The Democratic Party Must Be A Site of Struggle

In “A Path To Pushing MAGA Out of Power,” Max Elbaum names the need for a strong electoral effort by the Democrats in the midterms, powered by organizing and committed to challenging the neoliberal status quo. Zohran Mamdani’s win showed us what is possible. While it’s true that Bernie Sanders’ 2020 campaign success pushed the Biden Administration in a positive direction, the Democratic Party later largely returned to politics as usual. Successful candidacies will not be enough to transform the Party into the fighting instrument we need—and having a viable opposition party is essential at this moment. Activists will need to engage within the Party to change its rules at the national, state, and local levels.

We need to connect what we love to the democratic changes we now need to realize those changes. Our messaging and our program may be deeper and better than that of moderate Democrats and their donors, but what difference does that make when the rules put our aspirations out of reach?

Ban independent expenditures in primaries

Corporate and “independent” expenditures in Democratic Party primaries have often blocked the election of progressive Democrats to the US House of Representatives. We saw this in 2024 when this big money defeated Jamaal Bowman (NY), Cori Bush (MO) and Susheela Jayapal (OR), among others. Eighty percent of House districts are single-party districts, and progressive change can only come from the roughly 170 Democrats in those districts if there are progressive challengers or incumbents in those “single-party” Democratic districts. 

Citizens United only blocks spending limits in the general election; political parties make their own nominating rules, and that can include limiting or eliminating “independent expenditures” by corporations and the wealthy. Independent expenditures include spending not coordinated with the candidate’s campaign, either supporting the candidate or attacking their opponent. 

State parties have many options for blocking independent expenditures. Those options vary by state. For starters, state parties can require any potential nominee to sign a pledge opposing all independent expenditures on their behalf, whether supporting them or attacking their opponents. Elizabeth Warren and her Republican opponent Scott Brown signed such a “People’s Pledge” in their Massachusetts Senate 2012 general election. Their pledge required candidates benefitting from independent expenditures to donate a similar amount, from campaign funds, to a designated charity. If state parties required such a pledge and coupled it with enforcement mechanisms, voters would be choosing the nominees without the influence of big money.

In 2020 the Democratic National Committee (DNC) required a “loyalty” pledge from any candidate seeking the presidential nomination. All Democratic candidates had to pledge to support the party’s eventual nominee. Similarly, in 2028 the DNC could adopt a form of the “People’s Pledge” as a requirement for any candidate.

Change brewing at the DNC

At its August 2025 meeting, the DNC adopted a resolution, submitted by Chair Ken Martin, that limits corporate and “dark” or undisclosed donor money in the 2028 presidential nominating process, and leaves it to a committee to bring specific proposals for a vote next summer. Martin ran for the position of party chair earlier in 2025 on a commitment to increasing party democracy and limiting big money in the nominating process. In addition to the candidate pledge, candidates receiving independent expenditure support could be barred from debate participation, or their delegates could be prevented from voting for a nominee at the DNC, as happened in 2008 when the Florida and Michigan Clinton delegates’ votes were not counted. (Those state parties ignored the primary timetable.) As importantly, the DNC is sending a signal to state parties, and reformers in those parties, that the time is now to stand for voters—not big-money donors and corporations—picking candidates.

All too often, activists have no stomach for party reform. But focusing only on candidates and not on the rules that control the nomination process does not work if our goal is real change. Yes, in some cases supporting independent candidates is practical, but at the federal level, building a progressive majority in the House and Senate Democratic caucuses is currently essential for realistic change. As Trump and MAGA move to consolidate autocratic control, we urgently need Democratic candidates and officeholders who will stand up and act like a real opposition, as part of a broad defense of democracy.

Party reform at any level is not simple. Each of the state parties has its own rules and nominating practices. But the county party structures are the basis for state change, and in many (if not most) counties, a grassroots organizing effort focused on party reform could quickly produce results. Success requires linking party change to decent health care, the environmental crisis, workers’ rights, and other issues worth the fight. Corporate and other well-funded political operatives are a likely obstacle, just as they are in any other progressive organizing effort. But a statewide progressive council in the Arizona Democratic Party has just helped elect a new state party chair, and is now poised to lead adoption of specific rule changes there that would limit most independent expenditures in nominations. The North Carolina Democratic Party recently passed a resolution calling for party action to limit these big-money expenditures.

Issue-based protest, issue-based electoral work, and democracy reforms, all tied to a positive vision, provide at least some hope. As Elbaum has written, the neoliberal vision is largely discredited after decades of our opposition. But a vision worth working and fighting for requires that we also focus on changing the rules and not just the rulers.

Featured illustration by Kimmie Dearest