• How Hillary Clinton bought the loyalty of 33 state democratic parties
    26 replies, posted
[QUOTE]In August 2015, at the Democratic Party convention in Minneapolis, 33 democratic state parties made deals with the Hillary Clinton campaign and a joint fundraising entity called The Hillary Victory Fund. The deal allowed many of her core billionaire and inner circle individual donors to run the maximum amounts of money allowed through those state parties to the Hillary Victory Fund in New York and the DNC in Washington ... a single donor, by giving 10,000 dollars a year to each signatory state could legally give an extra $330,000 a year for two years to the Hillary Victory Fund. For each donor, this raised their [B]individual legal cap on the Presidential campaign to $660,000 if given in both 2015 and 2016. And to one million, three hundred and 20 thousand dollars if an equal amount were also donated in their spouse’s name. [/B]If a presidential campaign from either party can convince various state parties to partner with it in such a way as to route around any existing rules on personal donor limits and at the same time promise money to that state’s potential candidates, then the deal can be sold as a way of making large monetary promises to candidates and Super-delegates respectable.[B] The leadership of a very broke Montana Democratic Party decided in August of 2015 that this was a seductive deal they were willing to make. And by the end of that year scores of 10,000 donations came in from out of state. Montana’s list of out of state donors to the state campaign reads like a Who’s Who of the Democratic financial elites. The names vary little from the list of high donors to the other 32 states that signed on to the Hillary Victory Fund.[/B] Maine attracted many of Clinton’s biggest donors. But the contributions didn’t stay in Maine either, or in any of the other state democratic parties to which Hillary Victory Fund donations have been funneled. [B]In October and November two transfers totaling 39,000 from the Hillary Victory Fund to the Maine Democratic party sat for less than 48 hours before the same amounts were transferred to the DNC in Washington.[/B] The Montana State Democratic party received $43,500 dollars from the Hillary Victory Fund on November 2, 2015. [B]Yet on that same day it transferred $43,500 back to the Democratic National Committee in Washington.[/B] [B]Very few brilliant business people give presidential candidates upwards of six million dollars without expecting something in return. [/B]There is a reason they are brilliant business people. Throwing away millions of dollars for nothing is not one of them [/QUOTE] I'm posting this mainly to get some clarity for myself. Being an outsider I don't know if this is common knowledge, but if it is then I'm sorry. Basically, A candidate's campaign goes to a State Democratic Party and says "If you help us transfer money to our candidate's coffers from some wealthy donors we got behind us, we'll help fund you guys later on down the line." The way I understand it, the amount of money that can be donated by an individual to a state party is much higher than the $2,700 that they can donate directly to a candidate. The state party can then send money into the DNC in Washington which is heavily pro-Clinton, thus effectively bypassing the individual contribution limit. So if this is true in the way I understand it, then how can anyone POSSIBLY believe Clinton when she says that she "advocates campaign finance reform"? The full article is here, and is much longer, though I put the meat of it mostly in the quote above: [URL]http://www.counterpunch.org/2016/04/01/how-hillary-clinton-bought-the-loyalty-of-33-state-democratic-parties/[/URL]
And yet Bernie still manages to outraise her through his supporters.
This is why I don't support laws banning political donations. All it does is makes them very opaque and difficult to track. I'd much rather they be out in the open.
And hillary is standing there and saying "I don't even know! I can't even! This is all Bernie Sanders fans making lies"
[QUOTE=bitches;50058779]And yet Bernie still manages to outraise her through his supporters.[/QUOTE] Indeed, but there seems to be the bigger issue of this basically being a quid pro quo for the superdelegates in those states as well. The superdelegates themselves are automatically appointed, but they are appointed from a pool of elected officials and party leaders, which means that it's in their best interests to basically secure funding for the next election cycle so that they can stay in power. And if their chance of staying in their position is increased by voting for Clinton (even against the overwhelming wishes of their constituents, like in Alaska) then they're gonna be all "yolo lol Clinton for Prez" Unless, again, I'm completely mistaken about the way this works.
