Mediaboss Marketing

Progressive groups and Democratic organizations are raising money at a pace more closely resembling the frenzied weeks before an election than the typically sleepy months just after one. | Getty

Fighting President Donald Trump is proving lucrative.

The American Civil Liberties Union raised $24 million in online donations last weekend. That sum, taken in while the group was waging a legal struggle against Trumps executive order banning travel by citizens of certain countries, is more than six times what the group typically raises online in an entire year.

Story Continued Below

And other progressive groups and Democratic organizations are having similar fundraising success, raising money at a pace more closely resembling the frenzied weeks before an election than the typically sleepy months just after one. Democratic congressional groups, state-level candidates and nonprofit or advocacy groups also are reaping millions from pledges to oppose Trump and stand up for progressive values in the early days of his administration.

The fundraising wave has even buoyed little-known Jon Ossoff, a Georgia Democrat whom the liberal Daily Kos website endorsed last Thursday for a House special election. Daily Kos members have since donated nearly $400,000 to Ossoff more than the group had ever directed to any campaign other than Elizabeth Warrens 2012 Senate run.

We fully expected, under any Republican president, to see an increase in everything from donations to organic following, said Greg Berlin, a Democratic digital strategist in Washington whose clients include Ossoff. But with Trump, its like everything is multiplied.

Ossoff is running in the district held by Rep. Tom Price, Trumps nominee to head the Department of Health and Human Services. Although the traditionally conservative district has not elected a Democrat in decades, Trump barely carried it over Hillary Clinton in November, and enthusiastic Democrats hope a special election following Price's expected confirmation will turn into a referendum against Trump.

We think [Ossoff] could be our first million-dollar candidate ever, and soon, Daily Kos political director David Nir wrote in an email. And one reason we think so is that our email list which weve been building up for many years has jumped from 2 million on Election Day to 3 million now.

Other organizations have seen their email lists balloon, too. The DCCC said Thursday that its list swelled by 675,000 (more than 20 percent) in January, as it raised more than $4.1 million online surpassing fundraising in any odd-year month ever.

Mindy Myers, executive director of the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee, said Tuesday that her group is on track to be one of the best the DSCC has seen in an off-year. And the Democratic Governors Association said its digital fundraising total this January was 11 times more than in January 2015, although a spokesman declined to give exact figures.

Its an encouraging sign for the elections starting in New Jersey and Virginia this year, DGA spokesman Jared Leopold said. Democrats are fired up and ready to participate.

The broadest signal of the financial wave comes from ActBlue, the widely used digital fundraising platform for Democratic candidates and causes (and a growing number of nonprofit groups), which raised its 1.5-billionth dollar in January. The organization took 10 years to reach the $1 billion mark last March; ActBlue took less than a year to raise the next half-billion dollars, including more than $25 million in January, compared with $6 million in January 2015.

People are looking for ways to have their voices heard at this moment, said Erin Hill, executive director of ActBlue. For some, its going to a march or rally, for others, its contributing online to an organization they are supporting, and for some, its all of the above.

ActBlue also signed up more than 100,000 new users in January for its Express feature. That function saves credit card information so that donors can make one-click donations in the future on any ActBlue pages, which most Democratic congressional campaigns use for online fundraising.

Similar jumps across Democratic politics cover everything from fundraising totals to email list size to fans on social media. Outspoken Democratic senators like Cory Booker and Kirsten Gillibrand, who are also among the subjects of 2020 presidential speculation, saw their Twitter followings spike in January. Booker has gained about a quarter-million followers since Jan. 1, while Gillibrands more modest account still grew nearly 50 percent, from about 214,000 followers to 307,000.

Other senators campaigns actively demonstrated how Democrats are trying to take advantage of the energy in their party. Several running for reelection in 2018, including Wisconsins Tammy Baldwin and Ohios Sherrod Brown, recently replaced the front pages of their campaign websites with landing pages, urging visitors to sign petitions opposing Trumps immigration order, adding more email addresses to their campaign lists. (Browns campaign declined to comment and Baldwins did not respond to a request for comment.)

