How The DNC Helps Clinton Buy Off Superdelegates - Observer

[WillyT]

How the DNC Helps Clinton Buy Off Superdelegates
As floodgates open to donations from special interests, the future of the party is auctioned to the highest bidder
By Michael Sainato • Observer
02/18/16 11:00am

<snip>

In a giant step backwards in eliminating special interests in Washington, the Democratic National Committee overturned a ban introduced by Barack Obama in 2008 restricting donations from federal lobbyists and super PACs. Unfortunately for Bernie Sanders’ supporters—who take pride in the Democratic presidential candidate’s refusal to accept funds from super PACs—the decision disproportionately benefits Hillary Clinton, as she is the only Democratic presidential candidate taking such donations.

Campaign finance reform has been a major issue this political cycle, as both Democratic presidential candidates have incorporated it into their platforms—but only Mr. Sanders has acted on his proposal by refusing to accept super PAC money. According to The New York Times, Ms. Clinton received $47.9 million from super PACs in 2015, despite openly advocating for campaign finance reform. Ms. Clinton’s actions contradict her words, and suggest her proposals for reform are merely for political expediency.

Like Ms. Clinton, DNC Chair Debbie Wasserman Schultz also accepts money from super PACs and corporate interests. Given Ms. Wasserman Shultz’s campaign financing strategies—in conjunction with the virtual bankruptcy the DNC is facing under her leadership—the rescinding of the ban on donations from federal lobbyists and super PACs should come as no surprise, but what it demonstrates is still sobering. Special interests have undermined the trust between the government and the American people to the extent that public outcry against corporate influences are resulting in regressing policies for campaign finance reform. As Mr. Sanders leads calls for politicians to ethically rid themselves of ties to wealthy individuals and corporations, the Democratic Establishment is doing everything possible to inoculate themselves from those calls to action.

Growing calls for Ms. Wasserman Schultz’s resignation have stemmed from her alleged favoritism for Ms. Clinton—ranging from her position as co-chair of Ms. Clinton’s failed 2008 presidential campaign, to criticism over her limited and poorly scheduled Democratic presidential debates—and the pressure has risen substantially as she faces a primary challenger in Tim Canova, a former consultant to Mr. Sanders on Federal Reserve reform.

Although Ms. Clinton still significantly outpaces Mr. Sanders when it comes to endorsements from superdelegates, those endorsements will have to switch to Mr. Sanders if he continues to win more delegates from the popular vote. Otherwise, the Democratic Party risks rupturing over the controversy that would ensue if the nomination was determined by superdelegates rather than American voters identifying as democrats.

A joint fundraising committee between the Clinton campaign and the DNC—called the Hillary Victory Fund—raised $26.9 million as of December 31, 2015, much of which has gone directly to the DNC and other Democratic candidates across the country. Thirty-three state Democratic parties signed pacts with Ms. Clinton’s campaign, meaning she is essentially buying support from Democratic leaders around the country. In short, the Clinton campaign controls the money and decides which states receive it after the campaign and the DNC get their cut. According to Bloomberg, New Hampshire received $124,000, where six out of six superdelegates supported Ms. Clinton while over 60 percent of the primary vote favored Mr. Sanders. Nevada and South Carolina also have pacts with the Hillary Victory Fund, where Ms. Clinton has already won support from three of Nevada’s eight superdelegates and three out of South Carolina’s six superdelegates.

<snip>

More: http://observer.com/2016/02/how-the-dnc-helps-clinton-buy-off-superdelegates/

[HooptieWagon]

1. Buying superdelegates costs a lot more than buying fb 'likes'.

[Skwmom]

2. With the Clintons: Always FOLLOW the money...

[daleanime]

3. +1

[peacebird]

4. +1

[WillyT]

7. Exactly...

[Kittycat]

51. +1

[CoffeeCat]

5. Aren't we so relieved that Bernie doesn't engage in this corruption?

I'm at the point where I can't even read about Clinton's corporate connections and the corruption to our democracy that she not only engages in--but JUSTIFIES.

I can't read it any more. It's so disgusting.

All I can do is focus on Bernie--my candidate who runs a people-powered campaign funded by "We The People." Bernie will be serving the people, as President, not all of these powerful, entrenched interests that have nearly destroyed our democracy.

We're so lucky that we have Bernie fighting for us!

