donors

Mattie Weiss, the director of Campus Camp Wellstone, has an important blog up on her site today entitled Where is the Love. In her post, Weiss notes that, despite record breaking youth turnout for Senator Obama, funding for youth organizations is anemic at best. Some youth organizations like The League are running mainly on volunteer energy, and almost no youth organization is working at its full scale and capacity considering we are now in the final sprint of a major Presidential Election in which young people may play a pivotal, if not decisive, role.

This shouldn't be too much of a surprise to readers of this site. We've been blogging about the lack of funds in the youth organizing sphere for months, and in fact, by some estimates, investments in youth organizing this year are only 25% of what they were in 2004 (to be fair, that number has probably climbed since I last reported on this, though I don't know by how much).

While I can't say that I definitively understand the minds of donors, there are a few plausible reasons for this:

• The protracted primary process - donors wanted to wait and see who would win before giving. In this scenario, if Obama lost, money would have presumably flooded in to fill the gap in youth organizing left by his loss.
• Conversely, because Obama won, in no small part on the strength of his youth organization, donors felt there was little need to invest in independent youth organizations and their money was better spent elsewhere.
• Obama specifically stated that donors should not give to independent 527 organizations. Not all 527 organizations are media hit squads. There are field organizations like the Young Democrats who also fall under that tax designation and may have suffered from these comments by the Obama team.

This isn't to say that there weren't big advocates in the donor world who were out there pitching the case for more investment in independent youth organizing. And it isn't to say that there aren't donors who stepped up to the plate this year. There are, without a doubt. But it's undeniable that the amount and strength of support is far less than it was four years ago.

Even though Obama tacitlylifted the sanctions against 527 organizations, I don't expect to see the floodgates opening for youth organizations. The best youth groups we have are field organizers and it's just getting to be too late in the game for a major cash infusion to do as much as it could have 6 months ago. They can't just whip up an ad and buy time on the TV like the media 527s can. Certainly organizations like The League that are operating with volunteers can still use the cash to make their people full time in the states in which they are active. But the opportunity to get these groups to scale up even further and operate in a coordinated fashion (as much as legally possible), is quickly slipping away.

What's done is done, and we're all going to have to make due with what we have this year. So let's look forward to 2009 and 2010. There are two possible outcomes to this election, both with similar ramification for the future of progressive youth funding.

1. Obama wins
2. Obama loses

No brainer, right? So what happens if he wins . . . what is the narrative? Most likely it will be a justification for his investment in the youth vote. No more will young voters be a "hidden" vote, unicorns, the "icing on the cake" or fool's gold. The youth vote will be a real, proven force in 21st Century American Politics. State parties will begin to raise money and invest in full-time youth directors, and campaigns will all make a play for young voters in their districts (best case scenario).

Should that happen, my hope is that this will also open up a much wider field of donors willing to give some of their money towards youth organizing, allowing us to expand the donor pool beyond the half dozen or so major funders that have built this movement thus far. With Obama not directly on the ballot in 2010, that might be an easy case to make. I hope so.

If Obama loses, even if the youth vote turnout in record numbers and vote overwhelmingly in favor of Senator Obama, they will likely be blamed for his loss. It won't matter that the youth vote, as with John Kerry, will likely be the only age demographic to break in favor of Senator Obama. It won't matter if we break record turnout levels or increase our share of the electorate. The youth vote strategy will be deemed a failure, again, and young voters will take a bad rap for Obama's beat.

In that case, we're going to need to do some political jujitsu. It's going to be our responsibility to remind donors and activists and bloggers and everyone who will listen that donors did not invest in youth organizations in 2008. That they left it up to the Obama campaign, which at that time will be little more than a memory, barring some conversion a la Democracy for America. We'll need to pivot off of that somehow to make the case that we need to reinvest in youth organizing like we did in 2004 and 2006. Those will be dark days, as was 2005, when so many youth organizations from the '04 cycle went bust.

There is, of course, a third option. That win or lose, 2004 was the apex of progressive investment in youth organizing. I don't even want to think about that option . . .

