My understanding is that if the DCCC wanted to hold its own elections and pay for them then they would not be subject to potential campaign finance regulation.

But since The Democrat Party sticks the public with the tab for running their internal elections, then as a Charter City and County, San Francisco could regulate campaign finance for the DCCC races.

-marc

Another important question is the role that the DCCC plays in political organizing, fundraising, voter registration, and engaging more people with the party. Because we are a mostly one party town, the Democratic party is the most powerful political organizing body in the city. Anyone who runs for the DCCC should be interested in these things and have something to contribute in that respect. One of the best things that the DCCC has done recently is an effort spearheaded by DCCC member Michael Bornstein, who hired numerous field organizers to collect support and donations for marriage equality. They've knocked on thousands of doors and collected tens of thousands of dollars. Seems to me that the "progressives" tend to be a bit more interested in these sorts of activities and in engaging new constituencies. But that's not always the case, and even progressives should continue to be vigilant, and push the boundaries of what the DCCC is capable of in engaging the larger SF community and beyond. Is there anyone under 35 on the DCCC? Anyone who came out of the Obama campaign? For the benefit of the party as a whole, I'd hope that they ensured that there were this next go around.

The second question is the ideological balance of the DCCC. Seems to me that it is a fine thing that groups like BOMA have come around to realize that they need to contest the DCCC. I believe they will again be outworked, out organized, and that Aaron Peskin will remain the chair this time next year. I'm not too worried about a "BOMA slate" winning the day. But this way, there can be an honest citywide debate about the SF Democratic Party, and it will get some more attention. More voices and more sunlight is always a good thing. Most of the city not knowing about the DCCC at all, not knowing what it does, or how to engage with its members, is not a good thing either. As progressives, we'll need to step our game up as well, and when we win, the body will become even more powerful as a result. Because of the power of the endorsements, it is all the more important the the DCCC reflect the values of the members of the SF Democratic Party as a whole--seems that for the most part, it currently does reflect those values. But the more attention the body gets, and the more good and serious candidates run, the more likely it is that this will be the case.

H. Lucretia etc: Steve and I may be wrong sometimes, and you are free to disagree with us, but when it comes to the Guardian's political coverate, we really do try to make the city a better place; that's what motivates us every day. The Weekly just wants to whine and complain (usually about the SF left) and make money that leaves town every night.

Lucretia, this city's top political number-crunchers, David Binder and David Latterman, say the DCCC and Bay Guardian endorsements are the two most significant in town, particularly for down-ballot races like the school board. So you're simply ill-informed.

H, hurling insults isn't substance, and neither is misrepresenting the one and only time I appeared on the Guardian cover, with a crowd of other bicyclists, for an article on the role of bicycling in improving public health, global warming, traffic congestion, cost-effective transportation and other issues that are central to what it means to be a thriving 21st Century city. And I'll put our political coverage of this city up against the Weekly's anytime (but if you really like their strange mayoral snuff-cartoon and swoon over Matt Smith's fact-challenged neocon rants, I'm not sure that you're the best judge of that kind of competition, H).
As Capt. Sludge eloquently put the approach of progressives, I strive to "articulate a positive political vision for San Francisco and honestly debate [my] opponents." I'd invite you to join us, H, instead of reveling in pointless personal attacks like Glen and Lucretia.

Steven,

Please quote one of my comments that "lack substance".

Or, shut up.

h.

Excellent analysis by Gino, Cpt. Sludge, and John. You really brightened my day by elevating the debate here above the usual bile secreted by Glen, Lucretia, and H, and for pointing out the lack of substance behind their overheated attacks. Kudos.

If progressives truly controlled SF, the city would have, among other things, public power, an Ethics Commission that did a proper job of enforcing city and state sunshine laws, and an end to illegal monopoly franchises with the likes of PG&E and Comcast. I'm not holding my breath.

Yes Cpt Sludge, I should aspire to be taken seriously here.

chuckle

Cpt Sludge has made me see the light, the blog's of the Bay Guardian and the associated comments section is a place for serious politics.

Henceforth I will try and take the progressive views here more seriously, such as the 9/11 conspiracy theories of Guardian author Steve Jones, the victimization ravings of progressives while they run city, the cheer leading here of progressive city supervisors who pontificate on foreign policy, etc...

chuckle

Marcos please link me to any area that shows that the city has any monetary control over the democratic party in this city concerning DCCC elections.

