The Trail: A Daily Diary of Campaign 2008

Archives

Supreme Court

Rise of Liberal Groups Shows in Court Nomination

By Dan Eggen
Within 24 hours of the nomination of Sonia Sotomayor to the Supreme Court, an alliance formed solely to push the appointment had launched a six-figure ad buy on the major television networks.

"Raised in public housing by a working mom, who taught her the power of education," the text of the ad reads, as President Obama talks in the background about the virtues of an ideal jurist. "Tough prosecutor. Distinguished judge. Practical understanding of the law."

Conservative groups, by contrast, stumbled through days of disjointed messages and never mustered the resources for a major television campaign. By the end of the week, Republicans were fighting among themselves over perils of attacking the nation's first Hispanic high-court nominee.

The episode was one of the latest examples of how Obama's election has dramatically altered the landscape occupied by the advocacy groups, think tanks and lobbying firms that make up Washington's sprawling influence industry. Democratic and left-leaning groups are now ascendant, enjoying clout not seen in a generation and benefiting from close access to a White House brimming with former colleagues.

Major Democratic-leaning lobbying firms have posted record earnings despite a foundering economy. Many of the groups spent the Bush years championing policies that had little chance of being adopted; now, their ideas and positions are at the center of the Washington debate.

Obama's plan to offer public health insurance to compete with the private sector, for example, has its roots in a series of obscure papers circulated among liberal policy analysts several years ago. Some of those same analysts are now briefing the administration and Congress on how the system could be implemented.

Several thousand liberal activists have gathered in Washington this week for a national conference that includes appearances by Labor Secretary Hilda Solis and other administration officials. The three-day event, dubbed "America's Future Now!," focuses heavily on health care reform, climate change policy and other issues championed by Obama.

But liberal groups are also learning the limits of their influence, whether they are being thwarted by conservative Democrats in the Senate or undermined by a president who has pursued a centrist path on many terrorism and defense issues. One example came in April, when a proposal allowing bankruptcy judges to reduce mortgage payments went down to easy defeat in the Senate, despite support from Obama and consumer groups.

"We're in an era now where we have a president who has committed to a transformative agenda of progressive change, but it's absolutely clear that change will be impossible without enormous involvement from the grassroots," said Justin Ruben, executive director of MoveOn.org, an Internet-focused advocacy group that nearly doubled in size, to more than 5 million members, during the 2008 presidential campaign. "That's what our role is. It's not enough to change who's in power."

Many of the most influential liberal groups are brand new or relatively young. Fresh groups on the scene include Business Forward, which attempts to attract corporate support for Obama's economic policies; Unity '09, a coalition of progressive groups focused on pushing Obama's policy agenda; and Organizing for America, an Obama-sanctioned outreach project at the Democratic National Committee.

There are young left-leaning groups devoted to healthcare (Health Care for America Now), economics (the Center for Budget and Policy Priorities), defense (the Center for New American Security), and labor issues (Change to Win). Another group dubbed Common Purpose holds seminars every Tuesday at the Capital Hilton near the White House, bringing together more than 100 liberal activists with Obama administration aides to debate policy and plot strategy.

Matt Bennett, public affairs director for Third Way, a center-left think tank, said the groups amount to "a new intellectual infrastructure" for progressives in Washington.

The granddaddy of the new vanguard is the Center for American Progress, a think-tank founded with three employees in 2003 by longtime Democratic adviser John Podesta, who served as Bill Clinton's chief of staff and ran Obama's transition office. Now boasting 180 employees and a $25 million annual budget, CAP has it own lobbying arm called the Center for American Progress Action Fund, a student-focused project called Campus Progress, and a political blog called Think Progress.

Podesta launched the project as a liberal counterpoint to conservative think tanks like the Heritage Foundation and the American Enterprise Institute, which have exerted outsized influence on Republican policies over the last 30 years. Podesta estimates that some 40 staffers from his project are now employed in the Obama administration, including domestic policy adviser Melody Barnes, deputy White House counsel Cassandra Butts and climate-change envoy Todd Stern.

But Grover Norquist, the conservative activist whose influential Wednesday breakfast meetings served as an inspiration for the Common Purpose project, argues that left-leaning groups have too many "internal contradictions" to get along for very long.
"For the moment there's a false sense of comity," he said. "But at the end of the day they're competing parasites. At some point the unions will come up against the environmentalists, and the whole thing will start to fall apart."

Indeed, small cracks have already appeared in the fragile coalition. Many grassroots groups strongly object to expanded military involvement in Afghanistan, the bailouts of financial firms on Wall Street and Obama's decisions last monthMay to revive military commissions and block the release of photos showing detainee abuse. In Congress, Democratic-led hearings on health-care reform have been disrupted by activists on the left demanding a "single-payer" nationalized insurance system, which Obama and his allies have explicitly ruled out.

Liberal activists acknowledge that disagreements between Obama and the groups that supported his rise to power are inevitable. But Podesta said that "being in the wilderness concentrated people's attention on trying to be good collaborators. It's not like we're not being competitive. But people have done a pretty good job of keeping focused on the prize and trying to get the country moving in the right direction."

Robert L. Borasage, the founder of the Campaign for America's Future, which began as a group opposed to Bill Clinton's centrist approach on welfare and other issues, said the "scope of the crisis" facing the country has so far tamped down potentially noisy disputes.

"There is a real argument going on with the Obama administration on some issues, but it hasn't gotten in way of unity around other issues," Borasage said, adding: "You have to remember, Obama is enormously attractive to progressives in general. That goes a long way."

