进步人士在与亲以色列和其他当权派民主力量的支出战争中处于劣势。他们知道这一点。
密苏里州民主党众议员柯里·布什周二的初选失利圣路易斯县检察官韦斯利·贝尔(Wesley Bell)再次强调，如果进步的立法者成为富有的倡导团体的目标，他们将面临被大量外部资金涌入的风险。贝尔在竞选中主要关注地方问题和国会立法，但他得到了亲以色列的联合民主项目800多万美元的支持。
自由主义者多年来一直哀叹宽松的竞选财务法律，允许外部团体用数百万美元的支出淹没比赛。但是，在这些法律被修改之前，选举之路的规则仍然有效，甚至进步人士也说他们可能赶不上。
“你可以尝试在组织上超越它，经典的左派公式是在门口和社区里找到足够的人作为解药。但是，如何做到规模化呢?”进步民主党战略家安吉洛·格列柯问道。“除非你有自己的筹资业务，否则你无法与之匹敌，而我们还没有组织到那种程度。”
自2016年以来一直处于上升趋势的进步人士，在哈马斯于10月7日对以色列发动恐怖袭击以及随后在加沙地带爆发战争后，发现自己在为自己辩护。
隶属于美国以色列公共事务委员会(American Israel Public Affairs Committee)的联合民主党(UDP)和以色列民主多数党(Democratic Majority for Israel)等较新的团体投入了数百万美元用于竞选，以击败被认为对以色列持批评态度的候选人或议员。
布什的失败接踵而至纽约民主党众议员贾马尔·鲍曼的损失威彻斯特郡行政长官乔治·拉蒂默。根据一项影响调查，拉蒂默和联合民主党以将近5比1的比例超过了鲍曼和他的盟友，而布什和她的盟友被贝尔的盟友(包括联合民主党)以大约3.5比1的比例超过。
对布什和鲍曼的攻击主要不是针对以色列，而是针对他们反对乔·拜登总统的基础设施法案等问题。但是两位立法者对以色列的批评打开了开支的大门——布什和鲍曼都无法在电视上保持联系。
进步团体“我们的革命”的负责人约瑟夫·吉瓦尔盖兹说，“如果她有足够的钱上电视，他们可能会反对。”。“我们不是说你必须一美元一美元地匹配，但你必须能够有一个存在。”
可以肯定的是，并不是每个自由派议员都面临如此令人生畏的反对。根据AdImpact的数据，民主党众议员伊尔汉·奥马尔(Ilhan Omar)是众议院最引人注目的进步人士之一，她在明尼阿波利斯的初选中花费超过了她的对手。
但专家表示，鲍曼和布什的失利让改革派面对他们较差的财务状况，同时仍在抨击他们认为过于宽松的竞选财务法律。
一些进步人士说，最好的策略是让如此庞大的外部支出在民主政治中失去吸引力，投资更多自己的钱，即使对进步人士来说，也不应该是目标。
“目标不应该是，我们如何将2000万美元的民主党初选变成4000万美元的民主党初选。这是一场我们民主的底层竞赛，”进步团体正义民主党的发言人乌萨马·安德拉比说。
“我们应该迫使更多的国会议员站出来反对这些利益，让接受这笔钱变得有害，”他补充道。“其中一部分是教育选民，让他们了解这些特殊利益集团是谁……以及他们为什么要推进这些利益。”
进步人士关注的一个途径是引发法律挑战。
缅因州的一份请愿书将限制对超级政治行动委员会的捐款，这是一种可以无限消费的车辆。目标是引发一场法庭斗争，最终进入最高法院，希望说服法官们，2010年公民联合的决定限制了竞选活动本身可以筹集的资金，但由于超级政治行动委员会的独立性，它在今天的政治中过于宽容。
其他操作人员指出，进步人士的整体结构是一个需要改进的领域。
这场运动是高度分裂的，多个倡导团体都有自己的起源故事和政策利基，都在争夺一杯羹。除了候选人自己竞选之外。
合作可能是关键，因为并非所有种族都被认为是竞争的，外部团体的目标最终会重叠。
这种策略今年已经尝试过一次，密歇根州民主党众议员拉希达·特拉伊布(Rashida Tlaib)是一名进步人士，今年没有一名重要的初选挑战者，她从自己的竞选活动中捐赠了50万美元给正义民主党的“小队”保护部门，以帮助鲍曼。虽然这一举动最终没有拯救《纽约客》，但它可能为更大的合作提供了一个先例。
“需要召集来自不同组织、不同领导人的进步人士来讨论这个挑战，因为发生在贾马尔·鲍曼和柯里·布什身上的事情将会继续发生，”吉瓦尔盖兹说。
除了合作，一些进步人士还敦促采取更明智的策略。
一些候选人为安全竞选筹集了大量资金。其他人则利用现金挑战那些与世隔绝的现任者。还有一些人筹集了相当多的资金，但像鲍曼和布什一样，采取了更具防御性的姿态，回应选民眼中定义他们的攻击，而不是建立自己的品牌。
工作人员说，这种情况必须改变。
“从组织上来说，我们可以更好地挑选和选择在哪里部署这些资源，”Greco说，并补充说，候选人和竞选活动需要更好地“预测这些攻击”
“柯里·布什，实际上是一名队员，一名进步的成员，如果投入更多的资源来讲述这个故事……她是总统议程的捍卫者，而不是被抹黑为诽谤者。”
对进步派的批评者来说，他们坚持认为钱不是问题，他们针对的自由派议员只是不受欢迎。
“我认为，整个支出差距问题，以及它被提出的方式，从根本上说是对选民的侮辱。我们为选民提供了他们原本可能得不到的信息。由他们来决定这些信息是否重要，”以色列民主党多数党主席马克·梅尔曼说。
进步人士承认，这场运动的问题不能完全归咎于支出差距。
鲍曼除了批评以色列，还在11月提出了错误的理论，即在哈马斯10月7日的袭击中没有发生性侵犯和强奸。几个月后，鲍曼道歉了。之后他也引来了负面的头条新闻在众议院支出法案投票之前，国会大厦拉响了火警警报。布什发现自己陷入了困境，因为司法部对她的竞选活动在安全服务上的花费展开了调查，其中包括她丈夫的工作。
两人都投票反对拜登的签名基础设施法案，他们认为这一投票没有实现总统最初的承诺，但这有助于批评者将他们称为不认真的立法者。
“从战术上来说，这场竞选很混乱。这不是一场运行良好的竞选，她有一些非受迫性的错误，”一位进步特工在谈到布什的连任竞选时说。
