Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Is the DLC a bunch of corporatists?

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion: Presidential (Through Nov 2009) Donate to DU
 
Don1 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jul-30-05 11:56 PM
Original message
Is the DLC a bunch of corporatists?
Introduction

The Democratic Leadership Council, otherwise known as the DLC, behaves differently than the rest of the Democrats in Congress. They vote differently and they participate differently in the process. Over the last few days I analyzed key pieces of legislation and efforts. In all 5 of these cases, the DLC had different behavior than non-DLC Dems. A summary of the results follows...

Issues

Iraq Withdrawal Timetable
33.7% of non-DLC voted against it.
63.2% of DLC voted against it.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x1970895

USA PATRIOT Act, making most sunset provisions permanent
20.9% of non-DLC Dems supported it.
30.7% of DLC Dems supported it.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x1961268

John Conyers' DSM Petition
47.9% of non-DLC Dems signed it.
25.6% of DLC Dems signed it.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x1964058

Bankruptcy Bill
65.8% of DLC Dems voted for it in House.
30.0% of non-DLC Dems voted for it in House.
66.7% of DLC Dems voted for it in Senate.
24.0% of non-DLC Dems voted for it in Senate.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x1969653

CAFTA
38.9% of DLC Dems voted for it in Senate.
12.0% of non-DLC Dems voted for it in Senate.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x1964233#1964378

Conclusion

These efforts and bits of legislation were chosen arbitrarily in that there was no predetermined motive to make the DLC look bad. I chose issues that I thought would be important to people here in this forum and in each instance beforehand I did not know how the DLC voted/would vote. I came with an open mind when I started and only through the discovery process did I come to a conclusion. In one case, I found myself actually supporting that the DLC was no different than the rest of Congress, but then someone pointed it out that I forgot to look at Senate votes. So, I had to correct the thread op. I was wrong and the DLC was also different in that case as well. You can confirm that here:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x1964233#1964251

In all 5 cases, there was a difference in how the DLC voted. Sometimes the difference was very significant, like twice as often the DLC voted for a bill against the people. Sometimes, the difference was less significant, but the difference was always there and always against the people, which you would not expect to be a difference due to randomness. In the case of CAFTA, the results are absolutely horrible. Those who voted for the bill betrayed the people and the party and if the DLC had voted in the same way as the rest of the Dems, then CAFTA would not have passed. So, the DLC was culpable.

I received a bit of criticism here for these posts. Some said that I was guilty of not believing in 'party unity.' I do not think that is correct. I think that politicians who vote against the people and against the party do not believe in 'party unity' and we need to get rid of them. I also received fair criticism from the user, "Mass" who said the person's voting record matters more than the label's voting record:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x1964233#1964378
Well, it's true. There could be some good apples in that bad bunch of DLC. BUT there are also more bad apples there. There is a good article in Common Dreams which the user "mrdmk" supplied and which tries to narrow down further the guilty culprits with respect to CAFTA:
http://www.commondreams.org/views05/0728-21.htm

Finally, 2006 Congressional campaigns have already begun. Let us watch closely what our politicians have been up to so that we know whether or not to support them. Let us watch what the DLC is up to as well. Let us elect politicians who care more about people than corporations. And I hope that the analyses I have provided will be useful information to you in this regard.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
bitchkitty Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jul-31-05 12:01 AM
Response to Original message
1. You have to ask?
Thanks for laying it out like this, I bookmarked and will use this in the future.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Carolab Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jul-31-05 12:01 AM
Response to Original message
2. Don't forget the "estate tax".
Edited on Sun Jul-31-05 12:03 AM by Carolab
Also, don't forget to see WHICH DLC members voted.

Then, cross-reference them with other groups (i.e., CBC and Blue Dog Coalition). Certain names keep cropping up...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
dissent1977 Donating Member (795 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jul-31-05 12:04 AM
Response to Original message
3. Great research, thanks
The DLC seems to support the Republican/corporate agenda far too often. I just posted something about them earlier today and my thread was locked because the mod called it "flame bait". I hope you don't suffer the same fate. We don't need to be unified with the corporatists, and it would be nice if more people realized that. Recommended.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Don1 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jul-31-05 01:20 AM
Response to Reply #3
15. Sorry for that unfortunate event.
I think we need to redefine this notion of "party unity" that so many here are crazy about.

