2016 Postmortem
Related: About this forumRuss Feingold: Democrats Sold Out in 2012 and Need to Quit Big Money
President Obama's decision to let his 2013 inauguration committee accept corporate cash and million-dollar donations marks quite a reversal for the president: for his first inaugural in 2009, he capped individual donations at $50,000 and banned corporate money. The Associated Press calls the decision "part of a continuing erosion of Obama's pledge to keep donors and special interests at arm's length of his presidency." But for former Sen. Russ Feingold, it's yet another sell-out by his friends in the Democratic Party to the big-money forces so dominant in politics today.
No Democrat has so publicly ripped his own party for embracing super-PACs and dark-money nonprofits than Feingold. In a new article for the journal Democracy, Feingold, who co-wrote the 2002 McCain-Feingold Act, the last major campaign finance restriction in the US, takes Democrats to the mat. He calls 2012 "a big step" back for Democratic-led efforts to get big money out of politics, and singles out Obama's reversal on super-PACs. In February 2012, the president encouraged his donors to give to Priorities USA Action, the super-PAC backing him, while allowing his top deputies to appear at Priorities events. On the PBS NewsHour, top Obama strategist David Axelrod defended Obama by saying that the president hadn't warned at all toward super-PACs but had to play by the rules of the game. You heard that a lot from Democrats in 2012. Yet with statements like that, Feingold says, Democrats were posing as a pro-reform party while tripping over themselves to "exploit any avenue to accept unlimited, corporate dollars to fund elections."
Beltway Democrats, Feingold argues, aren't going to reform big-money politics from the inside; they're addicted and they just can't quit. The task of fighting for real reforms to money in politics, of building what Feingoldwho now runs his own pro-reform nonprofit, Progressives Unitedcalls a "permanent majority" for reform, falls instead to liberal donors and activists outside of Washington.
Feingold says the most important thing big donors can do is stop givingto super-PACs or any of the other Citizens United-enabled fixtures of our big-money politics. "Donors hold more leverage to create a movement for reform than almost any other actor in the political system," he says. If donors ignore super-PACs and nonprofits, "Washington will notice." And as for the liberal activists out there, they should redirect all the energy they've invested into passing a constitutional amendment reversing the Supreme Court's Citizens United decision and channel it into "achievable goals"public financing of elections, disclosure of donors to dark-money nonprofits and shell corporations, overhauling the dysfunctional Federal Election Commission, the nation's top elections cop.
The stakes are high, in Feingold's view, for the Democrats. "Unless Democrats embrace election reform as a central tenet of our platform," he writes, "we will face another era reminiscent of soft moneywhen the dominance of corporate interests meant that no matter what party held power, the influence of Big Money always won."
http://www.motherjones.com/mojo/2013/01/russ-feingold-obama-democrats-sold-out-super-pacs
Tarheel_Dem
(31,234 posts)Dukakis to be your senior campaign strategist.
Creideiki
(2,567 posts)are at the end of their patience with stupid conservatives who put "D"s after their names.
Expect far, far more primary challenges. And expect them to start coming at every race at every level in the country.
The Democrats cannot win actual swing states like Colorado without progressive independents like my partner. Lose him, and you will lose. Everything.
But hey. Your choice.
rhett o rick
(55,981 posts)And some Democrats are welcoming them with open arms mistakenly thinking it means some kind of victory. To these DEmocrats principles are worth less than winning.
Tarheel_Dem
(31,234 posts)Last edited Fri Jan 11, 2013, 04:39 PM - Edit history (1)
punishing me by issuing threatening ultimatums about his vote, or lack thereof. I can promise you this, win or lose, the Democratic party will not be taken over by the left's version of the teabaggers. President Obama was reelected handily, despite all the constant carping from his left. Mainline Democrats have seen the shambles that today's Republican Party has become, trying to appease a minority of it's base. Romney did that, and couldn't make the pivot back to the center to attract Independents. Fortunately for us, your partner isn't the only one out there.
Response to Tarheel_Dem (Reply #1)
rhett o rick This message was self-deleted by its author.
stevenleser
(32,886 posts)the bad guys implement their principles if you dont win.
rhett o rick
(55,981 posts)The bad guys win again. I would rather be a loser with principles than the other way round.
stevenleser
(32,886 posts)Consider the person who has a perfect progressive viewpoint, but agrees if elected not to change Obamacare to single payer, but implements a living wage, cuts the defense budget, brings home all troops, etc.
We are not just as well off if a Republican won instead of that person.
rhett o rick
(55,981 posts)was a loser.
AverageMe
(91 posts)you can do nothing if you are not in office. No matter what we believe, if we did not have the money to counter the money Romney had, he would be our president on January 20th. Until Citizens United is reversed, we will have to play by the same rules the Republicans use. It is just a sad fact of life.
rhett o rick
(55,981 posts)hell aint what I think.
reteachinwi
(579 posts)I don't think he's forgiven Wisconsin for that.
geek tragedy
(68,868 posts)Unfortunately, they're rarely the same people.
madrchsod
(58,162 posts)jenmito
(37,326 posts)be out-spent. Russ must forget that Obama admonished the USSC right in front of them at his SOTU speech for that ruling. But Obama had to play with the rules as they were-not as he wished them to be. Russ shouldn't be so judgmental. Obama would've outlawed big money if he could've.
davidpdx
(22,000 posts)The majority of what Obama raised was through his own campaign.
jenmito
(37,326 posts)Obama had next to nothing in PAC money compared to the hundreds of millions of dollars that Romney and HIS side had, but he had a lot more support from small donors. And Obama wants Citizens United overturned. Feingold should know that.
