Clayton as the heavy

The party is instilling discipline, not purity tests. There's a difference.

Anderson Clayton, Chair of the North Carolina Democratic Party and my podcasting partner, is getting heat for playing the role of enforcer in the party. The state party has denied campaign tools to legislative candidates who voted against upholding vetoes. The Assembly called the measures purity tests, but they aren’t that. They’re discipline.

The tools that the party is withholding are powerful fundraising and organizing databases in a suite called VoteBuilder. They give candidates access to a wealth of information about voters as well as a fundraising tool that tracks donations and produces finance reports. Used properly, they help make strategic and tactical decisions and make campaigns far more efficient.

Democrats in the state House only have a single seat to protect Governor Josh Stein’s veto. Stopping bad legislation or using the veto to force negotiations is the only leverage Democrats have. When one or two candidates break with the caucus, the party loses what little legislative power it has.

The Democrats who have been voting to override Stein’s vetoes, and Cooper’s before that, are almost all in safe Democratic districts. Often, they’ve cut side deals with the Republicans to get goodies for their districts or goodies for themselves. It’s been a common practice for years. They get pet projects funded or better office space, and Republicans get the governor’s veto overridden.

As I’ve written before, minority leaders have very little leverage over their caucus members. They can’t strip them of committee assignments. They can’t put them in inconvenient offices. Their best chance to discipline wayward members is during election season.

Stein has said that he disagrees with the party’s policy, but he’s already endorsed in two primaries this year, supporting opponents of two candidates who have been denied the voter tools. With limited options to strengthen his position with the legislature, I doubt he’s really too upset. Instilling party discipline may be distasteful, but it’s also necessary to wield power effectively.

I think the heavy-handed maneuver has risks. Some members in more competitive districts need to take stands that contrast with the party line in order to hold their seats. They shouldn’t be punished for making decisions that ultimately protect Democratic seats. Discipline should be tailored to address selfish or bad behavior, not self-preservation or personal convictions.

Clayton’s move is not a purity test. Purity tests are ideological. What she’s doing is political. There’s a difference. She’s demanding members stand together to gain leverage to achieve broader goals instead of cutting deals for narrow personal interests. As Stein says, it’s inside baseball that few people will notice.