Yes, party unity makes sense as a constraint on the voter to vote your party. But what about when your politician goes against the party platform? He is breaking party unity, too. There needs to be a consequence.

I am not advocating ideological purity. Our reps just need to know we will not vote for them in primaries or elections if they screw with us too many times. CAFTA is one issue and there are others, too.

Just like the Bush administration, our reps must be accountable, too.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
NativeTexan Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jul-31-05 12:09 AM
Response to Original message
4. Most are....
The DLC was originally an organized effort to swing the Democratic pendulum back toward the middle....right or wrong.

I tend to believe, as you do, that "corporatists", or special interest candidates have taken over most of it.

The DLC gave us William Jefferson Clinton, and for that I, at least, will be eternally grateful. And being a Native Texan, I am probably more middle of the road than most people on DU.

But I do believe in the Party of the little guy....the Party that stands for those who can't stand for themselves. The Democratic Party is the ONLY party that watches out for those of us who don't have a lot of money or power.

My sainted Daddy voted ONCE in his life for a Republican....that was out of loyalty to Eisenhower, after serving in Europe during WWII. He didn't vote for him the second time or after that ANY Republican saying that "it was the biggest mistake of his life".

I have NEVER voted Republican, nor will I. I have voted for bad Democrats in my life, but it was always better than the alternative.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
napi21 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jul-31-05 12:09 AM
Response to Original message
5. Son't you think that the "all politics is local" theory applies here too?
I didn't do any research on this, like you did, so I'm just talking from personal opinion. If a Songressman/woman votes in support of their constituents, isn't that what they are supposed to do?

I have no idea which comgress people were in your research, but I think it is an important point to look at.

I can't speak much from personal experience because both my Sens and my rep are pugs. They always vote with the Pres, and I constantly send emails complaining...although I think they probably just delete them!

I know I've heard a lost of complaints about Biden voting for the bankruptcy bill, but he's from Delaware! Many of his constituents are employed by the credit card industry. I hate the new law, but if it meant my job, I would want my Sen. to vote for it too.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
wli Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jul-31-05 12:11 AM
Response to Reply #5
8. emails are pretty much ignored, like form letters
I think you're stuck with hand-written letters if they care at all, and rethugs obviously don't.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
napi21 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jul-31-05 12:15 AM
Response to Reply #8
9. I disagree with that. I've gotten many responses from my Sens and
Rep saying that snail mail is very slow because they are still putting it through all the security sequences established by the anthrax threats.

I really do believe if any of them get a LOT of email on the same subject, their staff pays attention and tell their boss!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
wli Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jul-31-05 12:17 AM
Response to Reply #9
10. interesting, things have changed or something
I seem to recall things being different while I was in college. I suppose it's for the better for me, since I despise dealing with snail mail.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Don1 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jul-31-05 12:18 AM
Response to Reply #9
11. You know what happened to me?
I went to my rep's website and it said not to send snail mail at all. Due the anthrax, they will not even open them...(allegedly).

So I sent one of those sort of floating emails through a webpage. Never heard back.

Tried again several months later about another issue. Never heard back again.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
napi21 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jul-31-05 12:26 AM
Response to Reply #11
12. Don't know how you sent your emails to. I always get something.
If I email a Congressman who is not mine, I get an automated answer with a caveat "if Im a resident of XX state, please call my office at XXXXXXXXX. I always read all my email, but cannot respond to all of them.