No, that's pretty much it in a nutshell. This is one of the largest reasons why the current American system is failing as a representational set up.
[QUOTE=download;50058784]This is why I don't support laws banning political donations. All it does is makes them very opaque and difficult to track. I'd much rather they be out in the open.[/QUOTE] But the alternative is that it's legal for corporate interests to pay ungodly sums to get their candidate elected. I don't mean to be rude but you could use that same logic to say "This is why burglary shouldn't be illegal, it just makes burglars so much harder to track with all that sneaking they have to do".
[QUOTE=download;50058784]This is why I don't support laws banning political donations. All it does is makes them very opaque and difficult to track. I'd much rather they be out in the open.[/QUOTE] Except if they are caught, they face jail time or a fine and be knocked out of the race entirely.
[QUOTE=Zang-Pog;50059593]Clinton is a fucking snake and it's disgusting how people can even consider supporting and voting for her[/QUOTE] Hilary gets votes because her chesticles are more developed than the other contenders.
[QUOTE=codemaster85;50059653]Except if they are caught, they face jail time or a fine and be knocked out of the race entirely.[/QUOTE] Unfortunatly campaign finance fraud of this type is almost never prosecuted, it's usually when a candidate takes money and spends it on themselves that it is
Okay i'm having doubts on the validity of this source when looking at the other articles. They seem to be either alarmist type clickbait or "wake up sheeple". I'm sorry as I hate her, but I'm not so sure as this article.
[QUOTE=OmniConsUme;50059945]Okay i'm having doubts on the validity of this source when looking at the other articles. They seem to be either alarmist type clickbait or "wake up sheeple". I'm sorry as I hate her, but I'm not so sure as this article.[/QUOTE] I don't care about where any article comes from so long as the data used is sourced properly. If the sources check out, then there's almost no room to play around. Here's the Hillary Victory Fund's spending for this cycle. [URL]https://www.opensecrets.org/jfc/summary.php?id=C00586537[/URL] Lets for example take the Dem Party of Wisconsin. They were sent over 200k by the Hillary Victory Fund. If we then look at the FEC filing by the Dem Party of Wisconsin, [URL]http://docquery.fec.gov/cgi-bin/fecimg/?C00019331[/URL] Specifically this, their report for January 2016 (The 207 thousand was sent on 31st of december 2015, but they included it in their january report. Prolly was too late to stick it in their December report?) [url]http://docquery.fec.gov/pdf/430/201602209008522430/201602209008522430.pdf#navpanes=0[/url] Indeed we first see that they received this money [IMG]http://i.imgur.com/Jc7f5gy.png[/IMG] Then, when we look at [B]disbursements[/B] (money they sent out), we see they sent 207,000 to the Democratic National Committee. [IMG]http://i.imgur.com/9u2DVJa.png[/IMG] The DNC is pro-Hillary as the establishment candidate who will maintain money in politics, so it's not a stretch to think that they'll use this money (Sent from the Hillary Victory Fund) in Hillary's favor. And another article with colorful graphs showing contribution limits, though you might also have a problem with NPR [URL]http://www.npr.org/2015/12/23/460762853/how-hillary-clinton-could-ask-a-single-donor-for-over-700-000[/URL]
[URL="http://www.bloomberg.com/politics/articles/2015-09-17/hillary-clinton-inks-fundraising-accords-with-33-state-parties"]This for down ticket candidates.[/URL] To help her party compete in elections so the GOP don't steam roll them. It's what the Clooney dinner was for that everybody was frothing at the mouth about. The kicker? [URL="http://www.politico.com/story/2015/11/bernie-sanders-2016-fundraising-dnc-215559"]Bernie does it also[/URL] except he does the bare minimum but benefits when the Vermont Democratic Party refuses to compete against him.
If Bernie doesn't get the nomination, I'm writing him in anyway. Go ahead and tell me I'm wasting my vote. But it's an even bigger waste if I use it to support some snakes that I despise.
