How do we change this attitude among the groups?  They don't seem to be listening at all!

btw, i don't think surivor is being rascist, controversial, yes, rascist no....

Unlike nearly every other congressional election of the past 50 years, control of the House is clearly on the line.  This is not only stupid, it is lethally stupid.

They are copying the NRA model. The problem is, the LCV can't deliver any votes the way the NRA can. So their endorsements mean diddly and never swing races.

BUT, the NRA always endorses the candidate with the BETTER rating on its issues, ragardless of party or incumbancy. And when two candidates are about equal they stay out of it.

The LCV metholology is ludicrous to say the least.

What would Fitzpatrick's score be in a Congress where the R's held a bit less than a +30 vote edge?

But this is nothing new.  It's the same type of reasoning that led the National Education Association to switch sides in PA-06 and endorse Jim Gerlach, thanks to his "B" grade on the curved NEA report card in 2005 - even though every Democrat in PA's Congressional delegation, including Tim Holden, received an "A" grade.

It seems like this might partly be due to legal status.  They can't be partisan or it jeapordizes their funding.

For starters, I'm in total agreement with the post. You said most of those 30 Democrats represent conservative districts, but one of them stood out to me. VA-03. That's Bobby Scott's district, in the heart of urban Richmond Virginia. That guy could kill kittens on live TV and still get elected for the rest of his life. Why is he voting against the environment 40+ percent of the time?

Does environmental legislation do bad things for poor urban constituencies? Do black voters hate the environment? Someone fill me in here, I'm really confused. And if there's no good explaination, I'm gonna have to write Rep. Scott a little letter about his environmental voting record.

Tim Walz could use some help.  Minnesota could definitely go Dem.  Let's help them out.

http://www.actblue.com/page/netrootscand idates#638

Game-changing post, Chris.  Here is the seed for a new scorecard system.

Great post.  I have felt for a long time these organizations have outlived their usefulness.  Stuff like this gives Repub candidates cover and helps put the Hasterts and Boehners of the world back into their leadership position where they push one anti-environmental bill after another.  And single issue groups can't understand why they continually lose battles in Congress.  

Let me start out by acknowledging that the incumbants pose the greatest challenge for groups like LCV.  If Lieberman or Chafee votes with you 85% of the time-it's almost impossible not to give them the vote, even if it means blocking a more progressive candidate who would vote for a more progressive leadership and have a potentially better environmental record.  I would argue that these instances are the small price we pay for having groups like LCV.

That being said, it amazes me the extent to which bloggers devalue the role of issue advocacy organizations.  The consistent attempts to rip groups like LCV suggest three things to me

1. a naive optimism that Democrats will support issues like the environment without being pressured.  
   
2. a willingness to rip down institutions that represent the broader social good in the service of short term Democratic Party victories.
   
3. a lack of understanding about the role these institutions do lobbying and advocating for the environment, etc.

1.  A group like LCV needs to set the ground rules-vote pro-env. and we'll endorse you, vote anti-env. and we won't endorse you.  A handful of R's fit those criteria and so LCV keeps up their end of the bargain.  If LCV only endorsed Democrats they would have no credibility with either party and absolutely no moral high ground.  No Republican would feel embarassed about scoring low on the LCV scorecard because it would only be designed to further the interest of the Democratic Party.  No Democrat would feel bound to listen to the positions of LCV because there would be no risk of losing the endorsement.  We need LCV to keep Democrats honest-how many votes have we seen in the last couple years where supposed progressive Dems fled the public interest position: bankruptcy, energy, etc.  Anyone who thinks that the battle to protect the environment/women's rights/consumers/net nutrality/any issue you care about ends once the Democrats take back Congress hasn't been around long enough.

2. America is better off for having respected non-partisan advocates on issues like the environment who draw clear lines on policy that can often be muddied by the competing claims of political parties.  As much as I want to win back the House and the Senate there is a legitimate means and ends issue at play here.  What if LCV only endorsed Democrats this election-would anyone take them seriously in 2008?-of course not.  In the long run our democracy is better served by their independence even if it means seats, even if it means the House or the Senate this time.  

Liberals are engaged in a larger war with the corporate power in this country.  Powerful interests would love nothing more than to eliminate the idea of truth, or fact, or impartiality and leave only spin and propaganda.  That's why they attack the MSM, that's why they'd love to see the non-partisan non-profit sector disappear, it leaves a world where facts are more fungible and they can continue wreaking havoc on our nation.  We need institutions like LCV to act as referees on issues like energy policy or clean air protections-to refute the lies and explain what conservative corporate polluters are doing to screw up our country.  

3) I can't do justice to their role in DC-perhaps someone else can pick up where I left off-or write a book about the environmental defense role that groups like LCV have played in DC over the last couple of years.  But let me just end by saying that we still have the Clean Air Act, the Endangered Species Act, the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge.

