I have stopped giving campaign contributions to advocacy groups.
The perfect is the enemy of the good.
Advocacy groups push candidates into unpopular positions.
Advocacy groups have a mission. They want to test the edges of the politically possible and move a policy from "extreme" into "mainstream." What may be a politically viable position in a congressional district in New York City may be a deeply unpopular one in a swing district.
Advocacy groups want candidate victories, but their interests are not identical to those of candidates. A candidate loss is a policy setback, but the new, worse status quo can lay the groundwork for future victories. In the loss, the advocacy group is more necessary than ever. Look how bad things are! Funds pour in. They are not trying to lose. They are trying to make a point. Candidate casualties prove they are testing what is possible. Without casualties maybe they would be leaving something on the table.
There are advocacy groups pushing the envelope on many sides of the political divide.
***Team red: Right to Life. National Rifle Association. Family Research Institute (favors criminalizing homosexuality). New iterations of the KKK, e.g. Vanguard America, Rebel Brigade Knights, League of the South.
***Team blue: NARAL. League of Conservation Voters. Wilderness Society. Americans Against Fracking. Gender Justice League. GLADD. Public employee unions.
In the 2020 Democratic presidential primary, left-oriented individuals and groups demanded that Democratic candidates raise their hands for a position that was broadly unpopular: An unenforced southern border and free health care for people here illegally. Debate moderator Lester Holt asked candidates, "Raise your hands if your government plan would provide coverage for undocumented immigrants." They all raised their hands.
Donald Trump pushed Democrats; if Trump was for it, it had to be wrong. "Medicare for All" pushed Democrats. Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren defined anything less than Medicare for All as a sell-out. The George Floyd protests in the summer of 2020 quoted spokespeople saying "violence is the language of the oppressed." It conflated protests with violence. Looting was somehow payback or reparations. This was deeply unpopular, but Democratic messaging against it was muddled.
On the political right, the National Rifle Association advocates nationwide concealed carry of handguns, near-unrestricted access to AR-15s, and it opposes laws requiring the safe storage of guns. Those are unpopular positions, but on-mission for the NRA. Anti-abortion advocates have momentum in the wake of the Texas law essentially ending abortions in Texas. That is popular with anti-abortion advocacy groups and a minority of people, but unpopular to the general voting public.
Advocacy groups have endorsements to award, money to direct, mailing lists to contact. They seek candidates who are on board with their agenda. Then, in a phrase that reflects their sense of power and purpose, to "hold officeholders' feet to the fire." Those candidates are forced to defend their support for the least popular position of the advocacy group, e.g. a so-called "live birth" 22nd-week abortion or the right of a mentally ill person with a history of spousal abuse to buy and carry an AR-15. These are rare and extreme cases, and outrageous caricatures of typical abortion or gun use. That is why opponents use those examples.
Candidates are reluctant to disagree with activist friends and groups. That reluctance distracts politicians from the rootedness of public sentiment. In Oregon, Democratic state and local officeholders were unwilling to make sharp disagreement with friends aligned with the George Floyd protests, so they did not clearly communicate their opposition to a long summer of looting and arson. They are paying a price for that.
I have stopped giving to advocacy group PACs. I prefer advocacy groups to move public opinion, not to demand candidates lose gloriously after advocating positions they are pushed into. Advocacy groups act like bullies. I prefer candidates who stay clear of advocacy PACs, even ones I generally like. Democratic and non-affiliated voters in swing states tell polls that Democrats are "preachy" and "judgmental." I want that to be untrue. How to do that? Democrats shouldn't be preachy and judgmental.
Fortunately for Democrats, Republican candidates and officeholders have a parallel problem with their own advocacy groups. The NRA and Right to Life and anti-gay groups are bad, but not the worst of it. Trump is. Candidates dare not say that Trump attempted to overthrow the election and was wrong to do it. They are stuck with their leader. Their feet are held to the fire