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

[True Blue Door]

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.

[liberal N proud]

1. NO!

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

[True Blue Door]

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

[NCTraveler]

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

I heart this.

[brooklynite]

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

http://www.fec.gov/pages/brochures/contriblimits.shtml

[True Blue Door]

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

[brooklynite]

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

The FEC website is your friend.

[True Blue Door]

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

Common sense and basic awareness of the post-Citizens United electoral environment is your friend.

[rock]

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

you wouldn't object if he passes it on to Hillary if he loses the nomination, or do you think that since you gave it to him, he should keep it? This is a pure hypothetical. I'm trying to understand why you find it so heartable.

[NCTraveler]

96. I only have compassion for such absurdidty.

I find the thought process behind that post to be very special. That is why I heart it. I truly laughed out loud when I read it. The short sentence they wrote is truly heartable, in my humble opinion.

[ieoeja]

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

She tried getting Nevada to make a last minute rules change to prevent African-American casino workers from voting in the primary.

[True Blue Door]

66. We can use that against her then.

Remind Democratic voters of the shit she pulled in 2008 to prevent us from having an Obama presidency.

[Scootaloo]

83. Say what now? Can you source that?

[ieoeja]

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

http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/01/17/judge-allows-vegas-caucus-sites-on-the-strip/?_r=0

1. It was action taken by her supporters.
2. They did so two days after the casino worker's union endorsed Obama.
3. Bill campaigned for Hillary on the topic.

[pnwmom]

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

The number of African-American casino workers in NEVADA is tiny. She wouldn't have had any reason to target them.

[pnwmom]

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

[True Blue Door]

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

[LanternWaste]

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

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

Does this premise apply to all Democratic candidates potentially losing the nomination and refusing to hand over all campaign contributions to the nominee, or simply Clinton? If the latter, what is the relevant, objective and precise difference?

[True Blue Door]

90. The difference is Clinton has the war chest.

[MohRokTah]

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

An no, the campaign is barred legally from moving any campaign cash raised to another campaign. It can make a single Campaign Committee donation that cannot exceed $2000.

[-none]

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

[jberryhill]

8. No

But given the oversimplified picture that most people believe to be reality, it's not worth the time to explain the difference.

The outcome of Citizen's United is: "corporations can make a movie about whatever they want, whenever they want, at whatever cost they want".

[treestar]

59. Oh my

IMO most DUers think it means corporations can give unlimited money directly to candidates.

[jberryhill]

72. Yep

I'm certain that's what most DUers think it means.

[arcane1]

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

That's my understanding of it, for what that's worth

[-none]

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

In these rulings the Supreme Court's conservative majority defined it narrowly as only the "quid pro quo" of payment for a specific action by an elected official — basically, bribery. Contributions to party committees or PACs? They don't count, so they can't be limited.
http://www.latimes.com/business/hiltzik/la-fi-hiltzik-20150125-column.html#page=1

[arcane1]

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

[NoJusticeNoPeace]

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

[arcane1]

79. Exactly!

[cali]

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

[OKNancy]

3. PAC money can be moved to another candidate.

[True Blue Door]

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

[Buzz Clik]

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

That filthy corporatist third way neo-liberal DINO teapartywannabe money?

[True Blue Door]

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

You might as well say the US government would be "tainted" by raising corporate taxes.

[Buzz Clik]

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

[True Blue Door]

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

The money could still be used to the benefit of the campaign.

[Buzz Clik]

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

Can you suggest a transparent way of using Hillary's money to fund a Sanders campaign that doesn't involve Sanders becoming beholden to the donors of that money?

[True Blue Door]

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

If the PAC was formed specifically to support a candidate, even without their permission, there's no quid pro quo. There's not even an association. There's just money being put to work blocking the power of other money to shout down the issues you want the campaign to be about.

An honest campaign can't be heard if the entire media is shrieking 24/7 propaganda and the truth is spoken quietly because it lacks the resources to do otherwise. A space must be cleared for the issues to shine through the noise.

Obama did that in 2008, but only by attracting small donors in addition to the sleazier stuff. If Sanders wants only small donors, then the other kind of work still has to be done somehow, canceling the noise that would otherwise drown out the message.

[Buzz Clik]

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

... but the prevailing attitude at DU, particularly among Sanders supporters, is that nearly all of Hillary's campaign contributions come with a quid pro quo; if that is true, I doubt her donors would be willing to laterally transfer that money to the Sanders campaign without the same agreements.