Political enthusiasm is by no means restricted to the left at the moment Trumps campaign and affiliated committees just reported raising millions in small-dollar donations in December, as Trump and his supporters basked in the afterglow of his victory.

But the large protests Trump sparked in the first two weekends of his presidency are a sign of the huge organizing potential on the left at this moment, said Berlin, the Democratic strategist. Showing up for something in person is typically the really high bar of what a campaign will ask of supporters. Making a small donation and especially signing an online petition is much easier, and it has happened by the millions in the past two weeks.

The last time there was a Republican president in his first term, there was no such thing as online fundraising or organizing, Berlin said. So, were in a lot of uncharted water here.

Joe Rospars, who was the chief digital strategist on former President Barack Obamas campaigns, noted that new groups popping up amid the surge in activism may prompt a second wave of eye-catching results later, even if the current energy on the left fades.

There are these groups that are just starting and getting a ton of interest and people signing up, but they may not even have a bank account yet, Rospars said. ... So there will be a delayed effect of whats happening now when some of these new organizations mechanically get things going and put down their roots.

People are doing Part One now, but I think its going to continue even if the moment comes down, Rospars continued.

Read this article:
Progressives pour cash into anti-Trump resistance - Politico

Dozens of Democratic politicians and progressives are calling for investigations into Mickey Kasparian, the influential union leader who was accused late last year of sexually harassing one of his employees and retaliating against two others.

In a letter sent to the executive boards of United Food and Commercial Workers Local 135, the San Diego and Imperial Counties Labor Council, and the state and county Democratic parties, the group said Kasparian must be suspended from his position at both labor organizationsthrough the duration of the independent investigations.

Separately, the Democratic Womans Club of San Diego wrote a letter to the county Democratic Party asking that Kasparian be suspended from his role as a delegate to the partys state Central Committee.

And Lee Burdick, former legal adviser and chief off staff to former San Diego Mayor Bob Filner, likewise urged inthe labor groups and county Democrats to investigate, and to suspend Kasparian in the interim.

If you do nothing and wait for some court or other agency to act, you will do significant harm to your credibility and, consequently, your ability to act on behalf of your members and the progressive Labor movement you purport to represent, Burdick wrote in a letter sent Tuesday.

Kasparian has categorically denied allegations contained in lawsuits that sayhe pressured a subordinate into a lengthy sexual relationship and fired another after he inaccurately suspected she had double-crossed him on a political matter. The letters not only question those denials, but they show a division betweenprogressives.

After the absence of any action by the leadership of these groups to address these issues, it has now become clear that if we do not insist upon it, the complaints of these women may be dismissed and diminished in a manner that does not allow them any due process in their own workplaces, says the letter signed by 46 progressives.

The message from the Democratic Womans Club contains similar sentiments.

A statement from Local 135 said thatpeople whocomplained about Kasparian in lawsuits and interviews withnews mediawere fired for cause.

It is profoundly disappointing that individuals, by signing on to a letter, would choose to ignore the facts, or turn their backs on our members, the union said. We may be living in bizarre times, but facts still matter. Lawsuits are not truth, especially when they are filed by those who have failed to do their jobs.

In late December, Sandy Naranjo and Isabel Vasquez filed lawsuits against Kasparian and their employer, Local 135. Naranjo said she was wrongly fired after her husbands rival union took a position on a San Diego political issue that Kasparian disagreed with. Kasparian said she was fired for falsifying time cards and mileage reports.

Vasquez said she was pressured into a 15-year sexual relationship with Kasparian, her boss. Kasparian said he had no intimate contact with her.

After Kasparian was sued, another woman at Local 135, Anabel Arauz, said she was demoted after she said she would be a good character witness for Vasquez and her boyfriend made critical post about Kasparian on Facebook.Letter signers said that Kasparian needs to be suspended during any investigation because of the potential for retaliation.

Kasparian, who has led Local 135 since 2003, said he has done nothing wrong and that many of his accusers merely disgruntled.

