DLC toadies fight campaign finance reform; traditional Democrats (i.e. liberals/progressives) support campaign reform, including public financing of elections.

It was the DLC caucus that fought Feingold tooth and nail in an attempt to axe McCain-Feingold, a good first step on this issue.

The DLC is funded by corporations to get corporate-friendly, anti-worker, anti-consumer laws passed in Congress. That is thier mission. Why else would corporate america be funding them to the tune of seven million a year? Because Corporations love Democrats? No. Because they want Democrats to be Republican-lite. Even a fool understands the motivation at play here.

It's pay to play, plain and simple and the DLC is saying... no this is good for our party. Bullshit.

The fact that most candidates take corporate money is a problem. A problem the DLC will say is not a problem and that progressives challenge and aim to change.

I'm not a Spitzer fan-boy but I'm pretty sure the DLC and thier corporate donors have major problems with what he did as AG. Pointing out one decent DLC person to defend the DLC is a pretty pathetic attempt on your part. Not that you have much to work with.

Then you have the fact that the DLC tries to claim everyone as "New Democrat", sometimes with hillarious results:

To wit:

"...The chameleons at the DLC have shamelessly name any up and coming politician a "New Democrat" so as to cover their own hide inside the beltway - even if those politicians reject huge portions of the corporate DLC agenda. For instance, Sen.-elect Barack Obama rejected any “suggestion” that “inclusion of my name” on a DLC/New Democrat membership list amounted to “an endorsement on my part of the DLC platform.” Similarly, with the exception of Spratt, the leaders cited in the Prospect article broke with the corporate/DLC model in defining themselves, instead raising their profile on a populist progressive message. The Denver Post noted that Ken Salazar won his "Senate seat with populist campaign" – not the DLC's Republican-lite model. CBS 4 Denver reports John Salazar won by "hammering home a populist message that included bashing tax cuts for the rich" – the same kind of "class warfare" the DLC criticizes. Janet Napolitano built her record going after big corporations like Arthur Andersen, who had contributed lavishly to one of the DLC's key leaders, Sen. Joe Lieberman. She also built up a record prosecuting Qwest, a company that has been a major backer of the New Democrats. Wall Street, which contributes heavily to the DLC, sees crusader Eliot Spitzer's "as a meddler poking into issues best left to federal regulators and as a rabble-rousing populist," according to the Washington Post. And Stephanie Herseth hammered her opponent for supporting pacts like the Australia free trade deal, while the DLC applauded its passage."

http://www.davidsirota.com/2004/12/attack-...