[True Blue Door]

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

[treestar]

81. So now you're seeing

The money as needed. That is like being practical or something. But going about it in a roundabout way which requires a Hillary type to get it started. The one remove doesn't free the taint that the money was raised by a corporatist from corporations.

The corporations would catch on quick They like money. The next time they'd refuse to give the money to the Hillary figure. Probably give it all to Republicans.

[True Blue Door]

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

there will definitely come a time when all the corporate money is going to Republicans. Until that happens, we're not really doing our jobs.

But right now we have a window where they feel secure about their control of politics, and we can exploit it to make it less true.

[treestar]

60. lol

Exactly. And wanting Hillary to raise the money for Bernie. Showing he can't raise at much himself.

[True Blue Door]

74. How does that follow?

How does it follow that any possible advantage should just be ignored without thought if it doesn't amount to choir-preaching?

[treestar]

80. He could more simply raise it himself

Rather than trying for Hillary's

[True Blue Door]

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

fall back into the wrong hands.

[Thinkingabout]

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

[True Blue Door]

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

Well, get a head start on that by turning their money against itself.

And in truth, even if Bernie was too ideological to accept that, he can't control what money is spent by individuals and PACs to promote him.

[Thinkingabout]

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

this point, I can use it in the future.

[True Blue Door]

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

She's a corporatist, and they give her money to promote their agenda.

[Thinkingabout]

44. Maybe I misunderstood your post:

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





Well, get a head start on that by turning their money against itself.

Also you are accusing Hillary of being a corporatist and this thread is asking the question

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


Receiving corporate money makes Bernie a corporatist.

[True Blue Door]

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

Most of the small donations Bernie generates will be from people who work for corporations.

We want to raise taxes on corporations, so the money going to the government in that form would be "receiving corporate money."

The difference is that those are examples of money being used against corporate power, whereas money they give to candidates is an expression of their will.

Subverting that will is the entire point of the Sanders campaign.

[Agschmid]

17. And there we have it....

And in truth, even if Bernie was too ideological to accept that, he can't control what money is spent by individuals and PACs to promote him.

[True Blue Door]

28. Do you agree?

[Agschmid]

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

All I can do is support a candidate, and vote.

[True Blue Door]

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

Sort of like tricking enemies into attacking each other - using Citizens United in ways its architects never intended.

[Agschmid]

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

http://www.amazon.com/Star-Trek-Tri-Dimensional-Chess-Franklin/dp/B0018S4WM0

[NCTraveler]

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

Will you buy me one? Looks awesome!!!!!

[True Blue Door]

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

[Agschmid]

11. No, and a leading question at that.

Same with the money she raises from small donors, and independent businesses just FYI.

However PAC money can...

[jwirr]

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

It is a money maker for them. Newt comes to mind.

[arcane1]

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

[misterhighwasted]

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

..and then accept Hillary's corporate stash.
That would be stupid.
Burnie would never give that big stick to the GOP to beat him over the head with.

Dumb

[True Blue Door]

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

PACs that he also rejects, but which promote him nonetheless.

He can't stop people from supporting him.

[misterhighwasted]

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

He has a big enough (& growing) base that he's well able to raise his own money.
I believe he is against super pacs.
He won't go against his truth.

[True Blue Door]

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

Fighting that takes considerable resources.

And there's no reason not to engineer it so the other side's money fights itself.

That creates more of a space in which the things that truly matter can have exposure and not be drowned in lies.

[WinkyDink]

18. You're kidding, right?

[True Blue Door]

20. About what?

[misterhighwasted]

22. slow info day.

[NCTraveler]

23. I am under the belief..

That Hillary raises exactly zero campaign dollars directly from corporations. I believe I am correct in that. She would have no corporate money in the coffers to give anyone.

[True Blue Door]

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

And how those resources might be harnessed against their sources, in any capacity.

[Agschmid]

31. Those goal posts are moving...

I await the edit to the OP to represent what you actually meant.

[True Blue Door]

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

[Agschmid]

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

I'm willing to have a meaningful discussion, when you are.

[True Blue Door]

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

It's a logistical problem, not just a political issue.

[NCTraveler]

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

Please check back tomorrow for what they actually meant.

[True Blue Door]

64. Would you like some toast for that smarmalade?

[NCTraveler]

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

Greed is the greatest of sins.

[True Blue Door]

75. Well how about just not being duplicitous.

Don't be all reasonable up above and then post comments below talking shit for no reason.

[NCTraveler]

32. Elaborate please.

"And how those resources might be harnessed against their sources, in any capacity."

