Money men and voter databanks and other ways to undermine your party.

[madfloridian]

In the General Discussion forum today, Deep Modem Mom has posted an article about the voter database developed by Harold Ickes. Ickes Catalist is having some questions raised about it. It reminded me that big money is one sure way to undermine the party and hurt its people. But there are other ways.

Deep Modem Mom's link.

NYT, pg1: Questions raised over Harold Ickes's databank venture

Harold M. Ickes, a senior adviser to the Clinton campaign, is the president of Catalist, a for-profit voter databank company. No matter who the Democratic nominee is, Mr. Ickes stands to profit.

When Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton needed help rounding up superdelegates, she turned to Harold M. Ickes, the ultimate Democratic fixer, who is now working round-the-clock for her, drawing on his vast energy and decades of political connections. But, at the same time, Mr. Ickes is also wearing another hat. He is president of Catalist, a for-profit databank that has sold its voter files to the Obama and the Clinton presidential campaigns for their get-out-the-vote efforts. With his equity stake in the firm, Mr. Ickes stands to benefit financially no matter which candidate becomes the Democratic nominee.

In creating Catalist, Mr. Ickes, who was deputy chief of staff in the Clinton White House, has formed a rare entity on the political scene, a for-profit limited-liability corporation that allows wealthy Democratic donors to help progressive organizations and candidates by investing in the company. And if Catalist, which has data on 230 million Americans, is successful as a business, these donors-turned-investors stand to reap financial returns from using their money to help elect Democrats. But some campaign finance watchdogs say they wonder whether Catalist was established not so much to make money but to find a creative way to allow big-money liberal donors to influence the election without disclosing the degree of their involvement or being subjected to other rules that would govern spending by an explicitly political organization.

The article brought to mind some statements to National Journal by the DNC political director, David Boundy. He specifically said that Barack Obama was using the DNC voterbank, and would replenish it as his campaign used it. Boundy also made clear that Hillary Clinton was using a private databank. He did not say the name, but most likely Catalist.

Money, power, and voter databanks.

Rather than focusing on a handful of swing states, Dean and a chorus of like-minded allies have argued, Democrats should invest substantial time and money in trying to restore their competitiveness, even in Republican territory. As part of that initiative, Dean has provided every state party with funds to hire organizers and upgrade computerized voter files.

Dave Boundy, the DNC's political director, says that while Clinton has used voter files from a private vendor, Obama has mostly purchased the files from state parties. Under the agreement with those parties, Boundy added, Obama will update the files to show which voters responded to his outreach efforts. That should help state parties and the eventual nominee target their own turnout campaigns this fall.

More about Catalist and the DNC's Votebuilder:

Perhaps Ickes' largest-scale project is Catalist, a private company born out of his open distrust in the ability of Democratic Party chairman Howard Dean to build a voter database to rival that of the Republicans. Ickes is president of the company.

"It's unclear to me," Ickes said, whether the Democratic Party's database is uniform and rich enough for a national election.

The Democratic Party's voter database, a party spokeswoman said, is fully functional and accessible through a central interface.

"Given the proven success of VoteBuilder in the 2006 elections and the overwhelmingly positive response we've had from the campaigns and state parties who used it, we are very confident in our voter file," said DNC communications director Karen Finney.

Ickes built his database pretty much in opposition to that of the DNC. That is supposedly the one the Clinton campaign is using. It might explain the big Clinton donors who recently threatened Nancy Pelosi and Howard Dean about superdelegates and FL and MI. Do it their way or get your fundraising crashed.

Big donors threaten.

At that point Clinton campaign finance chair Hassan Nemazee spoke up. He said Dean's response sounded to him as if the DNC chairman were "essentially trying to kick the can down the road" and that the chairman was not exhibiting the type of leadership one would expect. Nemazee said that since the campaigns obviously could not reach a solution on their own before June, Dean's argument amounted to passing the buck.

Dean then responded, heatedly, that in his experience, those who sought the intervention of party leadership were motivated by their own particular agendas. And that was not the sort of leadership he intended to provide.

From US News, they also threatened Pelosi over her views on superdelegates.

Top Clinton Backers Threaten Pelosi

The Washington Post reports this morning that 20 "top fundraisers" for Sen. Hillary Clinton's campaign yesterday "upbraided" House Speaker Nancy Pelosi for suggesting last week that Democratic superdelegates "should back the candidate with the most pledged delegates and urged her to respect the right of those delegates to back whomever they choose at the end of the primary season." The AP reports that in a letter to Pelosi, Clinton's supporters "said superdelegates 'must look to not one criterion but to the full panoply of factors that will help them assess who will be the party's strongest nominee in the general election.'"

The New York Times adds that the letter, "which carried threatening overtones in noting that many signatories were major Democratic donors, highlighted the deepening rift inside the party among supporters for Mrs. Clinton and Mr. Obama." Roll Call reports the "donors also pointedly noted their own contributions to the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee. 'We have been strong supporters of the DCCC. We therefore urge you to clarify your position on super-delegates and reflect in your comments a more open view to the optional independent actions of each of the delegates at the National Convention in August.'"

"Brazen" Move Said To Have "Stunned" Democrats The New York Daily News reports that the "brazen move by Camp Clinton stunned veteran Democrats, particularly because at least eight of the letter's authors have not donated to" the DCCC since Pelosi became speaker.

When a campaign positions itself outside the party structure, says delegate rules do not apply to them....they are in effect saying the Democratic Party itself is not that relevant to them.

You can expect anything if that be true.