By Doug Porter
Oh, the drama. As the dates approach for the Democratic party election in San Diego for delegates to the state party convention, a behind-the-scenes rebellion against the current party leadership is going on.
Steve Rivera, an event coordinator for the Interfaith Center for Worker Justice is challenging current party Chair Francine Busby, Wounds within the party dating back to the Filner scandal and the Fletcher vs Alvarez contest have been re-opened. Emotions are running high. Backroom caucuses are running late into the night.
Activists, disillusioned by what they perceive as ineffective leadership and a lack of support for progressive candidates and causes, are challenging the old guard. Based on what I’ve been able to piece together it appears (the vote isn’t until January 20th) the established leadership will weather the crisis. But the rebellion is, at a minimum, symbolic of the lack of faith many rank and file members have in the Democratic Party.
Why Democrats (and Republicans) Should Care
The County Democratic Party Chair position is a voluntary post. There are a couple of paid staffers, funded mostly by an annual awards dinner. The party structure beyond that level is a mess. Who gets on the central committee has little to do with leadership, effectiveness or political prowess. It’s all about the money. And inertia.
Despite this, they’ve become relevant in recent years thanks to a court ruling holding that communications with Democrats that come from the party are “Member Communications” and legally NOT campaign communications and, most importantly, NOT independent expenditures. And there’s no limit on contributions to the party.
This is how the County Democratic Party ended up with $30,000 from Mexican tycoon Jose Susumo Azano Matsura, And the national Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee ended up with another $30,000 from the same source. The only thing illegal about these deals was that the donor was a foreign national.
The major county parties in California now serve as conduits for cash. They’re allowed, unlike political action committees, to coordinate with candidates. Candidates can legally solicit these donations to the party without impacting their legal limits on amounts raised.
It’s the biggest loophole in the election game.
Garnering the party endorsement has become a critical step for any aspiring candidate. And not having an endorsement, along with ‘top two’ primary system, is huge stumbling block for everybody else.
A recent move within the local Republican Party for changing the way endorsements are doled out and getting people elected to the Central Committee with no financial stake in campaigns died on the vine.
Note that I’m not saying this money is wasted. Parties can and do fund field campaigns and direct mail with these donations. The issue here is that the party leadership serves as a gatekeeper, making judgements that have little to do with ideological principles or voter desires. More often than not, this is how we end up with ‘the lesser of two evils’ scenarios on election day.
The Young Turks
From John Lamb, writing in City Beat:
In a letter sent to delegates this week, Rivera wrote, “Under the current leadership, the San Diego Democratic Party simply does not LEAD or even show up to advance progressive causes, policies or candidates” and “has failed to take active leadership on increasing the minimum wage, protecting civil rights, or voter rights. Instead, we wait for our natural allies or elected officials to take the lead on these issues.”
Rivera wrote that the key to that effort is “working with our allies to energize our grassroots during the off years.” He also pledged to create a “standing audit committee” to “provide a full accounting” of party expenses to Central Committee members twice a year.
“I think it’s time for the party to take it up a notch or two and start winning again,” he said.
Keep the Money People Happy
Former Assemblywoman Lori Saldaña, who changed her registration to Decline to State this last year (and has a long history of being at odds with party leadership), pointed out the conflict between cash and actual organizing in a Facebook commentary also posted as a comment here at SD Free Press.
With leadership like this, is it any wonder Democrats have failed to be inspired by recent candidates, and have lost so many recent elections, not to mention faith in their own power- despite being the registered voting majority in the city of San Diego?
These contradictions are not new. As Executive Director of Run Women Run in 2012 (an organization supposedly dedicated to elect women to political office), Busby once said “I have to keep the money people happy” when explaining why she would not support a grassroots candidate who had been endorsed by Run Women Run, as well as 17 out of 18 Democratic Club in the district.
She heard the money talking, not the people.
The Fundamental Differences
While many party activists have tried to keep a low profile (money does equal power here), members of the Democratic Woman’s Club of San Diego County have openly aired their discontent.
They challenged Francine Busby to engage Steve Rivera in a debate on the night before the next central committee meeting. Busby declined, telling City Beat she would not attend because “the organizers of that group are campaigning against me.”
Groups like the Democratic Woman’s Club are tapping into nationwide sentiment against a partisan strategy that often appears to be saying “Vote for us. We’re not as bad as the Republicans.”
As William Greider said last month in The Nation:
Instead of actually talking to people, as the old party precinct captains used to do, the campaigns now rely on TV ads to shape public opinion, and polling and focus groups to monitor the views of citizens. The communication is reversed: instead of asking people what they need as a guide to governing, people are asked what the party needs to say (or not say) to harvest votes.
The tattered authenticity of the party matters more now because both the country and the world face dangers and disorders that demand a fundamental reordering of the global economic system. This requires bold action, at a time when neither party is confronting the threatening situation. The Republicans are a wholly owned subsidiary of the business-finance machine; the Democrats are rented.
This authenticity for the party is reflected locally in the recent votes by Congressman Scott Peters impacting the Affordable Care Act. While Peters claims he’s simply voting for reforms, he’s failed to address the reality that the legislation he’s supported will significantly defund the program and leave nearly 500,00 Americans without healthcare. And, oh yeah, significantly increase the federal deficit.
Like the man said….rented…
A Compromise to Be Had?
Many of my sources for this story said the same thing about the challenge to the current party chair, something along the lines of “Francine has been a lousy chair. Steve is a great person with good politics and-unfortunately-a lousy candidate.” There seemed to be consensus that (at this point) he lacked enough votes to win, but nobody wanted to say that on the record.
It’s my understanding the labor council, despite many members speaking out in favor of Rivera, has decided to remain neutral. They’re the 800 pound gorilla in the room, both in terms of financial resources and warm bodies for campaigning. So it would appear the challenge to her leadership will be rebuffed, but there will be a price to be paid.
The deal isn’t done, but the rumor is that Busby will be asked to commit to build a real precinct level operation, with precinct captains, house meetings and volunteers walking in their own neighborhoods come election time. Such an operation could dramatically increase voter turnout if it was doing a) voter registration year round and b) communicating with people about issues such as minimum wage that require voter participation.
Whether this compromise will be enough to quell the rebellion in the party remains to be seen. Democratic voters in San Diego County are being asked to elect delegates this weekend. (Here’s how you do it.) The choices they make will have a lot to do with the party’s direction in the long term.
There’s other news to be had going into the weekend…
Police Killings and Brutality Remain an Issue
California Assemblyman Kevin McCarty has proposed legislation to create a law enforcement panel to review instances in the state when police officers fatal shoot someone.
From NBC7:
A spokesman for McCarty said the assemblyman plans to meet with stake-holders to decide details, such as if the independent body would have subpoena power.
“It’s not about pressing criminal charges, subpoena powers and so forth,” McCarty said. “It’s about: There’s going to be a review of this by the authorities and the legal arm of the justice system, and should it be done by a local entity or someone with more independence such as a state-wide entity?”
In another instance involving use of deadly force by police in Cleveland, a horrific video has been released. It shows police officers standing idly by after shooting a 12 year old holding a toy gun and restraining his 14 year old sister when she tried to tend to his wounds. An FBI agent, who happened upon the scene, did attempt first aid as the officers stood by.
From the New York Times:
The police said Tamir was told to raise his hands but instead reached to his waistband for the gun, though the previously released surveillance video showed that the shooting happened so fast, it was hard to know whether the officer issued any warnings or whether Tamir could have understood them if he did.
The killing, which occurred two weeks before a Justice Department report concluded that the Cleveland police had a pattern of “unreasonable and unnecessary use of force,” angered many residents of the city, which has a black majority. On Thursday, the city’s media relations director, Dan Williams, said the extended video was released once it was clear that it would not interfere with the investigation. “My intent was to get it out so the public could see all of the tape,” Mr. Williams said.
Local Demonstrations Announced
The United Against Police Terror – San Diego group has announced a series of protests and rallies in support of “local victims and their families.”
The series will kick off Monday, January 12th at 6pm at the City Heights/Weingart Library and Performance Annex with an event called Justice for Victor Ortega & All Stolen Lives Rally/March.
Victor Ortega’s family is claiming in a lawsuit that the 31 year old man was fatally shot by an SDPD officer on June 4, 2012 as he lay on the ground face down in handcuffs. Funds are being raised for help with legal fees, and support for Victor’s two children.
On January 17th starting at 6pm the AF3IRM group is holding a rally at the same location demanding “ an end to police sexual assault and the militarization of our community for there have been more sexual assaults reported in City Heights then other communities without a heavy police presence.”
And on Martin Luther King’s birthday, January 19th at 8am the Coalition Against Police Violence will start out on a Four Mile March from the City Heights Library. Similar events are being held in 23 other cities nationwide. Organizers say the goal is to increase awareness about “America’s epidemic of racial profiling and police brutality, and to honor all those who have been injured or died as a result of police violence.”