[True Blue Door]

40. Most of the money spent promoting Republican lies never goes anywhere near the GOP.

It goes from wealthy individuals and corporations into PACs, fake think tanks, and other media monstrosities. The fact that their candidates can't control what these instruments do is why they kowtow to them, and why our own politicians do likewise. Fail to do so, and this Hydra of lying voices will scream hate at you through countless fronts.

Somehow that has to be fought, not just as an issue, but as a logistical problem. Those resources have to be diverted away from their intended purpose, and denied to the agenda of those responsible for deploying them.

Whether or not this specific idea is of value, we need to generate ideas toward this end.

[NCTraveler]

42. Really far off from your op.

But the replies seem to have been a great education for you. In the end that is a great positive. Luckily we have a couple of great candidates on our side talking about this very issue in ways that will move us away from corporate influence. If it weren't for the education delivered with replies to your op, I would say this should have been your op.

[True Blue Door]

49. It's almost identical to the OP, just elaborated more broadly.

The "education" I'm receiving, frankly, is not encouraging. I see visceral hostility to intellectual exploration, antagonism at unconventional thinking, and painfully clear signals that I'm investing a lot more thought into generating ideas than are invested in the replies to them.

I'm repeatedly disappointed in DU lately. This kind of forum is where ideas are supposed to be incubated, not a jacuzzi for exchanging shibboleths ad infinitum.

And I especially would expect more of early adopters of the Sanders campaign. Ideas aren't just about checklists of issue positions, they're about logistics, messaging, strategic alliances, all the many elements that go into achieving anything.

But I feel like every time I bring any of that up, it arouses suspicion - like any response more complex and substantive than just repeating what everyone already thinks, in the dumbest language possible, is morally suspect. That's fucking insane and infuriating.

I shouldn't have to rack my brain for ways to address obviously relevant topics without triggering some spring-loaded ideological viper reaction out of the blue. These topics should be discussed constantly, by everyone with an interest in the outcome: How do we deny the logistical advantages of the other side? How do we turn those advantages against them? How do we uncover false dilemmas and exploit the options that are hidden by them?

This should be a campaign that attracts and harnesses thinkers. I'm really getting tired of dragging its own proponents kicking and screaming into acknowledging even the existence of these topics.

[NCTraveler]

52. I have no clue why you would be upset after all that you have been taught here.

Really doesn't make much sense. It is the best part about du. You should embrace the knowledge of those here and their willingness to share it with you.

" I see visceral hostility to intellectual exploration, antagonism at unconventional thinking"

Where?

[True Blue Door]

56. Fair enough. I'm seeing this through the lens of previous conversations that didn't go as well.

Maybe I'm just irritable at the moment.

[ieoeja]

68. You ran into a lot of stupid people who couldn't understand simple English.

Where the average person on the street would have known exactly what you meant when you originally stated it, a bunch of the replies to you have been by people who failed to understand. You have to use the exactly correct phrases, or they think you meant something else.

I suppose the whole "we taught something" routine is how they make themselves feel better about their inability to understand things.

[True Blue Door]

73. That's my sense of things.

Glad to hear I'm not totally alone in feeling like there's a totally unreasonable level of obtuseness going on here.

[Sunlei]

30. they 'suspend' their campaign and no donations are returned. thats why so many 'run for president'

they can use the money to 'pay' their workers and buy their own books. It's a profitable 'legal scam' for many who never intend to be president.

Mrs. Clinton wants to be president, just like Obama wanted to be president. IMO, it's mostly republicans who run several ringers just for the media time and the income for their 'staff', book sales, interviews, many nice paid trips.

[True Blue Door]

35. Hmm. Does that offer us opportunities to turn the other side's resources against it?

[Sunlei]

38. not really because most Americans do not care that our Gov. is corrupt and only interested in money.

[NCTraveler]

43. We have a fluid situation here......

Stay tuned........

[True Blue Door]

50. Meaning?

[Recursion]

47. There's a byzantine set of rules about what happens

The campaign committee can disburse a large percentage of the funds to other candidates, at its discretion; traditionally, primary campaigns have generally donated the majority of funds to the winning campaign after the convention, and donate the remainder to charity after paying whatever their closing-up costs are.

[True Blue Door]

51. Ah. So there is at least some opportunity in this respect.

Although it does give considerable leverage to party insiders.

[Hiraeth]

69. ^this^

[hrmjustin]

67. If it is for her campain no but if it is pac money she can donate the legally allowed amount.