Peter Lewis Leaves Democracy Alliance, The Liberal Donor Network

Peter B. Lewis, with Princeton University President Shirley M. Tilghman, in 2006.

WASHINGTON -- Peter Lewis, one of the Democracy Alliance's founding billionaires, has dropped out of the influential liberal donor network, people familiar with his decision tell HuffPost.

Lewis, the eccentric and reclusive founder of the insurer Progressive Corp., is one of the biggest donors in Democratic and liberal politics. He invested $25 million in the failed effort to oust President George W. Bush in 2004, making him one of the biggest donors in American political history. He coordinated his giving that year with billionaire George Soros, who gave $50 million.

Both Lewis and Soros have backed the Democracy Alliance since its founding in 2005. Lewis' exit from the network did not come as a major surprise to people familiar with him, as he has gradually disengaged from the group in recent years. But the departure of a billionaire of his status is still a blow to the organization, both in fundraising terms and in perception within the liberal donor community.

In February, HuffPost reported that the Democracy Alliance had changed its donation strategy and dropped some progressive groups from its top tier, raising concerns that the group was aligning itself with organizations closely tied to the White House, such as the Center for American Progress and Media Matters for America, at the expense of groups that challenge the Democratic Party to be more progressive.

In a private email to donors, forwarded to HuffPost, the group vigorously defended its new strategy and rejected the suggestion that it was focusing only on electoral politics.

"As news of our new funding approach and 2012-2014 Portfolio has been getting wider attention, a handful of Partners and friends have inquired about how the news is being received, and particularly have called our attention to yesterday’s Huffington Post story that has been making the rounds. Because similar stories may be showing up in the coming days and weeks, we wanted to reach out to you directly," the group's chief, Kelly Craighead, wrote. "Our focus is on continuing to build the foundation for sustainable and long term progress. We understand that elections are a critical element to that, but our hallmark in the broader funding community is that we understand that progress requires more than investing in the ephemeral cycles of elections. We understand that progress is only possible through long term commitments of support to the building blocks for an ecosystem of change."

The group held a conference call with donors on Tuesday to discuss the funding decision.

Democracy Alliance "is a membership organization and has the same modest turnover as any membership organization. Some old partners leave, new ones are recruited," a person close to the Democracy Alliance told HuffPost in response to Lewis' departure.

The $25 million that Lewis spent on electoral politics in 2004 was more the exception than the rule of his giving, which has tended to focus more on the long game and less on the day-to-day partisan warfare. Lewis, 78, remains chairman of Progressive. He is an outspoken opponent of the drug war and has spent millions on efforts to curb it and to legalize marijuana. (Full disclosure: This reporter worked at Lewis' Marijuana Policy Project in 2004 and 2005.) Lewis has been a major donor to the American Civil Liberties Union -- so much so that the group's head offered to name its Washington office after Lewis.

That focus on backing long-range, principled projects aimed at expanding what is possible may help explain Lewis' decision. Jennifer Frutchy, who advises Lewis on on his philanthropy, didn't return a call requesting comment.

The source close to the Democracy Alliance defended the group's funding decision. "The current portfolio recommends a number of leading progressive integrators -- groups that are conveners and facilitators of cooperation that create operating efficiencies and cost effectiveness -– and innovators -– that are utilizing new technologies to gather and analyze data, inform, organize, mobilize key constituencies and which facilitate social networking. The partners of the DA are committed to focusing their finite resources on capacities that reach the most people and produce the greatest aggregate impact," he said. "The process of selecting this portfolio was led by the board and an investment subcommittee and reviewed periodically by the partners at the DA conferences, during conference call briefings and regional meetings. On balance, there was significant partner input in the rationale, selection process, deliberations and final decision-making. As a result, there has been a very high level of partner support for the make-up and focus of the new portfolio."

UPDATE: March 21, 2:20 p.m. -- Earlier this month, Politico's Ken Vogel reported that Lewis was considering leaving the Democracy Alliance over concerns that it had become too partisan.

"Peter is right now reconsidering whether he is going to continue being a partner in the Democracy Alliance,” said the source, stressing that Lewis "reconsiders his involvement with the DA every year." Lewis skipped the conference at which Biden spoke, as well as the Obama fundraiser hosted by McKay and other DA members, which the source said Lewis considered "a step away from their original mission."

The source explained "Peter's focus since 2004 has been on scaling up the progressive infrastructure, as opposed to election or political candidates."

Comments

[livfreeordi]

08:28 PM on 06/17/2012

I've been familiar with the "Democracy Alliance" and its activities since its founding.

I always find it amusing that those on the Left who whine about the Citizen's United decision about about all the evil billionaire money now in politics..never had a problem with it..when the billionaire money was coming mostly from guys like Soros and Lewis.

When it comes to the Left's hold on power, I am soooo pleased to see another domino fall.

I am sooooo looking forward to November!

[Jjsedona1]

12:21 PM on 03/26/2012

George Washington, sometime I wonder where you get your information? Is it personal against helping others or are you just about you?

[wayne the pain]

09:49 PM on 03/23/2012

If they are not going to fight for liberal causes and concentrate on electing centrist Democrats I would get out also!

[George Washington11000]

06:45 PM on 03/22/2012

Hey I'm like the liberals who say i vote for Obama because He's going to pay for my gas, my food, for me to get my hair done. Obama bucks oh yeah. Idiots on both sides talking about socialism. Wake up some of our programs are socialist and conservatives and liberals both want them. Think about it Socialism " Social Security " Medical Socialism. It's already here and this was created way before Obama took office. If people were really not socialist they would be against Social Security and Medical. If you are not then you are a Socialist. Damn right you are collecting Obama bucks.

