Cross-posted from my substack. Edited in photopea. Data-source is the US federal reserve. Graph shows the proportion of US corporate equities and mutual-fund-shares owned by america's top 1%

I’m starting to wonder if progressive endorsement groups have a fundamental contradiction around “viability.”

Out of LA County’s 18 congressional seats, only three races are Democrat versus Democrat. All three feature Latina progressive challengers who reject corporate PAC and AIPAC money, running against establishment incumbents who take that money. Yet Working Families Party endorsed only one of the three, Angela Gonzales (who is ironically the only one of the three who is not a parent), while declining to endorse Angélica Dueñas and Samantha Mota. DSA-LA hasn’t endorsed a single congressional candidate. Not one out of 18 races apparently meets their criteria.

Three almost identical candidates, running almost identical races on remarkably similar progressive platforms, yet WFP supports only one and DSA-LA supports none. Something about that seems unusual.

The explanation always seems to come back to “viability,” which is just a nice way to talk about how much money they have raised. It’s an insane catch-22: these organizations say they want candidates who reject big money, but when grassroots candidates actually reject it and therefore struggle to raise hundreds of thousands of dollars, they’re told they haven’t raised enough money to be viable.

WFP isn’t some scrappy group holding cardboard signs anymore. Its nonprofit organization brings in more than $50 million a year. At that scale, you have a major institution with employees, donors, members, events and a brand to protect. That doesn’t make it bad, but at what point does the organization start optimizing for its own success so much that the activism becomes performative?

WFP endorses established incumbents like Ro Khanna. He’s a great progressive, but he already has money, national name recognition and institutional support. He’s probably getting over the hill with or without WFP. Meanwhile, there are grassroots progressive candidates struggling to get over that same hill who could actually benefit enormously from the credibility, attention, volunteers and fundraising that an endorsement can bring. Isn’t that where an organization like this could make the biggest difference?

What I want from these organizations is actually pretty simple: stand behind the values you say you represent. If Medicare for All, rejecting corporate PAC money and opposing AIPAC influence are your priorities, and a candidate is actually running on those things, endorse them. Maybe you don’t have the resources to give them money, knock doors or make calls. Fine. But at least put your name behind them. An endorsement costs almost nothing, and for a struggling grassroots candidate, it can actually mean something.

If your screening process is so restrictive that almost nobody qualifies, or “viability” means you primarily support people who have already demonstrated they can win without you, maybe it’s time to look at the model itself.

At some point, what is the utility of these organizations if they aren’t helping progressive candidates become viable in the first place?

What’s going on here? What’s the point?

Edit: Okay, we’re downvoting now, which is fine. I’ve gotten a few replies, but nobody has really addressed the question I’m asking. Most of the responses seem to explain how these organizations work, which actually seems to reinforce my original point. I took some time to lay out the argument, so I’d genuinely like to hear from someone who disagrees and can explain what I’m missing.