In August 2003, I made my first political contribution — $25 to the Dean campaign online. I remember the website used to put up an image of a baseball bat, and every time more money was raised, more of the bat would fill up. It was actually quite empowering — a tangible demonstration of my political values. It wasn’t just a matter of me saying I was a Dean supporter, or slapping a bumper sticker on my car, this was a money trail. I was part of the campaign.
There were a lot of people like me, and Dean shattered quarterly records, and changed the way campaigns think about fundraising. Columnists gushed that the rise in small-dollar online contributions was nothing short of a revolution in politics that would dilute the power of the big money donors of the past. And on that count, they were right.
Then some columnists noted that internet fundraising could one day render obsolete the classic function of political parties. Any candidate who captured the imagination of the online donors could finance a campaign without having to attach themselves to the Establishment within their party, or even to any Party at all. On that count, they’re also probably right.
So, the question isn’t whether this fund-raising revolution is real, but whether or not it’s good. The answer is mixed. On one hand, it’s a helluva lot better than what we had. I’m a huge believer in small dollar political contributors, and spent three years of my career working to cultivate them. Internet fundraising has been the biggest form of campaign finance reform we’ve had in this country since at least the 1970s.
But small dollar donors do not equal democracy, and the hype around what a revolution they represent can lead to a pretty insular kind of politics. While I believe that those columnists are right about the ability to now run a successful campaign outside the Party system, it’s a bit unnerving that that “revolution” will represent such a narrow slice of the electorate – the rebellion of online donors.
Consider me: I’m white, college educated, young and urban… I’m the exact profile of a 2003 Howard Dean donor. I’m also the profile of a Barack Obama donor or (very unfortunately) a Ron Paul donor.
Yesterday, I wrote a pretty heated post about Mike Gravel joining the Libertarian Party, and my concerns that the Green Party might be headed to a greater working alliance with the Libbies. In part, this is where my concern comes in. For my old job, I worked with a lot of young, progressive activists, and one of the most disturbing trends I noticed was the frequency with which they described themselves as Libertarian. This bothered me for a long time, until I realized they represented only a sliver of the Democratic Party – the young activist base. That base has always tended to be whiter, more privileged, and better educated than the Party as a whole, and therefore less concerned about the overall role of government. They wanted things like the repeal of the Patriot Act and the impeachment of the President (both of which are fine with me), but didn’t really think much beyond those blog headlines. But these are the people who have disposable income and computer skills. These are the online donors.
Understand that I don’t have a problem with the people I’m describing. I’m glad that they’re involved in the process, and it might be a bit much to expect that 20-somethings could identify with an increase in home foreclosures. My problem is that the people who do have to worry about housing foreclosures are the least likely to give online, so those same people who need government the most will ultimately have even less of a say in the process than they do now. We’ve gone from democracy in the hands of a few wealthy donors and interest groups, to democracy in the hands of a slightly larger, more idealistic educated class.
Outside of major reform such as publicly financed elections (which I support), there isn’t a whole lot that can be done to level the playing field. It is likely that the biggest challenge to “politics as usual,” at least at a national level, will come from a Libertarian (or more likely, a libertarian-leaning independent). But there are very real and substantive differences between progressives and libertarians, and the only people who don’t see that are the people who are now in a position to re-define politics. The same progressive analysts and columnists who have gushed about this great reform should have some level of caution about what kind of “reform” this will ultimately bring about.
[…] frame the rich folks properly), and now we’ve added the college educated 20-somethings with disposable income and internet proficiency, but either way it just isn’t fair, and it makes for some pretty lousy politics. The […]
[…] 8, 2009 by Mary Clyens I’ve said it before, but not as succinctly as Michael Kinsley. This is what terrifies me about the revolution of […]
[…] only real answer is publicly funded elections, but that’s a point I’ve written about time and time again, and not my point today. Today, I’m just using it as an example of the […]