Press Coverage

Rather than the relatively regulation-free marketplace that’s made up the Internet Service Provider network to this point, the online world will now be treated like the rest of the heavily regulated telecommunications world, which has a number of restrictions aimed at protecting consumers and preventing corporations from unfair pricing.

“Today’s vote is the fruition of a decade-long fight by those of us who believe in preserving the Internet as a level playing field,” Adam Green, Progressive Change Campaign Committee co-founder, said in a statement sent to Mic. “Protecting Net Neutrality through reclassification is the kind of big, bold idea that is hugely popular with Americans of all political stripes.”

In the lead-up to the vote, public sentiment was generally in favor of free and open Internet. A recent national poll of 1,500 likely 2016 voters conducted by the Progressive Change Institute and GBA Strategies found that 61% of all voters supported net neutrality, with only 26% opposing.

Another progressive campaign group is looking to defeat Chicago Mayor Rahm Emanuel (D) as he heads for a runoff.

The Progressive Change Campaign Committee sent out an email to its supporters Wednesday asking them to donate to the former White House chief of staff’s opponent, Cook County Commissioner Jesus “Chuy” Garcia.

“Garcia has the momentum — let’s show him some love,” the email said. “Chip in $6 to help him defeat one of the worst corporate Democrats in America.”

The president was a huge feature of the mayor’s campaign — not just with his picture and quotes all over Emanuel’s campaign material, but with a radio ad, closing television commercial, and set of appearances in Chicago last Thursday.

Obama’s known for his loyalty to his allies and continues to have an active interest in hometown politics. So of course he’d back Emanuel, progressives say, but he can’t claim to be doing so out of principle.

The Working Families Party cheered García’s victory as Chicago “showing signs of the progressive wave that has washed over cities across America.” The Progressive Change Campaign Committee sent out its own celebratory email to members.

Asked Wednesday whether the president believes Emanuel’s a true progressive, White House spokesman Eric Schultz ducked the question. “The president is supportive and will do what we can to help,” was all he would say.

In forcing the runoff, Garcia has attracted an outpouring of interest in his campaign.

Left-leaning organizations, such as U.S. PIRG and MoveOn.org, cast Tuesday’s results as a vociferous rejection by Chicagoans of big money in politics. On Wednesday, the Progressive Change Campaign Committee e-mailed a plea to its 1 million members asking them to “show him some love” by donating $6 to help Garcia defeat “one of the worst corporate Democrats in America.” Garcia was out-spent 12-to-1 by Emanuel in the primary.

Elizabeth Warren has made it very clear that she’s not planning to run for president in 2016. “I am not running for President,” she repeatedly told NPR in an interview in December. “You want me to put an exclamation point at the end?”

These consistent denials contrast with the enthusiasm of her supporters who continue to trumpet the Massachusetts senator’s message of reversing growing income inequality even as Warren remains on the sidelines. Although it’s unclear whether or not their advocacy has done anything to move the needle on Warren’s thinking, pro-Warren groups are still having a major impact on the 2016 debate.

“There are a lot of people who didn’t vote in 2014 because Democrats weren’t talking about big, bold ideas,” said Adam Green, co-founder of the Progressive Change Campaign Committee (PCCC), which led a Draft Warren for Senate effort in 2011. “Republicans, Democrats and Independent voters are crying out for someone to fight for the little guy against the big guy … The midterms were one of the lowest turnout elections and that’s because people don’t even understand what the point is anymore,” he added.

Clinton and Warren, who has has focused on the issue of income equality, held a private, one-on-one meeting at Clinton’s Washington home, the New York Times reported. The meeting came at Clinton’s invitation.

“It is positive news that Hillary Clinton is meeting with Elizabeth Warren and other progressives — and it will be even more positive news if economic populist thinkers are appointed to her inner circle,” said Adam Green, co-founder of the Progressive Change Campaign Committee. “The way for Democrats to win the general election in 2016 is by actively campaigning on an Elizabeth Warren-style economic message — big ideas like expanding Social Security benefits, a national goal of debt-free college, and stopping Wall Street banks from wrecking our economy again.

