In the months following Donald Trump’s reelection and inauguration as President of the United States, many of his political opponents began to share a common refrain: “What are the Democrats doing and what is their message?” The Democratic Party seems to them disorganised, lacking a coherent message, and, most concerningly, “doing nothing”. Those in and around the party are aware that they need to be perceived as doing something, or at least anything, as opposed to nothing at all.
American politics, especially over the last few decades, has developed a profound resistance to “doing nothing”. Shortly after President Obama’s 2012 reelection, a handful of Democratic strategists founded the organisation ‘Ready For Hillary’ (RFH) to boost Hillary Clinton’s eventual 2016 presidential campaign. RFH wanted to be the new standard bearer of the Democratic party heading into the 2016 election. For this reason, RFH in its early messages emphasised its commitment to continuing the Democratic movement and moving the party forward.
An immediate question arises. Why did a group of journalists and fundraisers create the organisation, and why did they establish it on such an expedited timeline? The simple answer may be found in that creating RFH would be generally seen as doing “something”. Former elected and appointed officials, as well as strategists, political pundits, and personalities, can use new organisations, such as RFH, to remain relevant in the minds of the public.
However, the new political entities create an appeal of the party to its donors, who form an integral constituency in American politics. Campaign laws limit individual donations to political candidates for federal office at $3,300 per candidate each election. A legal gap instituted by the U.S. Supreme Court in ‘Citizens United v. US Federal Election Commission’ (2010), allows for a workaround. Independent expenditure committees, often known as “super PACs” (political action committees), can fundraise unlimited amounts so long as they do not coordinate directly with a candidate. Say, for example, a progressive organisation aims at creating a television advertisement criticising Republican US Senate candidates. As long as this organisation makes the advertisement with its own employees instead, it can accept unlimited amounts, which often sum up to millions of dollars, from a given donor. Independent expenditure committees seek out individuals, who are willing and can afford such high donations, putting great effort to prolong their philanthropic cooperation.
Donors, as these groups have accurately discovered, expect their monetary contributions to go somewhere doing something. They anticipate seeing the results of their contributions on their screens or in their newsfeeds. In other words, they want to see something happen. If Democrats appear to do nothing, these donors will, by and large, scale back their contributions. So what then should Democrats do to respond to this pressure? Ill-fated listening tours, multi-day conferences that serve as progressive echo chambers, donor meet and greets with senators and cabinet secretaries from eras past and present. All of these events constitute something.
Current presidents of the same party these organisations support present a challenge for these types of organisations. Zooming in on the Biden presidency—left-leaning groups needed to find a villain. After the 2022 midterm elections, they found their mark: the US House of Representatives, now under Republican control. Facts First USA was born. Its official mission was to defend President Biden and his associates from “lawfare” waged by the Republican-controlled House, but the organisation remained largely ineffective and had little impact on day-to-day White House operations. After an initial jolt of donations, Facts First USA failed to raise even close to the funds it had hoped for, bringing in only $1.3 million of its $12 goal. Due to this lack of funds, the organisation shut down after only one year of operations. Yet, even though it shuttered so quickly, Facts First USA met one of its key goals: keeping its founders in the news. Liberal elected officials and media personalities got their headline that they founded a new organisation, and thanks to that they could distribute flyers, pamphlets, water bottles, and other memorabilia featuring their names, images, and likenesses, remaining in the game for a while longer until their next career aspirations could come to fruition. By the time Facts First USA folded, many of its key public figures had already left to join or found their next shiny new ventures.
Some of these organisations have become successful in the long term. Established in 2004, Media Matters for America has served as a mainstay of the progressive movement, coordinating left-leaning media and combating perceived right-wing misinformation for over two decades. Even this organisation, however, is expected to always do something new. The organisation’s largest unexpected costs of late have come from Twitter/X owner Elon Musk.
Elon Musk sued Media Matters for America in late 2023, following which donations to the organisation skyrocketed. Donors contributed to an organisation that could advertise its continued presence at the forefront of the progressive fight against the billionaire’s takeover of American media. While the lawsuit did cost the organisation in legal fees and building security, this litigation motivated donors to contribute more than ever before. In the words of this fundraiser, the day Musk filed suit, “the Streisand effect feels really good this morning.”
This phenomenon is not unique to the political left. President Biden and his son became the perfect villains for all kinds of political attacks from the right. Only temporarily, of course, would Hunter Biden remain current in the news cycle. With President Biden out of the White House, attacking the former president’s son seemed to lose its potency. In another example, Project 2025, a 900+ page PDF detailing the way “the next conservative administration” should govern, gained its authors from the Heritage Foundation tens of millions of dollars.
Money, the old adage goes, makes the world go around, and in electoral politics, this wisdom certainly holds true. Political organisations and fundraisers must continue bringing money into the system, and finding the next sale, the next pitch, the next bold new vision is the only way to stay in business, so the solution is to always do something. Maybe one of the projects will take hold and make real political change or maybe it will be just another ill-fated attempt at resurrecting a long departed limelight. Either way, the money has to flow, and “something” has to be there to accept it.
Written by Jacob Pesikoff, Edited by Aleksandra Drozd
Photo Credit: Mikhail Nilov (uploaded August 24, 2021) on pexels.
