembering when evaluating the decision of liberal groups to embrace super PACs. The only way to limit the influence of big donors and outside groups is to win elections and pass laws. Democrats could abstain from the groups, and practice their principles by relying on smaller donations within a more limited — and self-imposed — campaign finance system. But while this would allow liberals to take the moral high ground, it would also make losing more likely, and limit their ability to actually change the status quo."

     "Using super PACs as a tool to win elections is not an endorsement of the laws and measures that make super PACs possible. Yes, the hope is that — eventually — liberals will be able to reverse Citizens United, or at least, put serious limits on the ability of outside groups to operate. But in the meantime — since they will continue to exist, anyway — there’s no reason why liberals can’t use their own super PACs to help elect candidates that support their goals. Including an end to super PACs."

     http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/plum-line

     Part of the trouble is that the Dems turned out to be so good at raising money from the outside groups. Yet, as they aren't going anywhere soon can they just tie one hand behind their backs in fights with the GOP?  Is it hypocrisy to call for the end of the use of nuclear weapons while still continuing to use them? I say no. I agree with Bouie. I just don't think that there's any virtue in being a dead hero in American politics. As it is they have a shot of expanding onto GOP turf and fighting back in House and state races and governors races-areas of comparative GOP strength.

    "Some of those groups or their allies are considering expanding into state politics, policy fights or even primaries on both sides. And they have already gone back to their 2012 donors to ask for more cash while the euphoria from winning is still fresh."

     "Their goal: a permanent network of officially blessed independent groups that leverages liberals’ increasing acceptance and appreciation of outside money to compete with a much-better-funded Republican shadow party."

     "The three-day conference — the annual winter conference of the Democracy Alliance, an exclusive club composed of some of the biggest liberal donors — at Washington’s W Hotel featured presentations by top Obama campaign and administration officials including Mitch Stewart, Matthew Barzun, Gene Sperling and Jon Carson."

      "Democracy Alliance donors gave or pledged more than $14 million to super PACs and secret-money nonprofits this year after a vigorous debate about whether Democrats should participate in the wave of unlimited political spending that Republicans rode to control of the House of Representatives in 2010. Some of the left’s biggest traditional donors argued that joining the big money fight would be akin to condoning the recent court decisions that sparked it — most notably the Supreme Court’s Citizens United ruling, which Democrats up to and including Obama decried as facilitating a corporate takeover of democracy. They either abstained entirely or were slow to open their checkbooks."

      "But their hesitance also led to the development of a new crop of Democratic megadonors in 2012, who are pledging to be quicker to respond in coming elections."

     “There will be less reluctance — and more willingness — to participate in super PACs this time,” said Steve Mostyn, a Houston trial lawyer and rookie megadonor who along with his wife and their law firm donated $4.2 million to liberal super PACs. “We hope it’s a mutual disarmament, but if it’s not, then we’ll be back.”

     Read more: http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1112/84205.html#ixzz2DLyZcBAa

     Mostyn is right. If the disarmament isn't mutual it's a non-starter. I don't see how the answer is virtuous-out of power-liberals.

      It's amazing but it turns out that the Dems may actually be better at this game than the GOP who can hardly have been said to have spent their money efficiently. Have so few ever spent so much money to achieve so little?

      So yes, I guess I'm on the side of the "peace through strength" crowd. Rather than the "elect more conservative Republicans to show how virtuous we are" crowd.