The PCCC met with Clinton aides in December.

“It is positive news that Hillary Clinton is meeting with Elizabeth Warren and other progressives – and it will be even more positive news if economic populist thinkers are appointed to her inner circle,” said Adam Green, co-founder of the Progressive Change Campaign Committee.

The Times reported on Tuesday that Mrs. Clinton held a private, one-on-one meeting with Ms. Warren in December and sought the senator’s policy ideas.

Mr. Green said in a statement that Democrats would be better positioned to win the general election in 2016 if they campaigned on Ms. Warren’s economic message of expanding Social Security benefits and reigning in big banks.

Hillary Clinton allies say the former secretary of State and Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) have everything to gain and nothing to lose from their secret meeting in December.

Progressives who have criticized Clinton and clamored for Warren to enter the race embraced the meeting, calling it “positive news.”

“And it will be even more positive news if economic populist thinkers are appointed to her inner circle,” said Adam Green, the co-founder of the Progressive Change Campaign Committee (PCCC) in a statement on Tuesday. “The way for Democrats to win the general election in 2016 is by actively campaigning on an Elizabeth Warren-style economic message — big ideas like expanding Social Security benefits, a national goal of debt-free college and stopping Wall Street banks from wrecking our economy again.”

“Last Week Tonight” is one of HBO’s most talked about and acclaimed shows. Renewing the series and tying down Oliver recently picked up a degree of urgency after the British host was being rumored as a possible replacement for the departing Jon Stewart of “The Daily Show.”

Stewart announced last week that he was signing off as host on “The Daily Show” later this year.

One poll by the Progressive Change Campaign Committee showed that 44% of its members wanted Oliver to take his spot.

Without a candidate to get behind, some liberal and labor groups are focusing instead on changing the complexion of the electorate, hoping that Clinton can be pulled to the left by forces on the ground. After a summit on the issue of raising wages (headlined, it should be noted, by Elizabeth Warren) the AFL-CIO announced that they would barnstorm the first four primary states to rally voters around the issue.

The Progressive Change Campaign Committee, meanwhile, is trying to persuade progressive leaders in Iowa and New Hampshire to hold off announcing that they are ready for Hillary until she publicly announces where she stands on key liberal issues such as expanding Social Security and breaking up big banks.

“We really have a one of a kind role at this point, which is being a grassroots force that is working to incentivize all of the Democratic presidential candidates to sound more like Elizabeth Warren,” said Adam Green, the group’s co-founder. “It’s a different strategy, but we want Warren’s positions to be the mainstream Democratic position.”

Although PCCC did not sign on to the Draft Warren effort, Green said that the organizing around it is helping to pull Clinton to the left even without Warren.

“In many ways the prospect of Elizabeth Warren running might be more powerful than the actual candidacy of Elizabeth Warren,” Green added. “If she makes no comment about running for president for the next six months there is every incentive in the world for Hillary Clinton to co-opt her message so that Warren doesn’t jump in. If Hillary said, ‘We should cut Social Security, we don’t need to regulate the banks,’ I think you would see not just Warren but a lot of people jump in.”

Barack Obama’s nominee for attorney general, Loretta Lynch, has warned thatHSBC could be prosecuted over tax evasion connected to its Swiss subsidiary, despite the controversial agreement she negotiated with the bank two years ago.

In her first remarks since the Guardian and other media obtained a huge cache of leaked data from HSBC Switzerland, Lynch said the Department of Justice would not be constrained from bringing tax evasion charges against the bank if there were sufficient evidence.

[…] One of the most outspoken critics of the deal at the time, Democratic senator Elizabeth Warren, returned to the fray on Tuesday, saying prosecutors must “come down hard” on HSBC if the bank is found to have colluded with US tax dodgers.

