Scenes From the State DFL Convention Part Three

Candidate for the Third Congressional District Jim Meffert speaks to the Convention
Speaker Margaret Anderson Kelliher Won the Endorsement. She is the first woman to be endorsed by either of the major parties in Minnesota.
My seat from the Rice County Delegation Table
Candidate for the Second Congressional District Dan Powers speaks to the Convention
DFL Chair Brian Melendez opens the Convention

Scenes From the State DFL Convention Part Two

Rep. Tom Rukavina rallies supporters and greets the supporters of Sen. Marty
The Kelliher Rally moves to the Convention Center
Supporters of Representative Paul Thissen
'The Pragmatic Idealist' with a very creative John Marty Supporter.
Mayor Rybak rallies supporters

Scenes From the State DFL Convention Part One

Entrance to the Convention Center on the day of the Endorsement
Rally for Speaker Anderson-Kelliher

Rally for the Mayor of Minneapolis R. T. Rybak
Rally for State Senator John Marty
The rallies collide...

Motives and Ideology

For my internship I am reading academic political science literature relevant to political parties, finance, and participation. One such article "The Motives-Ideology Connection Among Political Party Activists" that was published in Political Psychology Vol. 17 No. 3 1998 written by Edmond Costantini and Linda O. Valenty from the Political Science Department of the University of California in Davis. The article examines the motives and ideologies of activists in the California Democratic and Republican parties from 1964 to 1990. Though the data might be data it was still revealing. The different ideologies were a range of more liberal to conservative while the motivations were Ambition, Sociality, Purposive, Allegiance.

Ambition is an obvious motivation to enter party politics and I would be lying to myself and my loyal readers if I wrote that I did not have some ambition to enter politics. Sociality or the opportunities for social activity and friendship available in party politics is another reason I entered politics. Many of my dear friends are political junkies like myself and I met them while getting involved in party politics in Rice County. Purposive members and activists are involved to advance policies through their elected officials and ideals within the party mission. As I have mentioned several times in my earlier blog entries and conversations, I am a proponent of universal healthcare, marriage equality, and public education. It makes sense then that I am active in the Democratic party for sure, yet the study reveals that purposive activists are usually more ideologically 'radical' or 'stringent' than ambitious candidates who tend to move towards the center in pursuit of a majority of voters. Moreover, the analysis shows that purposive activists are more amateur than ambitious ones which could also contribute to the popularity of centrist politics in America. This aspect of the political culture also contributes to the continual, exponential decrease of purposive activists in political parties. However, the emergence of the 'Tea Party' might change this trend for the conservative right. The 'Tea Party' seems focused on ideology and policy. They are uncompromising and extremely active, however their impact on electoral politics has yet to be seen.

Yet it seems more and more common that compromises are made during elections. Too many politicians, notably Democrats, cave to pressure and move to the center. Being centrist helps us win elections, but it also limits the expectations for the progress government can achieve.

Finally, Allegiance is another interesting motive. Such activists feel an obligation to party leaders and the party community. My family and I were never really political. I have become a party activist on my own, yet in recent conversations with my grandmother she told me how she remembered FDR and the progress of the New Deal. She has been a Democrat for life. I do not know if I will have that kind of allegiance particularly with the persistence of many of my frustrations with the Democratic party.

All of the aforementioned motivations have been cited by my peers and neighbors as reasons for their political activity. Most times the motives are in combination and are at times challenged by the rate of progress or failures of candidates. Political party attachment however is a powerful force and is necessary for the continuation of a healthy civil society. The challenge of contemporary political parties is how to channel each of these motivations at every ideological alignment to continue strong parties to the elections of 2010, 2012, 2014 and beyond.

