Is Americans for Financial Reform a "Waste of Time?"

In this week's Capitolism column I spotlight a new coalition of various progressive groups called Americans for Financial Reform. The idea is to be for the upcoming fight over financial regulation, what HCAN has been to the healthcare reform battle: a well funded coalition pushing on the side of progressive policies. (There's a whole tangential debate to be had about HCAN's lack of support for single payer, but that's another story)

Jane Hamsher at FireDogLake excerpts the piece and writes this:

Great. Glad to hear it. Another group that will redouble every mistake made by every such liberal group since the 1970s. They'll put together a bunch of experts, issue some "white papers," nobody will care but they'll raise a lot of money.

They'll make no attempt to figure out why this doesn't work, or why the model has been such a colossal failure in the past. Because for them, it's not a failure -- big donors love big names. Congress doesn't give a flying fuck, you say? Well, you have a point. But failing to have even a remote hope of success is not necessary to keep the funding stream flowing.

I can understand the skepticism: it's entirely unclear whether AFR will be able to do any good. They're only a few weeks old. I will say that the plan at least (and who knows whether it will be executed) is to do some nationwide grassroots organizing around the issues. There are groups like NTIC/NPA that are very active in the coalition who actually do grassroots organizing and have been doing it for a long time. They're not just some inside-the-beltway donor siphon. Also: the status quo as it stands is there is basically nothing pushing against the banks on the Hill. So from the perspective of triage it seems like something, anything, is an improvement on the status quo.

But there's a broader critique being laid out here and it's of what one very sharp DC progressive organizer calls "campaign-in-a-box organizing vehicles," which has a lineage going back to the (successful)'05 Social Security fight and extends through the very expensive (and unsuccessful) Americans Against Escalation in Iraq to HCAN and others. Each of these, critics contend, have had diminishing returns, and they've all sucked up quite a bit of resources that would have better been spent elsewhere.

The question I have, and it's not a rhetorical one, is whether this is an issue of personnel (more or less the same cast of Beltway progressive characters) or model. If it's a question of the model, one which includes a coalition approach, ad buys, Congressional lobbying, press releases, events, maybe some field, what is the alternative? I don't meant that to suggest there isn't one, but I'm too unimaginative an organizer to conceive of what it looks like.

Comments (27)

1. perhaps some kind of broad based progressive organization ("the progressive front"?) that initiates and wraps up "campaign-in-a-box"s on multiple issues would better serve the cause.

   less duplication of effort, more $ devoted to operations...a kind of umbrella group with a war room internet site and sop's for calling folks to action.

   organize progressive events where folks come out and do a little protestin', networking...maybe bring some food and drink...make it some kind of "protest party" with families and kids involved...you know - kill our enemies with gandhi-like kindness...

   the american progressive front...has a nice ring to it...

   Posted by ibbleblibble at 06/30/2009 @ 10:52am

2. Interesting comments from both Mr Hayes and Ms Hamsher.

   I think I can summarize the point they are both leading to:

   "Progressives have to admit that merely "reforming" they current system will not be sufficient. Reforms only provide a bandaid effect.

   The only true path to the goals progressives embrace is a complete remake of the system into one that fully accomodates progressive principles and goals".

   I just wish that the left would be honest about this insteading of consistently tip toeing around their true beliefs.

   Posted by antisocialist at 06/30/2009 @ 11:17am

3. I just wish that the left would be honest about this insteading of consistently tip toeing around their true beliefs.

   Posted by antisocialist at 06/30/2009 @ 11:17am | ignore this person | warn this person

   i can respect that.

   Posted by ibbleblibble at 06/30/2009 @ 11:18am

4. personally i don't think sotomayor IS the greates ting since sliced bread, white, brown or jewish rye...

   mmmmm...jewish rye bread...yum...

   Posted by ibbleblibble at 06/30/2009 @ 11:21am

5. Posted by CHIP THORNTON at 06/30/2009 @ 11:11am | ignore this person | warn this person

   oops..wrong thread...