Of the plaintiffs in the lawsuitsonly Naranjo was terminated, but in court documents she said she was not fired for cause but rather as political retaliation. On Wednesday the union that represents Naranjo and other labor organizers at Local 135dismissed agrievance she filed.

Vasquez retired in July. Kasparian said he did not have any intimate contact with her, and other employees at Local 135 said there was no indication of anything other than a friendly professional relationship between the two. Kasparian and his supporters alike all said that Vasquez ended her career on good terms and was not disgruntled when she left the union.

Some of the women who complained in interviews with the media about how Kasparian treated them were fired, but they also said it was not for cause but rather for a slight or minor disagreement with their boss.

The Democratic Party did not return requests for comment and thestate party had not seen the letters, according to a spokesperson.

Among those signing the main letter were San Diego City Councilman David Alvarez, public interest attorney Cory Briggs, former Assemblywoman Lori Saldana, four other members of city councils, elected members of school districts, clergy, and several politically-active Democrats.

The letters come after protests and requests for Kasparian to resign, including demands from former San Diego City Councilwoman Donna Frye and Irene McCormack Jackson, the former communications director for disgraced ex-San Diego Mayor Bob Filner who was the first woman to step forward and accuse him of sexual harassment.

It is our belief that the appropriate remedy is for Mr. Kasparian to resign, Frye and McCormack Jackson wrote in their Jan. 25 letter. At a minimum, we urge you to conduct an independent investigation regarding these allegations against Mr. Kasparian. We also urge you to take the actions necessary to protect the current employees, such as placing Mr. Kasparian on administrative leave until this is resolved.

Labor boss sued twice, accused of sexual harassment

Women who worked for labor boss said he created a toxic office culture

The letter signers wrote that they need to address allegations of sexual harassment in part to have a moral high ground over President Donald Trump, and the allegations against the commander-in-chief and his own admissions to actions that amount to sexual harassment.

Because of Mr. Kasparians standing in the progressive community, our ability to stand up against cultures of discrimination, bullying and harassment is compromised, unless we are able to resolutely acknowledge that we hold ourselves to the same standard that we demand from the nations President and his supporters, they wrote.

The letter with 46 signatures was organized by Sara Kent, a paralegal who said the allegations against Kasparian upset her, and reminded her of the scandal that consumedFilner. It germinated from a few conversations and social media posts between her friends, and concerns increased with time.

It really sort of became this groundswell of these people who really felt that something needs to happen rather than just let the court process run its course, she said.

Arauzs demotion was the tipping point, and it became clear that more direct action was needed, Kent said.

Hes doubling down, she said. And I think thats really whats making people react and want to act and not wait.

The letter was not widely circulated for signatures, but once it was released more people said that they wish to add their name, Kent said.

Twitter: @jptstewart

joshua.stewart@sduniontribune.com

(619) 293-1841

The rest is here:
Progressives, Democrats demand investigations, suspension of ... - The San Diego Union-Tribune

"We won this night. We will control the streets. We will liberate the land. We will fight fascists," tweeted Occupy Oakland. The tweet came after crowds of protesters-turned-criminals stormed barricades, lit fires, and ignited Roman candles to stop controversial gay conservative and Breitbart editor Milo Yiannopoulos from finishing his "Dangerous Faggot" tour at the University of California, Berkeley.

A picture accompanied the tweet showing "demonstrators" with signs that read "This is War" and "Become Ungovernable." Lost in the fog of the Roman candles was the fact that progressive "protestors," by denying the right of a political opponent to speak, were the fascists.

Make no mistake: The rights of free speech and peaceful assembly are among the most precious in our constitutional republic. The ability to tell the emperor he is naked is what separates this nation from so many across the globe. It is a right that must be protected from government encroachment, but it is also a right that must be respected by those seeking to exercise it.

Since the election of President Trump, progressives have confused their First Amendment right to protest with their perceived notion of free rein. After the inauguration, "protesters" took to the streets of D.C., to vandalize for sport. In New Orleans, "protesters" demonstrated their dislike for Trump by defacing historic buildings. When Trump traveled to Philadelphia shortly after the inauguration, "protesters" responded by taking spray paint to police cruisers.

