Mandate

Progressive Mandate in a Sea-Change Election

Robert Borosage — Fri, 07 Nov 2008 07:15:44 -0800

Barack Obama’s historic victory in 2008 spearheaded not only a change election, but a sea-change election. It marks the end of the conservative era that has dominated our politics since 1980, and the beginning of a new era of progressive reform, driven by an emerging progressive majority.

The scope of the victory itself reflects the desire for change. Obama’s historic and unlikely candidacy won a majority of the vote, the first Democrat since Jimmy Carter to accomplish that. Democrats in the House and the Senate gained seats in back-to-back elections for the first time since the Great Depression.

The repudiation of George Bush and the Republican Congress and the conservatism they championed is clear.

But what marks this as a sea-change election is the consolidation of a new majority coalition, and the mandate provided for progressive reform for Obama and Democrats. Republicans emerge from this election as an aging, monochromatic, largely regional party, increasingly in the grip of its evangelical base. Democrats are consolidating a governing majority in what is, increasingly, a center-left nation.

MORE RESOURCES

VIDEO: See Robert Borosage discuss
the findings of the "Change Election"
report with pollster Stan Greenberg.

» Read the report

The Emerging Progressive Majority

With voters overwhelmingly looking for change, Obama did better than John Kerry in 2004 virtually across the electorate, with the exception of the older white voters. He narrowed the margin in rural areas significantly; he did better among white men; he made gains among professionals; he consolidated support in the suburbs and exurbs. But what is striking about this election is his ability to consolidate an emerging strong majority coalition.

Young voters – 18 to 29 – represented about 18 percent of the electorate and supported Obama better than two to one. This is the third straight election in which this new generation has voted for Democrats in large numbers. And in this election, they can rightfully lay claim to having propelled the Obama candidacy from the start, playing an instrumental role in his victory in the primaries.

African-American voters came out in great numbers – representing 13 percent of an expanded electorate – and voted, needless to say, overwhelmingly for Obama. Latinos, the votes that some said he might not be able to win, constituted 10 percent of the electorate and voted two to one for Obama. Single women voted 70 to 30 Obama. Union households constituted almost one in five voters, and voted 65 to35 percent for Obama. And Obama, as his predecessors, consolidated support among professional Americans with advanced degrees, by 60 to 39.

The Emerging Progressive Movement

This majority is propelled by a progressive movement of increasing capacity and sophistication. This election represented the largest mobilization of that capacity. Obama, of course, ran a truly remarkable campaign, rewriting how campaigns will be run in the future. He set new ground in using the Web to build a community of volunteers and activists, to raise money, to communicate to voters. He devoted more resources to a ground operation. That built upon work done by Moveon.org, by the vibrant progressive blogosphere, by the Dean campaign four years previously.

He also benefited from growing capacity of progressives on the ground. Labor and Working America were on the front line of the debate with working people, and delivered, particularly in key battleground states. Women’s Voices Women Vote expanded its capacity to register and mobilize single women. America Votes helped coordinate an expanded effort by citizen groups on the ground. The Obama campaign, aided by groups like Acorn, expanded voter registration efforts, particularly among the young and in African American communities.

Our poll shows the result. Voters -- particularly independent voters -- report greater contacts from the Obama campaign in every area of campaigning -- more ads on TV, more contacts by volunteers, more ads on lie, more people at the door, more emails, more cell calls. Only in the area of mail was McCain competitive. Even in the contacts of the last days—the vaunted area of the Republican 72 hour plan—the Obama campaign and its allies were far more effective.

The Mandate for Progressive Reform

Not surprisingly, the economy was the overwhelming priority of voters. Nothing else really came close. The argument about the economy – about what Obama described as the “failed philosophy” of trickle-down economics, or what McCain described as a choice between economic growth and socialist redistribution – was the center of the debate between these candidates.

Obama’s agenda was grounded on issues that were championed by progressives: Investment in new energy and conservation as a jobs and growth agenda. Affordable health care for all paid for by raising taxes on the affluent. Investment in education and infrastructure. Empowering workers to organize through passage of the Employee Free Choice Act. Holding corporations and banks more accountable. Ending the war in Iraq. Promising no more NAFTA-type trade agreements, and to repeal tax breaks for companies moving jobs abroad.

McCain largely defended the verities of Reagan era conservatism, founding his campaign on more tax cuts, on freezing spending and stopping earmarks, and continuing corporate trade policies. His health care plan featured a tax credit for those negotiating their own plan. He favored Bush’s privatization of Social Security. He began the election committed to less regulation, but adjusted as the unregulated shadow banking system collapsed. The maverick stayed true to the core of the conservative agenda.

Obama won by large margins over McCain on every economic issue. On the economy generally, 51-38. On education, health care, the financial crisis, the energy crisis, Medicare and Social Security. He even won the debate about taxes 51-42.

When asked why they voted for Obama, the leading reasons were his proposals for withdrawing troops from Iraq, cutting middle class taxes first, providing affordable health care, and his commitment to invest in education and make college more affordable. When those who voted for Obama were asked about their doubts about McCain, picking Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin led the list, but fear that he would give tax breaks to the rich and big corporations came in second, followed by the notion that he would continue Bush’s policies.

For voters, Obama should give greatest attention to reducing unemployment and getting the economy moving. That is followed by investing in alternative energy and getting us off foreign oil and changing the health care system. Given a choice on priorities, ending the war in Iraq, ending dependence on foreign oil, fixing health insurance, regulating the banking system all ranked high.

In this the divide between independents and Republicans was clear. Independents gave Obama double-digit margins over McCain on the economy, education, health care. They have him a margin of 9 percent on taxes Only on government spending, Iraq and national security, did they favor McCain over Obama. Self-described moderates also favored Obama by double digits in economic issues. They sided with McCain only on national security.

This mandate was true down the ballot as well as on the top. Bernie Horn and Alex Carter of the Campaign for America’s Future completed a report – Congressional Elections Deliver a Progressive Mandate – looking at Democrats who won House or Senate seats previously held by Republicans. This report is available on our web site at www.ourfuture.org

We measured their position on six core progressive economic issues:

Social contract: support for quality health care for all, as opposed to the McCain type plan
Progressive taxation: support for raising taxes on the rich and tax breaks for the middle class
Fair trade: Opposition to NAFTA-style agreements
Investment: Focus on investing in clean energy sources over “drill baby drill”
Worker Empowerment: support for the Employee Free Choice Act, which business spent $20 million attacking in this election
Social Security: Opposition to the privatization of Social Security.

Of the 25 Democrats that won U.S. House seats previously held by Republicans, 15 campaigns on all six of these issues; another 8 supported the progressive posture on five of six. Of the six Democrats who have thusfar won US Senate seats held by Republicans, 5 supported the progressive position on all six issues; the other supported five of six.

Candidates up and down the ticket campaigned and won on a progressive agenda.

A Center-Left Nation

After the election, we’ve heard a repeated mantra about how this is basically a center-right nation. Obama is warned to curb his agenda. He’s warned not to succumb to pressure from the liberal wing of the party. Conservatives and Republicans take solace in the notion that by a return to conservative principles will help win back a majority.

After this election, there is no greater testament to the triumph of conventional myths over reality.

It is true that by addition, one can argue this is a center-right nation. There are more self-described conservatives than liberals. Add them to moderates and you get a center-right majority by simply addition.

But that addition disappears with any analysis about attitudes. The reality is that on basic values, on core ideological choices, on core issue debates, this is increasingly a center-left nation. And Republicans are increasingly isolated from the majority of Americans.

Worried about trade accords not protecting workers or the environment enough or about putting too much of a burden on trade? Democrats say protect by 37, Independents by 31 percent. Republicans go the other way by 20. Liberals worry about worker protections by 56; moderates by 8. Conservatives go the other way by 4.

Should gays be accepted or should their relationships be discouraged? Democrats say accepted by a 50 percent margin; Independents by 23 percent. Republicans go the other way by 20 percent. Liberals accept by 65 percent; moderates by 32 percent; conservatives discourage by 32 percent.

Does government regulation do more good than harm? Democrats say more good by 53 percent; independents by 12 percent. Republicans say more harm than good by 23 percent. Again conservatives are isolated from liberals and moderates on the issue.

Are you more worried that Obama will put minorities first or that McCain will put the rich and big corporations first? Democrats, not surprising worry about McCain and the rich by 51 percent. But so do independents by 28. Republicans worry about Obama and minorities by 35 percent. Liberals worry about McCain by 61 percent; moderates by 23 percent; conservatives the other way by 16 percent.

There is only one area—and it is a critical one—where independents and moderates still side with conservatives. That is on government spending. Clearly, years of conservative misrule have made people skeptical of the ability of government to act effectively. That will surely be where Republicans try to reassert themselves in the coming days. But the test on that will not really be about spending – it will be about effectiveness. The challenge – and it is a monumental one – is reviving the government to work effectively once more. That isn't a contradiction to the progressive project; it is at the center of it.

This has clear implications for the debate going forward. Republicans will find that their conservative base is increasingly out of step with a growing majority of Americans.

So for example, we asked voters if Republicans should give Obama the benefit of the doubt and help him achieve his policies, or, since his policies will lead us “down the wrong path,” Republicans should oppose them. By nearly three to one – 71 to 24 – voters thought they should support Obama’s policies. They’ve elected him to change things and they want that mandate respected. Independents agreed by a nearly 40 percent margin. Republicans by 40-33 said Republicans should oppose.

We asked people should Obama try to reach across the aisle to gain Republican support for his agenda, or should he compromise his agenda to gain Republican support. Voters chose 54 to 39 that he should try to bring Republicans to his agenda, not compromise it. Independents agreed 48-43. Republicans thought he should change his plans by 63-31

Our poll asked: did Republicans lose because they were too conservative or not conservative enough? By a twenty point margin, voters chose too conservative. Independents agreed by a 21 point margin. Republicans disagreed by an 11 point margin Moderates when with liberals as too conservative by 41 percent.

The Progressive Mandate

Obama and the new Democratic majorities in the House and Senate inherit the desert – an economy plummeting into recession, two wars, and an increasingly dysfunctional government. They have a clear mandate for bold change – for bringing the Iraq war to an end, for getting the economy moving, for reforming health care, on energy, on holding corporations and banks accountable, on progressive tax reform.

They face a public clearly skeptical, after years of conservative misrule, about the capacity of Washington to get anything done. That will be our test. If progressives succeed in providing Americans with at least some of the change that they so desperately need, a new and potentially enduring majority for progressive reform is there to consolidate.

About That Clear "Center-Right" Mandate

Batocchio — Thu, 06 Nov 2008 12:52:07 -0800

Plenty of folks have already noted the absurdity of pundits and politicians in 2004 declaring that Bush's narrow victory gave him a "mandate" while now in 2008 they're saying that Obama's much more significant victory means he needs to govern in a centrist or even "center-right" fashion. This site alone has a wealth of posts on what Obama's victory really means and where to go from here.
.
Elsewhere, Dan Froomkin put it nicely:

I must admit I am fascinated by the already congealed inside-the-Beltway conventional wisdom that Obama shouldn't govern too radically. (I must have read two dozen variations on that this morning already.) What, exactly, are my colleagues saying he shouldn't do? It seems to me that many of the things they consider "too radical" are a) things he promised in the campaign and b) things the public overwhelmingly supports.

Let's go to the video evidence, kindly provided by Think Progress:
:

David Sirota posted a similar video roundup recently, among his many posts on the subject. And it appears Nancy Pelosi also can't pass up on this action.

There's tactical value, of course, in peacemaking rhetoric, and also in genuine bipartisanship within the reality-based community if it helps good policies be enacted. But it's silly to pretend that wisdom is always achieved by splitting the middle, especially given the dire consequences of the previously reigning ideology and the public referendum on it we've just had. It's funny how Conventional Beltway Wisdom solidifies like this, no matter how obviously off-base it is, no matter what public opinion or the votes say, no matter how disastrous the approach of the preceding administration has been. However, since this off-key chorus will continue always and forever, it's definitely time to discuss the best agenda for an Obama administration, but also essential to make him enact it.

(H/T to Mike Finnigan for the video link.)

The Mandate Manipulation Machine Enters Stage Right

David Sirota — Thu, 06 Nov 2008 10:54:51 -0800

As I (and many others) predicted a while back, the Partisan-Industrial Complex in Washington, D.C. has deployed its quadrennial Mandate Manipulation Machine to make sure that the 65 million Americans who voted for Barack Obama remember that America giving more than 340 electoral votes to an African American billed as a Islamic Marxist terrorist means there is no mandate for real change in this, a country obviously more conservative than ever.