   Posted by ibbleblibble at 06/30/2009 @ 11:22am

6. "I just wish that the left would be honest about this insteading of consistently tip toeing around their true beliefs."

   antisocialist (again) operating under the premise that the democrats and obama are "progressives" or even "liberals".....they are not.

   btw, "the left" = 2/3 of the country

   Posted by darladoon at 06/30/2009 @ 11:38am

7. You know why the GOP can get scared, ignorant, primarily suburban whites who are witnessing the comfortable lifestyle they grew up in eroding away to vote, time after time, against their own best self interests?

   Because unlike liberal groups the upper one percenters who fund the reactionary right run their propaganda campaigns like marketing campaigns. For the GOP politics is a commodity to be packaged and sold.

   Posted by ETSpoon at 06/30/2009 @ 11:40am

8. Because unlike liberal groups the upper one percenters who fund the reactionary right run their propaganda campaigns like marketing campaigns. For the GOP politics is a commodity to be packaged and sold.

   Posted by ETSpoon at 06/30/2009 @ 11:40am | ignore this person | warn this person

   yeah...they target the lowest common denominator of the willfully, pridefully ignorant and program their lazy brains with a word soup of feelgood, claptrap, satano-aynrando talking points for the marching morons...

   problem is the undeniable results of their regime and ideas.

   the 30 percenters will always suck that koolaid down. the apolitical go along with the crowders have tracked left now, however, and will for a while.

   Posted by ibbleblibble at 06/30/2009 @ 11:44am

9. antisocialist (again) operating under the premise that the democrats and obama are "progressives" or even "liberals".....they are not.

   btw, "the left" = 2/3 of the country

   Posted by darladoon at 06/30/2009 @ 11:38am

   Sorry to disappoint you Darla, but the polls disagree. You are waaaaaay off.

   <PRINCETON, NJ -- Thus far in 2009, 40% of Americans interviewed in national Gallup Poll surveys describe their political views as conservative, 35% as moderate, and 21% as liberal. This represents a slight increase for conservatism in the U.S. since 2008, returning it to a level last seen in 2004. The 21% calling themselves liberal is in line with findings throughout this decade, but is up from the 1990s.

   Just 9% call themselves "very conservative" and 5% "very liberal."

   http://tinyurl.com/loaftf

   Posted by antisocialist at 06/30/2009 @ 11:59am

10. I get the meta point both Hayes and Hamsher make, but practically speaking, I want more advocacy for credit unions, for example, as an alternative to Big Banking. It can be AFR or NTIC/NPA who does this. More so than casting a jaundiced eye at "professionalized protest"/just-add-water-beltway advocacy, I want concrete proposals to change retail banking and regulation in ways that protect consumers. Perhaps, oddly, that kind of community organizing/grassroots work can be done best through bankruptcy/foreclosure counseling? That's when people are most in crisis & most open to truly understanding what's happening to them & their options. And perhaps they're most motivated to support change?

    Basic financial literacy for everday people could be a starting point for deeper systemic change of the entire financial system. The need for financial regulation is abstruse unless the average citizen connects their mortgage/checkbook/credit card to management of SIVs/CDOs and other exotic financial instruments. (Better yet that they were disconnected altogether.) If I were Americans for Financial Reform, I'd start here. Serve a need first, then mobilize people around that need. (See this, for example: Bank of America exploiting Latino Immigrants http://bit.ly/2mfQl7) Otherwise, yes, AFR risks being just more self-serving pseudo-advocacy.

    Posted by Cynematic at 06/30/2009 @ 12:40pm

11. national progressive front - an umbrella group to direct progressive public will to power and coordinate efforts of disparate grass roots and other groups.

    keep the overall message on the general side and devote effort and resources to specific issues as they arise.

    Posted by ibbleblibble at 06/30/2009 @ 12:53pm

12. btw, "the left" = 2/3 of the country

    Posted by darladoon at 06/30/2009 @ 11:38am

    What country are you referring to again? France? Or maybe your beloved Sweden?

    I know you are too intelligent to refer to the United States as 2/3's "left".

    Posted by freiheit1 at 06/30/2009 @ 1:26pm

13. HAYES: "I can understand the skepticism: it's entirely unclear whether AFR will be able to do any good."

    Follow along, Christopher.....

    Does ADR itself has a lot of money at stake, to be loaned out, to be invested, to be stuffed in CDs or Gubber bonds? If not, it's unclear to me, why they are entitled to "do any good".