“The government comes down hard on individuals who break the law time after time, and it should do the same for large financial institutions,” the Massachusetts senator said in a statement to the Guardian.

“The new allegations that HSBC colluded to help wealthy people and rich corporations hide money and avoid taxes are very serious, and, if true, the Department of Justice should reconsider the earlier deferred prosecution agreement it entered into with HSBC and prosecute the new violations to the full extent of the law.”

Stephanie Taylor, the co-founder of Progressive Change Campaign Committee, a national grassroots organisation and leading voice on Wall Street reform, said: “These revelations put Elizabeth Warren’s question about HSBC back on the table for Congress, regulators, and Loretta Lynch: what illegal activity does it take to shut a bank down? The public wants accountability for corporate crime.”

The chairman of the Federal Communications Commission is proposing unprecedented rules to regulate Internet service providers — including mobile broadband — like a public utility, in a far-reaching move that could be one of the most divisive plans to emerge from the agency in years.

In an op-ed in Wired magazine posted online, FCC Chairman Tom Wheeler said his plan would regulate Internet service much like phone service or any other public utility by applying Title II of the 1934 Communications Act.

[…] “Reclassifying the Internet as a utility — equally accessible to all — is hugely popular with voters of all political stripes, who don’t want old corporations writing the rules,” Progressive Change Campaign Committee co-founder Adam Green said in a statement praising Wheeler’s plan.

Roundup: This morning, FCC chair Tom Wheeler outlined his plans for strong net neutrality rules and hence the regulation of internet access.

The issue has long been a source of argument and wrangling, and the responses to the news have demonstrated what we already knew: there is seemingly no middle ground on the issue.

[…] And, lastly, from the man who helped start the whole net neutrality public outcry, Adam Green of Progressive Change Campaign Committee:

“If Chairman Wheeler protects Net Neutrality through reclassification, that’s the kind of big, bold idea that Americans are crying out for… It will be the fruition of a decade-long fight by grassroots activists on the left and right against old, entrenched corporations that want to stifle free speech and innovation online in order to enrich themselves.

“Reclassifying the Internet as a utility – equally accessible to all – is hugely popular with voters of all political stripes, who don’t want old corporations writing the rules.”

Hillary Clinton faces doubts from two different parts of the Democratic Party about her likely presidential run, even as she remains the overwhelming favorite to win the party’s nomination.

A camp of liberals, particularly those aligned with Massachusetts Sen. Elizabeth Warren, are worried Clinton will be unwilling to embrace some progressive ideas, like increasing Social Security benefits and breaking up large banks. Another group of Democrats, particularly strong backers of President Barack Obama during the 2008 primaries, say they are worried about the perception that Clinton’s potential candidacy has become too much about achieving her long-sought goal of being elected president rather than her vision for leading the country.

“The biggest question is will she rise to this economic populism moment really focused on big ideas, as opposed to no ideas, small ideas or lip service to big ideas,” said Adam Green, co-founder of the Progressive Change Campaign Committee, which strongly backed Warren’s 2012 Senate campaign. “Elizabeth Warren’s call to break up the big banks, expanding Social Security benefits instead of cutting them and something big on creating jobs and making college more affordable, these are bread and butter ideas that affect people’s lives.”

In interviews with NBC News, influential Democrats and progressives acknowledged that Hillary Clinton is the overwhelming favorite to win the Democratic presidential nomination.

But they had differing views on how she should handle some of the key questions around her campaign.

What issues should Clinton focus on? There is “strong support for free community college, but stronger public support for debt-free college at all public universities,” said Adam Green, co-founder of the Progressive Change Campaign Committee. “The American public is there. The risk of having things that sound like big ideas, but are smaller-scale, is they won’t actually affect people’s lives.”