Cha
(297,237 posts)Lobbyists, political action committees and foreign entities, however, will still be banned from underwriting the costs of the gala events, spokeswoman Addie Whisenant said. The committee also will reject donations from companies that havent paid back loans from the 2008 federal bailout of Wall Street, as well as corporate sponsorship deals.
Our goal is to make sure that we will meet the fundraising requirements for this civic event after the most expensive presidential campaign in history, she said in a statement. To ensure continued transparency, all names of donors will be posted to a regularly updated website
The costs of the public swearing-in ceremony on the Capitol steps are covered by the congressional committee that oversees events on the Capitol Grounds. Security for the event is already part of the federal budget.
jenmito
(37,326 posts)People should read and understand it. It's not that difficult, but I guess it's still easier to just complain about Obama "selling out."
republican, doncha know" ignorantly ad nauseum.
It's so predictable that it's boring.
theaocp
(4,237 posts)Imagine how efficient it could be without the corporate bribe money. I'm sure they don't expect anything in return for their bankrolling the event.
Cha
(297,237 posts)fully transparent.
yields what, exactly? Maybe if somebody with guts like Warren calls them out on it. Otherwise, you think the media are going to bring this to light? I don't. They're paid by the same group of corporate assholes. These donors aren't doing this for nothing. They expect a goddamn back rub and will still complain about the brand of oil being used.
ancianita
(36,055 posts)Problem is, the whole political-industrial complex need to make a living and will continue to be complicit in selling out to corporate interests until their hearts and minds are changed to see politics as a calling. They are lobbyists, middlemen, Plouffe and Axelrod types, lawyers, poor college organizers of campaigns, mass emailers, ad-makers, oppositional researchers, facebook and twitter bots, etc. The public will have to fight for this through the courts. Any other fight is a doomed David vs. Goliath contest.
UCmeNdc
(9,600 posts)The courts are allowing soft money into the system. Overturn citizen's united.
Jennicut
(25,415 posts)Don't take the money and risk losing. Take the money and sell out but win.
UCmeNdc
(9,600 posts)The source of this problem is the court system and its rulings.
ancianita
(36,055 posts)samsingh
(17,598 posts)graham4anything
(11,464 posts)his word means nothing.
he could have ran for lesser office to be in the game, but he took his ball and left.
BTW, we need $1 more than they have, so we can compete.
And Russ-it was YOUR bill that you made that had more holes in it than all the golf courses in the world put together.
Why did you naively make a bill that had all those holes?
theaocp
(4,237 posts)Support wolf-pac.com and get behind the constitutional amendment to get the $$$ out of politics. Otherwise, your precious $1 more eliminates your voice.
graham4anything
(11,464 posts)til they give up, thanks, no thanks
a winner does what a loser doesn't- that is win
a symbolic loss is still a loss
theaocp
(4,237 posts)when you don't address the actual issue. A constitutional amendment is the only way to get the $$$ cancerous growth out. It is possible, but not if you don't try. Your "winning" is two sides of the same coin; no voice.
graham4anything
(11,464 posts)sorry, no sale.
theaocp
(4,237 posts)There's just no time for people AND begging for corporate bribes.
graham4anything
(11,464 posts)theaocp
(4,237 posts)if both sides are beholden to the corporate money. People are stupid and will continue to wonder what have TPTB done for me lately. The media conspires to keep them confused and then they vote for the other side, wondering aloud, "What have I got to lose?" Rinse. Lather. Repeat.
Corporate money keeps winning and we lose. wolf-pac.com
graham4anything
(11,464 posts)I want a continuation of all things Obama forever
Hillary45
Michelle46
Chelsea47
and the court will be 9 to 0 soon, and with it, the bad rullings will be reversed.
If you don't like the democrat, then you must want Jeb/Christie in 2016
theaocp
(4,237 posts)another hideous Republican will gain office or at the very least will keep Democratic leadership from achieving their goals. Either way, the people are misled into thinking any alternative is worth a go. Try waiting around for the next economic crash b/c of, say, the college loan bubble? Who do you think the media and therefore the people are going to blame?
As for your ridiculous assertion at the end of your response, I guess you "got me". I can't love Jeb enough.
Politicub
(12,165 posts)It's easier to change the system when you're in charge of it.
Feingold is able to sit in his ivory tower and pontificate since he will be fine no matter who is in power.
If he wants to blame anyone, he should lay the blame squarely at the feet of the supreme court. Period.
theaocp
(4,237 posts)and matching dollar for dollar. The money talks and campaign finance reform walks. wolf-pac.com.
Politicub
(12,165 posts)republicans buy every minute of advertising airtime.
Plus, wolf-pac makes me think of the Twilight series of movies. Just sayin'.
theaocp
(4,237 posts)I have no idea what you're talking about wrt Twilight. wolf-pac.com