[Duval]

25. I can hardly listen to her. nt

[revbones]

6. They complain Bernie doesn't raise money (bribe) down-ticket democrats...

That seems to be all Hillary was doing, buying up superdelegate votes

[sarge43]

9. Further, with all that money being funneled to Clinton,

doesn't that leave the down-ticket Dems looking under the sofa pillows for some loose change to fund their campaigns?

Apparently a Repug majority in Congress won't be a problem so long as we have our first woman POTUS and cabinet seat for DWS.

[jwirr]

26. Excellent point.

[Dustlawyer]

37. That's not all she bought! She bought all those endorsements and Chris Mathews on MSNBC!

Hillary's Donors hooked up Chris Mathews wife with campaign money for her run for Congress.

This is why we are fighting, to get rid of corporate control over our government so we can fix the real problems our country faces and restore Representative Democracy! Something Hillary doesn't want to happen. Her Donors wish to retain control and Hillary is their best bet. I cannot believe how people can swallow her saying that all that money has no affect on her, she is full of shite!

[corkhead]

8. One of President Sanders' first acts should be to fire DWS

[scscholar]

27. Why the sarcasm tag?

I think she should be fired, and a lot of people do, so why do you disagree with that?

[strategery blunder]

36. He has the sarcasm tag as part of his signature

in case he accidentally forgets it on a post where it might be useful.

[corkhead]

59. Sorry the sarcasm thingy is built into my sigline because sometimes people couldn't tell when I was

being sarcastic.

No, it was not meant to be interpreted as sarcasm.

[Ferd Berfel]

57. Zero Integrity

[randome]

10. DeBerned in Vermont?

http://talkingpointsmemo.com/edblog/deberned-in-vermont

From a Vermonter, no less:

Think about it: Sanders has shown little interest in building the fortunes of the Democratic Party. I mean that literally. I heard on the Chris Hayes show the other day that Clinton has raised millions for the DNC, while Sanders has raised $1,000. Sanders would argue that it’s important to get money out of the electoral process, but you can’t tell me that Sanders isn’t spending millions on himself. And I really don’t care if that money from small donors or not. Yes, Bernie is creating a movement, and that’s great. But at the end of the day, we’re likely to continue to have two political parties that will control much of the dialogue for years to come. I get the sense that many Progressives don’t give a second thought to what might be best for the Democratic Party overall, conveniently forgetting that representative and senators and governors come from parties many more times than not. There’s little to no thought among progressives about the depth of the bench of other elected officials. And that lack of strategic thought is one reason why I’ll vote for Clinton, because the Democratic Party will continue to be important, revolution or no revolution, and the Democratic Party will need to go toe-to-toe with the GOP, which means that the Democratic Party has to be strong. And unlike Bernie, Hillary is proud to call herself a member of the Democratic Party.

I’m very, very grateful that Bernie has moved the Democratic Party to the left. But I’m definitely not feeling the Bern up here in snowy Vermont.

[hr][font color="blue"][center]You should never stop having childhood dreams.[/center][/font][hr]

[JonLeibowitz]

13. Bernie is fighting to be the leader of the Democratic Party.

His position is reasonable -- if he were to spend resources not focused on winning and ended up losing, the Democratic party will not move left and will deny his positions as important to the party's platform.

[randome]

14. So winning is more important than anything else?

I get your point, I really do, but to be a leader, you have to address the full spectrum of the organization which you're trying to take control of. And I don't see him doing that.

Moreover, I'm told there is a seismic revolution occurring in America so why can't Sanders do more than try to defeat Clinton? The reader comment I linked to confirms what many others have said: Sanders doesn't work that well with others. He's a one-man army (important and relevant and necessary) but that's not enough.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]You should never stop having childhood dreams.[/center][/font][hr]

[AlbertCat]

17. so why can't Sanders do more than try to defeat Clinton?

Uh.... because it's the Dem primary right now?


This is so like, in the early stages of the primary, when we got all this hand wringing:

"Did you hear what Sanders didn't say today?????"


Ridiculous.

[randome]

29. Sanders isn't the Pope. He can't 'get by' by making proclamations from on high.

The Democratic Party is a huge organization. If he wants to control it, he needs to get his hands dirty and start building coalitions and bridges. He isn't going to control it by force of will or even by winning one Presidential election. And without making those inroads into the Democratic Party, he won't get much support from it.

Sure, it's a Primary but the time for a rebel leader to make his/her mark was at the start of his joining the Party. It's too late now. So far as I know, the few friends he has in the Party are not enough to turn this ship around. If he can't even win over the majority of the members of the DNC, how can he expect to win over a majority of Americans?

