trkingmomoe's picture

    Emily's List 30th Anniversary-Part 1 The Women Behind It

    In the recent years, C-Pac Convention has been covered by the media as if it was a the only important political support group in this country.  We get to watch in the news every goofy nutty idea that comes out of the guest speakers mouths.  There is even a run down published and covered about the proper dress code for the attendees. OK enough said about that.

    It leaves many of us wondering why liberals don't put on these kinds of news worthy events with great political speakers.  Well they do.  

    This year just a week after C-Pac's annual blow out,  Emily's List celebrated their 30th Anniversary with a gala event showcasing successful Democratic women in politics.

    The event also kicked off the 2016 campaign and defined women's and economical issues for this election cycle. To understand how important this women's fund raising group is to modern politics, you need to a little background into the history of this group.

    In 1985 Ellen Malcolm invited a group of women to her home with the idea that they could raise money to help elect pro-choice Democratic women into office.  Emily's List is the most powerful political action committee (Pac) in pro-choice politics in the US.  

     

     

    The name EMILY's List is an acronym for "Early Money ILike Yeast" (i.e., it raises dough).[4] The saying is a reference to a convention of political fundraising: that receiving lots of donations early in a race is helpful in attracting subsequent donors.

    EMILY’s List bundles contributions to the campaigns of pro-choice Democratic women running in targeted races.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/EMILY%27s_List

    To be a member you must agree to donate a minimum $100 to two US Senate, US House or Governor candidates.  In 2001 the group expanded their fund raising to support pro-choice Democratic women to run for state and local offices.  This program to encourage women to run is called The Political Opportunity Program (POP). The arm of the organization that communicates directly to women voters is called "Women Votes!"  

    Here in her own words at this event the history of the organization that she founded and it's accomplishments.  

     

     

    In 2010, Stephanie Schriock became president of the organization.  She minces no words about what a future would be like if the Republicans take over in 2016 as the intro speaker to Hillary Clinton. This is a great speech that eviscerates the GOP.  You will also see how large this event was when the camera spans the room. 

     

     

    Of coarse the RW have weighted in on this convention and group. They even try to down play the successes of this organizations.

     “[T]here’s little to be upbeat about for the organization,” Bernstein says, pointing out that the numbers of Democrat women in office have been “stagnant or dropping over the past eight years – that is, since the last time EMILY’s List got geared up to elect Clinton President.”

    Only the EMILY’s List Baby Boomers, however, still get a thrill up their legs hearing the “war on women” rhetoric. Boomer Democrats will apparently still donate a lot of cash just to hear a Todd “legitimate rape” Akin joke made by List President Stephanie Schriock. While the PAC rakes in contributions, it will also have to figure out a way to appeal to young women.

    When Boomer Democrats open their wallets to EMILY’s List, they’ll be entrusting their cash to an organization with a now-bleak record and hopes for outreach to a demographic that, philosophically, may no longer share the “abortion is women’s freedom” value.

    http://www.breitbart.com/2016-presidential-race/2015/03/07/would-you-trust-your-presidential-campaign-to-emilys-list/

    There was so many great speeches and women featured at this event.  That I will have to break this up into a series of blogs. 

    To learn more about the history of this group and the women they have supported to win elections.  This group is not losing steam and continue to gain prominence. 

     http://www.emilyslist.org/pages/entry/our-history

     

     

    Comments

    I don't own a TV, so all of my news is through the internet, and I'm afraid my own biases form a distinct filter on that. What's the relative coverage of the Emily's List event versus the C-PAC event? Am I right in assuming the (supposedly liberally-biased) media covered C-PAC a lot more than the Emily's List event?


    Actually the MSM likes to cover C-Pac because they can get plenty of really nutty sound bites to show.  They don't have to go too far because it is held in D.C.  Emily's List event, even though it is also held in the area, doesn't get covered from start to finish.  The ladies are just too well behaved.  This year the coverage was better because of Hillary being a key note speaker and the media wanted to see if she would take their bait on the private email pretend scandal and say something.  

    As I looked around on the web to answer your question I could see that C-pac was covered very heavily by right wing organizations.  Emily's List seems not to have the same support from the left.  Though I think this is changing in the last few years because they are getting hard to ignore.  

    Emily’s List reached three million members, and raised more than $60 million in donations in 2014, up from 500,000 members and $38 million in 2010.

    http://www.nytimes.com/2015/03/04/us/politics/-2016-election-emilys-list-hillary-clinton.html?_r=0 

    They have grown 6 times larger since 2010.  That is the real story here that journalist are missing.  If you do the math, this group has the potential of raising at the minimum of $600 million for 2016.  A sleeping giant is waking up. 


    We and Ellen Malcolm would have been better served if she raised capital to buy radio and TV stations and programmed them with progressive female and male talk show hosts.  Every cycle Emily's List raises a lot of money. 

    A good chunk goes to pro-1%ers like Wall Street darlings: 1) Gina Raimondo who "invested" Rhode Island pension money in private hedge funds that generated below-market returns with high fees.  2) Christine C. Quinn, Michael Bloomberg's choice to succeed him as Mayor of New York and continue the process of turning New York City into a playground for investment bankers and corporate lawyers. 

    A couple of years later the cycle continues.  Progressive media could have been a gift that keeps on giving to poor, working, and middle-income Americans.  Also, every talk radio station that is not owned by a corporate titan is less likely to become a propaganda outlet for the right-wing.


    Progressive media remains an oxymoron. There have been several well-publicized good attempts at it, and it mostly just sucks. Not sure why exactly, but until someone figures out the equation, throwing more money at it will just make it suck more visibly.


    Progressive and Liberals have embraced the internet.  Also most of us who are liberal like to get the news about politics unfiltered by big media personalities and the internet offers that.  You can search in depth many things that are current and of interest. I feel better informed then if I only watched TV or listened on the radio for news.  


    The biggest problem, in my view, is that progressives failed to purchase outlets.  Instead, they formed production companies.  But, you're right there really aren't a lot of examples of liberal media successes.  In this case, Emily's List raises millions every year.  It could use that money to fund a non-profit liberal media concern rather than economically conservative women's campaigns.


    This organization was founded to financially support Democratic pro-choice women political campaigns. This is a very large tent which also includes women from conservative states as well as NYC.  The organization interviews women who are running for office and then chooses who they think will be viable candidates. A profile is sent to all members of these candidates and the members then select from that list to donate.  This is a pro choice pac that bundles money for candidates.  

    The growth in membership in the last few years is because of the GOP's war on women.  


    Latest Comments