Gov. Dean's $100 Revolution Is Here

Written by: Larry Dudley on Mar 1, 2008 3:42 PM EST

Lost in the coverage of the remarkable February fundraising totals of both the Obama and Clinton campaigns was a real turning point in American politics-- the full realization of the "$100 Revolution"  Gov. Howard Dean called for in November 2003.

On the 18th Dean sent out a fundraising message, not in itself an unusual event, but one that would eventually change the parameters of American politics.   
Beginning in the early 1960s television advertising increasingly dominated American politics.   Beforehand, campaigns had raised money, and often lots of it, but there were practical limits to how much a campaign could spend.   They could open large numbers of local offices, fill them with barrels of free buttons, boxes of bumper stickers and burden mailmen with bales of letters.  But, fundamentally, vIctory ultimately depended on a candidate's supporters.

Television changed all that.   There was almost no limit to the amount that could be spent on TV advertising.  A bizarre "arms race" resulted, where a candidate's political credibility seemed to depend on his or her dominance of the airwaves.   If you were drowned out, news coverage usually faltered as well.   

Political leaders drifted away from their supporters and towards large donors, which was most productive.    As a result, where the Democratic Party had once mainly represented ordinary working Americans, it increasingly became a second corporate party, where the interests of  wealthy donors came first.   This era peaked during the Presidency of Bill Clinton and DNC Chair Terry McAuliffe.   As NAFTA or telecom "reform" demonstrated, America now had two elitist corporate parties who mainly differed on social agenda issues like abortion rights. 

It's no wonder the Democratic Party nearly collapsed into irrelevance in the late 1990s and the early years of the 21st century.   As Harry Truman famously said, give people a choice between a real Republican and a fake one, they'll take the real one every time.   Dean's campaign manager Joe Trippi later aptly defined this period as the Era of Television Politics. 

This was the prospect Dean faced when he began his campaign after the 2002 election debacle.   He knew the system was broken. But how to change it?  As luck would have it his campaign arrived at the same moment the Internet did.   His whole campaign soon recognized its potential, and Dean sent his message:

"Today I will speak in Houston, Texas, less than a mile from Enron Tower. We all know what happened to Enron. Moral bankruptcy led to fiscal bankruptcy. Those at the top got rich by deceiving everyone else and robbing ordinary people of the future they’d earned. And the Bush Administration is following their lead. They have created a policy of Enron Economics that enriches their special interest supporters at the expense of the American people."

"Only you can stop this. We can defeat George W. Bush and his corporate interests if two million Americans contribute $100 to our campaign -- that is how we will take back the White House and restore the promise of America. If you can’t afford $100, reach out to others. Get four friends to contribute $25, or ten friends to contribute $10. If we all participate, we will take our country back...    Through your support of our campaign, you have changed presidential politics. But this campaign is not just about electing a president -- it is about changing America..."

Using the Internet to raise large numbers of small donations could break the vicious cycle of television politics that had so mis-served the country.   The Governor indeed was talking revolution, something comparable to the "Revolution of 1828" that had returned American Democracy to the people once before.  

The response was predictable:  the powerful and the vested interested were threatened and they reacted accordingly, ending with the media assassination known as the "Dean Scream."   They were able to stop him.  But they were not able to stop the $100 Revolution.

The proof is in last month's fundraising totals.

According to the Chicago Tribune,

"One member of Obama's finance committee told the Tribune that some reports from within the campaign indicate their fundraising could hit $50 million this month.""Even by the most conservative reading, the campaign totals have now shattered yet another ceiling—for the amount of money raised in a single month." 
According to the campaign, Obama now has over one million individual supporters, who gave an average of $109 each. 

What Dean prophesied, Obama has done.   

But the totals from the Clinton campaign were even more important, because they came from a campaign famed for its connection to, and reliance on,  big money donors.  According to New York Newsday, Clinton brought in $35 million in February,

"The windfall represents a radical shift for a Clinton fundraising strategy long predicated on attracting a relatively small group of large contributors. About 200,000 new donors gave an average of $100 each, most of them galvanized by word of (her) loan to the campaign."

Both campaigns brought in at least a million dollars a day with Obama regularly bringing in over $2 million a day in order to reach his $50 million take for the 29 days of February. 

What is equally important, because these donations mainly came in over the Internet, they were frictionless, requiring little effort.   No swank banquets or cocktail parties for big donors, no phone calls begging for money, no promises made,  no debts incurred-- except to the people themselves.   Both campaigns will be better for it-- it's the rarest thing in politics, a true win-win. 

This is a revolution in political affairs, properly understood.   Given what happened in February 2008, the era of big donor politics is finally passing.   With it goes the constant pressure for parties to serve the interests of their donor base, instead of their voting base.   In particular, the Democratic Party, which was so debased and corrupted by its turn to big money, can return to being the party of the people. 

In an odd way, too, these dual victories have almost made campaign finance reform irrelevant, however desirable it may still be.   If we can't get the big expenditures out of politics, then we can at least neutralize the corrosive effect of those costs by sinking them in a large pool of donors. 

The $100 Revolution will change America-- no matter who wins.   Gone are the days of raw deals for average people like NAFTA or tax cuts for the rich.  Healthcare for everyone will come now that big money cannot derail it.  Defense spending can be brought down to levels really needed for national defense.  It will also make election reforms like Clean Money, Clean Elections seem, well, pretty much what we have already, and so what is the big deal, anyway?    That, too, will now come. 

Even the hard core, big money Clintonites will be transformed in the end.  Do they really want to spend their lives on the phone pleading with rich people or kowtowing to them at fundraisers instead of doing the people's business?  In fairness, I don't believe it.  
It is sad that Governor Dean and his campaign will likely not get the credit deserved, especially from the mainstream media.  As the Bible says, prophets are without honor in their own country.   But however credit is apportioned, history belongs to the history makers, and now it belongs to Howard Dean as much as it belongs to the campaigns that are now his legacy.

Tags: