Can we have a brief discussion about....."the Billionaires"?

[brooklynite]

...who seem to be the preferred choice for emnity as President Biden's enemy in the shadows?

First a bit of pedantry: I know none of "them" who are actually billionaires. Most of the billionaires have been publicly supporting Trump.

Second. the "mega-donors", as the preferred terminology goes, are.....DEMOCRATS. And more importantly they're.....DONORS. These people have already given substantial sums to the campaign and the DNC.

How, you may ask, do I know this? Because I'M ONE OF THEM.

The DNC has a fundraising entity called the National Finance Committee, which consists of everyone who gives (or raises from others) a threshold amount. I have met -- and exceeded -- that threshold. I'm way at the lower end in comparison to others (example: Jeffrey Katzenberg, the "K" in Spielberg's "SGK Dreamworks" ) but I'm still a member. As such, I attend briefings and events with these people. I've gotten to know them. They WANT Democrats elected. The WANT their taxes increased. They WANT reproductive rights protected and the environment saved.

But they, like other Democrats (activists, elected officials, large and small donors) saw President Biden at risk of losing to a second -- and worse -- Trump term, and expressed their concerns as many others did. And while many had already maxed out their own contributions, they had seen other wealthy DEMOCRATS whom they reached out to, express reluctance to providing financial support to what was seen as a lost cause.

That didn't mean "blackmail". It meant people who would consider directing their available funds to the House and Senate races as a firewall, rather that putting the funds into the Presidential race.

(I'll observe that the media reported that grass-roots donations were also dropping off after the post-debate spike)

You may disagree with the roll these mega-donors play. You may wish for publicly funded elections. So do I. But we don't have them, and in their absence I and others won't unilaterally disarm. The Biden campaign had built its funding model around a large influx from mega-donors (hence the NFC and other fundraising strategies). That's why there were THREE calls in the past two weeks with these mega-donors (as reported in the media and which I attended) to try and reassure them of the campaign's future success. These people care as much for the future of Democracy as you do. They didn't threaten or blackmail. What they did was lay out cold hard data that the campaign and Party leadership took into account in evaluating President Biden's prospects going into November.

"Politics ain't beanbag"

[Clouds Passing]

1. It is imperative that big money be removed from political campaigns and political bribery

be once again made illegal! Money is not speech! Corporations are not people! This current state of large donors buying their chosen politicans is a gangrenous infection on society as a whole.

[emulatorloo]

6. Absolutely. What is your plan to acheive that? We need more Dems for that to happen.And what do we do in the meantime?

We need more and more democrats elected because Republicans will NEVER work to get big money out of politics. A Republican president will never appoint a supreme court justice who would overturn Citizen’s United.

Democrats should not unilaterally disarm under the current rules while the GOP continues to rake in money from Republicans billionaires.

Welcome to DU, glad you are here!

[Clouds Passing]

14. A few billionaire citizens untied must be codified as illegal. The activist Extreme Court must be

given an enforceable code of ethics, including no overturning or twisting to fit their agenda of the Constitution. Marbury vs Madison, Buckley vs Valeo and other highly questionable court decisions need overturning. Congress must regulate the SC as it is given the Constitutional duty to do so.

[edisdead]

19. We need more guns to protect against the guns.

its all just so familiar….

Letting the money win just ends with us chasing our tail. Or eating it.

There is inly one way to quit that drug. And that is to cut it off. Cold Turkey.

I can hear the need for it right here in this thread. I can feel the want so bad. The justification for it. The setup for the next ask. Setting up the source for the next fix.

Its gross.

[emulatorloo]

29. If you think Republicans are going to get big money out of politics you're naive.

Democrats are the only ones who’ll work towards that goal. Until that’s acheived it would be idiotic to unilaterally disarm - we need cash to win elections under the current rules.

I am as pissed off about this situation as you are, but cutting off liberal donors under Citizens United is suicide.

I am looking forward to the day when Citizens United is overturned and real election finance is in place.