[Midnight Cry]

11:34 AM on 03/23/2012

We paid into Social Security for years, Dip. The government isn't giving us the money.

[George Washington11000]

06:37 PM on 03/22/2012

Obama bucks all day and night. Why should the liberals be the only ones getting Obama bucks.

[George Washington11000]

06:35 PM on 03/22/2012

I will bet anyone anything they want that President Obama will beat Romney. If Romney is the republican pick Obama will have a second term. If that happens then everyone needs to shut up and give me some Obama bucks.

[TheDc500]

07:21 AM on 03/23/2012

OMG! ^ I hope you didn't breed.

[Midnight Cry]

11:35 AM on 03/23/2012

I hope that you are wrong...

[quillerm]

11:45 AM on 03/22/2012

One less donor to Media Matter's propaganda empire.

[AbeMartin]

08:50 AM on 03/22/2012

Mr. Lewis' political contributions are a small fraction of what he has given as an open-wallet philanthropist for many years.  But he also has a pattern to dropping his support to organizations that he feels do not effectively monitor how the money is used or uses the money ineffectively.  He has quit as a director of the Guggenheim.  And he has withdrawn support for Chase Western Reserve, which has seen several presidents leave because of questions about their compensation packages and leadership.

He will, no doubt continue to be involved politically.  But he has new options available since he joined the Democracy Alliance eight years ago.  Lewis anted up $25 million during the effort to derail Bush's re-election in 2004.  A like amount moved into a Super-PAC and staffed with people personally selected by Mr. Lewis, would provide him with a much greater sense of control over how his money would be used and the candidates it would be supporting or targeting.

[pinouye]

01:09 AM on 03/22/2012

They'd have us believe that ONLY people like the Koch brothers give their money to sway an election. I guess it is wrong when the Koch brothers do it, but it is ok when people like Lewis or Soros does it...the double standard continues.

[Hector Boag]

05:35 AM on 03/22/2012

That's the liberal mindset; it's ok if we have super pac's, but not those evil conservatives!

[AbeMartin]

08:58 AM on 03/22/2012

It is not a double standard.  The Putz Brothers of the SCOTUS screwed the pooch with their lamebrain Citizens United decision that effectively ended limits on personal and corporate and foreign campaign contributions. 

It isn't the Koch's, who in addition to their political activities, fund a wide range of non-political philanthropies.  It isn't George Soros or Ted Turner or Sheldon Adelson who have given billions to a variety of philanthropies.  And it isn't Peter Lewish who has given hundreds of millions to Princeton, Case Western the Guggenheim, etc.

It is a political system that has been thugged and corrupted by a corrupt U.S. Supreme Court.  And by the way, if I should through some stroke of the Divine, win all of the chips in Powerball or MegaMillions, after setting up my various trust accounts, I would establish my own PAC, which would be devoted to trashing the reputations of Thomas, Scalia, Roberts, Alito and company.

[January Day]

09:30 AM on 03/22/2012

What about the Liberals on the SCOTUS, would your PAC destroy their reputations as well, or are you just against the conservative members? Hmmm....very telling.

[Kai-HK]

12:52 AM on 03/22/2012

Good to see these odious special interest groups get weakend in their bid to buy elections. I had no idea that the Democrat Party was so easily purchased.

[Hector Boag]

05:37 AM on 03/22/2012

Too easy. Look at the Clinton years and where most of their money came from; China.

[556ball]

08:41 PM on 03/21/2012

Good, we'll take him.

Everyone is jumping off the Obama "hope and change" fantasy bandwagon. Bill of goods gone wrong. Now the Dems begin to feel the pain.

:)

[PickOneTwoThree]

05:50 PM on 03/21/2012

I honestly don't know anything about this (the organization OR the man in question) so I won't comment on that.

BUT I will say that if I had $25 million, I would have spent it trying to make sure GW Bush was NOT re-elected in 2004. It would have saved us lots of misery. Although the best would have been if he had never been appointed by the Court in 2000. Just think, no war in Iraq, no massive tax cuts for the wealthy - all those billions (trillions?) in our economy.

[eahce]

08:54 PM on 03/21/2012

It's hard to sway when the fix is in.

[TimothyWMurray]

05:22 AM on 03/22/2012

If the court had not appointed Bush we would not ever have had September 11th. The world would be different. So we must remember to vote, and if they try to steal the election we needs to be in the streets resisting.

[January Day]

09:33 AM on 03/22/2012

OOhh...another conspiracy theory Liberal. How funny you guys are!

[fullofmitt]

05:31 PM on 03/21/2012

He thought it was getting ...too partisan
?? Hey,pal..THAT'S THE IDEA..to push partisan politics!!! Why do you think the Right Wing freaky billionaires give to Rove's pac..and others??

[DrSkepsis]

05:29 PM on 03/21/2012

If you read their meeting minutes it's surprising he stopped short of suicide. That is one depressing group of folks.

[PublicusOrator]

05:21 PM on 03/21/2012

In 2004 to Progressive politics George Soros contributed $50million and Peter Lewis $25 million. Since then as is their right they have contributed untold millions to other Progressive causes. Therefore please explain as to how they are any different than the despised Koch brothers as is so often voiced on this site.

[sarabono]

12:41 AM on 03/22/2012

There is no difference -- plain and simple --