Democratic National Committee Chairwoman Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz, D-Fla., has had a rough few weeks.
After a series of gaffes, including harshly criticizing President Barack Obama for his response to the recent Mexican border crisis, she inspired an in-depth Politico report on tensions between Wasserman Schultz and the rest of the Democratic Party.
The way Politico chose to frame its story on Wasserman Schultz is telling. The report opens with a discussion of Wasserman Schultz’s alleged attempts to get the DNC to cover the costs of her wardrobe. It’s true that the DNC probably shouldn’t be paying for politicians’ clothing, even if she is the chair of the committee. But would Politico have highlighted this particular incident if Wasserman Schultz were male?
Politico’s decision to focus heavily on Wasserman Schultz’s wardrobe controversy suggests a sexist double standard. This petty attack against Wasserman Schultz overshadows many more significant concerns. Buried deep in the Politico story is a discussion of Wasserman Schultz’s fundraising tactics.
Although the DNC does not accept contributions from lobbyists, Wasserman Schultz’s political action committee, DWS PAC, does accept such donations. Wasserman Schultz has attempted to distance herself from the PAC, claiming that the DWS stands for “Democrats Win Seats.” Wasserman Schultz’s ties to the PAC are obvious. According to the Politico story, her father previously served as the PAC’s treasurer, and Jason O’Malley, the PAC’s day-to-day manager, receives a salary that “is split between the DNC, DWS Pac and Wasserman Schultz’s congressional campaign committee.”
Wasserman Schultz’s ridiculous statements distancing herself from her own PAC represent a feeble attempt to cover up her ties to Washington lobbyists. Her transparent and weak denials represent an insult to the intelligence of the American public. If Schultz is accepting hefty contributions from lobbyists, it seems reasonable to expect that those donations will influence her decisions as DNC chair. Rather than jumping through hoops to accept lobbyist money while claiming to be free from its influence, Wasserman Schultz should forego such contributions altogether.
Declining donations from powerful special interest groups would draw a clear contrast between Democrats and Republicans, who make open displays of their corrupt addiction to lobbyist money on a regular basis.
Politico does also mention some of Wasserman Schultz’s accomplishments during her time as DNC chair. Most notably, she established the Democratic Women’s Alliance, which encourages women to participate in the political process by voting and engaging in activism.
Politico’s focus on the trivial issue of Wasserman Schultz’s wardrobe is worthy of condemnation. However, the report does raise important questions and concerns about her leadership and the future of the Democratic Party.