A Response to Peggy Noonan

The current mission of this blog was to reflect on my academic readings for my Political Affairs and Finance Internship. However, I was e-mailed this column from Peggy Noonan.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704207504575130081383279888.html

It is title Now For the Slaughter a play on the so called Slaughter Rule or deem and pass rule that will be used by the House to pass the Senate bill. Ms. Noonan insists that President Obama is obfuscating the real disagreements the American people have with healthcare and is not addressing issues of Congressional procedure. First, I am confused. Healthcare already passed both Houses of Congress. A conference procedure has been completed; a procedure that occurs to overcome all of the differences in all House and Senate versions. Now the Senate could vote for healthcare and pass it... again. The current bill is the Senate version anyway. Or they could leave it to the House. Seems simple. Healthcare has been passed by a majority of our representatives. How a bill is passed is the business of Congress.

Never mind that deem and pass, reconciliation, and other procedures have been used by both parties for a variety of pieces of legislation. No one owns the high ground on Congressional procedure. So a question remains, is the argument on procedure the real problem conservatives have with the bill? They argued that the nation cannot afford it. Then the CBO reported that the first ten years of healthcare reform would reduce our deficit by 182 Billion then 1.2 trillion the next ten years. Republicans voted for the Bush Tax Cuts and Medicare Part D when the CBO report on each was dire. Each bill contributed to sending our nation into greater debt. We have a chance to save money and cover 32 million Americans. There is so much good that can be done. Even if you desire a more progressive bill than what is currently being proposed, it is a great first step. Even Former Governor Dr. Howard Dean who made news late in 2009 by breaking ranks with the President recognized that this bill is good legislation and could lead to more reform. If healthcare reform (or as my fellow liberals would want me to say) health insurance reform is passed on Sunday, it is not the end of the world. History will remember that legislation was passed and the implementation will be the next challenge. Let's get it right or much more than this blog entry will seem misguided.

Also, one more thing on the column by Ms. Noonan. She mentions that the President Obama has postponed his state visits to Australia and Indonesia to stay in Washington to help the passage of health care reform is embarrassing. Embarrassing? REALLY? I have spoken to people all over the world and I can tell you what is truly embarrassing to America's image in the world and image abroad is that we have 47 million Americans without health insurance and so many more dropped from their coverage for the sake of a bottom line. THAT IS EMBARRASSING. The President has a simple choice: the health of his people or one of several state visits he will make in his years as President. I am all right with his choice.

Here is the link to the Fox News interview that Peggy Noonan references in her column. It speaks for itself. Mr. Baier should have been more polite, yet the President was right. Healthcare reform is the right thing to do. Period.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wJT6XNChso0 PART ONE

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VgUNXWb6lCI PART TWO

A Day At The DFL... Schedule and First Impressions of Money in Politics

On Monday, Wednesday and Friday, my day begins at 6 am. In true politico fashion my eyes are drawn first to the news. I check several sources for news and political hearsay. I get ready and eat breakfast at 7 am right as I gain consciousness and the St. Olaf Caf opens. My friend and I carpool to the Twin Cities for our internships and usually depart St. Olaf at 7:45 or so. It is a long day. I listen to conservative talk radio on the way to the Cities and argue with the hosts and callers. The very first day of my internship I heard about how the recent snow storms on the east coast were evidence against climate change. Despite the fact that climate is an accumulative history of weather events thus one storm does not sufficiently mount a challenge to an entire phenomenon and the exact reason for the scale of the snow storms were due to climate change in the first place. Anyway it provides motivation for the 9-5 grind at the DFL office.

My day begins with reading constituent mail and e-mail in order to pass notes and questions to the Senate office. Much of the constituent mail ranges from support to contempt. Many people have an honest question on policy or share wishes of support of Senator Franken and the Democratic agenda whilst others warn us and Sen. Franken about the radical Democratic agenda, etc. Reading and sorting these are essential for Sen. Franken to represent Minnesota, yet it seems that these views are not necessarily representative of public opinion in Minnesota. Not everyone writes a letter, thus it is not always a barometer of what Minnesotans are thinking yet to hear the opinions of Minnesota is important to conduct the business of representative governance. As an intern and representative of the DFL, I feel as though I am part of a larger and essential conversation with the people of Minnesota.