A cursory glance at the newspapers today shows the media teeming with stories quoting incoming Obama administration officials, Democratic Party leaders and spokespeople for corporate front groups insisting that actually, no real change can be made, and what small-bore changes can happen, will have to happen in the very distant future, not soon.

My favorite was the one-two punch from Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) and Democratic National Committee chair Howard Dean. Upon hearing of his bigger senate majority, Reid said on Tuesday, "This is not a mandate for a political party or an ideology." A day later, Dean told reporters, "I don't think it's a mandate for the New Deal." Awesome—what a way to project inspiring strength and confidence.

We no longer have to sit on the sidelines and watch the professional ruling class in Washington claim this election as their own property—we actually get to have a say, even when D.C. wants to put us in our place by telling us to simply shut up and go away.

Funny, how three days shifts everything. On Monday most of these people were telling us this was "the most important election of our lifetime" because of the policy changes it promised. By Thursday, with the election over, power safely in the hands of Democrats, and plum government jobs being doled out to old Washington hands, the very same people—as if relieved to finally be able to let out a taboo secret—are saying this "most important election of our lifetime" may actually mean no significant policy changes at all.

Of course, the motives of different Mandate Manipulators vary. For example, Reid and Dean (and Obama aides) may sympathize with progressive goals, but they may also fear taking the blame for failing to deliver legislative progress from a public that now expects such progress from Democrats. By contrast, the Democratic Leadership Council and Third Way despise the very goals of economic progressivism. And, of course, movement conservatives like Bob Novak want to crush any progressive legislation in its infancy, willing to claim with a straight face that while Bush's narrow 2004 election victory was a mandate, Obama's huge 2008 election victory is not.

Regardless of the myriad impulses, the sail-trimmers, bet-hedgers, and expectation-downplayers are already doing their damndest to demoralize the progressive movement, whether accidentally or deliberately, with a "more things change, more things stay the same" meme. But there are three important things for us all to remember.

First, the behavior is entirely—almost boringly—predictable. There is an entire industry in Washington that exists solely to distort, squelch and pulverize mandates in the immediate aftermath of biennial national elections.

For example, the Democratic Leadership Council and Third Way—both corporate front groups—exist exclusively to promote their agenda in the three-month window between a presidential election and an inauguration. Their mission is making sure no matter what happens in a given election, it is portrayed in the elite media as a validation that America resoundingly voted for continued corporatism, militarism and ideological conservatism. Not surprisingly, there is also an entire elite media apparatus more than happy to parrot the propaganda, primarily because the elite media is predisposed to repeat conservative talking points (especially on economic issues), regardless of the actual data.

Second, the feverish intensity and speed of 2008's mandate manipulation is, in a way, a good sign. Usually, there is a pause of a week or so for the Establishment noise machine to ramp up, write its talking points, and then begin its misinformation campaign. But this year, the distortion actually began preemptively, with the Punditburo taking to newspaper columns and the airwaves to insist that regardless of what happened in the election that hadn't even taken place, America remains more conservative than it has ever been (see my ongoing "Center-Right Nation Watch" series).

Once Tuesday delivered a huge progressive landslide, that pre-election hysteria has turned into a full-on panic—suggesting that even the most arrogant let-them-eat-cakers inside the Beltway are genuinely afraid that there has been a paradigm shift in American politics—one that threatens the current Establishment's very relevance and authority. And so the Mandate Manipulation Unit has gone into a reactive overdrive with everyone around Obama (and aspiring for a White House job) delivering a "nothing to see here, folks!" message. Yes, after "the most important election of our lifetime" we should expect to see nothing exponentially different from our government come 2009.

Finally, and most importantly, the progressive movement that worked closely with Obama now has its own capacity to counter the mandate manipulators and crystallize the real message of the 2008 campaign. Indeed, this is a new and critical development. From the Campaign for America's Future, to labor unions, to the Progressive States Network, to Public Citizen, to blogs, to high-profile congressional spokespeople, we have our own collective microphone and infrastructure.

