This story is unavailable.

What is the relationship between the ThinkProgress web site/venture and The Center for American Progress. Are they the same, or is one differently incorporated than the other? On the web link it states

The Center for American Progress (“CAP”) is a District of Columbia not-for-profit corporation and is operated as a public charity. It has received official IRS recognition of its tax-exempt status under sections 501©(3) and 501(a)(9)(1) of the Internal Revenue Code. Our federal ID number is 30–0126510. Donations to CAP are tax-deductible and may be disclosed to the IRS. The Center for American Progress Action Fund (“CAP Action”) is a nonpartisan, 501©(4) District of Columbia not-for-profit corporation dedicated to achieving progress through action. Donations to CAP Action are not tax-deductible and may also be disclosed to the IRS.

I only donate money to 501C entities. These entities are accountable for the money they take in and spend.

If CAP and ThinkProgress are the same (ThinkProgress is just the web site for CAP, for example), it would be helpful to state this.

A concern I have about CAP is that there are many issues that are listed on the CAP web site. In my view, these are all important issues. But if you want to make an impact, focusing on a narrow range of issues is more effective. The NRA is a great example of how a relatively small organization can have an outsized influence.

What I would like to see is a liberal version of the Judicial Watch. While I don’t agree with Judicial Watch politically, I think that they have done a good job focusing on the issues that are important to them. We need something like this on the left.

I am concerned that CAP has such a broad focus that they will not be as effective as Judicial Watch has been.

Looking at the CAP board I see:

Sen. Tom Daschle, Chair
Neera Tanden, President
Secretary Madeleine Albright
Carol Browner
Glenn Hutchins
Jonathan Lavine
John Podesta
Susan Sandler
Tom Steyer
Donald Sussman
Jose Villarreal
Hansjörg Wyss

Senator Daschle and John Podesta are pilliars of the Democratic establishment. Tom Steyer is a billionaire Democratic donor who has been toying with the idea of entering politics.

In contrast, Judicial Watch’s board appears to be composed of lawyers and right wing propagandists (e.g., people write editorials, opinion pieces and articles). Again, I deeply disagree with their world view, but they are effective. This is what we need on the left.

Raising money is important, but the money that is raised should be spent in a way that has an impact. This requires a narrow focus and a dedicated group of people who are not limited by the status quo of the Democratic Party.

One clap, two clap, three clap, forty?

By clapping more or less, you can signal to us which stories really stand out.