Fri May 8, 2015, 11:09 AM

Does the money Hillary raises from corporate donors revert to another candidate if she loses?

Last edited Fri May 8, 2015, 11:58 AM - Edit history (1)

In other words, if Bernie Sanders were the nominee, would the remaining money Hillary raised go to him? Could it do so, legally?

I dislike and distrust zero-sum, Hobson's Choices posed by elites that always resolve to their advantage if the premise is accepted. So I don't accept it.

They want us to think we can either do what they tell us and get their money, or fight blind and crippled from lack of money.

It would behoove us to reject the premise. Amateurs discuss tactics, professionals speak logistics. And if we can find a legitimate way to lay hands on that corporate dough to use against its own sources, that would be a considerable victory of imagination.

Update: I guess I have to explain this in more detail. When I say "corporate money," I don't mean explicitly money from corporations going directly to the Clinton campaign - I mean all money going from all financially-interested elements toward supporting Clinton's candidacy in any capacity, whether it be directly or through PACs and similar arrangements. And I'm not asking about that money going directly to a Sanders campaign, but about how it can be harnessed to support that campaign in any capacity beyond simply raising it as an issue.

96 replies, 4836 views

Thread info Bookmark this thread Trash this thread

Reply to this thread

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum

Replies to this discussion thread

96 replies	Author	Time	Post
Does the money Hillary raises from corporate donors revert to another candidate if she loses? (Original post)	True Blue Door	May 2015	OP
NO!	liberal N proud	May 2015	#1
If she could and didn't, that would be the end of her viability as a Democratic anything.	True Blue Door	May 2015	#14
"If she could and didn't, that would be the end of her viability as a Democratic anything."	NCTraveler	May 2015	#55
$2,000 max...per FEC limits	brooklynite	May 2015	#88
"Hard money." I'm talking about everything else.	True Blue Door	May 2015	#91
A candidate PAC can give $2700 max to a candidate...	brooklynite	May 2015	#93
You don't have to give the money to the candidate for it to serve them.	True Blue Door	May 2015	#95
So then, IF you supported Bernie with actual money	rock	May 2015	#94
I only have compassion for such absurdidty.	NCTraveler	May 2015	#96
Working to suppress the Black vote in 2008 should have ended her viability as a Democratic anything.	ieoeja	May 2015	#65
We can use that against her then.	True Blue Door	May 2015	#66
Say what now? Can you source that?	Scootaloo	May 2015	#83
Hillary kept a firewall between her and the attempt.	ieoeja	May 2015	#92
This is one of the most ridiculous claims I've seen here lately.	pnwmom	May 2015	#86
No losing candidate has ever been penalized for that before. nt	pnwmom	May 2015	#84
Then it's good that we're aiming to change things.	True Blue Door	May 2015	#89
Does this premise apply to all Democratic candidates or simply Clinton?	LanternWaste	May 2015	#85
The difference is Clinton has the war chest.	True Blue Door	May 2015	#90
There are no corporate donors. It is illegal for corporations to donate money to candidates.	MohRokTah	May 2015	#2
Didn't Citizens United "fix" that?	-none	May 2015	#6
No	jberryhill	May 2015	#8
Oh my	treestar	May 2015	#59
Yep	jberryhill	May 2015	#72
CU allows corporations to donate to Super-PACs, but not to candidates	arcane1	May 2015	#46
But there is no limit to how much they can contribute to those PACs.	-none	May 2015	#58
Exactly! And we need never know who they were.	arcane1	May 2015	#61
Which is worse, and which is why CU is so bad	NoJusticeNoPeace	May 2015	#77
Exactly!	arcane1	May 2015	#79
that is the tiniest, most embarrassing of fig leaves- and everyone acknowledges it.	cali	May 2015	#53
PAC money can be moved to another candidate.	OKNancy	May 2015	#3
Good. That means Citizens United can be used against its intended purpose.	True Blue Door	May 2015	#10
Would you want Bernie tainted with all that dirty money?	Buzz Clik	May 2015	#4
How would he be "tainted" by money he never compromised to receive?	True Blue Door	May 2015	#9
If he takes Hillary's money, he takes its baggage.	Buzz Clik	May 2015	#24
He doesn't have to take a cent of it. In fact, he could loudly reject it.	True Blue Door	May 2015	#26
By some colorful, deceitful funneling of money through a PAC? Surely not.	Buzz Clik	May 2015	#45
The only reason to pander to a PAC is if receiving their money is in doubt.	True Blue Door	May 2015	#71
I have no idea where you stand on this...	Buzz Clik	May 2015	#76
Yes, I imagine they would be very angry seeing their money helping Sanders.	True Blue Door	May 2015	#78
