Some Republicans Seek to Destroy Our Democracy. Why Are Democrats Helping Them?

Democratic groups have spent millions of dollars in support of Trump-endorsed, election-denying candidates. According to Annie Linskey of the Washington Post, “The apparent bet these organizations are placing is that such far-right candidates who reject the results of the 2020 election would be easier to defeat in the November midterms.” Josh Kraushaar, a senior political correspondent at Axios, tweeted on June 28 that Democrats have spent $42 million promoting these individuals.

This confuses me. Either Republicans who embrace the “Big Lie” are an existential threat to American democracy or they are not.

In Pennsylvania, Attorney General Josh Shapiro spent $1.7 million on television ads boosting State Senator Doug Mastriano, a candidate for governor who rejected the outcome of the 2020 election and bussed rally-goers to the Capitol on January 6. According to Audrey Fahlberg of The Dispatch, “That single ad buy amounted to more money than Mastriano’s campaign spent during the entire primary campaign.”

Then there was a campaign in Illinois between Darren Bailey and Richard Irvin. Bailey is an Illinois State Senator who said it was “appalling” that GOP leaders wanted Trump to concede the 2020 election. Irvin, meanwhile, is a moderate African -American who was raised by a single mother and served in the military. Knowing that Irvin would have been the more formidable opponent, the Democratic Governors Association spent an estimated $32 million advertising Mr. Bailey as a Trump supporter, knowing it would appeal to GOP primary voters. Bailey called the DGA's ads “beautiful.” Unfortunately, Darren Bailey won the GOP primary with 58% of the vote.

Next we come to Colorado and the primary between businessman Joe O’Dea and Ron Hanks. Thankfully, O’Dea defeated the Hanks by nine points on June 28 to take on Senator Michael Bennet in November. This happened despite the fact that pro-Democratic groups spent $2 million in support of Ron Hanks, who was outside the Capitol on Jan. 6 and described the attack as a “peaceful rally.” A super PAC run by Democratic activists ran an ad calling Hanks “one of the most conservative members in the statehouse” and playing up his views on abortion, the Second Amendment, and election integrity. As Fahlberg writes, “It’s difficult to describe the ad as anything other than an attempt to to boost Republican support for Hanks.”

Another instance of Democratic support for MAGA candidates took place in the Colorado governor’s race between Heidi Ganahl, who believed the 2020 election was legitimately decided, and Greg Lopez, a staunch backer of Trump’s claims about the 2020 election. Thankfully Ganhal defeated Lopez 53 percent to 47 percent, but the race was only close because Democrats spent money to elevate Lopez’s standing.

Campaigns in California also provide an interesting example. Rep. David Valadao is a moderate Republican who voted to impeach Donald Trump. You would think Democrats would be okay with such a Republican. But a Nancy Pelosi-aligned House Majority PAC produced an add in opposition to Valadao. The ad supported Chris Mathys, a far-right candidate who has previously said Trump would still be president had the 2020 votes been “properly counted.” The TV ad lambasted Valadao for his vote to impeach former President Donald Trump last year and called Mathys “a true conservative” who is “100 percent pro-Trump and proud.”

We’ll end by looking at my home state of Maryland. The Democratic Governors Association spent nearly $1.2 million on commercials labeling GOP gubernatorial candidate Dan Cox as too conservative. Mileah Kromer, head of the Sarah T. Hughes Center for Politics at Goucher College, said the DGA ads “were doing some of the lifting that Cox’s own campaign organization can’t afford to do.”

These are just a few anecdotes in a country with hundreds of races in fifty states. Even if these instances are rare, they should be opposed.

Finally, I want to end with a brief look at another topic related to the survival of American democracy: the need to reform the Electoral Count Act of 1887. Thankfully, a bipartisan group of senators just released a very good proposal. As Senator Susan Collins points out, “The focus of our bipartisan group has always been to draft legislation to fix the flaws of the archaic and ambiguous Electoral Count Act of 1887 that can receive more than 60 votes to pass the Senate, and that is exactly what our bill would achieve.” Unfortunately, some in the House seem tempted to reject the senate compromise.

We need to pass this bill into law before the 2024 election. If we don’t, we risk an electoral crisis that could be even worse than January 6. I encourage readers to contact their legislators to support the Senate compromise. We can’t let the perfect be the enemy of the good, especially when the good is needed to save our democracy.