[QUOTE=27X;50059255]No, that's pretty much it in a nutshell. This is one of the largest reasons why the current American system is failing as a representational set up.[/QUOTE] It's not. The general public doesn't even get to vote in party nominations in most other countries
[QUOTE=Laserbeams;50060730]It's not. The general public doesn't even get to vote in party nominations in most other countries[/QUOTE] Yeah but most other countries have more than 2 parties. America's confidence in their own democracy (when it comes to the presidency anyways) hinges on the only semi-accurate belief that the primaries are democratic.
[QUOTE=Radio Yes;50060570]If Bernie doesn't get the nomination, I'm writing him in anyway. Go ahead and tell me I'm wasting my vote. But it's an even bigger waste if I use it to support some snakes that I despise.[/QUOTE] If I were in your shoes I couldn't in good conscience vote for Hillary or Trump. I don't particularly like Bernie but he has that going for him, not being the other two people.
[QUOTE=Radio Yes;50060570]If Bernie doesn't get the nomination, I'm writing him in anyway. Go ahead and tell me I'm wasting my vote. But it's an even bigger waste if I use it to support some snakes that I despise.[/QUOTE] The phrase "Between a rock and a hard place" comes to mind. :v:
[QUOTE=Sableye;50059690]Unfortunatly campaign finance fraud of this type is almost never prosecuted, it's usually when a candidate takes money and spends it on themselves that it is[/QUOTE] Isn't this the most fascinating thing about white collar and political crime? It's inherently only something people can prosecute if you screw up hard and spend money on prostitutes or something. It's absolutely amazing what all it takes for this stuff to catch on, probably a good deal because anyone who catches on by chance has a great chance of not wanting to out their own bs.
Have you ever seen House of Cards? It's fictitious drama. But sometimes it's scary accurate, and every time I see an episode I can think of a time that that particular thing in the episode has happened in real life, when it comes to how things work or are being done
[QUOTE=TheTalon;50064935]Have you ever seen House of Cards? It's fictitious drama. But sometimes it's scary accurate, and every time I see an episode I can think of a time that that particular thing in the episode has happened in real life, when it comes to how things work or are being done[/QUOTE] That's why I don't watch it, because I'm already cynical enough about politicians and elected officials that nothing on the show would surprise me, since anything and everything already happens plenty enough in American politics.
[QUOTE=TheTalon;50064935]Have you ever seen House of Cards? It's fictitious drama. But sometimes it's scary accurate, and every time I see an episode I can think of a time that that particular thing in the episode has happened in real life, when it comes to how things work or are being done[/QUOTE] Probably should watch VEEP then, it's a better representation.
[QUOTE=Myrrdin Emrys;50062348]Isn't this the most fascinating thing about white collar and political crime? It's inherently only something people can prosecute if you screw up hard and spend money on prostitutes or something. It's absolutely amazing what all it takes for this stuff to catch on, probably a good deal because anyone who catches on by chance has a great chance of not wanting to out their own bs.[/QUOTE] It's very very hard to prove intent when you have systems this complicated. When someone is doing something easily fraudulent it's easy to see
The more I think about this the more it disgusts me.
[QUOTE=Zenreon117;50069275]The more I think about this the more it disgusts me.[/QUOTE] ya the name of it isn't exactly doing it any good "the hillary clinton victory fund" the fact that someone can donate up to 700,000$ to the DNC is OK, but then having that get funneled through all the DNC offices to one fund? that is where it gets very sketchy
[QUOTE=Sableye;50069327]ya the name of it isn't exactly doing it any good "the hillary clinton victory fund" the fact that someone can donate up to 700,000$ to the DNC is OK, but then having that get funneled through all the DNC offices to one fund? that is where it gets very sketchy[/QUOTE] Plus the fact that it incentives the superdelegates to not voice support for bernie, or at the very least, not be vocal about it.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.