2016 Postmortem
Related: About this forumHillary Clinton Releases Broad Campaign Finance Reform Plan.
Her plan goes beyond a call for a constitutional amendment to overturn the Citizens United decision.
"We have to end the flood of secret, unaccountable money that is distorting our elections, corrupting our political system, and drowning out the voices of too many everyday Americans, Clinton said in a statement released by her campaign. Our democracy should be about expanding the franchise, not charging an entrance fee. It starts with overturning the Supreme Courts Citizens United decision, and continues with structural reform to our campaign finance system so theres real sunshine and increased participation.
Clintons proposals include a handful of actions she could influence immediately if she won the White House. She promised to issue an executive order requiring all government contractors to disclose their campaign contributions, including to outside groups that currently do not disclose donors. She said she also would advocate for the Securities and Exchange Commission to issue a rule requiring all publicly traded companies to disclose their political spending, including undisclosed outside spending, to their shareholders.
Proposals requiring congressional approval include support for enacting a small donor matching system of public financing for presidential and congressional elections along the lines of legislation sponsored by Rep. John Sarbanes (D-Md.) and Reps. Chris Van Hollen (D-Md.) and David Price (D-N.C.). Clinton would also press for the passage of disclosure legislation in Congress that would require nonprofits spending money on elections to reveal their donors.
She also reiterated her support for a constitutional amendment to undo the Citizens United decision, and said she would appoint justices who would side with the courts liberal faction on issues of campaign finance and voting rights.
The proposals were some of the more sought-after policies that campaign finance reform groups have pressed since the courts 2010 decision.
With the release of this strong, bold plan, Hillary Clinton recognizes that in order to create government of, by, and for the people not just the wealthy campaign funders its crucial to amplify the voices of regular Americans, David Donnelly, president and CEO of the campaign finance reform group Every Voice, said in a statement. What shes proposed is both good policy and good politics. Thats why Clinton should actively campaign on this platform and push these solutions to the center of the debate in the days, weeks, and months to come.
Link: http://m.huffpost.com/us/entry/55ee4c7ce4b093be51bbe7ea
Once again, more actual policy proposals from the Hillary camp, as well as the O'Malley camp, who has released many policy proposals.
HassleCat
(6,409 posts)It's OK, but I don't know if I would call it strong or bold. There's no mention of anything that would inhibit the flow of money from corporations and wealthy donors to campaigns. Remember, disclosure and actual regulation are two different things.
SonderWoman
(1,169 posts)Regulation will need more congress and senate, something I doubt an Independent from Vermont who spent his career dissing both party's will accomplish.
Setting aside your gratuitous insult of Sanders, is there any indication any of the candidates would work toward significant campaign regulation, particularly when it comes to slowing the flow of large campaign contributions?
SonderWoman
(1,169 posts)erronis
(15,241 posts)cali
(114,904 posts)big money interests for as long as she has.
whatchamacallit
(15,558 posts)More empty promises from a flimflam artist.
Romulox
(25,960 posts)...to limit the influence of Big Money?
Something wrong with this equation.
virtualobserver
(8,760 posts)Romulox
(25,960 posts)VanillaRhapsody
(21,115 posts)is going to beat Bush and Romney....who have Dom Perignon pocketbooks?
something is wrong with THAT equation....
cali
(114,904 posts)Now, I think that is unlikely. I think hilly will be the nominee and that she'll lose us the white house.
frylock
(34,825 posts)Romulox
(25,960 posts)azurnoir
(45,850 posts)Tierra_y_Libertad
(50,414 posts)SonderWoman
(1,169 posts)"Not good enough!" they scream as saint Bernie once again has nothing to offer except magically taxing the rich.
whatchamacallit
(15,558 posts)promising to make repealing Citizens United a litmus test for any SCOTUS candidates.
https://berniesanders.com/press-release/sanders-proposes-public-funding-of-campaigns/
SonderWoman
(1,169 posts)VanillaRhapsody
(21,115 posts)or is it just more rhetoric?
virtualobserver
(8,760 posts)That is the kind of magic Bernie is into.
SonderWoman
(1,169 posts)virtualobserver
(8,760 posts)Because politicians are reluctant to give up the cash......A Republican House and Senate will never vote to give up the money.....
we need to sweep them out.