I also handle event calendars and write briefs on policy to keep the day busy and staffers informed. My day is based on a variety of these activities while I learn as much as I can from my supervisors and fellows.

I also handle contributions and manage the data. This is an intricate process and I will not go into much detail, yet it is astonishing the amount of contributions that come my way despite the fact that the 2010 campaigns are just beginning. Fundraising is a constant activity. In able to function PACs and campaigns fundraise 24 hours a day. It is often mused that a Congressman or Senator has to raise every day during every constituent visit in order to be re-elected. Now, political action committees contribute to several campaigns at once, it is still rather disconcerting how intertwined money is to one's chances of remaining in political office. Contemporary campaigns are expensive and committed supporters do see monetary contributions as a way to ensure victory even in a hard economy.

It is the current state of the political culture. More than half of a politician's efforts are to ensure fund continue to roll in. Is there more appropriate and essential things that can be done in this time? Sure. Yet until a change to our culture occurs (either public financing or further reform) interns, such as my self will be around collecting, planning, asking, mailing, and entering money for campaigns and causes.

Internship With The Democratic Farmer Labor Party Introduction

This blog taken on many forms- political commentary soap box, travelogue, reflections, and photo gallery. Now it is going to chronicle my academic internship with the Democratic Farmer Labor Party (DFL) and more specifically Al Franken for Senate and the Midwest Values PAC. I am receiving academic credit for working at the DFL Mondays, Wednesdays, Fridays each week. I will be aiding the Finance staff in accounting and fundraising duties, while also participating in the Political Affairs department to plan events, write briefs for staffers, and maintain political connections. This internship will acquaint me with the actual business of politics, nothing too glamourous, yet it is the essential business of American politics. This blog will serve as an academic reflection on the practical business of political parties and a chronicle of my experience. It should be noted however that I cannot share every detail. My blog is not to be used as a representation of campaign practice, information, or policy. Despite the fact that only a few people follow the blog (I Thank You All) I do not want anything to be leaked to the press. So I apologize if you were expecting a revealing expose... this blog might get extremely boring or really captivating if you dig campaign finance or political affairs.

This internship is truly serendipitous not for the obvious professional reason of networking before I graduate in May, but in the aftermath of the Citizens United decision by the Supreme Court; to practically comprehend the business of campaign finance will be vital and illuminating. For those who are unaware, the Citizens United decision trampled on past precedents and will allow corporations to contribute unlimited funds to political campaigns. The decision is a travesty for the exact reason Justice John Paul Stevens mentioned in his dissent; the American people have lost the impact of their free speech through campaign contributions that will never match the contributions of corporations. If money equals speech, thus it is true through the Citizens United decision that corporations, wishing to influence political discourse, will be louder than the American people. Even though a few persons may cite that Democrats and Republicans are the beneficiaries of corporate donations and both liberal and conservative PACs play in the same game, it cannot be denied that campaign finance reform has been a major priority for American progressives and their conservative allies. Most notably is the unlikely pairing of John McCain (R-Arizona) and Russ Feingold (D-Wisconsin). Their legislation, the Bipartisan Campaign Finance Reform Act or McCain/Feingold Act was passed in 2002. It set the contribution limits utilized in contemporary politics and set to create a sense of fairness to how campaigns were funded and from whom. Obama For America and Howard Dean's campaign for President in 2004 utilized the internet to appeal for small donations from ordinary citizens in conjunction with the usual practice of bulk donations from PACs and activists. Republican candidate for President and libertarian icon, Ron Paul also executed a similar web strategy and raised a record amount.

Campaign finance reform has a bipartisan history. It is vital that Citizens United be challenged both through legislation, judiciary, and candidate practice. More reflections on this subject are on the way, once I have completed more reading. For a review of the Citizens United case go to

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/01/22/us/politics/22scotus.html?scp=1&sq=Citizens%20United&st=cse