NYT: Dem Fund-Raiser Unit (Am. Coming Together) Curtailing Most Operations

[DeepModem Mom]

Democratic Fund-Raiser Unit Is Curtailing Most Operations
By GLEN JUSTICE
Published: August 4, 2005


WASHINGTON, Aug. 3 - A primary Democratic fund-raising engine in the 2004 presidential race, America Coming Together, is shutting down most of its operation, leaving unclear its role in the elections next year and beyond.

The group, known as ACT, engineered an extensive effort to mobilize Democratic voters in 12 closely divided states last year while an allied organization, the Media Fund, backed the plan with thousands of television commercials. The strategy resonated with liberal donors, and the two groups together raised almost $200 million to become a crucial component of the Democratic effort to retake the White House.

George Soros, the philanthropist and financier, alone gave almost $20 million.

But President Bush was re-elected, and officials say sustaining major donors' interest after a bitter defeat has been difficult.

ACT ran 78 field offices and had almost 6,000 employees at its peak. It is now cutting all but a handful of its 28 remaining staff members as leaders re-evaluate its future....


http://www.nytimes.com/2005/08/04/politics/04money.html

[Bumblebee]

1. I've been thinking about this one and why -- it's so counterintuitive

since there is really no lull in raising money. I think they got squeezed between MoveOn and raising money on Internet. They never established their own particular identity. That's my take on it -- although the article makes it sound like Dems are not giving money any more because they are so depressed and dishearted, which is of course a lie. Even Gingrich knows it's not true. :)

[robcon]

2. I think ACT was the product of just a few wealthy donors.

When those donors failed to continue to finance the operation, the organization had no grass roots to keep it operating.

Just my interpretation of the article.

[bluestateguy]

3. I never had much respect for them

They did sign up many new voters, but their overall operation was sloppy, undisciplined and somewhat unprofessional. They concentrated too much of their efforts in major metropolitan areas and college towns, and not enough in rural towns. I don't think the group was quite as grass roots as advertised. In time, people will see this Administration for what it is, and all the Democrats will have to do is show up.

[Kolesar]

4. Their mailings in Ohio were pretty poor

They sent postcards with the "George Bush got my steel mill closed" message. The text was thin and poorly written.

[OzarkDem]

7. Agree

Some of the people who were put in charge were "old school" inside the beltway, arrogant Dems who weren't very good at field organizing.

They didn't do a very good job and brought a lot of negative media attention on themselves, particularly when hiring ex-felons to go door to door to canvas and register voters. Duh.

[cyberpj]

5. Here's one reason no one bothers to mention...

"But President Bush was re-elected, and officials say sustaining major donors' interest after a bitter defeat has been difficult."


I think there are a lot of us who refuse to continue to contribute to organizations that wouldn't tackle and expose the election fraud. To have been a contributor and believer of many of the groups who said they would help us fight and then watch as nothing was done was letdown enough for me to stop contributions.

[Javaman]

6. Why don't they retool and go after paper trails for voter machines????

Instead of just giving up?

[OzarkDem]

8. They're not tech savvy

Most of the Dem leadership and their staffs in DC are very inexperienced when it comes to understanding computer technology, the internet, etc. Witness how long it took them to tap into the online Dem community.

Many Dem officeholders I know still don't know how to set up web sites or accept online donations.

[Javaman]

9. That's why the Dem leadership is always behind the curve...

Drives me crazy