He has helped move the Party to the left and that's where it needs to go but the forces at work in society today are as much to do with that as anything else. To his credit, he is simply a reflection of that and is doing a good deed for us all.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]You should never stop having childhood dreams.[/center][/font][hr]

[JonLeibowitz]

44. He has no power to effect change without the nomination--the Party denies his positions as credible

Just this week we had President Bill Clinton, one of the biggest party elders, saying that the left wing of the party is akin to the Tea Party. Bill Clinton self-identifies politically as an Eisenhower Republican, not as a Democrat, so this is not surprising.

I would argue that it is much easier to win over the majority of Americans than a majority of members of the DNC. The DNC is corrupted with corporate money against the policies that Sanders (and a majority of Americans, says polling) supports. It is simply easier to convince someone with no direct immediate monetary stakes (a voter) than.

When he becomes leader of the party he can begin to make change. A perfect example is the recent DNC decision to allow lobbyists and PACs to raise cash; Obama as leader of the party in 2008 said we as a party and as a nation were better than that. Now the DNC leadership is okay with that, and nothing Sanders could currently say would change that (heck the cynics would say they are allowing these contributions to allow Clinton more freedom to defeat a primary opponent).

Your suggestions would make Sanders' movement weaker by risking its premature defeat.

[tokenlib]

67. The party and DNC will not move left until we take control...

..any perceived movement at this point is illusory and mere words in an effort to herd the progressive base into line. I don't trust them..we have to win.

[AlbertCat]

15. what might be best for the Democratic Party overall,

How about stopping it from being Repug Lite?

[randome]

19. Sure. Has Sanders commented on other Congressional races? Has he involved himself in any?

Like it or not, campaigns need money. We can restrict the flow of that money, specify how it is spent, but the need is still there. If Sanders isn't going to help out the Democratic party where it needs help, he isn't going to get any support from it, either. Blowing into town and saying you're going to 'clean up Dodge' is nice but...what happens after that?
[hr][font color="blue"][center]You should never stop having childhood dreams.[/center][/font][hr]

[AlbertCat]

24. Has Sanders commented on other Congressional races?

I dunno.... why don;t you look it up is you care?

[AlbertCat]

28. If Sanders isn't going to help out the Democratic party where it needs help,

How do you know he isn't? It seems to me money and elections are a big topic with him.... that he looks at with a general eye. if....if....if....


BTW..... it's still the primary. Why would he pretend he's already won?

[cali]

32. Key statement

but you can’t tell me that Sanders isn’t spending millions on himself. And I really don’t care if that money from small donors or not.

Quite reveling on two fronts. One is how he characterizes the money Bernie has raised for his campaign, the other is that he is patently unconcerned with big money in politics.

I didn't know he is a Vermonter. He wasn't born here. I'm pretty sure he doesn't live here. Maybe he has a vacation home here?

[randome]

35. Well, it's the Internet, so who knows what's true? For all I know, your name isn't really 'cali'.

But Congressional candidates still need money and Clinton is raising it for them while Sanders does little. If he wants to lead the Party, I think he needs to spend time getting to know everyone and I don't see that he has done much of that. He seems to do fine in the spotlight -his voice is needed- but he can't take control of an organization like the DNC simply by making pronouncements. He needs to convince Congressional candidates that he has their backs. Clinton does much more of that.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]You should never stop having childhood dreams.[/center][/font][hr]

[cali]

42. And yet when he did help raise money for the DSCC

the slime team at camp Clinton, excoriated him it.

[Dustlawyer]

40. All of the big money being raised by the DNC is to assure their continued control over

our government by the big Donors giving the money. Bernie is bringing young people to the Party if the Party will reform its ways. If not, those people will either go Independant or drop out altogether.

[aggiesal]

63. I'd rather vote for a ...

candidate with democratic values
then a
Democrat with Republican values.

Go Bernie Go!

[DUbeornot2be]

11. In other...

...words... Hillary is willing to sell out the entire party in order to do her masters' bidding... and she doesn't care how spreading the corruption hurts the party and, more importantly, the American people.

She and dws disgust me.

[asjr]

21. I promised myself I would not deal with people who have an agenda

that implies that Hillary Clinton spreads corruption. That sort of sickness is playing all over DU and has absolutely nothing to cure it.

[DUbeornot2be]

56. So...

...you broke your promise to yourself to say that?

Hillary makes herself look corrupt... Agenda? I just call it as I see it.