It is going to take getting more and more Democrats elected to acheive that.

Unlike you I recognize there are liberals w money who want Dems to win. Who believe in the values of the Democratic Party and are fine with paying their fair share of taxes. A good example is Mark Cuban and he’s not the only one.

I think this time they made a big mistake based on half ass information and some ill conceived idea that Trump was an unbeatable juggernaut. I’m not going to change my mind about that or shut my mouth about it (after we have won this election first).

[NoRethugFriends]

53. yep. stop those donations. sure.

Why not give the election to Trump now. That'll fix everything. Your suggestions strains credulity.

[TwilightZone]

9. The only way to reverse those decisions is to elect Democrats and eventually reload SCOTUS.

We all want to get money out of politics, but until then, money is a necessary part of the process.

[edisdead]

16. Then it will never happen.

It is a powerful drug. And there are too many addicts.

[orthoclad]

33. "eventually reload SCOTUS"?

How many generations are you talking about?
We don't have time to postpone fixing the court for 30, 40 years.
We need to fix it NOW. Impeachment, perjury charges, corruption charges, expand the court.

[Clouds Passing]

47. Congress has constitutional duty to regulate the Supreme Court. I suggest they get on it PDQ..

[onenote]

49. Where in the Constitution does one find that "duty"?

citation?

[Clouds Passing]

51. Here:

Article III, Section 1:

The judicial Power of the United States, shall be vested in one supreme Court, and in such inferior Courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish. The Judges, both of the supreme and inferior Courts, shall hold their Offices during good Behaviour, and shall, at stated Times, receive for their Services, a Compensation, which shall not be diminished during their Continuance in Office.

The Framers structured the Constitution to promote the separation of powers and, in particular, to protect the Judiciary from undue influence by Congress and the Executive Branch.1 Nonetheless, the Constitution does not impose complete separation between the Judiciary and the political branches. Congress possesses substantial authority to regulate how the federal courts exercise judicial power, albeit subject to certain constitutional limitations.

For instance, the Supreme Court rejected a separation of powers challenge to legislation establishing the U.S. Sentencing Commission as an independent agency within the Judicial Branch.2 On the other hand, while Congress can change the substantive law courts must apply and alter the jurisdiction of the federal courts, sometimes even with respect to pending cases,3 it cannot direct the courts to reopen final judicial decisions.4 The following essays discuss those two issues. Other issues related to congressional control over the Federal Judiciary, including Congress’s power to establish federal courts,5 create court procedural rules,6 set federal court jurisdiction,7 and alter federal judges’ tenure in office,8 are discussed elsewhere in this volume.

https://constitution.congress.gov/browse/essay/artIII-S1-5-1/ALDE_00013528/

[JohnSJ]

26. Yup, citizens united

[Silent Type]

2. Thanks. Never really bought into argument big Democratic donors were pro-trump or doing it for taxes.

If that were true, they’d never have supported Democrats in first place.

With that said, the “threats” they made did bother/irritate me. But, I bet most of them would have eventually ponied up if election were close going into final stretch.

Appreciate every effort to get Dems elected.

[emulatorloo]

3. I'm recommending yr post because these are the facts of life until we get full public financing

and that is never going to happen until we elect more and more Democrats.

I’ll also note how often I see threads here where people BITCH loudly about receiving fundraising texts and emails from Democratic campaigns. It always pisses me off. There’s even one now complaining that their Dark Brandon mug is useless now and they’ll be expected to donate again to Harris.

I very much disagree with the judgement call made in this case. I don’t think it was well thought through.

But I never believed that your donor group was acting in bad faith.

[peachpit24]

4. Billionaires

It could have been done differently. Biden is too much of a decent person to be treated that way in front of the whole world. People are tired of the rich trying to control everyone and everything.

[LisaM]

45. I feel bullied.

I voted for Biden and I saw people being gaslit in front of my eyes. We'll see how it plays out but I don't have any faith that these same bullies want Kamala Harris.

[TwilightZone]

5. Thanks in part to Citizens United, money is a necessary evil.

Contrary to popular belief, no one can run and win a presidential campaign on small donations alone. Hell, the GA Senate race in 2022 cost more than $250 million, and that's just a Senate race.

If we're going to counter the mega-donors on the right, we need some of our own. The assertions that they really want Trump to win or that they're buying off Democrats in return for tax cuts were, and are, ludicrous. They're not donating millions to Democrats because they disagree with our policies. They could just donate to the GOP, were that the case.

Lastly, the insinuation many made that President Biden chose to drop out of the race solely because of donor pressure is presumptuous and disrespectful to the president. There was always more to it than that, but many insisted that, although they weren't privy to any of the conversations, they knew everything that was being said.

His brother has said that it came down to overall health and vitality and the absolute need to defeat Trump in November. Maybe a billionaire paid him to say that. Or maybe it's the truth.

[TBF]

7. I donated tonight - not as much as y'all but I do what I can

I figured there was more going on behind the scenes and I'm actually relieved that we have a way forward now. Joe Biden will be remembered as always putting country first. He not only came out of retirement to run for president against Trump, but now he is giving us the best chance forward to beat him again. I know folks are disappointed but will get there. I'm confident we'll all work together this fall to elect our team!

[spanone]

8. K&R

Will they support Kamala?

[jmbar2]

10. So, I have to ask...

Over the past 90 days, you have posted over 2000 posts on DU, many of which were saying "Biden can't win".

This was at a time when the full threat of Project 2025 was becoming clear, and most of the folks here are understandably scared shitless about Trump winning. I don't recall you talking any possible paths to avoiding this scenario. Just, "Biden can't win" over and over again.

I don't see the same level of effort on your Xitter feed (assuming the link in your sig line is you

https://twitter.com/chrisbastianbkl?lang=bn)

What is/was your purpose in doing that here?

[brooklynite]

15. I don't find it necessary to post what has already been posted.

Most of what I do on Twitter is respond to other posts of bring up non-political topics.

I have never posted something here that said "Biden can't win". I have posted things that say "Biden isn't winning" because he wasn't. That's hard data which needed to be responded to ny the campaign.

nb: one thing I'm sure you'll agree with: I never said Biden should step down as our candidate. We're you equally accusatory of those who did?.

[jmbar2]

23. So what is your purpose

in posting over and over again "Biden isn't winning"? What did you expect DU readers to get from those many many discouraging posts? I'm honestly trying to understand.

[brooklynite]

24. I expect them to get that the campaign has to re-engineer its strategy.

If your point is "discussing it here doesn't change anything", I would agree, but that would eliminate about 90% of the posts on the site. Personally, I find it beneficial to give people facts rather than let them drift into comfortable conspiracy theories and baseless excuses.

[jmbar2]

28. That is not my point

But you have sort of answered my puzzlement.

I find it beneficial to give people facts rather than let them drift into comfortable conspiracy theories and baseless excuses.

[emulatorloo]

17. The poster never thought, agreed with, nor said that Biden should drop out.

[Hermit-The-Prog]

21. Obviously I can't answer for brooklynite, but I suspect the different audience came into play.

You can speak a bit more freely amongst people who share a basic set of goals than you can in a more mixed environment.

[ForgedCrank]

37. He's got

the guts to post the truth, something we all need to see more of, even if it hurts. I'm not talking about propaganda, I mean uncomfortable and raw facts when they arise, and that is what he posts. Just because it stings doesn't make it "right wing talking points" or qualify it as not "supporting Democrats". Quite the opposite, in fact. When mistakes are being made, it benefits all to point it out and cough up a better solution. Standing back and watching a ship sink without telling anyone is outright negligence.

[jmbar2]

40. Well then we are indeed fortunate that he came to correct our erroneous thinking

[ForgedCrank]

42. I don't

think he corrected anything, he simply told the truth. It aligns with what I'm seeing.
That doesn't make me any less pissed off right now though. In fact, it validates why I'm so pissed.
It boils down to this:

Money is important. Check.
Votes are important. Check.
When money disagrees with votes, money wins. Wait, what?

I don't like that formula at ALL. But it's still the truth, and it stings.

[leftstreet]

11. Whatever happened to beating the opponent with popular policies?

I guess I'm too old for all this

[wackadoo wabbit]

12. I prefer the term "oligarchs"

If the shoe fits . . .

[edisdead]

13. Well thats some words.

I don’t agree with almost all of them. But those are some words alright.

I do get a chuckle about being told how I have to accept that the people with money get to circumvent some if the very core values we as a party claim to believe in.

I am fine with Kamala but that is THIS go round. I simply cannot be ok with it just because I am ok with the outcome. No, I see problems. Real big problems with the way this went down coming back at is down the road. It is all happy clappy now but next time…..

Sorry but being beholden to money and disrespecting your voters is a bad recipe and I don’t care how many suits are telling you otherwise.

[brooklynite]

18. No "suits" are telling me anything.

I can tell when a campaign is losing support and has to either radically restructure its approach or expect to go out of business.

Lets review something: you "know" that mega-donors were refusing to contribute further because -- you read it in the media.

You disregarded 2/3 of Democrats wanting Biden to step down as candidate because -- you read it in the media.

I'm comfortable that a broad swath of Democrats wanted a new candidate. They're getting one.

[ForgedCrank]

39. It would

be nice if someone would share that secret data with us, how they gathered it and where they got it. From our perspective, nowhere NEAR 2/3 of Democrats wanted Joe Biden to step down. Are we being given BS info about polls and performance metrics? I did see a few people here unhappy with Biden for whatever reasons, but the vast majority here insisted we stay the course, myself included. The public information being given to us said the opposite. Hell, I was seeing polls with Joe Biden maintaining a +2 lead. Is this all BS? Who the hell are we supposed to trust now?

[wackadoo wabbit]

25. I wish I could rec you more than once ... n/t

[brooklynite]

27. "I have to accept that the people with money get to circumvent some if the very core values"

No you don't. All you have to do is find enough grassroots donations (no complaining about all those text a email pleas) to match the funding that the mega-donors provide.

Observation; admirable as it was, Bernie Sanders' grassroots fundraising never had to scale up to a national general election level.

[Sympthsical]

20. People just need an alternate narrative

Because the actual situation, that the President's physical condition was beginning to inhibit the kind of vigorous campaign required this fall, was unmentionable. Just couldn't be acknowledged. It still isn't by many people. I could talk all day about why this is being willed out of perception, but it's moot at this point.

So there had to be an external force. And no one wanted to believe Schumer, Jeffries, and Pelosi were doing this of their own free will because they thought it best. Why would they? There's nothing wrong (see: the unmentionable). Someone must be forcing them.

And once donors made a choice that they felt the campaign was unviable, then what? Is it a realistic expectation that they just keep giving? If you think your money is going into a lost cause, do you keep giving money? I don't. Once that happens, I'm sitting there saying, "I might as well be setting it on fire at this point."

We talk about viability all the time. All the time. And part of what we consider when it comes to candidate viability is fundraising. Under our incredibly shitty system, you have to convince people you are worth spending money on. And you do not get invited to the big party dance unless your outfit comes with a lot of pockets.

The campaign became seen as unviable after the debate. The debate itself and the absolutely brutal polls after the debate. And donors don't give money to campaigns they find unviable. That's it. That's the mystery.

When donors, party leadership, and 2/3 of Democratic voters all say, "This isn't working . . ." well, it becomes a question of whether those who can affect things will effect things.

The leadership did. There's no villain here. Time had its way. It's very sad, but it should've been mentionable.

[Hermit-The-Prog]

22. People who take the job of President seriously age a lot in that office.

[Jilly_in_VA]

55. This is the truth

All you have to do is look at pictures of Lincoln, FDR, TR. Heck, even look at Obama. Every one of them was pretty healthy (other than FDR's paralysis) when they took office, but wow, the changes in just two terms!

[dpibel]

30. "Absolutely brutal polls after the debate"

I do believe you've just made that up.

[Sympthsical]

34. That AP-NORC poll alone would've done for it

Because that was the poll that showed voter enthusiasm was dead in the water.

A path forward is extremely difficult if your own voters are standing there going, "Eh . . ."

[dpibel]

41. The one after two weeks of freakout?

That's "immediately" to you?

Language is so flexible!

[Sympthsical]

44. No, that was the nail, IMO.

But the internal swing state polls that came within the first week were not good by all reports. The leaked one certainly wasn't.

The Democratic leadership certainly felt there was a problem. I trust them.

Doesn't matter, though. It's done now.

[SharonClark]

57. As you know, it wasn't mentionable on this site without people being alerted on or called unpatriotic.

One of the most voracious posters, who joined right after the debate, stirred up hatred toward other DU posters and party leaders, some who questioned Biden's ability to mount a vigorous campaign. Those posts were beyond the pale in attacking other Dems and DU posters but I suspect they did the job they were assigned to, dividing us to the point that loyal Dems were claiming they won't vote.

My question throughout this ordeal has been - Where did that poster suddenly come? And now - Where is that poster today?

[Bleacher Creature]

31. The entire argument never made sense.

As best as I can tell, it's that wealthy people donated a lot of money to Biden and then because of [INSERT REASON HERE] decided to force him out of the race to sabotage his candidacy (thereby wasting all of their previous donations) in order to help elect Trump.

I get that people are upset, but this argument needs to stop as it's quickly becoming a talking point on the right.

[JohnSJ]

32. As long as Harris name is on. every ballot in every state, and

I assume it will, at this stage I have no problem, move forward and GOTV. However, if we are prevent from getting on the ballot for the general election in any state(s), then this was not thought out very well, and unnecessarily puts the election at risk.

[ForgedCrank]

35. All I

hear when I keep reading this same thing is that money is more important than our votes. Maybe they can just have a meeting every 4 years with this group and pick our candidate for us and we'll all just shut up and be happy.

Who are we supposed to believe now? I feel betrayed and lied to. Money is very important in campaigns, but votes are far more valuable and should be honored for what they are. It can be framed in any fashion with words but when it is boilded down to facts, we picked a candidate, and the money people said "na, we don't like that. Change it". This is exactly what they are telling me they did.

I'm going to have to lay off before I wind up getting banned, but I am so pissed off at all this I can't even hold my tongue anymore.

[soandso]

36. I didn't see it blackmail

More like extortion. That money is flowing, again, proves that.

[Deek1935]

38. Cold hard data? No, it was non-predictive polls that mean nothing this far out. Ah well. UNITE behind Harris NOW.

[Deminpenn]

43. And Heinrich?

That didn't mean "blackmail". It meant people who would consider directing their available funds to the House and Senate races as a firewall, rather that putting the funds into the Presidential race.

I'd say a big donor telling an incumbent Dem senator he'd withhold funding unless that senator (Heinrich) came out and said Biden should withdraw is "blackmail", wouldn't you? It kind of puts the lie to your statement that donor money was purportedly going to go to House and Senate candidates instead.

It's ironic that SAG and the writer's had to go on strike for months against donors like Katzenberg to get a fair deal. While those strikes were ongoing, plenty of other people who work in the industry were laid off and had to scramble to pay bills. I doubt Katzenberg and his brethern gave a rat's behind about them.

[lostnfound]

46. 25% tax on unrealized gains Biden proposed -- did they worry?

Seemed to me a shocking proposition, and odd to have it apply only to those with $100 million+.
Seems like it would create some transient cash problems for some people.

Also the cryptocurrency.restrictions.

[DFab420]

48. Guys its ok because our oligarchs are benevolent see?? Its all ok!

[onandup]

50. brooklynite, do you think these large donors

are supportive of Harris?