What happened to Yiannopoulos on Wednesday night is only the latest example in this unsettling trend.

As protesters engage in lawless acts of thuggery, mainstream media coverage seems indifferent the trending lawlessness of the demonstrations.

In a feature titled "Ferocious Protests Greet Right-Wing Provocateur," Newsweek senior writer Alexander Nazaryan wrote, "On Wednesday night, several hundred people decided the University of California at Berkeley would reclaim its reputation as a crucible of radical activism."

What radical activism was on hand Wednesday night? According to Nazaryan, "A Walgreens was tagged with graffiti, including one that said 'Kill Trump.' Protesters posed happily in front of it for pictures. Berkeley officers, astride bicycles, watched."

Also from the Washington Examiner

Senate Democrats have little to show for trying to stall President Trump's nominees ahead of a bruising Supreme Court confirmation fight.

02/03/17 4:00 AM

This is not "radical activism." It is a laundry list of felonies committed with the implicit blessing of local law enforcement.

Washington Post writers opened an article about the inaugural protests by explaining, "Protesters made themselves heard in the nation's capital Friday, leaving a trail of damage along some city blocks, disrupting security checkpoints at President Donald Trump's inauguration, and clashing with police as Trump supporters tried to celebrate."

While the sentence seems innocent enough, can we honestly say people who damage and disrupt with a specific intent are protesters? Would they not be criminals?

Imagine if protesters who participated in the March for Life behaved like anti-Trump protesters. Would the media remain indifferent or would the full weight of the press come down on pro-life activism? Because Nazaryan labeled Breitbart a "white-nationalist website" in his Yiannopoulos article, we have a good guess at the answer.

Almost a century ago, Justice Olive Wendell Holmes wrote, "The most stringent protection of free speech would not protect a man in falsely shouting fire in a theatre and causing a panic." Holmes went on to rule that criticism of the draft was not free speech because it presented a "clear and present danger" to the country.

Also from the Washington Examiner

The Trump administration is committed to a full repeal and replacement of Obamacare, Vice President Pence said.

02/03/17 12:09 AM

While the clear and present danger standard penned by Holmes in Schenck v. United States has undergone a constitutional evolution, the common sense wisdom still looms large. Falsely yelling fire in a crowded theater may not be the same as opposing the draft, it is the same as deliberately starting fires in public.

If Berkeley is unable to teach their students about constitutional rights, it's time law enforcement does.

Joseph Murray (@realJoeMurray) is a contributor to the Washington Examiner's Beltway Confidential blog. Previously, he was a campaign official for Pat Buchanan. He is the author of "Odd Man Out" and is administrator of the LGBTrump Facebook page.

If you would like to write an op-ed for the Washington Examiner, please read our guidelines on submissions here.

Top Story

Donald Trump's second week as president has been full of surprises and sturm und drang.

02/03/17 5:00 AM

Read the original here:
Berkeley riot shows progressives want free rein, not free speech - Washington Examiner (blog)

Progressives Take Note: Sanctuaries Cut Both Ways Wall Street Journal Progressives Take Note: Sanctuaries Cut Both Ways. The Trump administration should go slowly on taking any action against sanctuary cities or sanctuary states. Feb. 2, 2017 2:12 p.m. ET. Regarding your editorial The Trump Wall Rises (Jan. 26 ...

Read the original post:
Progressives Take Note: Sanctuaries Cut Both Ways - Wall Street Journal

The consternation and outrage weve seen in response to President Trumps executive order on immigration has little to do with the policy as such. Restricting immigration from certain countries is nothing new; President Obama did it, as did presidents Bush, Clinton, H.W. Bush, and Reagan.

Rather, it has everything to do with the elevation of progressive politics to the status of a religiona dogmatic and intolerant religion, whose practitioners are now experiencing a crisis of faith.