So now you're seeing	treestar	May 2015	#81
If our Party becomes anything like what we need and want it to be	True Blue Door	May 2015	#87
lol	treestar	May 2015	#60
How does that follow?	True Blue Door	May 2015	#74
He could more simply raise it himself	treestar	May 2015	#80
He can raise what he can raise, but there's no point in letting all that PAC money	True Blue Door	May 2015	#82
Oh, that would mean Bernie is ready to take corporate money, interesting.	Thinkingabout	May 2015	#5
You want to raise taxes on corporations, don't you?	True Blue Door	May 2015	#7
Playing both sides of the street, huh. Well this is what Hillary is doing also, glad you pointed	Thinkingabout	May 2015	#12
What are you talking about? It's nothing like what Hillary does.	True Blue Door	May 2015	#15
Maybe I misunderstood your post:	Thinkingabout	May 2015	#44
But again, not the case. Most of us "receive corporate money" in the form of (shitty) paychecks.	True Blue Door	May 2015	#54
And there we have it....	Agschmid	May 2015	#17
Do you agree?	True Blue Door	May 2015	#28
It doesn't matter what I think, the whole system is fucked.	Agschmid	May 2015	#29
Well, I find hope in the fact that we can turn some of this money against itself.	True Blue Door	May 2015	#33
I bought you this from Amazon, good luck.	Agschmid	May 2015	#34
If I pull a stunt like this....	NCTraveler	May 2015	#57
This message was self-deleted by its author	True Blue Door	May 2015	#62
You're saying I'm making this more complicated than necessary?	True Blue Door	May 2015	#63
No, and a leading question at that.	Agschmid	May 2015	#11
Unfortunately, no. That is why so many candidates run in the R party and stay in to the bitter end.	jwirr	May 2015	#13
I'm convinced Super-PACs are just a glorified money-laundering scam n/t	arcane1	May 2015	#48
Burnie should raise his own cash. why ruin his rep by advocating against campaign big money	misterhighwasted	May 2015	#16
Then make a big show of rejecting it, and then have the money instead go to PACs.	True Blue Door	May 2015	#19
Ya well he's not going to have that opportunity anyway.	misterhighwasted	May 2015	#21
It's not just money. The GOP gets free 24/7 in-kind support from media propaganda.	True Blue Door	May 2015	#25
You're kidding, right?	WinkyDink	May 2015	#18
About what?	True Blue Door	May 2015	#20
slow info day.	misterhighwasted	May 2015	#22
I am under the belief..	NCTraveler	May 2015	#23
I mean money from corporatist elements toward supporting her campaign in any way.	True Blue Door	May 2015	#27
Those goal posts are moving...	Agschmid	May 2015	#31
Are you trying to score points or to have a meaningful discussion?	True Blue Door	May 2015	#36
There are no points to score this isn't a game.	Agschmid	May 2015	#37
I'm brainstorming ways to divert resources from the other side.	True Blue Door	May 2015	#41
This is an extremely fluid op in extremely fluid times.	NCTraveler	May 2015	#39
Would you like some toast for that smarmalade?	True Blue Door	May 2015	#64
I would never ask for anything more than smarmalade itself.	NCTraveler	May 2015	#70
Well how about just not being duplicitous.	True Blue Door	May 2015	#75
Elaborate please.	NCTraveler	May 2015	#32
Most of the money spent promoting Republican lies never goes anywhere near the GOP.	True Blue Door	May 2015	#40
Really far off from your op.	NCTraveler	May 2015	#42
It's almost identical to the OP, just elaborated more broadly.	True Blue Door	May 2015	#49
I have no clue why you would be upset after all that you have been taught here.	NCTraveler	May 2015	#52
Fair enough. I'm seeing this through the lens of previous conversations that didn't go as well.	True Blue Door	May 2015	#56
You ran into a lot of stupid people who couldn't understand simple English.	ieoeja	May 2015	#68
That's my sense of things.	True Blue Door	May 2015	#73
they 'suspend' their campaign and no donations are returned. thats why so many 'run for president'	Sunlei	May 2015	#30
Hmm. Does that offer us opportunities to turn the other side's resources against it?	True Blue Door	May 2015	#35
not really because most Americans do not care that our Gov. is corrupt and only interested in money.	Sunlei	May 2015	#38
We have a fluid situation here......	NCTraveler	May 2015	#43
Meaning?	True Blue Door	May 2015	#50
There's a byzantine set of rules about what happens	Recursion	May 2015	#47
Ah. So there is at least some opportunity in this respect.	True Blue Door	May 2015	#51
^this^	Hiraeth	May 2015	#69
If it is for her campain no but if it is pac money she can donate the legally allowed amount.	hrmjustin	May 2015	#67

Response to True Blue Door (Original post)

Fri May 8, 2015, 11:11 AM

liberal N proud (59,802 posts)

1. NO!

Unless she donates it!
Would Burnie's money go to Hillary when he loses? NO!