If it's regarding an email sent to one of my Gongressmenn, I either get a response (it's probably from a staffer) or an automated response that I will receive a personal response as soon as XXXX has time to do that. I do always receive a personal response, although I still think they are always from a staffer just doing their job.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Don1 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jul-31-05 12:30 AM
Response to Reply #12
13. I used this link.
http://www.house.gov/shays/contact/index.htm

See the bullcrap about the anthrax?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
wli Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jul-31-05 12:10 AM
Response to Original message
6. The DNC really needs to get them in line
There are no excuses for these things. Let's hope Pelosi's got enough left to bargain with to do it.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
wiggs Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jul-31-05 12:11 AM
Response to Original message
7. Nominated to replace: Does a bear shit in the woods? nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Don1 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jul-31-05 12:59 AM
Response to Reply #7
14. I appreciate the humor...
but sometimes you have to show the math...even for a bear in the woods.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
rman Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jul-31-05 03:14 AM
Response to Original message
16. that will make hard for DLC apologists to deny it
sometimes you have to make the obvious ehm, obvious.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bvar22 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jul-31-05 04:47 AM
Response to Original message
17. Follow the MONEY!..... Who owns the DLC?
Edited on Sun Jul-31-05 05:27 AM by bvar22
While the DLC will not formally disclose its sources of contributions and dues, the full array of its corporate supporters is contained in the program from its annual fall dinner last October, a gala salute to Lieberman that was held at the National Building Museum in Washington. Five tiers of donors are evident: the Board of Advisers, the Policy Roundtable, the Executive Council, the Board of Trustees, and an ad hoc group called the Event Committee--and companies are placed in each tier depending on the size of their check. For $5,000, 180 companies, lobbying firms, and individuals found themselves on the DLC's board of advisers, including British Petroleum, Boeing, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Coca-Cola, Dell, Eli Lilly, Federal Express, Glaxo Wellcome, Intel, Motorola, U.S. Tobacco, Union Carbide, and Xerox, along with trade associations ranging from the American Association of Health Plans to the Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America. For $10,000, another 85 corporations signed on as the DLC's policy roundtable, including AOL, Blue Cross Blue Shield, Citigroup, Dow, GE, IBM, Oracle, UBS PacifiCare, PaineWebber, Pfizer, Pharmacia and Upjohn, and TRW.

And for $25,000, 28 giant companies found their way onto the DLC's executive council, including Aetna, AT&T, American Airlines, AIG, BellSouth, Chevron, DuPont, Enron, IBM, Merck and Company, Microsoft, Philip Morris, Texaco, and Verizon Communications. Few, if any, of these corporations would be seen as leaning Democratic, of course, but here and there are some real surprises. One member of the DLC's executive council is none other than Koch Industries, the privately held, Kansas-based oil company whose namesake family members are avatars of the far right, having helped to found archconservative institutions like the Cato Institute and Citizens for a Sound Economy. Not only that, but two Koch executives, Richard Fink and Robert P. Hall III, are listed as members of the board of trustees and the event committee, respectively--meaning that they gave significantly more than $25,000.

The DLC board of trustees is an elite body whose membership is reserved for major donors, and many of the trustees are financial wheeler-dealers who run investment companies and capital management firms--though senior executives from a handful of corporations, such as Koch, Aetna, and Coca-Cola, are included. Some donate enormous amounts of money, such as Bernard Schwartz, the chairman and CEO of Loral Space and Communications, who single-handedly finances the entire publication of Blueprint, the DLC's retooled monthly that replaced The New Democrat. "I sought them out, after talking to Michael Steinhardt," says Schwartz. "I like them because the DLC gives resonance to positions on issues that perhaps candidates cannot commit to."


Joining Lewan on the event committee were several dozen of Washington's elite lobbyists, including representatives from the Dutko Group, Greenberg Traurig, the Wexler Group, Verner, Liipfert, and SVP Kessler and Associates, all with blue-chip clients, along with lobbyists for Chevron, Citigroup, Salomon Smith Barney, and others. One was Arthur Lifson, vice president for federal affairs at Cigna Corporation, one of the nation's largest health insurers and a company that stands to gain enormously if, say, Medicare were privatized along the lines proposed by the DLC and by one of its founders, Senator John Breaux of Louisiana. "The DLC is trying to bring some fresh ideas to Medicare and to dealing with the uninsured," says Lifson, whose company is listed as a member of the DLC's policy roundtable. "It builds on changes that are taking place in the marketplace, rather than turning everything on its head Hillary Care." Lifson frankly endorses the DLC as a counterweight to "populists ... at the other end of the party."