AHEM!
About that supposedly wonderful monthly employment report:
Your monthly wage growth update: YIKES! edition pic.twitter.com/psDXOPgake
— Nick Bunker (@nick_bunker) January 9, 2015
On This Day: 1962 – Sam Cooke’s “Twistin’ the Night Away” was released. 2002 – The Justice Department announced that it was pursuing a criminal investigation of Enron Corp. The company had filed for bankruptcy on December 2, 2001. 2003 – The George W. Bush administration declared federal airport security screeners would not be allowed to unionize so as not to “complicate” the war on terrorism. The decision was challenged and eventually overturned after Bush left office
Did you enjoy this article? Subscribe to “The Starting Line” and get an email every time a new article in this series is posted!
I read the Daily Fishwrap(s) so you don’t have to… Catch “the Starting Line” Monday thru Friday right here at San Diego Free Press (dot) org. Send your hate mail and ideas to DougPorter@SanDiegoFreePress.Org Check us out on Facebook and Twitter.
Doug Porter
Latest posts by Doug Porter (see all)
- Last Call. Last Column. - December 14, 2018
- Which Presidential Candidate Will You Support in 2020? - December 13, 2018
- Mounting the Assault on Big Gay and Other Drivel From SDSU’s Minimum Wage Scrooge - December 12, 2018
Thank you for describing the internal debate of the party.
This is not simply about funding campaigns, it is how those funds are raised. In 2012 nearly 15,000 people made small contributions to my campaign and we raised over $500,00- not a lot by congressional standards, but used efficiently, it made our efforts extremely competitive.
Money is not the “root of all evil,” it is the LOVE of money that earned that biblical honor.
one correction: I actually changed my voter registration to “no party preference” in September 2014, when I saw the direction the campaign in the 52nd CD was heading. When my relatively mild criticism generated vitriolic trolling and personal insults from Democrats who accused me of endorsing a republican, I realized how polarized and reactionary the party “faithful” had become. They will reap what they sow.
If I wrote checks I’d still be writing 2014 on them. Thanks for catching that.
As to the money thing, several people told me that it was the current leadership’s connection to several donors (and the concern it would be lost) that trumped ideology here….Just saying….
If the party focused on a broad base of small contributions from many members versus major contributions from a few (Who have moderate agendas to put it mildly) it would make a big difference in their overall operation. More People would have a sense of investment versus the entitlement and expectations seen with some of the wealthy supporters.
But the tendency in recent years Is to focus on Soliciting major donors and/or Recruiting self funding wealthy candidates. They hire campaign professionals versus recruit volunteers and develop grassroots campaigns.
One result Of these higher cost, professional vs grassroots elections is a Disconnect from many of the volunteers and activist grassroots Dem club members.
another is a Congress full of independently wealthy Representatives, cut off from the day-to-day concerns of most working and middle-class constituents. And often they vote along financial lines, regardless of party affiliation.
Democrats needn’t be afraid of refusing to support, or even vote for, people like Scott Peters. The only real political difference between Peters and the disturbing, even odious, Republican he narrowly defeated in the 52nd District Congressional election is the Republican’s misbehavior once in office would have further contributed to the general public’s understanding of how odious Republicans can be. Now, instead. we’ll have to put up with Peters’ money worship.
ms saldana – i agree on the grass roots issue. i also dumped the democratic party recently due to their corporatism and due to what in fact was a daily assault on my email accounts asking for money for people who did not further any progressive causes. they furthered no causes at all in fact. pointing fingers at the other guys and calling them liars, is simply not a way to legislate which, i would like to remind everyone, is the job description. democrats introduced little or no legislation that the people could get behind. it didn’t matter if it couldn’t get passed as much as letting the middle class know that our concerns are being articulated. it would have given some talking points at least. we knew that what the gop stood for was bad, but no one knows anymore, what the democrats stand for. vote for me and i will work for you no longer works here. work for us and we will vote for you. we will no longer choose a candidate that is simply the lesser of 2 evils. if a desirable candidate is not running on either major party, we will write in. san diego has a huge latino population that is not enfranchised. that is where our job is. that is who the people are and that is where our votes will come from.
