Dem's Moratorium Vote Pushes The Conversation/Policy Left

At the PA Democratic Party's summer state committee meeting, a resolution passed calling for a moratorium on fracking until health risks are known. This week Robert Vickers writes in his Patriot-News column about the divisions that move has caused in the party. 

If fracking supporters do that [make the case that fracking is safe scientifically and openly]- possibly as soon as Sept. 27 when the state committee next meets - he says moratorium forces would be willing to change their position. 

And that would make the 2014 election cycle much smoother for Democratic candidates wary of a natural gas industry knockout campaign contribution to their opponents.

The post, draws the conclusion that the division may lead to negative outcomes for Dems in 14'. I think understates the value that the divisions have.

Yes, Vickers is right that the move might make the energy industry uneasy about supporting candidates with a D next to their name after the resolution, but for the most part those party leaders are few and far between.

State Senator Jim Ferlo (D-Allegheny) has pushed for such a moratorium but it has minimal support in the legislature. None of the major Gubernatorial candidates support stopping of natural gas drilling. So what is the value of, as Vickers says a "toothless statements of intent"?

It serves to show that regular rank and file members of the party are not comfortable with the practice of fracking regardless of what their party leaders say and making that clear can have policy repercussions. 

Governor Corbett has largely let frackers run wild and minimized state authority over them, de juris and de facto. A new Democratic governor with abundant industry funding available to them may have to think twice now before acting.

The moratorium resolution has merit if nothing else, by telling party leaders that they better be listening to their base. A moratorium coming to pass is a highly unlikely outcome but by demanding it at the party level, the conversation inside the ascendant power shifts further to the left.

This should not be understated. Even though the Schwartz campaign others have taken pains to make their positions on fracking clear, "frack safetly and responsibly," there will continue to be room to the left of that. Fracking that is more safe (greater state and federal oversight) and more responsible (a substantial severance tax to help cover the practice's true cost). 

Some might argue that a push left may harm statewide prospects come election day, but given the actions of the candidates and the party's targets I am fairly skeptical. As I said before the Gubernatorial candidates have made their stance on fracking fairly clear and are already accepting donations. The Dem's wont take the house so then the focus is on the Senate. Arlen Platt in a comment to the the PA Independent told us what they see as in play.

“The game is in the southeast,” said Aren Platt, executive director for the Senate Democratic Campaign Committee. 

Even with a Republican-drawn redistricting plan working against Democrats, Platt said the demographic trends in the southeast — Montgomery County becoming steadily more Democratic, for example — were good signs for his candidates.

I'm betting that in the Southeast fracking is not a live or die issue.

It is important to remember that even Democratic politicians would not necessarily come to inhabit that space of the conversation on their own. Only a leftward push like this can take them there.