[aggiesal]

65. During the last debate, ...

Hillary posed a rhetorical question asking for anyone
to produce an instance when she changed her vote because
of donations that she received.

Elizabeth Warren who was a professor at Harvard(?) at the time
tells the story about the Bankruptcy Bill (H.R. 2415, Bankruptcy Reform Act of 2000)
that had passed both the House and the Senate in late 2000, while Bill Clinton was the
President.

Hillary went to Harvard and asked Prof. Warren to explain the
Bankruptcy Bill to her. Prof. Warren said it took about 20 minutes
to explain and the Hillary understood it completely, probably better
than her students.

When Hillary returned to DC, the Bankruptcy Bill came to a screeching
halt, and Bill Clinton performed a pocket veto on Dec, 17 2000 (A little
over 1 month before leaving office).
As now Senator Warren states, at the urging of Hillary.

Prof. Warren calls the Bankruptcy Bill a vampire bill because it
never dies.

So Hillary decides to run for Senate of New York, and get $$$'s from Wall St.
Is elected to the senate, and then proceeds to vote in favor of the vampire
Bankruptcy Bill sponsored by Sen. Grassley in 2001, which now passes and
is signed into law by GW McIdiot.

Now you can't tell she didn't change her mind because of the campaign
contributions.

[TTUBatfan2008]

12. But it's all just right wing smears...

...looks like pretty ugly corruption if you ask me.

[libtodeath]

16. Hillary should come out and disavow any super delegate votes if she doesnt win enough real ones

[elljay]

18. Superdelegate Switching

You have touched on a couple of very important issues - whether the superdelegates will switch if Bernie wins the popular vote and the corollary- if they don't, what we might do. I am not convinced that they will switch because the DNC understands that when the choice is between supporting an undemocratic selection of Hillary and President Trump, it will be difficult for us to stay on the moral high ground in the face of the greater evil. This underscores why we need to take control of the Democratic Party.

[jwirr]

33. I attended a Democratic function last night and was surprise

that a lot of the talk was about the corruption of our present Democratic leaders. The people know it - and my guess is that the DNC is not getting money from a lot of people. Thus they see no problem with taking big money and bribing people. It never dawns on them that is the reason they are not getting money in the first place.

[turbinetree]

41. I am going to a Bernie function this SAT............................

and I am going to ask how the Sanders campaign is going to address this issue, I haven't given one dime to the DNC------------and they wonder why they keep losing elections-------------------------

Frank Church in his investigation of 1971 - 1973 and through 1976 basically was telling the people of this country, the corporations and the moneyed interest's will not stop and he was warning us ...................................

Honk---------------------for a political revolution Bernie 2016

[jwirr]

43. I loved Frank Church - he was a very good Democrat. We

lost him in the same way we lost a lot of the FDR type leaders - smear tactics.

[turbinetree]

48. Yes .....................................

and that can't be stessed enough, smear tactics-----------------look at Max Cleland, the list is very long

Honk-------------------for a political revolution Bernie 2016

[elljay]

52. I used to occasionally donate

to the DNC or to their Senatorial and House committees but stopped a couple of years ago when I saw the kind of candidates they supported (or failed to support, in the case of the challenger to Chris Christie).

Have fun at the Sanders function. An organizing event in my town is scheduled for Saturday night but by the time I tried to rsvp, it was already full. I wish I could go, but am happy that there are so many people interested in volunteering that they don't have room to accommodate!

[turbinetree]

58. Thanks.....................

its the ground game and getting rid of the corrupt money game


Honk----------------for a political revolution Bernie 2016

[jwirr]

20. 33 states signed agreements with the DNC. Anyone got the

list?

And they really expect us to vote for her in any election?

[DhhD]

34. Hillary Victory Fund already in place before Sanders.

http://www.cnn.com/2016/01/01/politics/hillary-clinton-fundraising-100-million/index.html
snip
Like Clinton, Sanders also signed a joint fundraising effort with the DNC this quarter, starting to raise money for the national party in November.
snip
While it will be difficult for Sanders to turn in a bigger haul than Clinton, the Vermont senator is expected to bring in a sizable haul, largely buoyed by his strong online contributions.

Since launching his campaign, Sanders has solicited over 2.3 million donations and raised over $40 million -- including a sizable $26 million in the third quarter. Aides have said that the campaign is focused on surpassing 1 million donors by the end of the year.


https://www.hillaryclinton.com/donate/om-hvf/

[jwirr]

39. So are you trying to say that the dirty deals between the

state DNCs and the DNC are backed by Bernie? We have seen how he works and how she works. I do not think there was any thing he has done to condone bribery of super-delegates.

