How the DNC Helps Clinton Buy Off Superdelegates

Jackson

Gold Member
Dec 31, 2010
27,502
7,918
290
Nashville
How the DNC Helps Clinton Buy Off Superdelegates


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.


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 toBloomberg, 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.


How the DNC Helps Clinton Buy Off Superdelegates

As stated in this article, superdelegates are a way of controlling the election rather than an election based on the popular vote of the citizens. Hillary controlled $27 million of the Hillary Victory Fund which is given to Democratic Leaders around the country. 33 states signed pacts with her campaign which means she controls the money and where it goes.

that's what happened in New Hampshire where she got 6 of 6 superdelegates while Sanders received 60% of the vote. This is just a way for the DNC to control the election at the cost of its constituents.
 
The moral and ethical issues this brings up is just amazing. To think a "party" would so openly and brazenly STEAL because that IS what it IS by their own leadership.

Yet they expect NOT to be lied to or stolen from that SAME person when that person is in office?
 
What is YOUR position on Super Pacs Jackson? Should all Republicans reject them?




But Democrats say forgoing super PAC money would be tantamount to handing the election to Republicans, erasing any chance for reform.


To that end, Mrs. Clinton frequently tells donors that the only way to enact her plan and reform the system is to elect a Democrat. President Obama used a similar argument in his 2012 re-election fight, which relied heavily on the support of Priorities USA Action.

Mrs. Clinton said she would support new disclosure legislation, seeking to unearth the hundreds of millions of dollars in campaign money that flows through business trade groups and nonprofits, neither of which must disclose donors. She also backs a new Securities and Exchange Commission rule requiring publicly traded companies to disclose political activity.

She said she would also sign an executive order requiring federal contractors to fully disclose all political spending.

But each proposal has run into fierce resistance from Republicans and business groups. Shareholder activists and labor unions have been pushing for the S.E.C. rule for more than two years. Republicans have filibustered a legislative approach, known as the Disclose Act, offered by Democrats. Congressional Republicans also included a rider in a recent spending bill aimed at staving off a disclosure rule for federal contractors, something President Obama has signaled in the past that he might issue.

It was during Mrs. Clinton’s last run for president, in 2008, that the conservative group Citizens United tried to stop her with a critical documentary that led to the Supreme Court ruling that paved the way for super PACs.

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/09/09/u...n-announces-campaign-finance-reform-plan.html


Mrs. Clinton’s multiprong plan includes a push for legislation that would require greater public disclosure of political spending, establish a matching system for congressional and presidential candidates, and support a Securities and Exchange Commission rule requiring publicly traded companies to disclose political spending to shareholders.


and then there is this which shows after citizens united ruling Obama had to rely on PACS:
Obama Completes His Slow About-Face on Super PACs | TIME.com

White House officials frame Obama’s embrace of the Democratic super PACs as a measure of his dedication toward electing Democrats this fall, and a reflection of his value in helping the party raise money even when he might not be the best surrogate for some candidates on the ground. Through June, Obama has committed to 18 events for the Democratic National Committee, and 12 for the committees working to elect Democratic governors, senators, and representatives. Much of what is raised, though, will need to be used to help retire the party’s remaining $15.9 million in debt from the 2012 campaign.
 
Do Dem superdelegates have capes and fly? Will they be superheroes in future Marvel comics?

It seems the Free Shit Army (FSA) low information voter bots supporting Bernie Sanders don't know and don't care; so why should I? (I really don't, but it shows how stupid Bernie Sanders supporters really are!)
 
This buying of Super delegates is a pernicious practice. It is corrupt and undemocratic.

And, really...though only the Democrats do it....it is not just a Democratic Party issue....because the rest of the American Citizens risk being being governed by a person who came from this Banana Republic Bullshit.

She belongs in the Clink, and looks like it is going to take another Corrupt Fix to keep her out.

All this fuss over a woman who might have risen on her own to Night Court Judge in some sequestered borough of rotting Chicago...if she hadn't married a Randy Southern Boy who happened to be a political genius. He got her all her jobs since...and she's fucked them all up.

Feelin the Bern.
 

Forum List

Back
Top