The Reality of Democratic Primaries

“I'm shocked, shocked to find that politics is going on in here!”

Marta Evry at “Venice for Change” offers a column about the various Democrat-on-Democrat primaries taking place in California, and the spending by the state legislative leaders. She claims that it “raises troubling questions” for Speaker John Perez and other state leaders. But the fact is that this

The fact that state legislative leaders are contributing to campaigns of their allies is not surprising, is not news (certainly not to anyone in the 53rd AD), and represents some of the LEAST egregious exercises of power by Sacramento leadership. Moreover, this post seems to posit this is a failure by the legislative leadership rather than the natural result of the political decision-making process, and suggests that primary challengers like Torie Osborn are good-natured victims of this scenario, rather than part of the reasons (good and bad) which drive these results.

First. Shocking. I was almost as stunned by this as when the Sun rose in the East this morning. I mean seriously, that has happened to me some 5832 times in a row. Who could have guessed that it would happen a 5833rd time! After all, if Tom Brady can’t complete 17 consecutive SuperBowl passes, what is the chance that the Sun would keep up a streak like this, much less politicians would engage in politics.

This column even explains why this type of thing happens. The “labor-intensive fundraising isn't practical for sitting lawmakers trying to legislate during a 2-year election cycle[, s]o the caucus pools resources through their individual campaign committees.” The caucus is something of a mutual beneficial society. So when an incumbent, like Betsy Butler or Mike Allen is challenged, the first goal is to make sure that those who are busy legislating and do not have the time to put into a continuous fund-raising cycle, have the financial resources to get re-elected. It is naturally the first goal to provide for the legislators who contribute to the effort. Complaining about this is like asking for an insurance company to pay the uninsured before paying off claims to people who have paid their policy premiums.

Today’s scenario is not that bad. Those of us in the 53rd AD remember when the Sacramento leadership came into the 53rd AD during the 2005 Special Election for the open seat left when Mike Gordon passed away. Even though two good Democratic candidates were seeking the relatively safe seat, legislative leadership came in with big money (and political threats) to force out one of the candidates, and then dumped a bunch of money to win without a run-off, even though our new Assemblyman took office after all the votes for the session had concluded. And 2005 does not compare to the story that a friend and mentor told me about his first run for the state assembly in 1974, against an incumbent Republican. Willie Brown and Leo McCarthy were both competing for the Speakership as Bob Moretti was leaving to run (unsuccessfully) for Governor, and this then-young man dutifully visited both of them, seeking their blessing. Brown chose another Democrat to support, in the hopes of getting his vote when the legislature convened after the election. McCarthy also did not back him, as he had good relations with the Republican who held the seat, and preferred him to any Democrat (or, at least to spending the resources that it would take to get a Democrat elected to the seat). Today’s Sacramento leadership getting involved on behalf of Democratic incumbents—even in safe Democratic seats—is nowhere near as bad as times like these, and surely many more, where legislative leaders have gotten involved in open seat races or even tacitly supported Republicans.

Second, the idea that Sacramento leaders are pushing money towards incumbents like Butler and Allen now, rather than challengers like Murastuchi and Galigani, is a normal part of the political process. If the goal is to get to a two-thirds majority, than the road to getting to 54 seats starts with locking down the 52 we already hold. The election is 9 months from now, and the strategy for picking up those two extra seats will be determined as we get closer to the election. Over the next few months, challengers may prove to be very successful—they may raise a lot of money, earn broad-ranging endorsements, and build strong political organizations. If the President’s coattails are strong, we will be able to expand the field and contest a lot of extra seats as we try to get to 54 seats. On the other hand, political head-winds might be strongly against us; although the Republicans lining up in the 66th AD now appear to be a couple of Tea Bag Partiers, it could still draw a challenger like moderate Republican Redondo Beach Mayor Mike Gin; or these new challengers, yet untested in politics, might prove over time that they are painfully poor candidates (imagine pouring a bunch of money into a candidate that proves to be as effective as Martha Coakley) or beset by scandal (like Herman Cain). The reality is as the issue landscape, the economic realities, and the polls take shape, decisions will be made as to whether we can expand our majority, and hopefully candidates like Murastuchi and Galigani will be targeted for support by leaders in Sacramento. But those decisions are premature now.

Finally, this post says that this process raises “troubling questions for Speaker John Perez and Sacramento Democrats.” But the questions are no more troublesome for Democratic challengers like Torie Osborn. If the goal is to achieve a two-thirds majority in the State Assembly, then why is Osborn mounting a primary (and, with the new Cajun Primary rules, likely a November) challenge? Osborn has already raised more than half a million dollars, forcing Butler to raise similar amounts to defend her seat. Both women will probably triple that figure (or more) if they both go to November, meaning there will be more than $3 Million spent on a campaign to hold a safe Democratic seat. That money could fund campaigns in two different swing Assembly Districts like the new 66th AD, and since money and organization is not an infinite supply, Democratic chances of gaining a two-thirds majority in 2012 are hurt by these intra-party challenges. Certainly, there is no question about Butler’s support for the issues that form the core of Osborn’s campaign—environmental protection, LGBT issues, women’s rights. And in the era of term limits, Osborn could have waited a mere four years, when Butler was termed out, and sought the seat then. If Osborn is committed to Democratic principles, then doesn’t she have an obligation to put those goals above her personal ambition? And if she is unwilling to do this, it would seem to raise questions about her that are just as troubling as the ones allegedly raised for Speaker Perez.

There are real problems in California politics—lots of them—and money and its sources are amongst several of those problems. There is no doubt that that it is critical for local Democrats to build up grass-roots organizations so that candidates are responsible to local voters, not Sacramento leaders and special interest PACs. But this column by Marta (a big Osborn supporter) is meant to portray her as a victim of politics. But there is nothing particularly angelic about Osborn’s campaign—which has used hard edged tactics to wrest endorsements of local Democratic clubs, paying in bulk for new Members, who are imported from hours away to show up to vote at one meeting, never to be heard from again. The reality is that all of these factors—Betsy Butler’s decision on where to run, Speaker Perez’s efforts to support Butler and other incumbents, and challenges by candidates like Torie Osborn are pretty standard fare in politics. The messy truth is that that result of the combination of decisions ends up being sub-optimal (at best) for Democrats in November, but none of these actions are shocking nor particularly troubling. And while it would be nice for someone to put the greater good first, no one here is doing that, and expecting someone to blink first is optimistic, but not very realistic.