https://www.slowboring.com/p/sunday-thread-51d/comment/52437834
A sane Republican Party would probably result in less fear-related contributions to left-wing activists. But that's not something Matt or any of us have power over.
I mean, the GOP plays its own massive role here too, though, right? They have a massive propaganda apparatus that is finely-tuned to nutpick the left and bullhorn it at their audience.
I'd love to hear a solution because I can't think of one. Conservatives effectively handed the Republican Party over to their The Groups, which I don't think we should do. It's tough to fight "ends against the center" with one wing tied behind your back.
I think it involves marketing.
The core problem is that we need to centralize funding streams, so as to weaken The Groups and make them rely on the party rather than private philanthropy.
Now, the funding apparatuses themselves already exist for that. The DNC, DSCC, DCCC, and so on, right? We don't want to reinvent the wheel here and then pat ourselves on the back for having "figured it out!".
But the problem is, they aren't very sexy. The Groups simply view the central party organizations as corrupt tools of the gerontocracy and lobbyist class, and _they're_not_wrong_!
So, we obviously need new leadership. But that new leadership also needs to make itself *irresistible* to The Groups, in order to lure them into a central funding platform that they will soon discover is *indispensable*.
From there, I see multiple prongs of approach.
1. As I said, good marketing. A lot of what we're dealing with are essentially network effects: The Groups don't already use the central fundraising platforms because barely anyone else uses them either. We need to attract not JUST The Groups, but a lot more people as well. Like, every Democrat, liberal, leftie, and leaner in the country.
2. An open, welcoming hand. Like any wild animal, The Groups will naturally view any overtures with suspicion. It needs to be made clear that the point of the central platform is NOT to shut them out, to eradicate them, or even to put them on a short leash. A large part of it will necessarily involve incorporating The Groups' feedback, but more importantly, making sure that they KNOW their feedback is being listened to. And THAT is going to be a human-capital-intensive project. If I were running it, I'd start by poaching from "the bottom half of the top 10%" of The Groups' workforce. These are the people most likely to be extremely talented, but also frustrated by getting passed over, and eager for a pay bump. So poach them! They'll be a good inroad into The Groups, an essential communications channel for smoothing over relations when things get bumpy -there's nothing more effective than person-to-person communication, especially when The Groups are predisposed to be suspicious of any PR-speak announcements.
3. Besides the marketing and the PR, what will make the platform itself "irresistible" is to basically become a "one stop shop" national clearinghouse for any and all fundraising. Get every kind of donor and every kind of Group, campaign, state party, or other organization onto it. Program in various contribution limits and make a tool for easy-to-do FEC filings. Besides luring The Groups in, this platform will have several salutary impacts: it'll increase national fundraising, give visibility to worthy causes and campaigns, help people see alternative places to put their money, secure both ends of the transactions, and more.
Controlling this platform will allow the party to then institute better discipline among The Groups. Like small retailers and Amazon, they won't be able to afford NOT to be on the platform, even if they're being squeezed. Groups that push for dumb shit, that don't adhere to certain standards of acceptable behavior, will be downranked or even defunded, and funding directed towards others that play nicer on the playground. Virality will still sometimes be rewarded via the Streisand Effect, but the point isn't to stamp out ALL misbehavior, just to realign broad incentives so that the activist class spends less of its time being counterproductive and more of its time benefiting the party.