The Progressive Movement's Starvation Diet

Matt Stoller offers a broader view on the lack of funding in progressive organizing that I identified last week. According to Stoller, this isn't just a problem in youth organizing, it's a movement-wide problem among a range of single issue groups, 527s and anyone not directly associated with the Obama campaign:

I keep having conversations this cycle that come back to a basic theme. People assumed that there would be lots of money available for organizing and media work, and yet not only is there less than they expected, there is less than would naturally exist in a Presidential year. Normally the Democratic economy works based on the Presidential cycle; lots of money once every four years, some money during the midterm election, and starvation other than that. It seems as if 2008 is an anomaly, unless you are working for the Obama campaign.

As far as I can tell, there are three intersecting trends that are cutting off the funding stream for progressive groups. One, Obama defunded outside parties reliant on big dollar donors, which means that a good amount of talent is sitting on the sideline, helpless to affect Congressional or Presidential races. There is no cavalry in case Obama stumbles and there are no groups that can go negative against McCain. We knew that. Two, Obama is vacuuming up huge small dollar donations, and sucking some of the oxygen out of downticket races. The media glare on Obama has effectively damaged the megaphone of downticket candidates, and their ability to pull in small dollar donors. This is hurting Senate candidates like Al Franken, for instance, because there is no VoteVets ad to go after Norm Coleman like there was to after George Allen in Virginia. A dozen candidates might lose because the right is going to come after them viciously, and there is nothing on our side to deal with that - no small dollar donors, no outside groups, and very little media attention.

And three, I keep hearing that Foundations are cutting back on funding for non-profits. Foundations are huge entities that grant a certain percentage (usually 3-5%) of their asset base every year in keeping with their mission statement. Because of the market drop, these groups are cutting their grants, which is further starving progressive groups. Foundations are the biggest source of reliable funding for progressive nonprofits, so this is quite nasty. The progressive movement, aside from the Obama campaign, is starving. The better groups are building small dollar donor networks, and the incentive to build revenue streams independent of foundations and large dollar donors is growing. That is a positive development.

Matt looks at the sunny side here - a whittling down of groups that are "unfit" and fat on the largesse of big donors and foundations, and a forced push towards more sustainable practices. But I still think that it's a hell of a gamble that donors are taking and it's consequences go well beyond the lack of a proper infrastructure supporting rapid response efforts and down-ballot candidates. Even in the best of circumstances it is going to leave us with a weakened infrastructure that will be entirely dependent on Obama to move policy. And if we dont' like that policy? Well I guess we can just suck it because our options will be pretty limited.

One final comment. Matt identifies this as a problem affecting "single issue groups," which are more and more getting a bad rap for creating a disjointed (or "siloed," as folks like to say) movement and affecting little if any real change. I just want to be clear that I don't consider youth organizations "single issue" operations. Getting young people civically and politically engaged builds a constituency for the Party and for all issues. It's an investment in the future (and current) health of the Party and the larger progressive movement.