AOC Just Flagrantly Sold Out The Foundation Of Her Movement. Here's Why We Should Care - Even if Her Followers Won't

 

There's been a common theme for so much of the modern left, whether it comes from George McGovern, the Green Party, Bernie Sanders, the Justice Democrats or the DSA. And that is money.

It is the ultimate poison and the ultimate cure. It is salvation and damnation. It will solve every problem society faces; it has caused all the problems of the world we live in. It has corrupts everyone who possesses it; it is the only thing that can be use to bring redemption. And it has destroyed all good things about government and it is the only thing that can save it.

If this sounds completely opposite to what so many progressives speak of in their stump speeches or online, it is because they never use the term money in regard to any of their own policies. They will use phrases such as 'leveling the playing field' or 'balancing the scales', they will use in terms involving social justice such as racial equality. But make no mistake the only way they can think to solve these problems is through money.

As I made clear in an earlier piece the foundation of the modern left comes down what Theodore White referred to as liberal theology or 'the belief that money solves all problems'. And as I pointed out the Justice Democrats platform takes this to its biggest extreme:

No less than six of the eight bills that were used as the foundation for the Justice Democrats are the example of the belief that money can solve all problems: Medicare for All, Free College Tuition, Workers Rights, Women's Rights (which involves Equal Access to Abortion Coverage in Health Insurance) Environmental Justice and Criminal Justice and Immigrant Rights. The last one is labeled "Justice is Not For Sale Act' which is noble but ignores the fact that like everything else justice costs money. The policies go further in the platform, including a federal job guarantee, universal education as a right, including a free four year public college, making the minimum wage a living wage and tying it to inflation, passing the paycheck fairness act. Furthermore active social programs such as Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid will never be cut, and single payer healthcare will become universal.

 This is Money Solves Everything on steroids mixed with amphetamines. And it begs the question how are we supposed to pay for all this? The only hint we get at this in the entire platform is the eighth part of the platform: Taxing Wall Street. There is some talk of chaining capital gains and income tax, increasing the estate tax and ending offshore financial centers. In other words were going to raise taxes – but only on the wealthiest people in the country – and that alone should be able to pay for everything on this wish list. Oh and we won't bother to supplement it with arms sales because we won't be selling to countries who violate human rights laws.

That was mostly about how money solves problems. What I want to talk about her was the foundation of the Justice Democrats main principle which was advocating for campaign finance reform. One of the key principle of the Justice Democrats was that they must 'refuse donations from corporate PACs and lobbyists" and "banning private donations to politicians and campaigns'.

Now I've written before the problem with getting money out of politics is that it takes money to run for political office.  More to the point during the 2000s quite a few states agreed with publicly financed elections but after two or three election cycles most states repealed them because the public didn't want to finance them. I'm going to do a longer essay down the road about why campaign finance reforms while noble in spirit have never worked out as well in practice but the fact remains it takes money to finance an election.

I honestly think that if you passed everything the Justice Democrats wanted on campaign finance tomorrow we'd still be facing the same problem: how could anyone afford to run for office? They say its free speech but it's actually very expensive. TV ads, campaign stops, advertising, all costs money and I hate to say it, $25 contributions from individuals only go so far. That has been a reason the Justice Democrats have such a horrible losing record. They've been bound by their own rules on finance and no one else will play by them.

Until recently.

I mentioned that Abdul El-Sayid, who is running for the Senate in Michigan, was once a Justice Democrat. He ran for governor of Michigan in 2018 the same year AOC ran for and was elected to Congress. AOC is still a Justice Democrat.

Now I'll be frank. I don't know if once the Justice Democrats win the Democratic nomination for any major office in a primary  – Congress – the DNC will fund their campaign in the general. I assume the DNC does so. I am aware the DNC doesn't have the same illusions about corporate money as the Justice Democrats do when it comes to ideological purity. They will take million dollar donations from Hollywood and other rich donors and it will eventually reach all Democratic candidates including those who are running as Justice Democrats or DSA candidates right now.

I also assume that when they run for reelection all of these left wing candidates will do the same thing because they want to win. How much the DNC actively has been willing to help them is an open question in some cases: as we saw just two years ago Jamaal Bowman and Cori Bush were primaried by more centrist candidates and they lost.

Finally I do get that railing against the special interests during election season while taking their money to buy your vote  is Politics 101 and predates social media, television, radio. Et al. At this point I'm starting to see Republicans running with those same ads going forward so I know its standard campaign talk. You do what you have to win.

None of this bothers me in theory or even practice. It does however irritate the hell out of me when certain progressive candidates use their platform to raise outrage about billionaires trying to 'buy elections by dumping money for Republicans'. Now don't get me wrong Elon Musk and other billionaires are openly doing just that as well as many other Silicon Valley, so in that they're not lying. I have my own opinion on whether money actually does as much to influence the voters as the left thinks. For example just two years ago the Harris campaign spent far more money in the general election then the GOP did – and Trump had his biggest electoral win yet.  If the wealthy were trying to buy an election for anyone it was Harris and they sure as hell didn't get a return on their investment.

And I expect most politicians to be hypocritical to an extent, but that's because I know that campaign rhetoric rarely translates into policy. That's fine with me because in two, four or six years the electorate will get a chance to vote on whether their officials failed to meet their needs. And honestly I have more faith in the electorate then the average progressive does but we've been through that before.