Amen.
thank you for acknowledging my response bob. that is a first on this list. clearly this is an exclusive group of “cognitizers” who still lack the ability to recognize the power and necessity of inclusion. as a newly relocated progressive, i am already turned off with with these conversations. this group wants to argue about personalities instead of issues instead of the issues and the people affected by them. new members join a conversation and they are ignored. good luck with the backbiting. if you can’t be a good example of a progressive organization, you can always be a bad warning. whatever they think the message is, here is what it actually is – except for us smart in-people, the rest of you have no contribution. you are as invisible to us as the tea party in fact. you have no value here. i bet in that world of delusion, this group considers itself reaching out to those it is trying to speak for. in fact, those of us unimportant people will not support those who do not support them. believe me, if this post is disallowed, it will be the most amount of attention given to any response i have made or email i have sent.
I appreciated your comments Michelle.
Thanks for being part of the discussion. I hope you will continue to read and post here.
Michelle- raising money has become like breathing for all elected officials: it is done daily, for hours, as part of political survival.
And agreed, fighting the good fight (legislatively or otherwise), despite daunting odds (see: Steve Rivera and his supporters) serves a goal and purpose, win or lose. The battle, done well, inspires others to take up the fight.
Finally, your use of “corporatism” is apt. In this century, since the (semi) election of Bush in 2000, we have seen people’s labor overtaxed and undervalued, leading to wage stagnation that continues today despite modest employment gains. Meanwhile,, corporate wealth is under taxed and valued to the point we have now achieved the largest wage gap in modern history.
Thanks to their willingness to address this new economic reality, (Dem) Senator Warren and (independent) Sen. Sanders have become bright populist stars in an otherwise dreary Capitol scene. Whether they run for president in 2016 or not, their voices are welcome and needed- and perhaps Sanders can encourage the rising tide of independent/no party preference voters to pay more attention and vote.
thank you lori – i stumped for elizabeth and ed markey. sanders will get my vote if he runs. hillary will not. i am done with corporate puppets. while the world had their heads in monica’s panties, billy boy slipped us the big one with NAFTA and now obama is trying the TPP. Tell me, how exactly will these undocumented workers become enfranchised so they can work for themselves? i moved during election week and saw a bunch of white people with signs for both parties or no listed party affiliation. i saw no campaign anything in spanish or vietnamese or chinese. those are the languages my neighbors speak. not only do they not vote, they laugh real loudly at the suggestion. they are not part of the people who count. they show that by not voting, illegal rentals and other businesses that function under the radar. we have some unique issue down here south of the checkpoint. how are they being addressed? where is the plan? democrats were pantsed at election time for failing the middle class. no one, no one again, who does not identify and work for issues, will be elected again. as long as progressives are willing to turn their backs on what amounts to probably 30-50% of the adults actually living here, they will won’t join the rat race. i am really horrified at this group. if you are a progressive, do some progressive things.
Perhaps a mandatory screening of “Selma” would help?
Persuading people to vote, when their vote seems not to matter, is a constant effort- also like breathing.
(I’m leaving for a memorial service- will need to reflect more on this later.)
thank you for considering this. i hope your response will begin with the recognition that there is no rapport or trust with most non white people. no top down plan will work. there needs to be a plan at the neighborhood level because well, life. make things work for them, they will become part of the team. talk at them promises that are meaningless, you won’t be invited back. make people pledge to get one person who has never registered, to do so and vote…that is how we bring people into the democratic process.
Democratic Party chair Francine Busby openly courted Republican/Independent /Democrat convert Nathan Fletcher for months before Mayor Bob Filner was driven from office. Fletcher was (and still is) the darling of mega-bucks bundlers Christine Forester and billionaire Irwin Jacobs and his Qualcomm progeny.
Over multiple contests, Congressional candidate Francine Busby could not wrestle that seat from her GOP opponent even when its stunningly corrupt occupant Rep. Randy “Duke” Cunningham was on his way to jail for selling votes for bribes. If not then — when? Busby continued to lose elections for that office until she was made director of “Run Women Run,” shortly after which she was named head of the County Democratic Party.
This election is not about Lori Saldana’s bitterness over losing to Scott Peters. It is about Francine Busby’s fitness to run the County Democratic Party apparatus to take advantage of its majority Dem voter registration. In my humble opinion, Busby’s refusal to debate challenger Steve Rivera speaks volumes about her confidence and competence to lead effectively.