“他们会不会没那么有原则，和其他人一起投票?当然，可能挽救了他们的职业生涯。但这不是我们试图送进国会的那种人，”这位人士在谈到基础设施投票时补充道。
但策略师表示，他们相信进步人士能够重新振作起来，这场运动的火焰还没有被最近的失败浇灭。
“我毫不怀疑，这确实会阻止人们潜在的参选，阻止他们说出自己的良心。所以，是的，有人对此表示担忧，”著名的自由派人士Faiz Shakir在谈到针对进步人士的开支时说。“但只要有一颗进步的心在那里唤起人们对它的关注，我相信至少你会听到关于它的辩论和讨论。”
Progressives reckon with massive campaign spending deficit after Cori Bush defeat
Progressives are on the short end of a spending war with pro-Israel and other establishment Democratic forces. And they know it.
Missouri Democratic Rep. Cori Bush's primary loss Tuesdayat the hands of St. Louis County prosecutor Wesley Bell put into stark relief once again how progressive lawmakers are at risk of getting swarmed by gobs of outside money if they become targets of well-heeled advocacy groups. Bell focused much of his race on local issues and congressional legislation, but he was backed by more than $8 million from the pro-Israel United Democracy Project.
Liberals for years have lamented lax campaign finance laws that allow outside groups to flood races with millions in spending. But until those laws are changed, the rules of the electoral road stand -- and even progressives say they probably can't catch up.
"You can try to out-organize it, the classic left formula of getting enough people at the doors and in the community as the antidote. But how do you do that to scale?" asked progressive Democratic strategist Angelo Greco. "You can't match that unless you have your own fundraising operation, and we're not organized at that level just yet."
Progressives, who had been on an upswing since 2016, found themselves playing defense after Hamas' terrorist attack on Israel on Oct. 7 and the ensuing war in the Gaza Strip.
UDP, which is affiliated with the American Israel Public Affairs Committee, and newer groups such as Democratic Majority for Israel, dumped millions into races to defeat candidates or lawmakers perceived as critical of Israel.
Bush's defeat followedNew York Democratic Rep. Jamaal Bowman's lossto Westchester County Executive George Latimer. Latimer and UDP outspent Bowman and his allies by a nearly 5-to-1 margin, and Bush and her allies were outspent by Bell's allies (including UDP) by a roughly 3.5-to-1 margin, according to AdImpact.
The attacks on Bush and Bowman largely didn't focus on Israel, instead homing in on issues like their opposition to President Joe Biden's infrastructure bill. But the two lawmakers' criticism of Israel opened the door to the spending -- and neither Bush nor Bowman could keep up on the airwaves.
