General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsNow Is the Time for Democrats to Ban Dark Money From Primaries
Big moneyincreasingly laundered through independent groups that do not disclose their donorsis corrupting our politics. In this election season alone, the Wesleyan Media Project reports, nearly 60 percent of the ads aired in Democratic House primaries were purchased by groups that offered only partial disclosure of their donorsor none at all. Progressive challengers in contested primaries were often the leading targets of these dark money groups.
Democrats have long condemned the Big Money corruption of our politicsbut reforms passed by the House of Representatives have repeatedly been torpedoed by Republican filibusters in the Senate. This month, however, Democrats couldif they choosecrack down on dark money poisoning their own primaries. And small-d democrats across the country should join in calling for them to act. Since the courts treat the Democratic National Committee and the party essentially as a club with free association rights, the party can make and enforce its own rules for how its candidates are selectedwithout the need for Republican cooperation. A resolution introduced by Judith Whitmer, chair of the Nevada Democratic Partyalong with 33 of her fellow DNC memberscalls on the party to ban the use of dark money funding during any and all Democratic primary elections. DNC Resolution 19 also calls for mechanisms to investigate the use of dark money, explore possible disciplinary action, and empower states to set rules in their primaries to ensure transparency...
Perhaps the most egregious example has been provided by the American Israel Public Affairs CommitteeAIPACand its various independent expenditure fronts. Republican megadonors Bernie Marcus and Paul Singer gave one of AIPACs fronts, the United Democracy Project, $1 million apiece prior to the Democratic primaries. UDP then boasted about the millions it spent to target progressive Democratic candidatesprimarily progressive women of color.
Throwing over $2.7 million of largely Republican donor money into negative ads against Summer Lee, a progressive champion in Pennsylvania, the UDP had the chutzpah to accuse her of not being a real Democrat. Lee, the overwhelming favorite before the UDP waded in, barely survived the onslaught. But other progressives that AIPAC targetedincluding Jennifer Cisneros in Texas, Nina Turner in Ohio, Donna Edwards in Marylandwent down to defeat in the face of literally millions in negative ads by the UDP alone...
https://www.thenation.com/article/politics/democrats-ban-dark-money-primaries/
BlueTsunami2018
(4,990 posts)We certainly cant cede that ground. Im all for the elimination of all dark money from all campaigns but as long as its legal and the fascists are using it, so too must we.
brooklynite
(96,882 posts)...I won't ask the Democratic Party to unilaterally disarm.
Let's be clear: PACs and interest groups aren't "buying" votes. If they were it would be easy to override the impact by simply offering more. They give money to people who already agree with them. In this case, you're talking about Democrats.
867-5309.
(1,189 posts)I wouldn't expect the Democratic Party to unilaterally disarm in generals.
brooklynite
(96,882 posts)I won't accept limits for the reason previously stated.
nb: I give "Dark Money" to a SuperPAC that is very good at launching attacks on Republican candidates. Their policy, not mine.
dsc
(53,397 posts)but can't see any possible way to get that money banned right now. But we can, and should, refuse to hire any of the consultants who worked for that pac as a start.
TexasTowelie
(127,367 posts)Jennifer Cisneros is already preparing for the 2024 campaign despite the fact that she lost in 2020 and 2022. She remains bitter towards Cuellar and the voters in her district since she lost. She was a complete unknown in her district until she was financed by Justice Democrats.
Nina Turner lost the special election in Ohio and the primary this year.
At what point do these candidates get the message that the voters don't want them as their representatives?
AntivaxHunters
(3,234 posts)who almost beat Cuellar 2x despite him having the backing of House leadership.
In the year 2022 after Roe vs Wade fell, I have little tolerance for anti-abortion Democrats.
TexasTowelie
(127,367 posts)An immigration rights attorney will always have a difficult time winning in a border district, particularly with the influx of migrants and all of the crime related to immigration. Cisneros might be able to win elsewhere in the state, but she will not win in any district that includes Laredo.
As I said earlier, Cisneros wasn't even a blip on the radar until AOC targeted Cuellar and had the Justice Democrats kick in tons of money to support Cisneros. It also marks the second time that the Justice Democrats tried and failed to get their candidate nominated.
AntivaxHunters
(3,234 posts)Last edited Thu Sep 8, 2022, 08:48 AM - Edit history (1)
She almost beat him and she's a great candidate.
And sorry but no time for people who hurt my rights as a woman. And let's be real, He also is a big enjoyer of the NRA.
And why are you pointing out that Jessica Cisneros is an "immigration attorney" which makes it sound as though she prosecuted people when in fact she was an immigration & human rights defense attorney. You know, people that stand up for the rights of others like my right to have an abortion? Hello!
It's only a matter of time anyways given that young voters are now the largest voting bloc.
Every candidate at some point was nothing but a blip on the screen. We all start somewhere. Right?
TexasTowelie
(127,367 posts)Unfortunately, I omit words more frequently as I grow older.
Everyone underestimated how conservative the TX-28 district is. Unlike the TX-35 district between Austin and San Antonio, there are no liberal arts universities in the region so liberal principles and policies are not a dominant trait in an area where the Roman Catholic church and patriarchal attitudes influence beliefs. I doubt that people (and the Justice Democrats) are going to continue to rally and give money to a candidate that managed to lose despite having two major events during the campaign season that were unexpected "gifts" (the FBI raid on Cuellar's home/office and the decision overturning Roe v. Wade).
I support Democrats, but Cisneros would be a risky bet in the general election. The district would also lose many economic opportunities due to Cuellar being a member of the Budget Committee. Cuellar has a record of bringing jobs to the district which Cisneros lacks. I believe that Cuellar's record is what influenced the voters in the district to nominate Cuellar again.
Demsrule86
(71,542 posts)We need a majority in the house period. And it is over. Ceullar is the candidate...so who cares now. He had backing because it is a conservative seat and while she would might a primary, she wouldn't win a general. The Justice Democrats should not support candidates who can't win a general.
Demsrule86
(71,542 posts)make them say who gives the money.
emulatorloo
(46,155 posts)Anti-Democrats, and their star reporter recently wrote an editorial in WAPO about how we need to appease Putin.
Trashing thread.