Romulox
(25,960 posts)SonderWoman
(1,169 posts)Romulox
(25,960 posts)SonderWoman
(1,169 posts)Wayne Lapierre
Romulox
(25,960 posts)SonderWoman
(1,169 posts)Romulox
(25,960 posts)SonderWoman
(1,169 posts)Romulox
(25,960 posts)d_legendary1
(2,586 posts)After all, the gave up their wealth in order to buy guns and free themselves from the establishment.
SonderWoman
(1,169 posts)d_legendary1
(2,586 posts)but thanks for playing
AlbertCat
(17,505 posts)What's magical about taxing the rich.
It's been done before. And it worked.
Like Glass- Steagal did too.
And the building infrastructure thing also worked.
But I'm sure Hillary will be listening to all the disclosures. She's a listener!
JohnnyLib2
(11,211 posts)frylock
(34,825 posts)I take it that you're not on the email list?
erronis
(15,241 posts)How else to feed the ClearChannel marketing departments goals for stupid ears and eyes attuned to the latest spoutings of raving lunatics?
I'll bet Rush is really a closet liberal, maybe multisexual, understands the differences between the religions, etc.. I'll bet he is also addicted to $s from his sponsors.
DanTex
(20,709 posts)attention to the policy issues they supposedly care about.
ibegurpard
(16,685 posts)The problem is that no one thinks she has any credibility on working to make this happen.
DanTex
(20,709 posts)She voted for McCain Feingold, the justices nominated by Bill Clinton were all against Citizens United. Other than personal hatred, there's no reason whatesoever to doubt that this is something she is in favor of. Even from pure self-interest, lax campaign finance laws help Republicans much more than Democrats.
jeff47
(26,549 posts)azmom
(5,208 posts)DanTex
(20,709 posts)Yeah, that's horrible. The real way to change the system is to lose elections!
Response to DanTex (Reply #67)
Name removed Message auto-removed
jeff47
(26,549 posts)Kinda demonstrating that there will continue to be a lack of follow-through.
AlbertCat
(17,505 posts)Uh.... she's not Bill. (another problem with her supporters' attitudes)
DanTex
(20,709 posts)justices opposed to CU, which isn't much of a stretch since all justices appointed by Dems were against CU.
Romulox
(25,960 posts)sike!
jeff47
(26,549 posts)whatchamacallit
(15,558 posts)Indeed.
virtualobserver
(8,760 posts)SoapBox
(18,791 posts)jeff47...you are indeed the thread winner!
Response to jeff47 (Reply #18)
Name removed Message auto-removed
azmom
(5,208 posts)What a joke.
SonderWoman
(1,169 posts)Can't crank out any policy or show any accomplishments.
azmom
(5,208 posts)Believe she would act on such policy.
azmom
(5,208 posts)SonderWoman
(1,169 posts)azmom
(5,208 posts)[link:|
SonderWoman
(1,169 posts)BlueCaliDem
(15,438 posts)the primaries.
Strange, but I have yet to see a Hillary Clinton supporter even insinuate such a losing position. Makes me wonder how many Sanders supporters are Democrats and how many are Democrats In Name Only on message boards.
ibegurpard
(16,685 posts)Response to SonderWoman (Reply #28)
Name removed Message auto-removed
HassleCat
(6,409 posts)And that's what prompted my question. There is emotional support, the kind of "I'm with you" stuff we get from all candidates. but there is no mention of any specific reform that would stem the flow of "soft money" and that sort of thing. In fact, the HuffPo article goes on to mention how previous presidents expressed the same sentiments Hillary Clinton is voicing, then backed away from significant reforms. So my question still stands unanswered.
kenfrequed
(7,865 posts)And Bernie already has a history of standing up to big money. Hillary has a history of taking it.
Skwmom
(12,685 posts)Truprogressive85
(900 posts)So HRC has no problem in the use dark money to get her nominated, than do 360 on her donors by limit their funding
d_legendary1
(2,586 posts)What's next? Regulating Wall Street with cronies from Goldman Sachs?
99Forever
(14,524 posts)...will happen...
thereismore
(13,326 posts)Response to SonderWoman (Original post)
Name removed Message auto-removed