And we are already seeing the benefits of that capacity. Just today, for example, OpenLeft has launched a petition drive asking Obama to respect the election mandate by refusing to appoint free-market fundamentalist Larry Summers as Treasury Secretary. Likewise, check out this statement from Ohio Sen. Sherrod Brown's (D) - the most powerful Democrat from the most politically important state in the country:

Sen. Sherrod Brown, a liberal Ohio Democrat, argued that Obama should strike quickly to seize the economic downturn as a way to enact bold liberal programs in the mold of Franklin Roosevelt's New Deal and Lyndon Johnson's Great Society. "He won because we wanted to take the country in a very different direction from George Bush, and clearly George Bush represented the end of the conservative era," Brown said. "The voters said we want ... a progressive alternative."

That's right, we no longer have to sit on the sidelines and watch the professional ruling class in Washington claim this election as their own property—we actually get to have a say, even after the election is over, even when D.C. wants to put us in our place by telling us to simply shut up and go away.

Now, you might be wondering— why is the post-election debate over a mandate important? Simply put, because it sets the parameters of the political debate for the next four years. How the mandate is depicted—and distorted—affects what the next president will have the political capital to do, and not do.

Political capital, after all, is really an intangible matter of perception. If the president is perceived to have an electoral mandate for far-reaching change, then he will have a lot of capital to reach for that change (especially if we successfully pressure him). But if the president is perceived to have an electoral mandate merely for small-bore incrementalism (as the Mandate Manipulators always insist), then he will be under enormous pressure to reach only for incremental reform.

This is why conservatives were so adamant about claiming a mandate in 1980 and in 2004—they understood its critical connection to policy. This is also why Establishment voices are so adamant about downplaying a mandate today—because the empirical data from the election suggests that 2008 provided an overwhelmingly anti-Establishment mandate on everything from financial regulation, to trade, to health care to the Iraq War. If that mandate is permitted to be recognized, acknowledged and appreciated in the public debate, it might force significant policy change on those issues.

That's the kind of change we all voted for this week—but as Obama himself said in his victory speech, "This victory alone is not the change we seek; it is only the chance for us to make that change." Helping Obama turn that chance into something more is now our charge in the months ahead.

CONGRESSIONAL ELECTIONS DELIVER A PROGRESSIVE MANDATE

Toby Chaudhuri — Tue, 04 Nov 2008 21:00:00 -0800

WASHINGTON – Twenty-six out of the 29 Democratic candidates who won seats previously held by Republicans in the House and Senate championed bold progressive economic positions, according to a new report released today by the Campaign for America’s Future. The report shows that these progressive candidates’ victories represent a swing to the left of 34 votes in the House and 10 in the Senate, reflecting a clear mandate for progressive change.

Sen. Sherrod Brown, D-Ohio, Rep. Donna Edwards, D-Md., newly elected Rep.-Elect Chellie Pingree, D-Maine, and AFL-CIO political director Karen Ackerman joined Campaign for America’s Future co-director Robert Borosage on a conference call with reporters today to discuss the report’s findings.

“This was not simply a change election. It was a sea-change election that marks the end of the conservative era that has dominated our politics over the past three decades.” said Borosage. “Democrats won because they campaigned as progressives, not as moderates or conservatives. On core economic issues, voters gave these legislators a mandate for reform.”

Sen. Brown said candidates that won last night were unified around a common set of bold progressive themes.

“This election ushered in the next progressive era for our nation,” said Sen. Brown. “From health care to trade to education, progressive values will now be the priority in Washington. It’s time to get to work.”

Rep. Edwards, who easily won re-election last night, campaigned with several candidates in close races across the country. Rep. Edwards said the candidates she campaigned with embraced bold progressive positions on every major economic issue.

“Candidates across the country ran and won on a bold progressive agenda,” said Edwards. “Now our challenge is to govern on the progressive agenda – including smart investment in jobs, in infrastructure, in health care and energy, and bringing a safe and responsible end to the war in Iraq. It’s an exciting time and I am confident that we will be able to set priorities to deliver the bold solutions Americans expect.”

Rep.-Elect Pingree, who became the first woman to represent Maine’s first Congressional District after leading Republican Charlie Summers in late results, said voters in her district were yearning for bold progressive change.

“This is day one of the change that we so desperately need in this country,” said Rep.-Elect Pingree.

To distinguish progressive candidates from conservatives and moderates, the CAF report compared the positions of the candidates on six major economic issues, including health care, workers’ rights, tax policy, trade, Social Security and clean energy. Out of the 29 Democrats who won House and Senate seats previously held by Republicans, 21 House candidates and 5 Senate candidates supported the progressive position on at least five out of the six issues. Only three of the winning candidates chose to run on a more conservative platform.