Thanks for writing about the local Democratic Party leadership, Doug. I want to first clear up some confusion between elections this weekend for delegates to the STATE Party, and the election on Jan. 20th for the Chair of the COUNTY Party. Two distinct organizations, led by two very different Chairs and with two distinct bodies of voting delegates — the County Party “delegates” are elected on the Primary Ballot every two years. I also want to say that the struggle between the progressive activists in the Party and the mainstream establishment has been going on for decades here in California, with the most recent rising in the wake of the 2004 Presidential election, when so many progressives were disappointed in Kerry and inspired by Howard Dean and Wesley Clark. This is when I and many others flooded the CA Democratic Party Delegate elections, and in the ten years since have forged a much more progressive and grassroots-oriented Party leadership, policy voice and election strategy. This approach was similarly tried for the San Diego County Democratic Party, with some limited success in 2005-2011 — but stymied in some part by the election of County delegates on the Primary Ballot by the general electorate of registered Democrats, without any actual policy-driven campaigning, which results in the reelection of many delegates who are neither progressive nor activists. It is also stymied by the need for the County Party to raise its own funds, at the bottom of a “food chain” which is dominated by high-profile “celebrity” candidates and PACs, the Democratic National Committee, and Democratic Congressional and Senate campaign committees. Then you have the CA Democratic Party and high-profile candidates and PACs. Having been a Vice Chair of the largely volunteer-led San Diego County Party, I can attest to the fundraising challenge of tapping the same pool of individual donors whom are aggressively wooed by all these other much better-funded fundraising operations. THIS is why the County Party has become so susceptible to large donors who are able to shape the policy positions and election strategy of the County Party.
WE NEED TO PUBLICLY-FUNDED ELECTIONS. And to accomplish this, we must pass a Constitutional Amendment to overturn Citizens United/aver that money is NOT speech. We must overcome the political consultants and lobbyists who thrive on our current system and motivate our Congressmembers to do so — a much higher hurdle in the wake of the 2014 midterms. But this IS what we must strategically focus on — very much the old chicken-and-egg conundrum, in terms of needing to elect receptive Congressmembers and needing Money Out of Politics to so do.
Thank you for this great analysis Martha. Until campaign financing changes, both political parties will continue to chase money instead of membership, and prioritize fundraising over volunteers.
Amen.
As noted by Martha Sullivan: This internal party battle is also a reflection of broader national issues, including the growing wage gap/income inequality that is emerging in the US. It is at least one one reason why the fastest-growing voter registration is “no party preference,” at the local, state, and national levels. Voters feel increasingly ignored and party activists feel disenfranchised and disempowered by internal party politics that prioritize fundraising, and then elect people who don’t have much in common with most Americans.
It may also explain some of the discord between the local labor council and county Dems. The San Diego Labor Council values human capital over investment capital. Out of necessity unions focus on recruiting members and building a base first, and thru growing and supporting their membership, representing their interests and negotiating at least a living wage for them, they become effective fundraisers- not vice versa.
However, their own internal politics are often moderated by a conservative-leaning member base. This includes many working class Republicans, especially in building trades which are still white/male dominated. (I was a union carpenter 30 years ago. Remember the “Reagan Democrats” of the 1980s? I worked alongside many of them.)
Finally, there was a definite shift within the San Diego County party in 2004, in part reflecting the national politics Martha described, in part local leadership changes.
In 2004 County party Chairman Kennan Kaeder resigned after 4 years of effective leadership that focussed on recruiting more activists and empowering and training a broad base of volunteers. Jess Durfee became Chair and remained for 8 years, and began creating more of a “top down” leadership style with an eye on personal advancement (he now is San Diego’s first and only delegate to the Democratic National Committee).
Durfee was intent on making his crowning achievement the election of a Democrat to the San Diego Mayor’s seat. When he ignored credible warnings about his candidate’s character it became a Pyrrhic victory for San Diego Democrats.
In 2012 Durfee picked Busby, a former Republican, to replace him largely because of her fundraising ability. He remains on the Executive Committee and his style of leadership continues, hopefully not much longer.
Like the man said, the rent’s too damn high!
Much ado about nothing- a few disgruntled folks sounds like- Francine did more fundraising than any chair before her- you need money to win races. Sure there can be some improvements- let her make them during off-election time and move forward. This bickering is childish and unattractive.
Mandy- Thanks for reminding us of the party line: 1st rule of San Diego dem party leadership is, don’t talk about San Diego dem party leadership. Or has the chair accepted the democratic women’s club invitation to discuss their concerns?
And apparently the 2nd rule is: criticize those who are willing/interested to discuss it.
“Nothing to see here folks. Move along…”