The Democracy Alliance: How a secretive group of donors helps set the progressive agenda

In mid-November, some of the wealthiest liberals and most important left-leaning interest groups in the country came to Washington, DC to talk strategy. They came to attend the meeting of the Democracy Alliance — the closest thing that exists to a "left-wing conspiracy" in the US.

The Alliance was founded a decade ago, after progressive donors became convinced they needed to more aggressively fund and build liberal institutions to match conservative ones. Since then, the Alliance has steered hundreds of millions of dollars to certain progressive groups. But it's faced some criticism for its secrecy and lack of transparency, and the agenda it's pushing has been criticized by some on both the left and right, for different reasons.

So here's what the Democracy Alliance is, and what it does — much of which we know thanks to internal documents obtained and published by the Washington Free Beacon.

The Democracy Alliance is a group coordinating grants from about 80 to 100 left-leaning donors who give large amounts to progressive groups. Closely tied to unions and many of the biggest-spending rich liberals in the country, the Alliance plays a key role in setting the strategy — and controlling the money — for much of America's progressive movement.

Essentially, the group serves as a middleman between big donors and the many left-leaning groups that want their money. On one end, the Alliance narrows the long list of liberal groups that exist to a lucky few that it views as particularly important to fund. Then the donors (called "partners") pay $30,000 in dues to the Alliance itself, and give a certain amount which has been set as high as $200,000 to those Alliance-recommended groups each year.

It's curious that Vox, one of the most influential propaganda outlets for the Left on the Internet, would talk about this. Their reporting does mention some of the more public players, but rather conveniently shies away from mentioning what exactly they are funding.

It's clear that the Alliance both wants to elect Democrats, and supports pushing progressive priorities of some kind. Beyond that, their interests can be murky. In The Argument, Matt Bai wrote that the Alliance's original partners "didn't share any single, identifiable philosophy. They were united by their revulsion toward the Republican majority, and they shared a common nostalgia for what the Democratic Party had once achieved, but they had arrived at no consensus about the kind of government they envisioned next."

Oh, this is rich. Ha ha ha ha ha!

It might stretch a point a little to equate the role of Karl Rove in the Republican Party with the role of George Soros in the Democrat party but there are similarities which carry the comparison. Each of these umbrella groups are conduits to funnel money to selected and approved candidates of choice. The power of money equals the power to control the party.

We have seen this in spades this year in the primary battles in which Karl Rove carried out his threat in concert with Mitch McConnell to kill off The Tea Party. Their treacherous behavior in Mississippi reveals just how deadly earnest they were.

George Soros, in contrast to Rove, has been far more effective in instilling discipline in the ranks of the Democrat party than Karl Rove has been in instilling discipline in the ranks of the Republican Party. That is why we have seen Democrat after Democrat march himself into near certain electoral defeat by supporting Obamacare. The consequences for that elected official for breaking ranks is simply not worth it, even defeat is not worth it, because that Congressman or Senator will either be taken care of or shunned depending on whether he takes one for the party.

A tip of the hat should go not just to the Washington Beacon for this report but David Horowitz for his exhaustive revelations about the machinations of George Soros and how he had a few billionaires took control of the Democrat party and created a shadow party and a shadow government. It was George Soros who anointed Barack Obama and switched the party from Hillary to the Bamster. That should be seen as only one more occasion in the life of Barack Obama in which he accomplished nothing but managed to ingratiate himself with powerful mentors who pushed him up the next rung on the ladder.

The power of Soros to control the party might go a long way to explaining why Obama did not triangulate after his "shellacking" in 2010 and why he has aggressively turned to extremely unpopular amnesty in the wake of his defeat in 2014. Obama's constituency is not the electorate but a few oligarchs who control him and the party.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.