Borasage's group is a typical example of the expansion of liberal influence in Washington in recent years. His center's budget, which not long ago barely broke $1 million annually, has expanded to over $5 million thanks to financial support from "regular people, foundations, unions and idiosyncratic rich people," as Borasage jokingly puts it.

The political shift extends to the traditional lobbying firms that cluster around the K Street corridor in downtown Washington. The Podesta Group, which is run by John Podesta's brother, Tony, is now one of the biggest and fastest-growing lobbying firms in Washington. The firm, which reported $5.5 million in lobbying expenditures in the first three months of this year, recently hired a former Obama campaign director, Teal Baker, to conduct "outreach to the Obama administration for Podesta Group clients," the company said.

Winnie Stachelberg, the Center for American Progress's external affairs chief, said Obama's campaign changed the landscape in Washington "because the race was fought on the side of the field that favored progressive, rather than conservative, issues.
"The question is, can you take that skill and the muscle you've developed and take it to the governing part?" she continued. "We're only about 100 days in, but it seems that there's more hanging together than not."

Posted at 6:31 AM ET on Jun 3, 2009  | Category:  Supreme Court
Share This: Technorati talk bubble Technorati | Tag in Del.icio.us | Digg This
Previous: Obama Signs Bill to Create Reagan Centennial Panel | Next: POTUS Events: A Day With King Abdullah


Add 44 to Your Site
Be the first to know when there's a new installment of The Trail. This widget is easy to add to your Web site, and it will update every time there's a new entry on The Trail.
Get This Widget >>


Comments

Please email us to report offensive comments.



Republicans seem to have forgotten that the majority party does not actually need a filibuster proof majority to confirm Judge Sotomayor.

In fact, they can simply change the Senate rules to abolish the filibuster and pass whatever they please by simple majority votes.

The filibuster is not a constitutional right; it is a mere Senate rule which can be abolished by a simply majority vote in the U.S. Senate.

And the Republicans best remember that, and at least make a token effort to be Americans first.

I do not think that Democrats want to go as far as the rabidly partisan Senate led by Senator William Frist, and remove the filibuster in order to steamroll the minority party-at least not right now.

To the contrary, they are hoping for some good will from Republicans. But, if zealots like Lindsay Graham, Newt Gingrich, Mitch McConnell and Sean Hannity continue their angry rants directed towards a brillaint and qualified Judge who has shown remarkable balance and judicial restraint , things could change quickly.

And the republcians will have no one but their former majority leader, Bill Frist to thank for the nuclear option.

see: http://www.slate.com/id/2117015/
And
http://www.wjh.harvard.edu/~wjs/NuclearOption.htm

Posted by: dcucich | June 4, 2009 3:04 AM

Dan wrote: "Major Democratic-leaning lobbying firms have posted record earnings despite a foundering economy."

Isn't the purpose of lobbying to get as big a piece of the government pie as possible for one's employers? In that case, with the biggest pie ever up for grabs, doncha think we should be seeing the most profitable lobbying year ever?

It just stands to reason.

By the way, did anyone actually believe Obama when he promised not to cater to "special interests"?

Posted by: ZZim | June 3, 2009 2:43 PM

Did Grover Norquist really call the members of these liberal advocacy groups "parasites"?

Posted by: jutland | June 3, 2009 12:24 PM

BUT WHEN WILL THESE LIBERAL GROUPS REALIZE THAT DEMOCRACY AND DUE PROCESS UNDER THE LAW ARE BEING STOLEN AT THE GRASSROOTS...

...BY A BUSH-CHENEY- SPAWNED 'EXTRAJUDICIAL TARGETING AND PUNISHMENT MATRIX' THAT (THUS FAR) HAS BEEN ENABLED BY TEAM OBAMA?


The real threat to liberty is at the "micro" level, in YOUR hometown, at YOUR police and fire stations, on YOUR street -- a vigilante "citizen corps" army that implants GPS tracking devices to stalk and persecute unjustly "targeted" citizens and their families...

...and uses hi-tech microwave radiation "directed energy weapons" to degrade the minds and bodies of their prey.

Team Obama and naive and distracted mainstream media, now hear this:

This American Gestapo is funded and overseen by secretive federal security/military/intel agencies and their usurping local operatives.

Team Obama: THIS is the real threat to freedom in America -- and to YOUR administration:


http://nowpublic.com/world/gestapo-usa-govt-funded-vigilante-network-terrorizes-america

OR (if link is corrupted / disabled):

http://NowPublic.com/scrivener

Posted by: scrivener50 | June 3, 2009 11:18 AM

All a dog and pony show.....

Even the most retarded Americans know that their voices don't matter anymore, and that the Repukes and Democraps both want to legalize all the Hispanics in this country... again...

Wouldnt want the tax base to dwindle now do we?

Posted by: indep2 | June 3, 2009 10:44 AM

Mr. Eggen should do his history check first, president Obama's nominee is not the first Latino to be considered ... remember Miguel Estrada and Alberto Gonzales? They were excoriated by the left for the same reasons the present nominee is heralded.

Posted by: pielusztcontractor | June 3, 2009 9:50 AM

Yes, overcoming the odds is great, but what about the fact that she is a member of the national committee for La Raza, a group that promotes amnesty for illegal aliens?

La Raza - "THE RACE" - as if there were no other.

Posted by: Utahreb | June 3, 2009 9:00 AM

The comments to this entry are closed.

 
 

© 2009 The Washington Post Company