    It would be like a (barely interested) baseball spectator like me, deciding to form a group to rewrite the rules of baseball: every base runner must attempt to steal fr 1st to 2nd, the 3rd foul ball on any 3rd Strike counts as a single, drop the short-stop position, no extra-inning games w/tie breaker as team batting average, etc....

    :)

    Posted by Happy at 06/30/2009 @ 4:49pm

14. My solution to the banking crisis is to nullify every new law that has been written to regulate the banks since 1968. The banks should be regulated exactly as they were back in 1968, when Fannie Mae was still a non-profit corporation. All the newfangled types of funny paper that have been invented since then by bankers to deceive their customers (and ultimately themselves as well) should be banned. This is the platform that I would recommend for a single-issue interest group concerned with banks.

    Unfortunately, I have NO IDEA how to make this happen. Sorry.

    There WAS a broad-based, multi-issue progressive coalition that recently worked together. It elected Barack Obama to the office of President of the United States.

    Unfortunately, there seem to be limits to what progressives can achieve, even when they enable centrists to defeat right-wingers. These limits are both ideological and structural.

    Ideologically, millions of US-Americans are still plutocrats, whether they are rich enough to benefit from this inherently unjust ethic or not.

    Structurally, we still have a non-representative and internally hobbled legislative branch, which lags behind the executive and judicial branches because it is checked and balanced against itself.

    It is said that the Left is disunited and wedded to numerous single issues, which inhibits its success. True enough, but I believe the Right has the same problems. What the Right doesn't have is the need to raise money from hundreds of thousands of true believers to fight the lobbyists of the status quo. The Right needs to gather money only from a few hands -- the hands of the rich. This money becomes their advertising budget and produces the votes they need either to win or to prevent change from happening.

    Posted by JakobFabian at 06/30/2009 @ 4:54pm

15. Posted by antisocialist at 06/30/2009 @ 11:59am

    I don't think most of them fit into your term of conservative though. Because the republican party lags in numbers. There are more Democrats in the country than Republicans.

    Posted by Cccomfo1 at 06/30/2009 @ 5:38pm

16. the american progressive front...has a nice ring to it...

    Posted by ibbleblibble at 06/30/2009 @ 10:52am

    and all this time i thought the democrats were taking care of that stuff....

    OBAMAGARCHS UNITE!

    Posted by frosty zoom at 06/30/2009 @ 6:10pm

17. I know you are too intelligent to refer to the United States as 2/3's "left".

    Posted by freiheit1 at 06/30/2009 @ 1:26pm

    2/3's left behind.

    hey, how's the insurance business treating you, dr. fed?

    Posted by frosty zoom at 06/30/2009 @ 6:12pm

18. Does ADR itself has a lot of money at stake, to be loaned out, to be invested, to be stuffed in CDs or Gubber bonds? If not, it's unclear to me, why they are entitled to "do any good".

    Posted by Happy at 06/30/2009 @ 4:49pm

    hmmm......

    do they have any money at stake?

    let's think about that.........

    OF COURSE THEY DO!

    Posted by frosty zoom at 06/30/2009 @ 6:14pm

19. I don't think most of them fit into your term of conservative though. Because the republican party lags in numbers. There are more Democrats in the country than Republicans.

    Posted by Cccomfo1 at 06/30/2009 @ 5:38pm

    But I never said political party. There have always been a good number of conservative Democrats who agree on many issues with conservative Republicans.

    And remember, these are not my numbers-they are Gallups.

    What is also significant is that the poll shows nearly twice the number of "very conservative" vs "very liberal"

    Posted by antisocialist at 06/30/2009 @ 6:46pm

20. What is also significant is that the poll shows nearly twice the number of "very conservative" vs "very liberal"

    Posted by antisocialist at 06/30/2009 @ 6:46pm

    It's a wonder why we keep electing the people we do then. If the numbers are accurate then Obama shouldn't be President.

    Posted by Cccomfo1 at 06/30/2009 @ 7:27pm

21. let's think about that.........

    OF COURSE THEY DO!

    Posted by frosty zoom at 06/30/2009 @ 6:14pm

    Only after Magic `stimulates' them.......they aren't mature enough to self-stimulate, per Hayes: "They're only a few weeks old".