Some Democrats said the president “sounded like Elizabeth Warren,” the firebrand freshman senator who has tried to push the party to the left. His State of the Union address could shape the debate for the 2016 presidential elections

Stephanie Taylor, the co-founder of the Progressive Change Campaign Committee, said afterward that there was only one “sore thumb” in his speech — his proposal for more power to unilaterally approve trade deals.

“President Obama is sounding more like Elizabeth Warren, and that’s a good thing for Democrats because her economic populist ideas are super popular,” said Taylor, whose group is pushing Democratic candidates who may challenger former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton next year to embrace Warren’s policies.

“On issues like taxing the rich and making college affordable, the president took giant steps in the right direction — and Americans want Democrats to go even further in the direction of big, bold, economic populist ideas.”

The 2016 presidential election could cost as much as $5 billion, according to top fundraisers and bundlers who are already predicting it will more than double the 2012 campaign’s price tag.

Adam Green, co-founder of the liberal Progressive Change Campaign Committee PAC, which is pressing for candidates to adopt progressive policies more aligned with Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.), said there’s “definitely” space for a viable Clinton alternative despite her fundraising prowess.

“The big money matters more in the presidential race after New Hampshire and Iowa,” said Green.

He said Clinton could scare off challengers not by raising money but by reaching out to progressives.

“Clinton can close that political space by following the Warren wing,” Green said. “Early money is important for credibility but the big issue comes when a candidate cuts corners on policy to get more big money. That’s the problem.”

State of the Union or 2016 stump speech?

That’s what Washington’s financial regulatory watchers are wondering as they review the tax policy plan President Obama will formally unveil on Tuesday during his State of the Union address.

“It’s a rhetorical tax proposal designed to placate Elizabeth Warren and other economic populists,” said Fratto, who heads the Washington, D.C.-based financial services communication consulting firm Hamilton Place Strategies.

That’s good news to Adam Green, co-founder of the liberal Progressive Change Campaign Committee, who has been pushing for Obama and Democrats to follow Sen. Elizabeth Warren’s (D-Mass.) to the left and push for policies opposed by the business community.

“The more President Obama continues marching in her direction by proposing big populist ideas, the better positioned Democrats will be in these fights — and the more Democrats will win,” said Green.

In 2014 the Administration wanted Antonio Weiss, a Wall Street dealmaker at the investment bank Lazard, for the number three job at the Treasury Department. A small coalition of senators on the Banking Committee and progressive groups mounted opposition, and yesterday, Weiss withdrew.

The Weiss affair will certainly lead to the White House thinking twice about future nominees. The Progressive Change Campaign Committee has already floated “progressive economic thinkers” like former Senator Byron Dorgan and economist Dean Baker for the Treasury spot. At the very least, in the future you should expect Warren to be consulted on a nominee before, and not after, the announcement.

So why is the Warren wing of the party ascendant? First, Democrats are languishing with their smallest House minority since the 1940s, and a state legislative minority dating back to the pre-FDR days. Part of the success stems from the ideological winnowing of the party, through losses in red states and purple districts. There’s less of a battle of ideas to be fought. But that doesn’t fully account for the change during just the last few weeks.

If you aren’t immersed in the world of liberal activists, you may not appreciate just how much attention, admiration, and outright worship Warren gets there. She has become the focus of an extraordinary amount of strategizing and organizing on the left, so when she declared that she was going to fight Weiss’ nomination, the left picked up the ball and ran with it. For instance, the liberal group Credo Action got 163,000 signatures on a petition to oppose Weiss. But look at the petition: The headline on the page reads, “Stand with Elizabeth Warren: No Wall Street bankers running Treasury,” and features a picture of the Massachusetts senator. Or check out the Progressive Change Campaign Committee, one of the leading groups seeking to elect liberal Democrats and push the Obama administration to the left. On PCCC’s home page, Warren’s name appears eight times; its blog has posts with such titles as, “How to Win Like Elizabeth Warren” and “PCCC and Allies Amplify Elizabeth Warren’s Message.” Talk to a liberal activist about what progressives ought to be doing, and you’ll only have to wait about 10 seconds before Warren’s name comes up.

