de Blasio's new PAC and charter school treasurer: progressive enough?

credit: NY Post

Mayor de Blasio has set up a new federal political action fund, called "Fairness PAC,"  registered Wednesday with the Federal Election Commission. The purpose of the PAC is ostensibly to support progressive candidates nationwide and presumably to enhance his own image nationally for future elective office -- as well as the prominence of his wife, Chirlane.  According to the NY Post,

City officials said the committee will offer direct support to candidates and also cover campaigning-related travel expenses for the mayor and his wife, Chirlane McCray, who’s said she might run for future office.

This is de Blasio's third attempt to set up his own PAC:

The mayor’s first political non-profit, the Campaign for One New York, was shut in March 2017 amid a federal probe over the mayor’s fundraising practices. And de Blasio’s other PAC — The Progressive Agenda — crashed and burned on its initial foray into the national spotlight during the 2016 presidential race.

J. David Goodman and William Neuman of the NY Times ask if the Mayor is progressive enough to satisfy the growing activist wing of the Democratic party.  They cite many aspects of his record, including the expansion of preK, but also his reluctance to address school segregation until recently. 

There are many other education problems de Blasio promised to tackle when running for Mayor but has failed to improve, including school overcrowding, class size, school closings, transparency, community collaboration, parent empowerment, high stakes testing and more -- as outlined in NYC Kids PAC report cards, where he received low or failing grades on these issues.

Yet perhaps the most striking aspect of de Blasio's new Fairness PAC, as revealed by its federal registration form, is that Richard Buery is its treasurer, probably the most important position for a PAC.  Buery was formerly the Deputy Mayor and is now Chief of Policy and Public Affairs for KIPP charter schools.


Over the past two or three years, the progressive wing of the Democratic party has gradually shifted its stance away from supporting charter school expansion, as evidenced by the positions of Bernie Sanders, Elizabeth Warren, and others -- as well as civil rights organizations like the NAACP and Black Lives Matters.  This evolution was no doubt helped by the full-throated support for school privatization of Trump and Betsy DeVos.

One recalls that while de Blasio originally ran for Mayor in 2012 on a platform opposing charter school co-locations, he quickly conceded after ads run by the charter lobby and financed by hedgefunders blasted him for refusing space in public schools for three Success charter schools.  He quickly formed a School Space working group, headed by Buery, which included several charter school officials, in order to calm the waters.  Since then DOE has approved the vast majority of charter school co-location requests.

When in 2014, the Legislature passed a new law, pushed through by Governor Cuomo, that NYC would have to provide free space in public schools or pay for leased space for every new or expanding charter school out of the city budget, (the only school district in the state or the nation with this onerous obligation), de Blasio didn't protest, but simply said “The decisions about the space will be made by the Department of Education.  That’s the bottom line.”

In 2017, he agreed to other concessions to charter expansion, without complaint, in order to retain mayoral control.  It will be interesting to see how this "progressive" Mayor positions himself on the national stage on school privatization, and from whom he (and his treasurer) raises money. 

, 

So what happened? And how we need to be ready for the fight to save our public schools

I've been hesitant about writing about the Presidential election for many reasons.  I am as shocked and appalled as many others, and have no special insights or expertise to explain what happened.  But one of the smartest guys I know, Tad Devine, a top adviser to Bernie Sanders, was on NPR and explained Trump's election this way: "most voters in the states that decided the election wanted change. He represented that change. She did not. And I think that was enough for him to win the election."

Clearly, many people, especially the Rust Belt voters who decided the election, wanted change desperately.  There was no way to argue that Hillary represents change.  The more that Obama tried to point to what a great job she did in his administration and her years of experience probably just underscored how she had been part of the system for 20 years or more. 

I remember that Bill Clinton’s convention speech was focused on the claim that Hillary represents change.  He was  smart to focus on that issue as he had correctly diagnosed the temperature of the electorate, but in the end his argument was unconvincing.

Does that mean Bernie Sanders would have won?  Who knows.  No matter how anti-establishment Sanders is, Trump could have argued that he’s been in Congress for 27 years.  On the other hand, Bernie beat Hillary in some of the primaries in the same states that went for Trump. Whether Trump will deliver the sort of change these voters yearn for or bring their factory jobs back seems unlikely, and how much damage he will do to marginalized groups of immigrants, Latinos, blacks and others in the process we will have to see.

The other reality is this: Because Hillary has been part of the system for so long, a lot of negative feelings and even hatred has accumulated towards her personally over the years.  This attitude is largely irrational and unfair, but it was not easy to dispel – especially when the email scandal erupted twice via FBI director Comey’s letters during the last two weeks of the campaign.   To witness just how intense the hatred is for Hillary among many women and men, you should watch this excellent CNN series with Van Jones interviewing Trump supporters in Gettysburg PA.  

The real tragedy is that Obama could have probably brought more real change into these communities if the GOP in Congress hadn’t blocked nearly everything he tried to do, whether it was increasing the minimum wage, infrastructure spending, tax reform etc.  The GOP in the House and the Senate had a highly partisan strategy to stand in the way of Obama accomplishing nearly anything since they took control -- including reforms that could have helped a lot of those people in the Rust belt  and throughout the country -- and their strategy won.

I also think we need to remember the stunning data that came out last year showing that for the first time in this nation’s history white death rates are increasing sharply – which seems to be the result of increased rates of addiction, alcoholism and suicide. Meanwhile, black and Latino mortality rates are falling significantly. I hope that some economists/political scientists analyze whether the addiction/mortality data correlate in specific communities with the Trump vote.

What’s also tragic is that if Obamacare is repealed or cut back this may cause mortality rates to grow – in most all communities and among all races.

I do want to point out some bright spots in the election results.   In Georgia and Massachusetts, multi-racial coalitions of unions, parents and school board members overwhelmingly defeated privatization efforts, proving that big money doesn’t always win.  Here is a must read by Jennifer Berkshire (Edushyster) about how this was accomplished in Massachusetts.

At the same time, the campaign by Bill Gates and other billionaires in the state of Washington to pack courts with pro-charter judges lost. 

We will need to replicate these grassroots campaigns throughout the country to keep our public schools safe and secure from being defunded and privatized by the Trump administration, Wall St. financiers and ed-tech interests.  At the same time, we'll have to form the same sort of coalitions to ensure that our public schools are sufficiently and equitably funded and provide all children with a real opportunity to learn.

In New York state, sadly, this didn't happen.  The state teachers union, NYSUT, gave most of their money to long-shot upstate candidates who lost.  Only 3 percent of the $3.9 million NYSUT spent was in support of candidates who won. Democratic challengers in the extremely close State Senate races on Long Island were left largely without state union funding and support -- according to the parents and rank and file teachers who worked hard as volunteers on these campaigns.  At the same time, millions in pro-charter PAC money was spent to defeat these same Long Island Democratic candidates, and to keep the State Senate in Republican hands, which paid for stealth attack ads that never mentioned the words "charter school" -- dirty words for most Long Island voters.

We will have a battle on our hands for sure to withstand the destructive impulses of a pro-privatization President, State Senate and Governor.  Public school parents, teachers, school boards, community activists and yes, unions, will need to band together, organize, be smart and ready for the fight.