It’s hard to imagine a worse place for the Brown message to resonate than at one of those old-fashioned political banquets, where local party officials eat oysters on the half shell. But there he was getting cheers last week at the Suffolk County (Long Island) Democratic dinner. Even hacks know that the system’s broken. “Washington needs a 12-step program, " Brown told them. “The first step is to acknowledge the problem. It’s not alcohol, it’s $1,000 contributions. "
Brown is wrong–even demagogic–to suggest that campaign money is the problem with American politics. But it’s certainly a problem. And his use of the word " corrupt " is accurate. If, as he argues, the health industry pumps $30 million in PAC contributions into Congress every two years, that does have some connection to the absence of a sensible health-care system. (He fails to mention the power of labor PACS.) The really jarring thing is that somehow during the 1980s it was the Republicans who became the party of small individual contributions (plus big ones) and the Democrats who were forced to rely more on the Richie Richs of the world. This seemingly prosaic issue of fund raising is in fact deeply connected to the Democratic Party’s identity crisis. Noticing the irony doesn’t lessen it: the “party of the people " has been spending much of its time perched in a Louis XV chair, eating a power breakfast.
So guess who was last month’s fund-raising winner? That’s right, Jerry Brown, who accepts only $100 contributions per person. In applying for federal matching funds, he raised more money in the last month than Bill Clinton. More telling, in the most recent monthly tally, Brown reported 21,458 contributors compared with Clinton’s 8,265.
Brown is engaging in his typical hype when he portrays himself in the spirit of Thomas Jefferson, fighting “latter day Federalists " on behalf of the common people. After all only two years ago, as California Democratic Party chairman, he was suing the State of California to allow higher limits on contributions. The idea of his being a “nonpolitician " is a complete joke. He panders and flip-flops even more than Clinton. But by reaching out to younger voters and the disaffected, Brown does perform a service. Even as they turn a blind eye to their candidate’s unfitness, these people become part of a process they once shunned.
What Does Jerry Want? He certainly won’t fight at the convention for his silly flat tax. And his sketchy proposals on social issues are just slightly more liberal variations on Clinton’s more detailed ones. Once you strip away Brown’s histrionics, the two candidates don’t even fundamentally disagree on the problems of Washington. Brown talks about “midnight pay raises " and the “Incumbent Party “; Clinton aired ads attacking the pay raise in New Hampshire and has long staked out a position against “brain-dead politics in both parties. " Their real difference lies in how to finance campaigns: Brown’s inspired 1-800 approach versus Clinton supping with the rich.
The party of Jefferson has historically stretched like an ameba to include challenges from the outside, especially those that made the Democrats more democratic. That’s how it has survived. When the Populist Party of the 1890s pushed an income tax, direct election of senators (instead of by state legislatures) and other reforms, the Democrats eventually absorbed those ideas. The same happened in the early 20th century with the old Socialist Party, which was co-opted by the New Deal.
Radical campaign-finance reform is the same kind of idea. House-Senate leaders proposed public financing of congressional campaigns last week, but the party should seize the moral high ground now-in the presidential campaign. At the New York convention in July, Brown may try to push the $ 100-per-person principle into the platform, unless Clinton is smart enough to embrace the idea first. With the help of huge federal funds, the disadvantage versus the Republicans would be more imagined than real. As long as Democrats continue to be GOP wanna-bes on fat-cat fund raising, they’ll end up second best and with the essence of their message at risk. By forcing themselves to expand their base in order to raise money-and by taking full advantage of the empowering technology of the telephone-the Democrats could once again legitimately campaign as the party of the people. The best sign that the party is serious about winning will be when Jerry Brown ceremoniously turns over his 800 number to the grateful Democratic nominee-and no one laughs.