A coalition of progressive groups is hoping that President Obama’s proposal to offer two free years of community college to qualifying students is just a start.

The groups say the proposal should be just the first step toward cost-free four-year public colleges.

The Progressive Campaign Change Committee (PCCC), Democracy for America (DFA) and the liberal Daily Kos Website — sent out petitions asking their members to pledge their support for Obama’s plan and work toward “debt-free” higher education.

“Free community college is a first step toward debt-free college at all public institutions of higher learning,” the PCCC said in its emailed petition.

A spokesperson for the group said that their email had yielded close to 30,000 signatures so far, and that they intend to lobby lawmakers on the issue.

PROGRESSIVE GROUPS CHEER, via Adam Green, co-founder of the Progressive Change Campaign Committee: “This is a victory for the Elizabeth Warren wing of American politics. Voters in red, purple, and blue states are done with Wall Street and special interests running our government and our economic policy. To inspire the public, Democrats must fight for the little guy.”

Warren, the firebrand Democratic senator from Massachusetts, had vehemently opposed Weiss’s nomination and led a progressive charge against him. Warren and other progressives, who have become locked in an ongoing battle over the future of the Democratic Party, argued the Lazard banker Weiss was too close to Wall Street.

“We’ve already seen that the new Republican Congress is going to aggressively attack the Dodd-Frank Act,” Warren said in a statement. “… The risk of another financial crisis remains too high, and we should be strengthening financial reforms, not rolling them back to benefit Wall Street.”

Progressive groups backing Warren’s push against Weiss cheered the news Monday evening. Adam Green, a co-founder of the Progressive Change Campaign Committee, said it was a “victory for the Elizabeth Warren wing of American politics.”

On Monday, one of the leading Democratic policy-makers in the House, Representative Chris Van Hollen of Maryland, offered a new and more aggressive economic blueprint that may well become a rallying point for the party in 2016. The headline proposal is a $1.2 trillion package of tax cuts for middle-income earners, including a $1,000 “paycheck bonus credit” for individual making less than $200,000 a year, and twice that amount for couples. Van Hollen, who is the top Democrat on the Budget Committee, would also expand the earned income tax credit and the child care tax credit, along with offering an even bigger break for people who devoted a portion of their tax credit to retirement savings. Additionally, the plan would try to prod CEOs to give their employees raises by changing the rules for companies that claim deductions for executive pay.

The plan drew swift endorsements from Nancy Pelosi, the House Democratic leader, and an array of liberal groups, although not yet from the White House. While the tax cut for the middle class should be an easy political sell (Who doesn’t want an extra $1,000-2,000?), the more punitive Wall Street policies are significant because they put the Democratic leadership behind ideas that have energized the Elizabeth Warren wing of the party. A group supportive of Warren, the Progressive Change Campaign Committee, applauded Van Hollen for his plan “taxing high-risk Wall Street gambling.” “Since Election Day, we’ve been urging the Democratic Party to rally around big economic populist ideas that impact millions of people’s lives,” the PCCC said.

With Democrats’ popularity at a record low and the party now in the minority in the House and Senate, the progressive caucus and outside activists say the party is now free to stop cutting bad deals with Republicans and must draw red lines against legislation designed to help narrow, wealthy interests.

“Democrats lost in 2014 because the brand was not associated with big, bold ideas that would be game-changing for peoples’ lives,” Adam Green, co-founder of the Progressive Change Campaign Committee, said.

Progressive advocates see the next two years through the prism of the coming 2016 race. They want Democrats to use their minority to lay down a sweeping populist agenda for the country ahead of the election, which could include breaking up the big banks, a major clean energy jobs bill or investments in education to let college students graduate debt free.

“Things like that will inspire people to vote,” Green said. “So the question is, what do we do in 2015 and 2016 toward that north star vision?”