2016 Postmortem
Related: About this forumHillary Clinton Is Exposing The Dark Underbelly Of The Democrats’ Money Machine - TheNation
Hillary Clinton Is Exposing the Dark Underbelly of the Democrats Money MachineHer campaign has put a spotlight on the cozy relationships between Democratic operatives and corporate America.
By Joshua Holland - TheNation
3/10/16 3:27 pm
Presidential candidate Hillary Clinton. (The Associated Press)
<snip>
Hillary Clintons campaign is staffed with veteran Democratic advisers, fundraisers, pollsters and consultants. Some of them worked on Barack Obamas two presidential campaigns. Others cut their teeth working for John Kerry in 2004, or on Bill Clintons campaigns in the 1990s. Theyre career Democrats. A handful of Clintons key personnel also work for Washington firms that have lobbied or consulted for various corporate interests. Some are principles in those firms. And in some cases, those companies worked on behalf of their corporate clients to defeat or water down progressive legislation that Clinton touts as major Democratic accomplishments.
These kinds of ties between high-level Democratic operatives and multinational corporations and trade groups that seek to influence legislation are nothing new, but until recently, they didnt receive the level of scrutiny that theyre getting today. Thats partly because the 2016 campaign is being fought at a time when Thomas Pikettys wonky tome on inequality hit the best-seller lists, the Pope is condemning unbridled capitalism as the dung of evil, and an unabashed democratic socialist is giving the presumptive nominee a serious run in the Democratic primaries. With the Warren wing of the Democratic Party on the rise, the partys business-as-usual is no longer being taken for granted as it once was.
But if weve known this for a long time, why is the critique sticking this time around? Even more than the broader political context, its due to the distrust that many within the Democratic Partys liberal base have for the Clintonsboth because of policy differences on issues like NAFTA and welfare reform and because of a more general unease with the Clintons big-money lifestyle and apparent comfort hobnobbing with various corporate titans. Campaign stories tend to gain more traction when they confirm something that voters already believe to be true of a candidate. For example, when Former Texas Governor Rick Perry couldnt recall what government agencies hed shut down during a 2012 debate, it hurt him badly because he had a reputation as not exactly being a rocket-scientist. But when Ted Cruz, the Ivy League debater known for his sharp intellect suffered an identical brain-freeze last Novemberhe could name only four of the five agencies he wanted to shutterit barely registered with voters.
In February, the Democratic National Committee (DNC) rolled back an internal policy, pushed by Barack Obama in 2008, that barred it from taking contributions from federal lobbyists. Campaign finance reformers were rightly outraged. In addition to the questionable optics, it gave big corporations yet more ability to influence the party. At the same time, this was exactly the kind of inside-baseball, process-based story that tends to fall on deaf ears.
But it quickly blew up into a major controversy, due largely to a common misperception that the DNC had relaxed the prohibition in order to help Hillary Clinton win the Democratic primary. Headlines like DNC makes sweeping changes to save Hillary, How the DNC Helps Clinton Buy Off Superdelegates and The DNC Just Declared War on Bernie Sanders Political Revolution quickly spread across social media, enraging many Sanders supporters. Largely lost in translation, however, was the fact that the DNC was working with the campaigns to raise money to support the eventual Democratic nomineeand Democrats up and down the ballot in the general election, not in the primaries.
The DNCs decision should have outraged people on its merits. But the story only caught fire because it fit so neatly into a common view among Democratic base voters that the DNC has its thumb on the scale for Hillary Clinton...
<snip>
More: http://www.thenation.com/article/hillary-clinton-is-exposing-the-dark-underbelly-of-the-democrats-money-machine/
arcane1
(38,613 posts)rhett o rick
(55,981 posts)merrily
(45,251 posts)Given a choice, Secretary Clinton would never have exposed it.
very important point
Maedhros
(10,007 posts)Dont call me Shirley
(10,998 posts)stupidicus
(2,570 posts)in a left/center leaning country they are compelled to lie in defense of their garbage, and being shamelessly shameless then becomes a requirement if their individual and collective egos are to stay unbruised and intact.
Thanks, WillyT.
tomm2thumbs
(13,297 posts)and take it she does....
"shhhhh... I'm really going to tell them a thing or two, right after I cash this check"
Mnpaul
(3,655 posts)is that Hillary is siding with Justice Roberts in the Citizens United case.
Like Justice Roberts asserted in his latest ruling......just because less than 1% of Americans pay for all the free political campaign speech doesn't NECESSARILY mean that our elected officials are beholden to that 1%......once elected. Just because Princeton found that the will of the 99% has "little or no independent influence" on our elected officials......does not mean that our political system has been corrupted by the 1%'s free speech money bags. Not necessarily.
You see, for free speech money bags from 1%'ers to political campaigns to have a negative and corrupting influence on the process.....there would of necessity have to be, you know, quid pro quos and so forth. And, as one can quickly conclude from the Princeton study results.....there's just no evidence of bribery to be found. None at all.
http://www.ohio.com/blogs/mass-destruction/blog-of-mass-destruction-1.298992/good-thing-money-doesn-t-corrupt-our-democracy-1.482095
The linked article is a good read.
tomm2thumbs
(13,297 posts)BeanMusical
(4,389 posts)bbgrunt
(5,281 posts)ellennelle
(614 posts)to the HRC group that they quit posting the correcttherecord propaganda as fact.
they have me blocked; i still don't know why, and of course was never able to defend myself.
WillyT
(72,631 posts)i was hoping someone would go on the post regarding the supposed 'fact checkers' and point out that david brock runs all hillary's PAC and slime shop operations. because, as noted, i cannot do that in their bubble group.
by the way, not to personally intrude, but might you be the willy t of hogs on ice? he spelled it willie, but have been curious forever.
thx.
noiretextatique
(27,275 posts)Kip Humphrey
(4,753 posts)- a rhetorical question.
appalachiablue
(41,204 posts)Skwmom
(12,685 posts)WillyT
(72,631 posts)From: http://www.democraticunderground.com/12511445022
turbinetree
(24,745 posts)Honk---------------------for a political revolution
cantbeserious
(13,039 posts)eom
840high
(17,196 posts)ebayfool
(3,411 posts)disillusioned73
(2,872 posts)Thanks for posting..