Matt Stoller offers a broader view on the lack of funding in progressive organizing that I identified last week. According to Stoller, this isn't just a problem in youth organizing, it's a movement-wide problem among a range of single issue groups, 527s and anyone not directly associated with the Obama campaign:

I keep having conversations this cycle that come back to a basic theme. People assumed that there would be lots of money available for organizing and media work, and yet not only is there less than they expected, there is less than would naturally exist in a Presidential year. Normally the Democratic economy works based on the Presidential cycle; lots of money once every four years, some money during the midterm election, and starvation other than that. It seems as if 2008 is an anomaly, unless you are working for the Obama campaign.

As far as I can tell, there are three intersecting trends that are cutting off the funding stream for progressive groups. One, Obama defunded outside parties reliant on big dollar donors, which means that a good amount of talent is sitting on the sideline, helpless to affect Congressional or Presidential races. There is no cavalry in case Obama stumbles and there are no groups that can go negative against McCain. We knew that. Two, Obama is vacuuming up huge small dollar donations, and sucking some of the oxygen out of downticket races. The media glare on Obama has effectively damaged the megaphone of downticket candidates, and their ability to pull in small dollar donors. This is hurting Senate candidates like Al Franken, for instance, because there is no VoteVets ad to go after Norm Coleman like there was to after George Allen in Virginia. A dozen candidates might lose because the right is going to come after them viciously, and there is nothing on our side to deal with that - no small dollar donors, no outside groups, and very little media attention.

And three, I keep hearing that Foundations are cutting back on funding for non-profits. Foundations are huge entities that grant a certain percentage (usually 3-5%) of their asset base every year in keeping with their mission statement. Because of the market drop, these groups are cutting their grants, which is further starving progressive groups. Foundations are the biggest source of reliable funding for progressive nonprofits, so this is quite nasty. The progressive movement, aside from the Obama campaign, is starving. The better groups are building small dollar donor networks, and the incentive to build revenue streams independent of foundations and large dollar donors is growing. That is a positive development.

Matt looks at the sunny side here - a whittling down of groups that are "unfit" and fat on the largesse of big donors and foundations, and a forced push towards more sustainable practices. But I still think that it's a hell of a gamble that donors are taking and it's consequences go well beyond the lack of a proper infrastructure supporting rapid response efforts and down-ballot candidates. Even in the best of circumstances it is going to leave us with a weakened infrastructure that will be entirely dependent on Obama to move policy. And if we dont' like that policy? Well I guess we can just suck it because our options will be pretty limited.

One final comment. Matt identifies this as a problem affecting "single issue groups," which are more and more getting a bad rap for creating a disjointed (or "siloed," as folks like to say) movement and affecting little if any real change. I just want to be clear that I don't consider youth organizations "single issue" operations. Getting young people civically and politically engaged builds a constituency for the Party and for all issues. It's an investment in the future (and current) health of the Party and the larger progressive movement.

One of my all-time favorite television shows is HBO's The Wire. So it's a little surreal to feel like I'm living in an episode. No, I'm not involved in the drug trade or police department. I'm not a stevedore losing my union job, and I'm not a school teacher struggling with No Child Left Behind. Like the reporters and police officers in the 5th and final season of the show, though, I feel like my work, and the work of many of my colleagues are not being adequately supported. In short, the youth vote community is being asked "to do more with less."

As I've written many times before, 2004 was a boom year for youth organizing as the progressive movement built many new institutions (and strengthened others) to reach out to young voters. There were two driving forces behind this boom: entrepreneurial activism on the part of young people, and a willingness among donors to take risks and support that work. The results were impressive and verified by independent research.

This year, the "surging" youth vote is one of the most important stories of the election cycle, and one would think that interest in moving as many young voters to the polls as possible would be a high priority. Unfortunately, that doesn't seem to be the case. Many of the organizations responsible for engaging young voters in 2004 and 2006, and many new organizations working to fill holes in the youth engagement sphere, are struggling to raise funds and scale up their operations for the fall.