I know that the state and the party are one here in SF but what legal right does the city have to limit spending in this area?

Can the city control spending in Mason or Kiwanas elections?

The DCCC could still ask the Board of Supervisors and Ethics Commission to enact contribution limits for DCCC races at a level that would disadvantage downtown corporate interests such as BOMA while allowing community based candidates to still raise enough money to win the election.

Instead of complaining about the illegitimacy of the political hand you're dealt, it is always best to figure out how to play the hell out of that hand so that one day you might become the dealer and deal more equitable hands.

The worst thing people can do is blame the voters for not agreeing with them because someone feels that the votes are not "informed" enough to exercise their franchise.

chuckle...

If a person can't spend, an hour reading the voter pamphlet or reading on-line about the candidates in their district, then they should not vote. All one really needs to do is look at the history of the candidates in the voter book and then decide.

"Do I prefer a candidate who is a grass roots level organizer or a person who organizes at the grass roots level?"

In district nine the first three vote getters were all the same candidate, the vagaries of the judgement call on that one escapes me, who is more left wing authoritarian maybe?

The comments above read more like material being channeled on certain AM radio bands than the norm for the SFBG blog.
Unfortunately, the DCCC is important. If the local ballot were short and simple, and every voter had access and cared about receiving credible political news then slatecards and newspaper endorsements would not be such essential parts of the City's political culture. Only true political junkies can follow all of the personalities and nuances of a political landscape that consists of: 7 elected citywide official including the Mayor; 11 district supervisors, 7 BOE & 7 Community College members as well as up to 20-25 items on the local ballot. State and federal elections choices go on top of that. . Every so often a heated judicial race can dart this landscape. The local ballot itself runs 8-14 pages. With the disappearance of credible print journalism hunting down relevant information is harder. The blogosphere can be entertaining but it rarely comes with a fact checker. In even a well/hyper-educated town with a sophisticated electorate few voters have either the time or interest to master the details of every race. In truth, neither do political junkies. Dealing with life is hard enough, and life in a big city with today’s economic conditions doesn’t simplify matters.
Voters who use a slatecard like the DCCC’s or the Guardian's cleanslate are not stupid; they’re trying to rationally vote while respecting their own time. So yes the DCCC counts yet it's track record shows it’s not a cert. Outcomes in contests that peak even marginal voter interest, or rise above the surface are not determined by slatecards. But for BOE, college board and even district supervisor races and under the radar ballot measures endorsements are major elements in the eventual outcome. There is a good body of evidence for this proposition. This is why many BOE, Supervisor as well as elected Department heads have at one time or another served on the DCCC. They get elected to the DCCC to get a vote on its slatecard endorsements.
As both Mayor Brown’s re-election and to a lesser extent the 2008 cycle showed, the ability a party has to raise money and spend unlimited amounts without caps on ‘member to member communications’ is another reason why control of the DCCC counts. As a pure hypothetical, say Scott Wiener is back in the DCCC command post and has its D8 endorsement for 2010. BOMA or any other well heeled interest is free to pour $150,000 through the DCCC to send mail pieces and/or produce Cable TV spots with pictures Barack Obama, Jerry Brown or Dianne Feinstein to promote Scott Wiener for Supervisor in District 8 next November.
Until 2008, a coalition of establishment oriented Democratic elected officials combined with a fraction of directly elected DCCC members aligned with them ran the committee. It echoed a Democratic consensus of the connected, friendly to big business and friendly to labor too. Former DCCC Chairs Katz, Berg and Wiener fit this model. Peskin now relies upon a larger elected progressive DCCC bloc, some of it assertive, along with about half of San Francisco’s elected family on the DCCC for his majority. It’s more out for the little guy and political risk taking than was true in the past.
Yes the DCCC counts and the June elections will be important to follow.

Lucretia makes a good point, in any other city the progressives would be greens, not democrats, they would be sharing a library conference room with the libertarians, and Lyndon Laruchites and arguing over who gets to use the room on various days of the week.

I would love to see the various tourism groups such as the hotels, restaurants and bars get together and try and take over this progressives little club and try and clean this city up.

Instead of being seen as an ATM to finance more progressive public begging, knifing and murder, these groups should band together to make this city safe for tourists and citizens alike.

I for one hope for the sake of this city that the progressives and their failed stabbing policies come to an end.

Maybe the sane groups in this city should have a project censored around the narrow greedy entitled small minded "progressives" of SF.