[brooklynite]

52. "Silicon Valley Donors Bailed on Biden. Kamala Harris Is Winning Them Back"

Hours after President Joe Biden announced that he would be dropping out of the 2024 presidential race, Democratic megadonors in Silicon Valley were already lining up to support Vice President Kamala Harris at the top of their party’s ticket.

“This is what’s right for our country—and our democratic future,” wrote Reid Hoffman, cofounder and executive chair of LinkedIn and partner at Greylock Partners, on X. Last week, Hoffman had endorsed a call between 300 democratic donors and Harris and encouraged members of his network to join the call, according to The New York Times.

"Kamala Harris is the American dream personified, daughter of immigrants who met at Cal. She is also toughness personified, rising from my hometown of Oakland, California, to become the top prosecutor of the state,” Dmitri Mehlhorn, Hoffman’s former political adviser, tells WIRED. “With Scranton Joe stepping back, I cannot wait to help elect President Harris."

Aaron Levie, the chief executive of multibillion-dollar cloud storage company Box and a Democratic donor who hosted a fundraiser for Hillary Clinton in 2015, reposted Biden’s resignation letter on X and said, “Wow. Amazing leadership. Now let’s go!”

https://www.wired.com/story/bidens-out-silicon-valley-donors-turn-to-kamala-harris/

[-misanthroptimist]

54. Soo..

...the wisdom of the moneyed should outweigh the votes of the People?

That's a curious take for a Democrat. And a killer of democracy. Your rationalizations notwithstanding.

[brooklynite]

58. If 2/3 of the Democrats wanted a change in the nominee...

...I think that pretty much covers the people who voted as well.

[-misanthroptimist]

60. Are you making things up?

Or maybe you found a poll. If 2/3rds really wanted a different candidate, they had ample opportunity. (This includes the aristocrats who apparently are calling the shots.) That didn't happen. Instead, after Biden won the nomination fairly, the aristocrats decided he couldn't win -based on "insider information." It's bullshit.

There will be repercussions. What they will be I don't know. But this corruption will be paid for down the line.

[EarlG]

56. The big donors wanted him out, and they got what they wanted

Last edited Mon Jul 22, 2024, 11:14 AM - Edit history (1)

Big money talks, and it talks a lot louder than the rest of us who don't have it, so I'd prefer not to be told that what I just witnessed with my own eyes didn't actually happen. "They didn't threaten or blackmail" -- um, yes they absolutely did. Biden ultimately made the choice to step down, and I respect his choice. But that choice was clearly made under extreme duress, thanks to the concentrated efforts of a relatively small number of very wealthy people.

Either course of action -- sticking with Biden, or moving on from Biden -- was a gamble. Maybe the course we're on now was the right course to take, and maybe it wasn't. That still remains to be seen. But it was big money donors who forced us down the path that they wanted to take, so here we are. Now, there are an awful lot of people who are 100% ready to move on and get behind the next nominee, then finish Trump off at the ballot box in November -- myself included. But it doesn't mean that there isn't going to be some lingering resentment over how this all went down.

FWIW, nobody is asking anyone to unilaterally disarm. It's obvious that billions of dollars need to be poured into the system in order for us to stand a chance. What I am lamenting is the fact that billions of dollars need to be poured into the system in order for us to stand a chance. When politics is awash in this much money, it's a breeding ground for corruption.

But that's it, I've said my piece, and I don't really want to fight about this -- what's done is done. What's most important now is selecting an excellent replacement candidate, moving forward, and beating Trump. Once we've done that, there will be plenty of time to talk about campaign finance reform.

[-misanthroptimist]

59. Every damned word of your post...

...I agree with, sir.

I'm not, politically, the biggest Biden fan. But he's done a good job -far better than I thought he would- under difficult circumstances. I am totally outraged at the way rich donors have treated Biden and democracy itself.

[SocialDemocrat61]

61. Very well said!

Thank you!