Ken Martin is now a convenient scapegoat. As chair of the Democratic National Committee, he has stumbled into disrepute as a dubious fundraiser and bad-tempered boss who bungled an autopsy report on the 2024 election disaster. Much of the criticism is justified. But Martin is just a symptom of what deeply ails a party that does not live up to its name.
As the Democratic party’s governing body, the Democratic National Committee has long operated as a fortress for party elites who expect to get their way. Martin seemed to offer a bit of a departure when, as Minnesota party chair, he won the committee leadership election last year in part because of his close ties with other state party chairs. They remain among his strongest supporters. That’s one reason why Martin is very well-positioned to fend off any challenge to his hold on power when the full committee meets next week in Austin.
But a more basic dynamic protecting Martin is the committee’s internal culture of conformity. Most of its 450 members would not dream of publicly challenging the chair, despite the recent torrent of bad press.
Read more:Dementia risk: Smoking, diabetes, hypertension play key role
News media have hammered on the fact that the DNC is $2.2m in debt while the Republican National Committee reports $128m in cash on hand. Yet depictions of the DNC’s financial woes have given short shrift to some relevant factors. For instance, after Kamala Harris spent $1.5bn during her short presidential campaign in 2024, the DNC took on about $22m in debts that she left behind.
Martin has fulfilled his promise to send more money to state parties. In April 2025, the DNC announced: “Each state party will receive a baseline of $17,500 a month, a $5,000 per month increase over the last agreement, and Republican-controlled states will receive an additional investment of $5,000 a month.” What happens to that no-strings money, however, is a whole other question.
“When we’re talking about giving tens of thousands of dollars away on a monthly basis, we need to know that it’s going towards real, grassroots organizing,” Chris Davis, the president of Colorado Young Democrats, told me. “Money received by each state party from the DNC needs to be tied to deliverables that will directly grow the party, such as direct voter engagement through canvassing, having a presence in community spaces like tabling on college campuses or large community gatherings, or building the party’s following through organic social media engagement. Otherwise, the money could be going to consultants, for all we know.”
Read more:Longevity and protein: Restricting 3 amino acids may help extend life
The prevailing criticism is that Martin has failed to take full advantage of the party’s biggest donors and fundraisers. The emphasis on the importance of well-heeled patrons is telling. It says a lot about prevailing assumptions that the party should be largely dependent on – and responsive to – the rich.
The DNC’s business model involves catering to – and relying on – big donors. A current somber refrain from news media and some party operatives is that Martin has lost the confidence of party backers who can write big checks. His response, in an essay posted on 20 July, underlines the problem. Martin trumpeted success with “grassroots donors” – whom he defined as people giving “under $10,000”. And he touted an upsurge in funding from the super wealthy during the last year and a half, writing: “The current DNC secured contributions of $100,000 or more from 67 donors.”
Read more:Judge says Paramount and Warner must halt merger for at least two weeks, granting states’ request
Rarely mentioned is the truth that he and other party leaders have lost the confidence of countless small-dollar donors, who’ve shown ample capacity to provide fully adequate national funding hauls if inspired, as during the 2016 and 2020 Bernie Sanders presidential campaigns. But it would be hard to find more uninspiring Democratic leaders than the party’s most visible and powerful ones, Senator Chuck Schumer and Representative Hakeem Jeffries.
Although Schumer and Jeffries did not support Martin’s run for DNC chair in early 2025, the three share a top-down approach that sticks to the party’s standard positions on key issues, even when those positions are in sync with only a minority of Democrats or voters overall.
Party leaders are hardly in a good position to effectively raise money from the Democratic base while continuing to flagrantly oppose what polls show the base overwhelmingly wants, such as major tax hikes on the wealthy and an arms embargo on Israel. Journalists have been vastly more fascinated by Martin reportedly throwing a cellphone at a DNC employee’s desk than how he has blocked any DNC resolution for halting US arms shipments to Israel that enable deadly attacks on Palestinian civilians in Gaza.
Read more:Hunter Biden for president? Stranger things have happened | Arwa Mahdawi | The Guardian
The ingrained habit of deferring to a DNC chair makes a course correction unlikely in the next few months. But all bets are off after the midterm elections in early November. Conjecture is already widespread about who might replace Martin next winter.
One of the names cropping up as a possibility in mainstream media is Donna Brazile, whose second stint as interim chair of the committee began in mid-2016. Later that year, she was fired as a CNN commentator after the revelation that she had shared debate questions with Hillary Clinton’s presidential campaign to aid her performance against Sanders.
Read more:Did the media fall short in its reporting on Graham Platner? | Margaret Sullivan | The Guardian
In a Washington Post op-ed last week, Brazile argued that Martin “should keep his job”. The piece was ostensibly focused on unifying her party to defeat Republicans this fall, but Brazile slipped in a battle cry on behalf of the corporate Democrats circling Martin’s blood in the political water. “Democrats can win control of both houses of Congress in the midterms by rallying around what unites them,” Brazile wrote. “By advocating for pragmatic policies that most Americans support to make our country more affordable, rather than extremist socialist policies that most voters oppose.”
But the momentum of democratic socialists and other progressives in primary elections this year offers real possibilities for transforming the party from the grassroots up – to end the reign of unaccountable authority from the top down.
