Why I'm a Democratic Donor...Who Doesn't Give to the DNC

DNC Chair Tom Perez (D-MD)

I've read a lot of articles in the past week about fundraising.  As the Quarter 3 numbers are coming in, it seems like the Democrats did pretty well, particularly when it comes to Democratic House challengers and incumbent Democratic senators, who raked in the cash.  Some low points for the Democrats would include Ralph Northam, who is running a tight race for the governor's mansion in Virginia that the Democrats MUST WIN in order to prove that they compete in the age of Trump, as well as the perpetual loser of the Democratic Party, the DNC.  As I am a frequent donor to Democratic causes, I thought I might look at this a little from a personal perspective, because I wanted to take an introspective look at why I pick certain candidates to support, and which candidates I end up opening my (usually pretty limited) checkbook toward.

I oftentimes say, if asked what charities I support, that my donations to the Democratic Party are my charity.  This is both funny because oftentimes in my life it's felt like I'm supporting a losing cause here (I came of age as a Democrat during the losses of Al Gore and John Kerry, so that perception is still raw even after eight years of Barack Obama, and has come flooding back in the wake of Hillary Clinton's loss).  I donate to other charities (usually LGBT friendly events, environmental causes, or ones that support film, and of course my weekly donations to the offering plate), but politics would make up the largest portion of the pie chart, and particularly in the wake of Trump's election it feels like my civic duty to donate to those fighting hardest against him. (Note-if someone in the IRS is reading this, I'm aware that these contributions are not actual charity, and I don't deduct them on my taxes...just want to have that on the record).

Generally, I stick behind giving to either the two congressional campaign committees (the DCCC and the DSCC), particularly when we're closer to the election, as they are geared toward giving money to the most winnable races.  I get annoyed if they enter primaries I don't think they should, but I'm not averse to them getting into a primary to help a specific candidate that might be our only shot in the general election (that helped elect, say, Jeff Merkley for example), but mostly they are the fastest to react.  A donation to a specific candidate may end up feeling like a waste of money.  That candidate could lose their primary or become a foregone conclusion by election day or a lost cause (I donated to Alison Lundergan Grimes in 2014, so I know the feeling of watching my money go down the drain in a wipeout on election day).  The DSCC and the DCCC are able to ensure that your money goes to the most relevant, winnable races at the time, which is nice because the biggest driving force of my donations is this: I am a Yellow Dog Democrat, through-and-through.

For those unfamiliar with the term, it's not to be confused with a Blue Dog Democrat, someone who is a Democrat but tends to support more moderate policies (I'm also a liberal, through-and-through), but instead who basically will vote for anyone with a D behind their name.  I have my limits (I wouldn't cast a ballot for someone corrupt like Bill Jefferson or whom I considered a joke-if Trump had been nominated by the Democrats, I'd have been voting for Jeb, albeit while loudly sobbing in the voting booth), but I'll vote for someone to my right or left without too much issue as long as they have a D behind their name.  As a result, donating to the DCCC or DSCC suits me-it's a way to elect the most Democrats, not specific Democrats, and I don't get hung up whether my money went to Sherrod Brown or Joe Manchin.

That being said, I have my limits, and have never given to the DNC.  I actually checked my records on this one, as I assumed at some point I must have donated to them.  After all, I'm on their mailing list, and can't seem to get off of it, but I suspect that might be due to donations to presidential campaigns, which I've done a few times.  And that's because I can never really get behind the DNC's leadership, even if I support them on paper.  The DNC, as a Democrat, always feels rudderless to me, and I'm not impressed with some of our chairs, particularly Tom Perez and Debbie Wasserman Schultz.  It doesn't have a clear vision, an obvious focus that the DSCC/DCCC (and for what it's worth, the RNC) has-I don't know where the money is going, or how it's being spent.  They tend to frequently get stuck in internal politics rather than simply serving as a cash machine that can help the party, and they become WAY too involved in solely the presidential races.

That last reason may be the biggest hindrance to me not giving to the DNC, and in fact may be why I'm bucking my historical donation practices this year and giving almost exclusively to individual candidates rather than even the congressional campaign committees (I plan on reverting back to them next year, wallet-permitting): they don't seem to see the big picture.  I'm aware that this might be glib, as I'm smart enough to know they work on local and state races, but the party has cratered in the past eight years, and they seem to still only focus on the top of the ballot.  They frequently just trade on the idea of coattails, rather than trying to play in individual races, but if I wanted to just support the candidate, I'd give to the presidential contender (which I do, every cycle without fail).  They didn't see, for example, the opportunity afforded the party by investing in Rob Quist's bid in the Montana-AL seat, focusing instead on the shinier option of Jon Ossoff in GA-6.  Both lost, but Quist lost a close race with almost no national support.  The DNC seems to still be run in the mold of the 1990's, when it started to turn away from its progressive, (admittedly losing) strategy to one more in-line with Bill Clinton & the DLC.  It's still catching up, acting like the DLC when it probably needs to become something more akin to Barack Obama's coalition, more grassroots and scrappier, and taking on the look of progressive, technology-focused campaigning.  The DCCC and DSCC are aided by people knowing directly what they're donating toward (winning a Democratic Senate or a Democratic House) and obviously donations to an individual campaign are easy to suss out, but the DNC is hampered because no one really knows where that money goes.  It just has a vague sense of "support the Democrats," but it feels like their public face is just petty squabbles and bids for relevance.  I don't think it will ever win the money race, or be what it's supposed to be for the party, until it figures out that sense of identity.  And until then, it won't win my money.