I've never been the kind of donor who gives matching grants. In fact I've
never been a major donor at all, just someone who gives $25 here and $50
there to a bunch of causes I believe in, because that's what I can afford..
So I loved the Democratic National Committee email that invited me and other
ordinary citizens to make modest online pledges, to be redeemed when new
donors contributed. For a moment, I got to play Ford Foundation. And a woman
in Knife River, Minnesota matched the $50 that I pledged on the DNC site.
"I'm newly retired and uncertain about what I can actually afford to give,"
she emailed, "But the matching offer prompted me to respond despite that
uncertainty. I agree with you that this regime must be stopped."
But it was more than the matching offer that's made this the DNC's single
most successful fundraising email since 2004. And more even than the timing.
Like most of us, I'm sure the Minnesota woman had gotten plenty of requests
for contributions, including promises that some Senator, Congressperson, or
anonymous wealthy donor would step in and amplify what she gave. But she
hadn't responded. These matching appeals help our modest dollars go further.
I respond to them when I can. But I also wonder why donors who have so much
more money than I do (or so much in their campaign coffers while sitting on
safe seats) don't simply give whatever they were planning to anyway without
all the gamesmanship. They're trying to multiply their impact, I know, and
often this works. But it also sends a bit of a double message.
This appeal felt different. Like the Party's new social networking tool,
PartyBuilder, it offered those participating a human connection. It allowed
me and others who'd already contributed a way to increase the impact of what
we gave, and those responding to remember that they were being joined not
just by generic donors, but by specific ordinary citizens who, like them,
would contribute despite having to juggle budgets, bills and other normal
commitments. That made all the difference to the woman from Minnesota. And
it made all the difference to me, letting me tell the story of why I was
contributing, and giving more than I'd originally planned. invited others to
respond in kind. It made the process more personal.
We can't do all our outreach by email. As I wrote in a recent essay entitled
The Seductions of Clicking, at some point our politics has to go off-line.
But these efforts work in tandem with political ads, and with building the
necessary infrastructure, so that when we do volunteer there's an extensive
and effective framework that helps our efforts make the maximum difference.
The two work together, and you never know the difference that one additional
ad or field organizer can make-or one additional phone call, literature
drop, or neighborhood canvass effort. I saw this confirmed two years ago in
Washington State, where after I spent the entire election day (and several
previous) volunteering, and also donated repeatedly, our Democratic governor
was elected by 129 votes. With enough matching donors, the DNC could enlist
enough new supporters to help tip the balance in a number of key races.
Citizens reaching out peer-to-peer isn't unique to the DNC. Unions have been
honing powerful member-to-member mobilization efforts through the last
several elections. The political right copied much of their approach to work
through evangelical churches. But the approach of this DNC email exemplifies
Howard Dean's dream of a Democratic party that--for all its
limitations--could really be based on ordinary contributors, instead of a
small handful of wealthy donors. It's tempting to leave political donations
up to the affluent, but then they call the shots. In relying on them so much
during the past thirty years, the Democrats let their grassroots base erode
until the party was little more than donors, consultants and elected
officials. And their candidates increasingly backed away from raising key
issues of corporate power that might offend major donors.
Ultimately, the corruption of American politics by money needs to be
addressed by leveling the playing field. This has happened through what's
called the Clean Elections mode. In Maine, Arizona, Vermont, and Connecticut
candidates who raise enough $5 contributions and commit not to take large
donations can now get public matching funds to run competitive campaigns in
all the state races. (California's Proposition 89, though trailing in the
polls, would bring this to our nation's largest state). But in the
meantime, if our national motto is to become something more noble than
"Invest in America, buy a Congressman," the Democrats are going to have to
rebuild the broadest possible base of grassroots donors. Using our
individual donations to encourage others to give is an excellent step toward
that end.
To offer a matching pledge for the DNC campaign, visit
http://www.democrats.org/page/match/pledge/2006
To respond and have your donation matched, visit
https://www.democrats.org/page/contribute/matchee?match_campaign_id=2
To volunteer on election day, visit
http://www.democrats.org/page/s/electionday
---
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, and 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
