A User’s Guide to the TakeAction Series

It turns out that I’ve written quite a bit about the political charity TakeAction Minnesota this year.  My interest in the group—who they are and what they do—centers on several topic areas, listed here in no particular order:

Ideology—TakeAction follows a far-left political ideology under the “progressive” liberal banner.  The success TakeAction has enjoyed in elections, lobbying, and fundraising has pushed the state Democrat party even further to the left.  With Democrats having a near-monopoly on political power in Minnesota, TakeAction’s influence among the state’s Democrats means that the state’s public policy choices represent the preferences of a small fraction of the state’s electorate.

Media Coverage—simply from a journalistic viewpoint, the rise of TakeAction as a political force is a major story—one that has received almost no coverage from Minnesota’s legacy media.  In contrast, oceans of ink have been spilled over the Tea Party and its relationship to the Republican Party.  There is a man-bites-dog story waiting for an enterprising reporter to pick it up. 

Academic Coverage—likewise, the state’s political scientists have all ignored the phenomenon.  The shift of political power toward TakeAction within the Democrat strongholds of Minneapolis, St. Paul and the inner suburbs should rank as the political story of the decade.  Expect to see that pattern repeated throughout the state: where Democrats face little opposition from Republicans, the Democrats who get elected will become ever more extreme.  There is a Ph.D. thesis topic waiting for an enterprising graduate student in this field.  [Glahn’s First Law of Electoral Politics: the safer the seat, the more extreme its holder will become, over time.  cf. Minnesota’s 5^th Congressional District].

Tactics—TakeAction are community organizers, using the tactics of Saul Alinsky to agitate for political change.  Although well-suited to TakeAction’s “liberals in a hurry” philosophy, Alinskyite methods serve to raise political tensions and push people apart by creating an us-versus-them environment [think Occupy _____ and the 99% vs. the 1%].

Charity Status—whether legal or not, I object to TakeAction’s abuse of its tax-exempt non-profit charity status.  Unlike the traditional political party—whose role the group is increasingly displacing —TakeAction can accept tax-deductible contributions from anonymous donors.  Despite my best efforts at discovery, we really do not know who contributes the millions of dollars that fund TakeAction’s operations.

Quasi-Party Status—although TakeAction operates much like a political party—recruiting and financing candidates, conducting campaigns, and getting out the vote—it does not have to abide by the same laws on transparency and accountability.  It acts as a closed political machine—answering to its (unknown) donors, but not to voters and taxpayers in the same way that the Democrats and Republicans must answer. 

I cover these topics and more in eleven posts, with links below.

My latest “Who Is TakeAction?” Series:

·         Part 1—Political philosophy

·         Part 2—TakeAction takes over city politics

·         Part 3—All the cool kids went to this year’s Progressive Prom

My original TakeAction Minnesota Series:

• Part 1--Intro and the 2010 election for Minnesota Governor
• Part 2--Follow the Money, as it spins around inside the TakeAction network
• Part 3--Tracking down the money to its sources
• Part 3A—More donor names and dollar amounts
• Part 4--The lobby machine
• Part 5--The 2012 referendum on Voter ID
• Part 6--Updating Part 5 with final 2012 money figures
• Part 7--TakeAction Goes to Washington

Enjoy!