"If she had just enough money to be on the air, they could have countered it," said Joseph Geevarghese, the head of Our Revolution, a progressive group. "We're not saying you've got to match dollar-for-dollar, but you've got to be able to have a presence."
To be certain, not every liberal lawmaker is facing such daunting opposition. Democratic Rep. Ilhan Omar, one of the highest profile House progressives, is outspending her rivals in her Minneapolis primary, according to data from AdImpact.
But the Bowman and Bush losses have progressives confronting their inferior financial footing, all while still railing against campaign finance laws they deem too loose, experts said.
Some progressives said the best strategy is making such hefty outside spending unappetizing in Democratic politics and that investing more money of their own, even for progressives, shouldn't be the objective.
"The goal should not be, how can we turn $20 million Democratic primaries into $40 million Democratic primaries. That is a race to the bottom for our democracy," said Usamah Andrabi, a spokesperson for the progressive group Justice Democrats.
"We should force more members of Congress to stand up to these interests and make taking this money toxic," he added. "Part of it is educating voters about who these special interest groups are … and why they're advancing those interests."
One avenue progressives eyed is triggering a legal challenge.
A petition in Maine would limit contributions to super PACs, vehicles that can spend unlimited sums. The goal is to trigger a court battle that makes its way to the Supreme Court, hoping to convince the justices that the 2010 Citizens United decision -- which limited what campaigns themselves can raise, but not super PACs due to their perceived independence -- is too permissive in today's politics.
Other operatives pointed to progressives' overall structure as an area for improvement.
The movement is highly fractured, with multiple advocacy groups with their own origin stories and policy niches all competing for a slice of the money pie. That's on top of the candidates themselves running their own races.
Cooperation could be key, given that not all races are considered competitive and outside groups' goals end up overlapping.
The tactic was tried once already this year, with Michigan Democratic Rep. Rashida Tlaib, a progressive without a serious primary challenger this year, donating $500,000 from her campaign to Justice Democrats' "Squad" protection branch to help Bowman. And while the move didn't save the New Yorker in the end, it could offer a precedent for greater collaboration.
"There needs to be a convening among progressives from different organizations, different leaders, to talk about the challenge, because what happened to Jamaal Bowman and what happened to Cori Bush is going to continue to happen," Geevarghese said.
Beyond cooperation, some progressives also urged a more discerning strategy.
Some candidates have raised mounds of dough for safe races. Others have raked in cash for challenges to incumbents who are fairly well insulated. And still others have raised decent money but, as in the case of Bowman and Bush, adopted a more defensive posture, responding to attacks that defined them in voters' eyes rather than establishing their own brands.
That, operatives said, has to change.
"Organizationally, we can do better about picking and choosing where to deploy those resources," Greco said, adding that candidates and campaigns need to be better about "anticipating those attacks."
"Cori Bush, actually as a Squad member, progressive member, if maybe more resources were put into telling the story that … she was a champion for the president's agenda, instead of getting smeared as someone who was a detractor."
Progressives' critics, for their part, insisted that money isn't the problem and that liberal lawmakers they targeted are just unpopular.
"I think the whole spending disparity issue, the way it's being raised, is fundamentally insulting to voters. We provide voters with information that they may not otherwise have had. It's up to them to decide whether that information is important," said Democratic Majority for Israel President Mark Mellman.
And progressives conceded that the movement's problems can't be entirely chalked up to spending disparities.
Bowman, beyond being critical of Israel, in November floated false theories that sexual assault and rape did not occur during Hamas' Oct. 7 attack. Months later, Bowman apologized. He also drew negative headlines afterpulling a fire alarm in the Capitol ahead of a House spending bill vote. Bush found herself in hot water after the Justice Department launched an investigation over her campaign's spending on security services that included work by her husband.
And both voted against Biden's signature infrastructure bill, a vote they chalked up to the legislation not fulfilling the president's original promise, but that helped critics tag them as unserious legislators.
"Tactically, the campaign was messy. It was not a well-run campaign, and she had some unforced errors," one progressive operative said of Bush's reelection bid.
"Could they have been less principled and voted with everyone else? Sure, probably might have saved their careers. But that's not the type of people we try to send to Congress," the person added of the infrastructure votes.
But strategists expressed confidence that progressives could pick themselves up off the mat and that the movement's fire hadn't been doused by the recent losses.
"I have no doubt that does dissuade people from potentially running and dissuade them from speaking their conscience. So yeah, there's concern about that," Faiz Shakir, a prominent liberal operative, said of the spending against progressives. "But as long as there's a beating heart of progressives out there to call attention to it, I believe that at least you'll hear a debate and discourse about it."