"As far as I'm aware, all the youth voting groups put together haven't secured more than $10 Million toward their budgets in 2008," said Billy Wimsatt, founder and former executive director of the League of Young Voters. "If the $40 Million figure from 2004 is correct, this means we are seeing only one quarter of of the funding for youth voting as in 2004. This is a staggering decrease."

Indeed, it is. At a time when expectations for the youth vote are at their highest, youth organizers are not being provided with the resources they need to make good on that promise and capitalize on the energy and excitement among the country's youngest voters. Youth organizers - who have worked for the last 5 years to build up to this moment when our peers could potentially tip a Presidential election - are in a very bad spot. In an election cycle that may see our biggest victory in decades, we do not have the resources to play more than a small part in that victory.

The reasons behind this drastic decline in support are varied. Some point to the success of the Obama campaign in turning out young voters, and a desire on the part of potential funders to put their money "where it is most needed." Others point to statements made by the Obama campaign itself asking that funders not support "outside efforts" on the campaign trail. The tightening economy is also a potential - though less likely - culprit.

This isn't about ego or a turf war between the Obama campaign and independent youth organizers. It's about how the funding cycle works and the long-term health of youth organizing on the progressive (and Democratic) side of the political aisle. As we've seen, Obama's youth support comes almost entirely from college-educated youth who make up only a fraction of the eligible voting population. Everything I hear from inside the Obama campaign points to a college-based youth strategy in the battleground states identified by the campaign. Obama can't and shouldn't be allowed to run the youth component of this campaign cycle alone. His campaign needs the help of complimentary, independent youth organizations to reach out to those non-college voters and get them to the polls - not just to secure his own election, but for the election of down-ballot candidates as well.

The consequences of this dearth in funding go far beyond this single election and may have a negative impact on progressive youth infrastructure well into the midterm elections. As David Simon himself said, you don't do more with less. You do less with less. That will show when youth organizations and donors study their 2008 GOTV efforts and plan presentations for their work in 2009 and 2010. Less impressive results in those post-election studies will likely yield a smaller investment from donors. With a continued decrease in funding, our nascent movements' capabilities to move votes will slowly begin to wither.

Meanwhile, we'll have to wait and see whether the Obama campaign was a worthwhile gamble. And let's be clear - that is exactly what donors are doing by withholding support. They are betting that the Obama campaign will be able to move a sufficient number of young voters on its own, and that those mobilization efforts will continue as long as - and beyond - an Obama Presidency.

Will that organization be the shining savior that continues to effectively mobilize young voters in 2009 and 2010? Or will the Obama administration focus on its own goals and brush aside our concerns about continued youth mobilization as easily as they brushed off concerns about his votes on FISA? In four or six years, will young people (middle and high schoolers now) have the same motivation to support President Obama as do those who carry his campaign today? How about eight years? Is that something you want to bet a movement on? I don't.

• In These Times is running a standard, informative piece about the financial difficulties that young progressives face in working for the movement once they graduate, debt-ladden, from school. The piece hits a lot of the right notes, and reports on the lack of diversity in progressive politics that this situation engenders. It neglects to report on a few organizations like DMI Scholars and YP4 working to change this situation.
  
  Most interesting was the mention of Resource Generation (aka the Cool Rich Kids). This is an organization trying to teach wealthy Millennials and Gen Xers how to use their money philanthropically to serve the movement. I'd never heard of them before, but I will be sure to check them out. (Hat tip to Shai Sachs at Planting Liberally, who has some good thoughts on the role of big donors in progressive youth politics in his commentary.)
• Some Drupal guys are working to scrape the WhiteHouse.gov website of all streaming video and offer it up to the masses to remix and reuse. Pretty cool.PoliticalVideo.org.
• Apparently a bill in Maine almost robbed students of their right to vote on campus by declaring dorms to not be legal places of residence. Thankfully, the bill failed. What I want to know is this, with all the Google Alerts I'm signed up for, with all the youth blogs I read, how come this is the first time I'm hearing about this issue?