A lot of these groups work to protect their jobs and funding. That simple. I worked for a justice group that had stopped recruiting and outreach except to collect membership dues. The board members worked on the awards banquet, fundraiser auction, newsletter and spending the annual income basically on themselves and socializing around the "cause."

Thanks Chris. This was a lot of work and research.

Progressive Punch does publish the environmental rating of every member of Congress.  On their scorecard, Mike Fitzpatrick also rates as the top Republican but his score is 51.72 and 190 of the 202 Democrats score higher.  The median score for a Democrat (counting Bernie Sanders) is 81.10; the median score for a Republican is 6.15 (that group happens to include Richard Pombo).  Every PA Democrat scores higher than Fitzpatrick.  Indeed, the only northern Democrat (actually non-southern) to score below Fitzpatrick is Collin Peterson of Minnesota (and his voting scores are atrocious across the board).

Since Denny Hastert has made it clear that no legislation will hit the House floor without the support of a majority of Republicans, a vote for Fitzpatrick is exactly the same as a vote for Pombo even though their voting scores are radically different.

A policy of non-endorsement might still provide some carrot-and-stick in some of the few races where Republicans have a respectable score.

I'm with Bill on some of his overall points--#1 that the Dems also very much need to be pressured on these issues to do the right thing; #2 on the whole these groups contribute to the social good vs. detract from it; and #3 they do important advocacy/lobbying work that should not be dismissed so quickly.  All of these points bear repeating.  

I also agree that that nobody--Ds or Rs--would ever take lobbying by these issue advocacy groups seriously if they knew there was no chance they'd get an endorsement or no chance their next opponent might get endorsed.  While the present situation is no good--making endorsements that de facto may keep your worst opposition in power--compromising your long-term credibility for short-term gain wouldn't be any good either.  

Basically, I agree with the substance of Bowers' point--these groups HAVE to change how they make endorsements since they're shooting themselves in the foot--but I have yet to see a concrete proposal for how these groups can change their endorsement criteria without compromising their credibility as advocates/lobbyists.

There must be some way to solve this conundrum.  I don't claim to have the answer, but I would love to see other what other folks think.

One idea people have already mentioned is scoring a member's votes in the leadership elections.  I think that's a good start, but I have a few questions--how much weight do you give that vote, and how do you do it in such a way that maintains your overall credibility for advocacy work?

One idea I had is to raise the bar for who you endorse--make a 90%+ score be the threshold for endorsement.  De facto that means you're not endorsing any of the Rs in Congress right now, but it does leave the door open for future Rs to get endorsed and it also lets people like Fitzpatrick know that at least you probably won't be coming after them by endorsing your opponent unless he's truly extraordinary.

Another idea would be to drop endorsements altogether in races where there isn't a candidate who's significantly better than the other; only take on races where there is a greater than 50 percentage point gap between the two candidates' voting records.

Thoughts?

I think this not so much "The End of Progressive, Single-Issue Advocacy" so much as the end of the old method of operation. The old way, by being non-partisan, has marginalized itself into irrelevancy. In a world of increasing partisanship, if you're not with us, you're at best irrelevant.

There will always be single issue groups. It's human nature. People care about different things. I care about election reform, someone else cares about the war in Iraq, someone else cares about the environment, etc. A wise man said that you have to "Follow your bliss."

In the new model for single issue groups they will have to recognize their place in the movement. They have their issue, they care about it, they want to remind people that it's important and we have solutions, and they know which coalition will get it done. When the vast majority of one of The Two Parties is on their side of their issue, clearly they should be with that party - er - populist movement, if you want to continue to perform non-profit educational and lobbying activities. For the few defectors don't go to a useless member of the other voting bloc, the solution is to push the defector, work with them, convince them. This is a simple strategic point. Getting them on board is easier than getting the entire other voting bloc on board.

Is there any legal problem, affecting their financing that fits in here?  Are they 503(c) entities with tax deductibility forbidden to endorse political candidates?  Or not?  If so, they may well feel they have to remain non-partisan in order to collect contributions.

I think there are three separate issues here that might be getting conflated:

1. LCV, as far as I can tell, is a 501(c)4.  That limits the type of advocacy they can perform.  (Of course, this doesn't seem to stop the 'Christian' right, but they are probably breaking the law).
   
2. Given the way progressive groups are typically funded--dependent on tax deductible contributions, many progressive groups, single issue or not, are going to be limited in the endorsements they can make.  In the current funding environment (and the lack of corporate backers for obvious reasons), many groups will be stuck with the 501(c)4 model.
   
3. Progressives need to determine if there is a better mechanism for funding their organization, regardless of focus, so that they can engage in more explicit political activity.

I think the LCV strategy has less to do with political naivety and much more to do with funding.