Oh so much more, do check it out: http://www.prospect.org/print-friendly/print/V12/7/drey...





Now all these BIG Corporate Players, they are just hanging out on the DLC's Board of Trustees because they are plain nice guys and don't expect anything in return for all the corporate mega-bucks they are funneling into the Democratic Party through their FRONT , the DLC.


When is the last time that ANY legislation that offered ANY protection for the Working Class made it to the floor in Congress?

The LAST ONE I CAN REMEMBER was Bill Clinton's HealthCare Plan. Even though it was seriously flawed, it would have offered some REAL benefits to the Working Class. The DLC joined with the Republican Minority to defeat their OWN PARTY's Legislation!!!

Surely it is just my memory. Somewhere there must have been a small gift to the Working Class since before Reagan? Please list them so that I can take some comfort that our Government is NOT COMPLETELY EVIL!

Please don't embarrass yourself by pointing to Bush*s Perscription Drug Plan.
(another bill that needs an examination "AYE" votes cross referenced with DLC Membership.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Swamp Rat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jul-31-05 05:23 AM
Response to Reply #17
18. .
I've tried to have this discussion. :mad: Personally, I would like to know more about the connection between some "people" in the DLC and PNAC. :shrug:

From a thread that was locked (http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=104x4226141):

MGKrebs:

Will Marshall runs the policy group at the DLC.

It's called the Progressive Policy Institute (PPI).
http://www.ppionline.org/index.cfm

Will Marshall is a neocon, who signed on to PNAC documents.

PPI accepts major funding from hard core conservative foundations such as the Bradley Foundation.

More here:
http://rightweb.irc-online.org/org/demleadcoun.php

In the 80's, the DLC feared that the Dem party was losing too much ground and had to be more centrist. The Dem party has primarily been following their model for 15 to 20 years now. Can we finally say that their model, their revolution, has failed?

http://www.ppionline.org/ppi_ci.cfm?knlgAreaID=124&subsecid=307&contentid=253472

*********

Swamp Rat:

DLC | Blueprint Magazine | July 23, 2005

Valuing Patriotism

American voters know that 9/11 put national security back at the center of politics. Democrats should unify behind a new progressive patriotism.
By Will Marshall

Since 9/11, patriotism has become the most potent "values issue" in U.S. politics. To compete in America's heartland, Democrats must challenge Republicans' claim to be the authentic voice of American patriotism.

(snip)

http://www.ppionline.org/ppi_ci.cfm?knlgAreaID=124&subsecid=307&contentid=253472

*********

"In the late 1980s, DLC Democrats supported aid to the contras, applauded President Reagan’s “Evil Empire” rhetoric, and offered their support to those militarists calling for missile defense and rejecting arms control negotiations."

(snip)

The DLC and its close associate, the Progressive Policy Institute, are the recipients of grants from many Fortune 500 companies and such right-wing foundations as the Bradley Foundation. Corporate contributors to the Progressive Policy Institute include AT&T Foundation, Eastman Kodak Charitable Trust, Prudential Foundation, Georgia-Pacific Foundation, Chevron, and Amoco Foundation. (17) The Third Way Foundation, an umbrella group of the New Democrats in the DLC, receives funding from the Lynde & Harry Bradley Foundation, Howard Gilman Foundation, Ameritech Foundation, and General Mills Foundation. According to one magazine report, the DLC enjoys funding from Bank One, Citigroup, Dow Chemical, DuPont, General Electric, Health Insurance Corporation, Merrill Lynch, Microsoft, Morgan Stanley, Occidental Petroleum, and Raytheon. (9)

http://rightweb.irc-online.org/org/demleadcoun.php
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Fri Dec 27th 2024, 07:46 AM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion: Presidential (Through Nov 2009) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC