Jason Paul’s DNC Growth and Reform Plan

Photo by Nik on Unsplash

My campaign centers on how we can do a better job organizing the 20 million Americans who behave like Democrats, and to speak more effectively to the 200 million Americans who could in theory vote for us. These plans are myriad and available on my website: paulfordnc.com

However, during a number of discussions with DNC members, it was rightfully put to me that at least some consideration must be given to the operation of the DNC itself. I think a member put it best when he talked about building a foundation on a house before you can get to work on the floor plan. With this in mind, I am proud to propose a reform plan for the DNC structure. Not everything can be fixed in one fell swoop, and more details must be worked out, particularly with respect to budget transparency and the need or lack thereof for secrecy. But I offer these ideas as the most promising direction.

Simply put, the DNC needs to have more and different kinds of voices at the table while maintaining what is great about serving on the national committee. It would be easy to talk about expanding the DNC membership to a much larger number, and this approach has some appeal. But the truth is that rather than the hoped for democratizing effect, when organizations grow too large, paradoxically power becomes more consolidated. The membership faces a collective action problem when attempting to control the leader. That said, I would expand the committee to 500 members. This expansion squares with the growth mindset I want us to have overall. Our only limits are what we can imagine and what we are willing to work for.

Second, we need dramatically to expand the number of affiliate organizations to 30, and if that requires us to go out and found new organizations, so be it. Finding capable leaders willing to lead new groups when the prize for success is a DNC seat, will not be too difficult. This all falls in line with my overall philosophy. We don’t wait for the people we need to come to us, we go in search of them. While it would be premature to announce 14 new affiliated organizations at once, the newly formed Stonewall Democrats seem like an ideal candidate. Democrats with disabilities, as we saw with the issue that arose at this week’s disability forum, would benefit tremendously from having their own resources. Swing Left has done outstanding work, and is not, as the name might suggest, interested in pushing the party in any direction. They have absolutely earned representation. Our great allies in organized Labor, while now rightfully holding a great number of seats at large, are not built formally into the permanent structure. Democratic Labor should have 10 seats. Collectively, I envision 100 seats coming from affiliates. To keep the committee roughly balanced, this would require a reduction in the number of at- large seats from 75 to 50.

While this might initially seem to make it harder for the current at-large members to stay on, the newly created affiliates would likely be able to absorb almost all of the people who need to vacate current at-large positions, and we should also factor in the routine amount of voluntary turnover. This would leave 350 state elected members, and 150 non-State elected members. With this ratio I would require that committees reflect this 70-30 split.

One of the main reasons that State members need to be additionally empowered is because the local issues that affect them are not as likely to make it to the attention of the party without this elevation. We are starting to see just horrific things in the states. Idaho is taking up a bill to ban Same-Sex Marriage and while perhaps we used to be able to count on the Constitution and its protections, we can take no such comfort now. That Republicans feel this impunity is because they are not challenged enough. The every state strategy only means something if we empower people from every state, which is why state elected members need 70% on the committees.

My approach would be a huge win for elected member participation while at the same time likely not keeping anyone who truly wants to serve on a committee from being named from the pool of non-electeds. This plan strikes the right balance between our current system and what we need and between elected states members and others. And, it will allow us to bring some people into the tent, while also creating a vehicle for us to reach out and get them.