The unfortunate truth of money= power has reared its ugly head. Several progressive super PACs and organizations strongly support universal healthcare (like Medicare for All) and paid family leave. Here are a few that align with those policies:
1. Justice Democrats – Advocates for Medicare for All and paid family leave while supporting progressive, corporate-free candidates.
2. Our Revolution – Founded by Bernie Sanders’ team, it backs candidates who push for universal healthcare and expanded worker protections, including paid leave.
3. Democracy for America (DFA) – A long-time supporter of Medicare for All and paid family leave, endorsing progressive candidates nationwide.
4. Progressive Change Campaign Committee (PCCC) – Actively supports Medicare for All, paid family leave, and economic justice policies.
5. Working Families Party (WFP) – Focuses on electing progressive candidates who champion worker rights, including paid family leave and healthcare access.
6. National Nurses United (NNU) PAC – A union-affiliated PAC that fights for Medicare for All and workplace protections, including paid leave.
These organizations support progressive candidates who prioritize healthcare reform and labor rights.
The question is do we all pick one and go full on 4 years of grassroots fundraising for it or start a new one?
How short our memories. Working Families Party declined to support Bernie Sanders, instead toadying up for Harris. Here in CT they declined to support actual progressive Democratic candidates, instead supporting the candidates put forth by the neolib Democrats. So apparently WFP is not fully on board with progressives. Here in CT they seem to be a slightly less conservative wing of said Democratic Party.
Several already exist: Socialist Alternative, Green Party US (no longer part of the international Green Party mostly, I think, because of GP Germany shifting rightward), Revolutionary Workers (a split from SA because 1) SA may not be sufficiently critical of the Dems, 2) SA has a slightly different view of the Workers Strike Back movement from RW, 3) WR believes SA is losing its edge. I am, myself considering moving to - or adding - RW to my list of parties I will be a member of,).
There may be other parties worth investigating. Both SA and WR are underpinned by Trotskyite style Socialism.
After his independent bid for the U.S. Senate in Nebraska, Dan Osborn established the Working Class Heroes Fund, a political action committee (PAC) dedicated to supporting working-class candidates across the political spectrum. This initiative aims to assist Democratic, Republican, and independent contenders who prioritize working-class interests.
During his Senate campaign, Osborn received support from various political action committees. Notably, the Peace Action PAC endorsed him, highlighting his background as a Navy veteran and union leader. This endorsement emphasized his commitment to addressing military spending and advocating for diplomatic solutions.
Additionally, in the final stages of the campaign, the Senate Majority PAC, aligned with Senate Democrats, discreetly contributed over $3.8 million to “Retire Career Politicians,” a super PAC supporting Osborn. This financial backing was not publicly disclosed until after the election.
Osborn’s campaign also attracted contributions from prominent liberal donors, including LinkedIn co-founder Reid Hoffman and the George Soros-backed Sixteen Thirty Fund. These donations were funneled through super PACs aligned with his candidacy.
In summary, while Dan Osborn’s Senate campaign benefited from support by various PACs and super PACs, his post-election focus has shifted to the Working Class Heroes Fund, aiming to elevate working-class voices in political offices.
Fair question, and it gets at a broader issue in U.S. politics. How grassroots movements or “working-class” efforts are often backed by elite donors. While the Working Class Heroes Fund claims to support working-class candidates, its reliance on wealthy donors and super PAC funding complicates that image.
On one hand, funding from billionaires and Democratic-aligned super PACs suggests an establishment influence, which could mean its agenda is shaped more by the interests of elite donors than by the grassroots working-class base it claims to represent. On the other hand, if the PAC genuinely directs resources toward candidates who prioritize labor rights, fair wages, and social programs, then its funding sources may be less relevant than its outcomes.
This raises a bigger question: Can a movement truly be “working-class” if it depends on wealthy donors to function? Or is it just another example of political elites using populist messaging to push their own agendas? What do you think?
On the third hand, maybe those wealthy donors are hoping for our good will after the revolution. LOL! Seriously though, it is something to pay attention to and to be careful of. So often wealth backed candidates “forget” who they are supposed to be working for. AOC comes to mind, to be quite honest.
To your last question: what a dilemma! I think that a movement should be judged on its methods and results. If the rich want to buy in, fine. But they will likely wake up, realize we mean business and then turn on us.
So the the solution: A grassroots movement by normal people or us (not to say we’re not normal) to build “The People’s” Super PAC. I swear I just thought of that lol.
I see it as the only way. Four years of hardcore fundraising to back candidates in 28’.
Is there a “normal?” See “The Myth of Normal: Trauma, Illness, and Healing in a Toxic Culture” by Gabor Maté.
As for a PAC (or SuperPAC) we can feel comfortable with: there’s a lot of legal loopholes we would need to thread through. And I think that’s kind of what Cenk is tryin to do with Operation Hope and the Populist Plank but without the money aspect. It’s the money aspect that leads to headaches and possible jail time. At least IMO.
The movement is to create a viable positive change. A super PAC may not even be necessary. Not if support is a good percentage of everyone and we are all vocal. And careful where and how we spend our money. Why does that matter? Because if we keep buying stuff from Amazon, Bezos keeps getting our money.