Forget the executive order itself. Progressives have reacted with moral indignation and hysteria to everything Trump has done since taking office. His inauguration was enough to bring out hundreds of thousands of protesters across the country. In the 12 days since then, we have witnessed yet more demonstrations, boycotts, calls for resistance, comparisons to the Holocaust, media witch-hunts, the politicization of everything from Hollywood awards shows to professional sports, and real tears from New York Sen.Chuck Schumer.

One is hard-pressed to think of something Trump could do that would not elicit howls of outrage from the Left. On Tuesday, Senate Democrats boycotted confirmation hearings for Steven Mnuchins nomination to serve as treasury secretary and Rep. Tom Prices nomination to be secretary of Health and Human Services, while continuing to try to block the confirmation of Betsy DeVos for education secretary and Sen. Jeff Session for attorney general. Even before Trump announced his Supreme Court pick on Tuesday night, Democrats had already announced they would filibuster the nomination, no matter who it was.

The obstinacy of Senate Democrats reflects the mood of their progressive base, whose panicked anger is the natural reaction of those for whom politics has become an article of faith. Progressives, as the terms implies, believe society must always be progressing toward something better. Always forward, never backwards. After eight years of Obama, they believed progressive politics in America would forever be on an upward trajectory.

Trump shook that faith. But his election also unmasked the degree to which progressivism as a political project is based not on science or rationality, or even sound policy, but on faith in the power of government to ameliorate and eventually perfect society. All the protests and denunciations of Trump serve not just as an outlet for progressives despair, but the chance to signal their moral virtue through collective outrage and moral preeningsomething that wasnt really possible under Obama, at least not to this degree.

Not that they didnt try. Recall that during the Obamacare debate in 2009 Ezra Klein suggested that Sen. Joe Lieberman was willing to cause the deaths of hundreds of thousands of people in order to settle an old electoral score, simply because he threatened to filibuster what would become the Affordable Care Act. This is the language of political fundamentalismpolicy invested with the certainty of religious conviction.

Religious fundamentalism of course rests on immutable truths that cannot be negotiated. For Klein, that meant health care reform. The same rhetoricwilling to cause the deaths of hundreds of thousands of peoplewould crop up again and again during Obamas tenure, every time a Republican governor refused to expand Medicaid or a state attorney general challenged an EPA regulation meant to curb climate change. Policy debates took on a theological significance.

Conservatives sometimes invoke religion in policy debates, but its usually not because theyre trying to make a religion out of politics. Most often, its in reaction to progressives insistence that religious beliefs be cast aside when they impede the political agenda of the Leftlike when Obama tried to fine the Little Sisters of the Poor, an order of Catholic nuns, $70 million for refusing, on religious grounds, to participate in a government scheme to distribute birth control.

That progressive politics should carry the force of religious belief should not come as a surprise.For the Left, politics holds the promise of paradise on earth. Through the instrument of government, progressives believe they can right the worlds wrongs, punish the wicked, feed the hungry, outlaw bigotry, and perhaps even save the earth from climate change. All they need is control of government and sound policies. If everything that matters is at stake, then everything is justified in the pursuit of political power.

Unfortunately, this faith in progress is built on a lie. In his 2002 book, Straw Dogs, the philosopher John Gray argued that secular humanism, and the corresponding faith in human progress it assumes, is an illusiona leftover from Christianity. Most people today think they belong to a species that can be master of its destiny. This is faith, not science.

Gray argues that human progress, apart from science, is a myth. Among progressives, he writes, this observation seems to have produced a moral panic. Surely, they ask, no one can question the central article of faith of liberal societies? Without it, will we not despair? Like trembling Victorians terrified of losing their faith, these humanists cling to the moth-eaten brocade of progressive hope. Progressives are in the grip of unexamined dogmas about their ability to improve human nature and harness technology for the perfection of society.

Such a faith necessitates an obsession with politics, and provokes a burning desire for control over the levers of government power. If we are consumed by politics in the age of Trump, it is not because of Trump. It is because progressives have made politics into a god, and their god is failing them.

See the original post here:
Why Are Progressives So Angry? Trump Defeated Their Messiah - The Federalist