With all that said when AOC made it clear this past week that she was publicly donating $1 million to El-Sayid's campaign for Senate, it struck me as the biggest example of hypocrisy for both. This wasn't illegal but it was a violation of what the Justice Democrats were founded on. Nor did she do it quietly, it was a very open announcement.

I should also mention AOC has been very quiet when it came to endorsing either House or Senate candidates this cycle compared to previous years when she's openly endorsed many left-wing candidates running for office. She didn't bother to endorse  her own campaign manager Saikat Chakrabarti this cycle when he ran for Congress. Again to review:

"Chakrabarti is the co-founder of the Justice Democrats and served as AOC's campaign manager and then her chief of staff. He was part of Bernie Sanders presidential campaign which was the impetus for the Justice Democrats foundation. He is one of the major forces behind policy such as the Green New Deal.

But when he ran AOC not only refused to endorse him but wouldn't even mention him in interviews, despite the Justice Democrats backing his campaign. He actually started his campaign one month after Trump's inauguration even before Speaker Nancy Pelosi, who had not yet decided she was going to seek reelection, announced her retirement. His rejection is the loudest and clearest sign of not only the lack of appeal the Justice Democrats have but how their own leaders will turn on their own.

Now AOC may very well be considering a Presidential run in 2028 (please let that just be a rumor). She doesn't have a great reputation among Congressional Democrats nor a particularly good track with endorsements. I can understand why she'd campaign for El-Sayid considering their platforms and rhetoric overlap as well as the fact that El-Sayid is clearly facing a tougher campaign for Senate mainly because of his harsh rhetoric. And I do get that this would be a way to make her seem publicly behind him – though as his primary win showed, his problem is with the center not the left.

There's an argument to be made, furthermore, that is a sign of pragmatism on the part of the most famous face of the American left. By being willing to donate this much money she is acknowledging that while campaign finance reform is in theory a good idea it must meet the reality that in practice it only works if both sides play by the same rules. For  the purposes of running for higher office it shows her to willing to be a team player in a way she historically doesn't have the best track record with the Democrats for being. And it's not like the Justice Democrats will send her into exile for breaking a fundamental principle if it helps them get an ally into the Senate – which as I've illustrated they desperately need after five election cycles.

The thing is this is somewhat belied by a campaign ad AOC sent to me earlier today in which she justifies her decision to make her contribution. She's honest about the closeness of the race and that she wants to do more to help get El-Sayid elected, which is legitimate. However its undercut by this:

It's important for you to know that this isn't a $1 million I have sitting around in a personal bank account. This money comes from small pieces of the more than 2 million individual donations made my people across the country this election cycle.

It is not MY contribution. It is OUR contribution.

To be clear AOC does have a PAC called Courage to Change. She founded in 2020 to support progressive primary challengers, working class candidates and Democrats who refuse to accept corporate donors. Most of the nominees its endorsed are Justice Democrats or candidates who've failed. To be fair I really don't want to throw too many stones because in addition to endorsing Jamaal Bowman and Cori Bush she did endorse Mary Peltola for the House in 2022 and since I am currently trying to help her win the Senate I'll let this part slide for now at least.

What I have to be clear on is that AOC has basically just sat out the 2026 midterms to this point. She hasn't publicly endorsed any candidates and her PAC hasn't done so either. El Sayed is the only candidate of any consequence she's chosen to endorse and give money to this cycle. Indeed the only other major candidate running for office this cycle is Angie Nixon in Florida and Justin Pearson in the Tennessee House race, both of whom are very likely to lose this cycle. She has endorsed almost every other major progressive running this cycle in the Justice Democrats, but as I've mentioned most of them are heavily favored to win anyway.

There's no question El-Sayid's race is the most critical one, given the commonalities between the two as well as the importance of winning the Senate for the Democrats. And to her credit at no point did she endorse Graham Platner in Maine the same way so many of her progressive colleagues did. She hasn't endorsed Troy Jackson either but she did endorse Sara Gideon in 2020 and it ended up backfiring when Susan Collins won reelection. She might have learned from her mistakes and has decided to become more pragmatic, which is honestly to be applauded.

So what is this article about? Well it's not about my personal feelings for AOC or El-Sayid. I've documented them multiple times over the last few months; I'm not going to relitigate them.  It's more addressed to the media, particularly the mainstream one. To be clear in the last few months many of you have been doing a better job at holding progressive candidates and elected officials accountable when it comes to their electoral successes, failures and just how flawed they can be. So now going forward it must be done with AOC in this regard.

Whenever she rails against the corporate billionaires, you must remind her she had a million dollars to donate to a Senate Democrats. When she talks about campaign finance you must immediate ask her why she chose to violate the foundation of her own movement. You must also ask why she did so for El-Sayid and not the man who put her on the first place. You must ask why she chose to put her money behind El-Sayid specifically and not other major candidates. I do want to know why she was fine  endorsing Peltola for the House in 2022 but not for the Senate this cycle (although to be honest I don't know how much that would help in Alaska)

Whatever plans she has for the future – and even if she doesn't run for President this cycle I have no doubt she has plans for higher office – she must be held accountable in a way she and the majority of her colleagues just haven't been in the last decade. The left is very big on the idea of 'keeping the powerful honest'. Well someone has to keep them honest because they sure as hell won't. That includes why she put her money where her mouth was for El-Sayid – and not say Sherrod Brown or James Talarico.