Does the money Hillary raises from corporate donors revert to another candidate if she loses?

1. NO!

14. If she could and didn't, that would be the end of her viability as a Democratic anything.

55. "If she could and didn't, that would be the end of her viability as a Democratic anything."

88. $2,000 max...per FEC limits

91. "Hard money." I'm talking about everything else.

93. A candidate PAC can give $2700 max to a candidate...

95. You don't have to give the money to the candidate for it to serve them.

94. So then, IF you supported Bernie with actual money

96. I only have compassion for such absurdidty.

65. Working to suppress the Black vote in 2008 should have ended her viability as a Democratic anything.

66. We can use that against her then.

83. Say what now? Can you source that?

92. Hillary kept a firewall between her and the attempt.

86. This is one of the most ridiculous claims I've seen here lately.

84. No losing candidate has ever been penalized for that before. nt

89. Then it's good that we're aiming to change things.

85. Does this premise apply to all Democratic candidates or simply Clinton?

90. The difference is Clinton has the war chest.

2. There are no corporate donors. It is illegal for corporations to donate money to candidates.

6. Didn't Citizens United "fix" that?

8. No

59. Oh my

72. Yep

46. CU allows corporations to donate to Super-PACs, but not to candidates

58. But there is no limit to how much they can contribute to those PACs.

61. Exactly! And we need never know who they were.

77. Which is worse, and which is why CU is so bad

79. Exactly!

53. that is the tiniest, most embarrassing of fig leaves- and everyone acknowledges it.

3. PAC money can be moved to another candidate.

10. Good. That means Citizens United can be used against its intended purpose.

4. Would you want Bernie tainted with all that dirty money?

9. How would he be "tainted" by money he never compromised to receive?

24. If he takes Hillary's money, he takes its baggage.

26. He doesn't have to take a cent of it. In fact, he could loudly reject it.

45. By some colorful, deceitful funneling of money through a PAC? Surely not.

71. The only reason to pander to a PAC is if receiving their money is in doubt.

76. I have no idea where you stand on this...

78. Yes, I imagine they would be very angry seeing their money helping Sanders.

81. So now you're seeing

87. If our Party becomes anything like what we need and want it to be

60. lol

74. How does that follow?

80. He could more simply raise it himself

82. He can raise what he can raise, but there's no point in letting all that PAC money

5. Oh, that would mean Bernie is ready to take corporate money, interesting.

7. You want to raise taxes on corporations, don't you?

12. Playing both sides of the street, huh. Well this is what Hillary is doing also, glad you pointed

15. What are you talking about? It's nothing like what Hillary does.

44. Maybe I misunderstood your post:

54. But again, not the case. Most of us "receive corporate money" in the form of (shitty) paychecks.

17. And there we have it....

28. Do you agree?

29. It doesn't matter what I think, the whole system is fucked.

33. Well, I find hope in the fact that we can turn some of this money against itself.

34. I bought you this from Amazon, good luck.

57. If I pull a stunt like this....

63. You're saying I'm making this more complicated than necessary?

11. No, and a leading question at that.

13. Unfortunately, no. That is why so many candidates run in the R party and stay in to the bitter end.

48. I'm convinced Super-PACs are just a glorified money-laundering scam n/t

16. Burnie should raise his own cash. why ruin his rep by advocating against campaign big money

19. Then make a big show of rejecting it, and then have the money instead go to PACs.

21. Ya well he's not going to have that opportunity anyway.

25. It's not just money. The GOP gets free 24/7 in-kind support from media propaganda.

18. You're kidding, right?

20. About what?

22. slow info day.

23. I am under the belief..

27. I mean money from corporatist elements toward supporting her campaign in any way.

31. Those goal posts are moving...

36. Are you trying to score points or to have a meaningful discussion?

37. There are no points to score this isn't a game.

41. I'm brainstorming ways to divert resources from the other side.

39. This is an extremely fluid op in extremely fluid times.

64. Would you like some toast for that smarmalade?

70. I would never ask for anything more than smarmalade itself.

75. Well how about just not being duplicitous.

32. Elaborate please.