The Impossible Will Take a Little While
Soul of a Citizen
Lectures
Buy Loeb's Books
Pass the Word
Receive Loeb's Articles
by email
About Paul Loeb
· Paul Loeb's Other Books
· Paul Loeb Bio
· Paul Loeb's Web Links
From South Florida Sun Sentinel, Riverside Press-Enterprise & others
Hillary Clinton and My Visa Bill
By Paul Rogat Loeb
I just got my Visa bill for my final election donations—all those click-and-donate appeals in my email box and on the Web. I gave more than I thought I had, more than I’d intended to spend, and more than I’d ever given before. You make enough $25 to $50 contributions, and soon you're talking real money, almost a tenth of my annual income just in the election season.
But I feel just fine about my giving. I’m proud to have helped support Dean’s 50-state strategy by donating to the Democratic National Committee early enough to help build key infrastructure, and then again and again as new opportunities emerged. I felt great about giving to Montana Senator-elect Jon Tester six times, including for his final election week push. Between my donations and my volunteering with MoveOn’s CallforChange program, I felt like I’d personally helped elect Tester, Senators Jim Webb, Claire McCaskill, Sherrod Brown, Bernie Sanders, and Sheldon Whitehouse, plus half the Congressional candidates from the NetRoots Act Blue page, including victory in the December 12 special election by Texas progressive Ciro Rodriguez. I’d have felt proud to do my part even if the close races had gone the other way.
What doesn’t please me, in fact disturbs me immensely, is discovering that Hillary Clinton raised $52 million for her Senate campaign and allied leadership PAC, HILLPAC. She spent $36 million of it on a race that she could have won staying home in her pajamas, not spending a dime. Now she’s sitting on a $13.5-million-dollar war chest, which she’ll roll over to her presidential campaign. I know political money is hard to raise, particularly with the new contribution limits, and that Hillary’s spending went in part to build a grassroots donors’ list that she’ll tap in the future. I know she traveled throughout the country, raising money and helping secure publicity for an array of worthy candidates, many of whom won.
But according to the wonderful site of the Center for Responsive Politics, the entire Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee raised only $107 million, and the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee $103 million. Hillary spent a third as much as either of these, more than any candidate in America, for a race that was never in doubt. She did distribute $2.5 million to various Democratic institutions and candidates, and helped raise far more with her celebrity star power. But imagine if she’d transferred $20 million into the dozen Congressional campaigns that Democrats lost by margins as close as a few hundred votes. Or into Harold Ford’s Senatorial campaign, to close the gap between the $10 million spent by Ford and the $15 million that Republican Bob Corker spent. Or given it to the Democratic Senatorial and Congressional Campaign Committees. Hindsight’s always easy, but by late summer it was clear that the Democrats had a huge opportunity and were scrambling for the funds to respond to it. A few more ads would almost certainly have tipped the balance for some of the under-funded candidates who came heartbreakingly close. That’s why so many of us were digging deep to contribute, and then digging deeper, even when it hurt. Evidently Hillary had other priorities.
When Bill Clinton first surfaced as a leading Presidential contender, I asked a mutual friend what he thought. “He’s smart,” said my friend. “He reads good books. He wants to do the right thing.” Then he paused and said, “But he won’t go to the mat for anything except his own political future.” To me, that was Bill’s core flaw (even more than his pursuit of Monica Lewinsky). Hillary seems to share Bill’s hunger for power. You can always rationalize dubious choices by the good you’ll do when you gain just a little more clout, and I’m sure she truly believes her candidacy will benefit the United States. But she had a chance to make a major difference in this critical election--and she blew it.
In contrast, John Edwards and Barack Obama campaigned throughout the country to support Democratic candidates (as did Wesley Clark), spent some to build their donor lists and pay campaign staffers, but did relatively little fundraising for their own campaign committees and PACs—by the eve of the election Edwards was still in debt from his 2004 campaign, and Obama had less than a million in the bank. Their top priorities really did seem to be helping other Democrats win a critical immediate election, more than building their own careers.
I’m sure Hillary would say she did all she could, and then some, through all the Democratic fundraisers and rallies that she headlined. But I think about all the ordinary citizens who gave more time and money than anyone would have expected and as a result made a critical difference. In comparison, Hillary falls short. The money she spent may have gained her a few extra points of electoral margin in a race she won by 36 points, and buttressed her already massive frontrunner status. But it did nothing to increase the Democratic victory. Those of us at the grassroots aren’t going to stop volunteering and donating merely because some of our most prominent political leaders fall short. But it’s a measure of their character that I hope we’ll remember when the Presidential primaries begin.
Paul Rogat Loeb is the author of The Impossible Will Take a Little While: A Citizen's Guide to Hope in a Time of Fear, named the #3 political book of 2004 by the History Channel and the American Book Association. His previous books include Soul of a Citizen: Living With Conviction in a Cynical Time. See www.paulloeb.org To receive his monthly articles email sympa@lists.onenw.org with the subject line: subscribe paulloeb-articles