    Posted by Happy at 06/30/2009 @ 8:52pm

22. dude,

    they pay taxes.

    everybody on this frikkin' planet has a stake in the u.s. banking cabal, er, system.

    Posted by frosty zoom at 06/30/2009 @ 9:29pm

23. Darla and Anti are illustrating a salient point here... as are Mr. Hayes and Ms.Hamsher... and once again it is this artificial drawing out of blanched and rehashed partisan themes at the expense of our socio-economic need for all out realism.

    In these days of unprecedented financial turmoil and sparse gains, who among us does not feel vulnerable... uprooted... and confused...

    We all find different solutions in our preconditioned responses to these crises... but we can all agree that our situation is as untenable as it is resolvable...

    Though America is the land of opportunity, far too many people are unable to get a foothold... insurance doesn't 'really' cover most us... businesses covet planned obsolescence or face a precarious bottom line... politicians say one thing to get elected, but do another to 'make ends meet'... while most of us are a little suspicious as to whether the people who live and breathe America's promise will ever get an even break.

    The acquisition of personal wealth is 'off the table' for the majority of Americans... and we feel it in our bones... yet we consistently look towards the 'upper crust' for guidance and deliverance... towards the spoils of democracy that we alone... all of us... must procure together through collective action and personal education.

    It is not 'enough' to be right... it is not 'learning' to dwell within narrow ideological bounds... it is not 'freedom' that sullies the public domain...

    ...and it is not the inbred 'politics as usual' that will bring Americans the peace of mind that is too seldom the topic of conversation in our national media.

    Is 'enough' a right... a personal choice... or a privilege?;^)

    Posted by ttr at 07/01/2009 @ 12:52am

24. Fire Congress in the next election. You will only get results if they think their jobs are on the line!

    Posted by pjcasey at 07/01/2009 @ 07:14am

25. I had to go back to the top of the page to be reminded of which "special interest" this group is planning to fight. Oh, yeah. Healthcare. Then let's form another group to fight the Financial and Banking "special interests", or defense, or pharma, or insurance, or hundreds of others. What really needs to be reformed is campaign financing, and it should be made public. All of our government, on both sides of the aisle and in the white house are beholden to "special interest" lobbyists who finance their campaigns. Because of the increasingly large amount of money that is required to run a modern election campaign, they are forced to go into full-time fundraising for the next campaign before they're even sworn in for the one they just won. Senators and Congress members have to spend more of their time raising funds than they do passing or arguing legislation. Of course, the "Special Interests" are only too glad to help, not only with money, but with actually writing the laws, and then telling their representative which way they should vote.

    The special interests and corporations own our government. They've bought and paid for it. It's time we buy it back. Kick them out of Washington alltogther. I'd rather see us throw a trillion or so into campaign finance reform than give more to banks, insurance companies and other special interests. And maybe we could begin to get some untainted legislation passed.

    Posted by playwrtr at 07/01/2009 @ 6:47pm

26. From the Financial Times editorial page (since editorial in big financial publications is apparently "news" to some readers here):

    "Just why is there so much debt in the Anglo-Saxon world? ...The answer is capitalism's dirty little secret: excessive lending was the only way to maintain the living standards of the vast bulk of the population at a time when wealth was being concentrated in the hands of an elite....The amount by which the elite has benefited is startling, and illustrates the problem with lightly regulated free markets: the rich get much richer while the rest do not get richer at all...Put simply, the benefits of economic growth have gone into the pockets of plutocrats rather than the bulk of the population. So why has there been no revolution? Because there was a solution: debt. If you couldn't earn it, you could borrow it."

    You say you want a revolution...

    http://tiny.cc/2oN67

    Posted by srjenkins at 07/01/2009 @ 11:25pm

27. conservatives have been successful up until now because they have had blanket well funded organizations that descend on particular topics as they come up. if the left really wants its policies implemented it needs to mirror those organizations. the left right now is underpayed, fragmented and badly organized. not to mention many organizations disagree with each other on archaic and unimportant policy points and let that detract from there unity. in 2008 the left was temporarily united into a movement to elect obama. we need to unite again in much the same way, but instead of using it for idol worship, we need to use it for pragamatic policy implementations.

    Posted by nathantankus at 07/02/2009 @ 03:27am