Further more you say it was pre-Hillary. Before she announced she was running or pre being declared the inevitable nominee?

She and DWS were cooking this up long before she announced.

[Javaman]

22. "Hillary Clinton, as she is the only Democratic presidential candidate taking such donations."

"According to The New York Times, Ms. Clinton received $47.9 million from super PACs in 2015, despite openly advocating for campaign finance reform. Ms. Clinton’s actions contradict her words, and suggest her proposals for reform are merely for political expediency."

not the least bit surprised

[mikehiggins]

23. Why does this surprise anyone?

The professional political "elite" don't give a crap about fairness or honesty. All they care about is winning elections. To paraphrase Churchill, we know what they are. All anyone is haggling about is the price.

HRC's Wall Street donors recently had a meeting with the HRC staff at which Mook was urged to stress the small donations to Hillary's campaign, rather than certain, rather large donations. According to the New YOrk Times article Mook complained the media wasn't paying any attention. Maybe the reason is the newsreaders, including Tweetie and the Toad, don't want to look all that stupid and naive. They know what the "Mindy" campaign to elicit $1 donations is all about. If I donate a million bucks and you donate one buck, the average donation is half a million. A hundred bucks at $1 a pop drastically lowers that average.

Like that cliche goes, I've stopped asking how stupid people can be. They seem to take it as a challenge.

[Amimnoch]

30. How utterly horrible that Democratic Party Candidates across the country are benefiting

from legal campaign sources that their opponents sure as hell aren't turning down.

It's not like we actually NEED the house or the Senate to get legislation passed.


Especially Sanders with that very easy to accomplish wish list that he's running on.

Leave it to the Sanders side to first hamstring themselves in the race then complain that they are hamstrung.

[Faux pas]

31. D-E-S-P-I-C-A-B-L-E

the slime is almost a bottomless pit. When she comes on the television machine, I mute it or change the channel. When I dvr the town halls and debates I get a special thrill fast forwarding past her drivel.

She and cruz both make my skin crawl.

[INdemo]

45. Be prepared for DWS to pull some

Rove style election theft strategy in every primary/caucus here on out.....Hillary has wanted this for 30 years and she has the team in place that she aims to get it one way or the other..

[rosesaylavee]

46. How the DNC expects the party to last beyond this election beats me.

If they cause trouble at the Convention, I will be done with this Party. I am just about done now. How does any of these actions these past several months benefit anyone but one candidate when we have not nominated her yet?

I don't think they are thinking past August 2016. It will be hard enough to vote for Secy Clinton for me now given what the DNC has been doing. I can't be the only one upset about all this.

[RiverLover]

49. +1

Not alone at all! It's despicable and unDemocratic and underhanded and all that we expect of republicans, not from our party. Our own party shouldn't be rigged against its base and trying to hide things from us. It's an outrage.

[rosesaylavee]

50. I have never felt this disconnected from my own Party.

What the heck are they thinking? Do they not care? I don't think they do.

[Android3.14]

47. This is unethical, and Clinton should denounce it

[FreakinDJ]

53. The Clintons will be the demise of the Democratic party

[quantass]

54. To no surprise. And yet we have Clinton supporters expecting Change?! Embarassing. nt

[Gman]

55. This is such horse manure.

[WillyT]

60. Kick !!!

[WillyT]

61. And Another...

[FlatBaroque]

62. I am so delighted that someone finally is standing up to the hopelessly corrupt Dem party /

[JDPriestly]

64. It's the modern-day Tamany Hall.

I'm voting for Bernie because he does not operate this way.

It's pure corruption. Pure corruption.

And if you support Hillary, that is what you are supporting: pure corruption.

Money talks. Money walks. Money reigns supreme in the Clinton world.

All the rest is window dressing.

[azmom]

66. K&R

[WillyT]

68. Kick !!!

[JimDandy]

69. NOT A SINGLE PROTEST from OBAMA about this either!!!

He is useless if he won't insist that the Democratic Party actually BE democratic and not allow such corrupt practices.

[WillyT]

70. Morning Kick !!!

:donkey

[vintx]

71. In light of Howard Dean's hinting at a post for Nina Turner in an HRC administration

on MTP this morning, I thought this should be kicked back up to the top.