What the Shutdown Deal Says About the Dems

Allison Shelley/Zuma

Fight disinformation: Sign up for the free Mother Jones Daily newsletter and follow the news that matters.


Late Friday night, Republicans and Democrats agreed to a last-minute deal to avert a shutdown and fund the government through the rest of the 2011 fiscal year, which ends on September 30.

The Republicans got $38.5 billion in cuts, but dropped many of the policy “riders”—add-on provisions restricting how money can be spent—that social conservatives (who wanted to restrict abortion rights) and big business (which wanted to prevent the Environmental Protection Agency from regulating greenhouse gases) had sought.

Planned Parenthood, a major target of social conservatives, was able to avoid losing the federal funding that it receives through a law called Title X (“title ten”) for cancer screenings, birth control, and other non-abortion health services. Democrats were also able to kill a provision that would have prevented any federal money from going to the organization.

The fight was a study in the priorities of the modern Democratic party. Planned Parenthood, remember, was subjected to almost the same attack that ACORN, an organization that specialized in registering and organizing poor and minority voters, faced in 2009.

The story started the same for both ACORN and Planned Parenthood. First, James O’Keefe executed a series of “sting” operations. Then O’Keefe and his team selectively edited the videos. In both cases, the media fell for it, and congressional Republicans moved to defund the organizations. (We have a chart of all of O’Keefe’s sting operations—successful and otherwise.)

But once Congress got involved, the two groups’ paths diverged radically. What happened next says a lot about DC politics.

ACORN, which had little or no political constituency among big Democratic party funders, lost almost all of its support in Congress. Bills defunding the group passed easily, and it soon folded.

Planned Parenthood and its allies, however, are a key part of the Democratic party infrastructure. Abortion rights is a key issue for many big Democratic donors, and many Democratic members of Congress are elected with significant backing from pro-choice groups like EMILY’s List. Abortion rights affect everyone. But to put it bluntly, big Dem donors care a lot more about abortion rights than they do about community organizers in inner cities.

In this case, unlike with ACORN, the O’Keefe sting didn’t convince anyone to defund Planned Parenthood who didn’t already want to defund Planned Parenthood. And most importantly, Planned Parenthood had the votes—last Monday, 41 senators, led by Barbara Boxer (D-Calif.), wrote to Harry Reid (D-Nev.) and Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.), the senate Democratic and Republican leaders, promising to filibuster any budget deal that included Planned Parenthood riders. When ACORN’s funding faced a vote in the Senate, just 6 Democrats—and Bernie Sanders (Vt.), an independent—came to the group’s defense.

Social conservatives in the House did win one victory in the budget fight. They were able to resurrect a restriction, killed by Democrats in 2009, that prevents the District of Columbia from using locally raised money to subsidize abortions for low-income women. The Susan B. Anthony List, which opposes abortion rights, told supporters this move would save “1,000 innocent, unborn children,” while Planned Parenthood’s Cecile Richards said she was “deeply disappointed.”

But even here, the hard logic of political math was in evidence. Senate Democrats needed a deal—they realized that government shutdowns generally hurt the approval ratings of all legislators. But House Republicans had to have something to give to the social conservatives. The DC abortion restriction—scrapped in a hard-won victory for abortion rights advocates just two years ago—was the obvious choice. DC doesn’t have a vote in Congress, and it seems hard to imagine that abortion rights supporters are going to stop giving to Democrats because a couple hundred poor women in DC can’t afford abortions.

WE'LL BE BLUNT

It is astonishingly hard keeping a newsroom afloat these days, and we need to raise $253,000 in online donations quickly, by October 7.

The short of it: Last year, we had to cut $1 million from our budget so we could have any chance of breaking even by the time our fiscal year ended in June. And despite a huge rally from so many of you leading up to the deadline, we still came up a bit short on the whole. We can’t let that happen again. We have no wiggle room to begin with, and now we have a hole to dig out of.

Readers also told us to just give it to you straight when we need to ask for your support, and seeing how matter-of-factly explaining our inner workings, our challenges and finances, can bring more of you in has been a real silver lining. So our online membership lead, Brian, lays it all out for you in his personal, insider account (that literally puts his skin in the game!) of how urgent things are right now.

The upshot: Being able to rally $253,000 in donations over these next few weeks is vitally important simply because it is the number that keeps us right on track, helping make sure we don't end up with a bigger gap than can be filled again, helping us avoid any significant (and knowable) cash-flow crunches for now. We used to be more nonchalant about coming up short this time of year, thinking we can make it by the time June rolls around. Not anymore.

Because the in-depth journalism on underreported beats and unique perspectives on the daily news you turn to Mother Jones for is only possible because readers fund us. Corporations and powerful people with deep pockets will never sustain the type of journalism we exist to do. The only investors who won’t let independent, investigative journalism down are the people who actually care about its future—you.

And we need readers to show up for us big time—again.

Getting just 10 percent of the people who care enough about our work to be reading this blurb to part with a few bucks would be utterly transformative for us, and that's very much what we need to keep charging hard in this financially uncertain, high-stakes year.

If you can right now, please support the journalism you get from Mother Jones with a donation at whatever amount works for you. And please do it now, before you move on to whatever you're about to do next and think maybe you'll get to it later, because every gift matters and we really need to see a strong response if we're going to raise the $253,000 we need in less than three weeks.

payment methods

WE'LL BE BLUNT

It is astonishingly hard keeping a newsroom afloat these days, and we need to raise $253,000 in online donations quickly, by October 7.

The short of it: Last year, we had to cut $1 million from our budget so we could have any chance of breaking even by the time our fiscal year ended in June. And despite a huge rally from so many of you leading up to the deadline, we still came up a bit short on the whole. We can’t let that happen again. We have no wiggle room to begin with, and now we have a hole to dig out of.

Readers also told us to just give it to you straight when we need to ask for your support, and seeing how matter-of-factly explaining our inner workings, our challenges and finances, can bring more of you in has been a real silver lining. So our online membership lead, Brian, lays it all out for you in his personal, insider account (that literally puts his skin in the game!) of how urgent things are right now.

The upshot: Being able to rally $253,000 in donations over these next few weeks is vitally important simply because it is the number that keeps us right on track, helping make sure we don't end up with a bigger gap than can be filled again, helping us avoid any significant (and knowable) cash-flow crunches for now. We used to be more nonchalant about coming up short this time of year, thinking we can make it by the time June rolls around. Not anymore.

Because the in-depth journalism on underreported beats and unique perspectives on the daily news you turn to Mother Jones for is only possible because readers fund us. Corporations and powerful people with deep pockets will never sustain the type of journalism we exist to do. The only investors who won’t let independent, investigative journalism down are the people who actually care about its future—you.

And we need readers to show up for us big time—again.

Getting just 10 percent of the people who care enough about our work to be reading this blurb to part with a few bucks would be utterly transformative for us, and that's very much what we need to keep charging hard in this financially uncertain, high-stakes year.

If you can right now, please support the journalism you get from Mother Jones with a donation at whatever amount works for you. And please do it now, before you move on to whatever you're about to do next and think maybe you'll get to it later, because every gift matters and we really need to see a strong response if we're going to raise the $253,000 we need in less than three weeks.

payment methods

We Recommend

Latest

Sign up for our free newsletter

Subscribe to the Mother Jones Daily to have our top stories delivered directly to your inbox.

Get our award-winning magazine

Save big on a full year of investigations, ideas, and insights.

Subscribe

Support our journalism

Help Mother Jones' reporters dig deep with a tax-deductible donation.

Donate