# # #

**NOTE: An electronic copy of the post-election report is available at www.ourfuture.org/progressive-mandate-2008.**

PROGRESSIVE ISSUE POSITIONS OF DEMOCRATS WHO WON
SEATS PREVIOUSLY HELD BY REPUBLICANS

--Sen.-Elect Mark Udall, D-Colo.: health care, trade, energy, worker rights, taxes, Soc. Sec.
--Sen.-Elect Jeanne Shaheen, D-N.H.: health care, trade, energy, worker rights, taxes, Soc. Sec.
--Sen.-Elect Tom Udall, D-N.M.: health care, trade, energy, worker rights, taxes, Soc. Sec.
--Sen.-Elect Kay Hagan, D-N.C.: health care, trade, energy, worker rights, taxes, Soc. Sec.
--Sen.-Elect Mark Warner, D-Va.: health care, energy, worker rights, taxes, Soc. Sec.
--Rep.-Elect Bobby Bright, D-Ala.: trade, Soc. Sec.
--Rep.-Elect Ann Kirkpatrick, D-Ariz.: health care, trade, energy, worker rights, Soc. Sec.
--Rep.-Elect Betsy Markey, D-Colo.: health care, trade, energy, worker rights, taxes, Soc. Sec.
--Rep.-Elect Jim Hines, D-Conn.: health care, trade, energy, worker rights, taxes, Soc. Sec.
--Rep.-Elect Alan Grayson, D-Fla.: health care, trade, energy, worker rights, taxes,
--Rep.-Elect Suzanne Kosmas, D-Fla.: health care, trade, energy, worker rights, taxes, Soc. Sec.
--Rep.-Elect Walt Minnick, D-Idaho: health care, trade, energy, worker rights,
--Rep.-Elect Debbie Halvorson, D-Ill.: health care, trade, energy, worker rights, taxes, Soc. Sec.
--Rep.-Elect Frank Kratovil, D-Md.: health care, energy, worker rights, taxes, Soc. Sec.
--Rep.-Elect Mark Schauer, D-Mich.: health care, trade, energy, worker rights, taxes, Soc. Sec.
--Rep.-Elect Gary Peters, D-Mich.: health care, trade, energy, worker rights, taxes, Soc. Sec.
--Rep.-Elect Dina Titus, D-Nev.: health care, trade, energy, worker rights, Soc. Sec.
--Rep.-Elect John Adler, D-N.J.: health care, trade, energy, worker rights, taxes, Soc. Sec.
--Rep.-Elect Martin Heinrich, D-N.M.: health care, trade, energy, worker rights, taxes, Soc. Sec.
--Rep.-Elect Harry Teague, D-N.M.: health care, trade, energy, worker rights, Soc. Sec.
--Rep.-Elect Michael McMahon, D-N.Y.: health care, trade, energy, worker rights, taxes, Soc. Sec.
--Rep.-Elect Dan Maffei, D-N.Y.: health care, trade, energy, worker rights, taxes, Soc. Sec.
--Rep.-Elect Eric Massa, D-N.Y.: health care, trade, energy, worker rights, taxes, Soc. Sec.
--Rep.-Elect Larry Kissell, D-N.C.: trade, energy, worker rights, taxes, Soc. Sec.
--Rep.-Elect Steve Driehaus, D-Ohio: health care, trade, energy, worker rights, taxes, Soc. Sec.
--Rep.-Elect John Boccieri, D-Ohio: health care, trade, energy, worker rights, taxes, Soc. Sec.
--Rep.-Elect Kathy Dahlkemper, D-Pa.: health care, trade, energy, worker rights, taxes, Soc. Sec.
--Rep.-Elect Glenn Nye, D-Va.: health care, energy, worker rights, Soc. Sec.
--Rep.-Elect Gerry Connolly, D-Va.: health care, energy, worker rights, taxes, Soc. Sec.
--Senate candidate Al Franken, D-Minn.: health care, trade, energy, worker rights, taxes, Soc. Sec.
--Senate candidate Jeff Merkley, D-Ore.: health care, trade, energy, worker rights, taxes, Soc. Sec.