Sorry, I wasn't clear in my question. I was wondering if New Mexico campaign finance laws precluded a huge transfer from a federal committee. I am pretty sure that FEC rules allow the transfer in this direction.
I agree. I manage a State Rep. race to which Blumenauer has given $1000. He has also appeared at a fundraiser. There are a number of other Oregon candidates who can say the same. Earl is really doing nothing but working his butt off to get Democrats elected right now.
Emmanuel is precisely wrong. In my state, the DNC's paid "50-state" organizers have been exactly targetting the drop-off voters--in conjunction with legislative campaigns and the governor--for the last year. It's just that they've been talking to them person-to-person rather than blasting them with media.
Let's just assume that everything Rahm is saying is completely correct.... What would he ever accomplish for Democrats by whining about it in public? It couldn't be more clear that these statements are motivated by his personal ambition over any strategic partisan concerns.
You know, I think that Democrats--grassroots and operatives alike--can put up with a lot of ego and personality nonsense in general. If Emanuel could just lower his tone a little, he could continue attacking his friends and nobody would even pay attention. The idea of Emanuel leading the House Democrats next session is as laughable as the idea of Lindsay Graham leading the Senate Republicans.
That is how I met Greg as well. His efforts on this matter are a great example of grassroots organizing. Nobody paid him to do this, he didn't pay anybody to recommend anything, and nobody is lying about who they are or covering up connections to large institutions. The word "astroturf" is just not appropriate.
Plus, I have been reading and (sometimes) commenting on MyDD for 2 or 3 years at this point. I love this blog, and I think it is fantastic to see it used to push for reform in the way groups like MoveOn and the DCCC "farm out" their work. I worked for GCI because their basic vision was (and is) pretty cool. I was interested in Greg's series because I think they're doing an irresponsible job of pursuing that vision.
This is absolutely not what every campaign is like. I am managing a campaign right now with a very robust field program, and we treat our canvassers and field organizers quite well. They work very hard, and for very long hours, and they are twice as effective because they know we respect them and will actually pay them on time and reimburse them. The same goes for the half-dozen or so other campaigns with which I interact on a daily basis.
Furthermore, there are other companies that serve a similar function to GCI, and none of them have developed the kind of reputation that GCI has. They treat their employees with respect--and they still get them to work their asses off.
The key to GCI is that they are not "a campaign." They are a company. Can you name another successful company that treats their employees like they're expendable? Other than Wal-Mart?
For what it's worth, I never complained about name-calling. I am fine with you calling anyone names, including me. Do you even dispute that you are a brainwashed PIRGer? 'Cause I know I'm a bit of an asshole, so maybe we can call ourselves even. I'm also using my real name (my last name is "Price").
Greg has done a great deal of research into his thesis, and he has defended it thoughtfully. Most of the dissenting opinions we've seen here have been driven by the same stock contentions. Perhaps you take issue with him using qualitative analysis instead of quantitative. That would certainly be a valid critique, even if it is one that I wouldn't necessarilly buy.
I would never present my opinions as being a result of the kind of ordered inquiry that Greg has led, but my conversations with MoveOn organizers (mostly from Ohio) have--if anything--shown Greg's conclusions to be spot-on. Do you honestly expect him to have a "sample" of 100% before he starts making judgments?
I worked in the Cincinnati MoveOn office. There were 13 of us, inclding the LO's. Zero of us enjoyed the experience, felt the campaign was effective, or would otherwise say it was "positive." Now, you can call us all pussies or Bill O'Reillys or whatever, but only a brainwashed PIRGer (or a GCI sockpuppet) could actually be proud of that effort.
Not one of these diaries has complained about the general notion of working long hours for low pay. However, doing so creates a lifestyle with little wiggle room for bullshit (like late paychecks, refusal to properly reimburse). It is the bullshit part that people are complaining about (well, that and the fact that many feel they worked hard for a campaign that was ill-designed in the first place).
Can you explain why GCI are "heroes"? Haven't they lost in every campaign they've run? Kerry? Lost. Energy Bill? Passed. For the MoveOn campaign, they went so far as to claim to have "secret, internal goals" when they feel short of their public goals. GCI are heroes like the Detroit Lions are heroes, except that the Lions don't get to actually move the goalposts.
I don't disagree that their model doesn't really work. Oh, and our office only ever succeeded by doing shit GCI said we shouldn't do. Especially with turf. I just think it was more about matching the right turf with the right canvassers and giving the field managers better tools for planning (GIS, computerized streetmaps, census info., etc.).