Clinton, Sanders & O'Malley should pledge to reject/return Super PAC funds during primary

[zazen]

For purposes of this poll only, I'm assuming that the Democratic nominee will use super PAC funds in the General Election (recognizing Sanders' pledge to the contrary).

6 votes, 0 passes | Time left: Unlimited
	Yes: All Democratic candidates should reject AND RETURN super PAC funds (spent/unspent) until primary is completed (that means reimbursing super PACs that have already run ads)
	5 (83%)
	Yes: All Democratic candidates should reject AND RETURN super PAC funds (unspent) until primary is completed (that means HRC isn't on hook to reimburse advertisers for prior super PAC expenses)
	0 (0%)
	No: Participating in oligarchic, corrupt political system at any point in the primary is acceptable, even if you "support financial reform"
	0 (0%)
	Other:
	1 (17%)
	0 DU members did not wish to select any of the options provided.
Show usernames Disclaimer: This is an Internet poll

[BootinUp]

1. My vote is that we wave a white flag of surrender and all candidates

withdraw from the race.

[sabrina 1]

18. Mine is that they refuse that dirty money and use what is now a top issue

against Republicans.

But then you have to care about the future of this country and to understand the harm that allowing billionaires to buy our Government has done to this country.

Otoh, if you like all the politicians that money has bought, the entire TP gang, then mocking people who would prefer not to allow the Koch bros to decide who runs our government is the way to go.

[MH1]

30. I agree in spirit BUT most voters don't even know WTF you are talking about.

Most voters haven't a f*cking clue what is even on the ballot THIS year.

Some of them don't even have a f*cking clue that there IS an election THIS year.

I doubt enough people even grasp the concept of Super PACS, let alone why they are bad, to make it a "top issue" in any real sense.

[Recursion]

38. This thread makes it pretty clear that people don't grasp superpacs

Last edited Sun Nov 1, 2015, 11:53 AM - Edit history (1)

Since people seem to think they give candidates money, or can coordinate with them.

[Agschmid]

41. Yup.

No idea.

[cantbeserious]

3. Bernie Does Not Have Super Pac - No Funds To Return

eom

[zazen]

4. I know: so let's DEMAND Clinton put her money where her mouth is--if she's serious, reject them

If her change on financial and electoral reform is so heartfelt, then she should willing to suffer along with the rest of the candidates to support her newly found opinions.

Until she does, we can't take her promises seriously.

[cantbeserious]

5. Agree - She Should Reject - However, She Is Funded By Oligarchs, Corporations And Banks

She will never ween herself from those lucrative teats.

[BlueCaliDem]

8. And this is the SOLE reason for a cry by a Sanders supporter to have Clinton and O'Malley

do the same thing.

I'll agree to this proposition the moment the OPer and other Sanders supporters get a pledge from the RNC and each and every Republican candidate to pledge, in writing, they'll do the same thing.

Otherwise - HELL NO.

[cantbeserious]

9. One Must Be Fearful That HRC Is Unable To Coerce Americans Without The Help

Of Oligarchs, Corporations and Banks.

Now that is a sad testament to the anointed DNC DWS DLC Third-Way establishment candidate.

[BlueCaliDem]

12. Sanders supporters must be fearful he can't get a decent SuperPAC to support him

and this has therefore made him a very vulnerable and weak presidential candidate. It's most likely why his support has peaked at 25% and is causing panic amongst his supporters. He and his supporters' inability and refusal to understand political realities in the age of Citizens United is going to do him in.

For years we've been putting out the call that we can't lose this presidential election because SCOTUS appointees hangs in the balance. Four, maybe even FIVE of them. We cannot have any more Roberts and Alitos nominated to those lifetime positions.

So, sorry, but there is NO WAY I'll support tying our candidates' hands on their backs so Republicans get an easy win and destroy this country from the inside out. No. Way.

[cantbeserious]

13. Only Fearful Of HRC As President - God Save Us All

eom

[BlueCaliDem]

14. I know you might not mean it in that way

but the result is the same: You share the same fear as the Koch Bros, the RNC, the GOP, Sheldon Adelson, Martin Shkleri (Paraprim drug scandal), and every single Republican presidential candidate. They, too, are fearful of Hillary Clinton as president.

Blacks, Hispanic/Latinos, Asians, and a minority of White Americans - and most certainly including Senator Bernie Sanders - disagree with you.

Think about that.

[cantbeserious]

15. Actually No - I Don't Fear Them - Just Like I Don't Fear The DNC DWS DLC Third-Way

eom

[BlueCaliDem]

17. That's not what I said in my post. I said you *share* the same fears as those groups;

a fear of seeing Hillary Clinton as president.

Those fears aren't shared by Black, Hispanic/Latino, Asian, and a minority of White Americans who currently support her.

[cantbeserious]

19. Actually It Is Not Fear - It Is Sadness For What Will Become Of The Country - Tragedy In Waiting

eom

[BlueCaliDem]

20. But you used the word "fear". Just wanted to point that out. eom

[cantbeserious]

22. Fearful For The Sadness That Awaits All Citizens With A HRC Presidency

eom

[BlueCaliDem]

23. Then you should be fearful of the terror that awaits ALL citizens with a Repub presidency

more, because defeating them and never letting them into the White House or take back the Senate is ALL that should matter to ALL citizens. Remember, Hillary Clinton is NO friend to the Republicans.

[cantbeserious]

24. No Not Fearful At All - If The Citizens Elect Either Of The Establishment Party Candidates

Sadness will prevail for most.

[Recursion]

36. No candidate has a Super PAC

You'd think people who care about SuperPACs would take the time to learn what they actually are.

[BlueCaliDem]

6. Right. Tie our candidates' hands while allowing Repubs to rake in the dough to use against us??

In the era of Citizens United, do you really think that's a wise move? I mean, IF you want to keep a Republican out of the White House and have Democrats take back the Senate, I mean.

[zazen]

10. I said, during PRIMARY ONLY: NOT General Election

If we believe we're fair, among each other, then why use super PAC funds DURING THE PRIMARY?

Why not have a general super PAC funds that can only run against Republican positions? That can address issues all primary campaigns sign off on . . . (not the DNC.)

So, it's a general super PAC fund to educate the public about the claims made by Republican primary frontrunners, and it's there for our NOMINEE.

But no super PAC funds DURING OUR DEMOCRATIC PRIMARY.

[BlueCaliDem]

16. It's a moot point, zazen. SuperPACs are prohibited to coodinate *directly* with the candidates

they support, and candidates may NOT coordinate directly with SuperPACs. Candidates have no control over whoever wants to open a SuperPAC that favors them. For all intents and purposes, candidates and SuperPACs are supposed to be separate entities under the FEC.

The only exception, according to FEC advisories, is that "it is legal for candidates and Super PAC managers to discuss campaign strategy and tactics through the media." That is, free op-eds on blogs, on twitter, on Facebook, etc., as David Brock (Media Matters in America, now managing the Correct the Record Hillary Clinton SuperPAC) is currently doing (opposition research) for Hillary Clinton.

Yes, I know it's a fine line and even that line has been horribly stretched since the 2014 midterms, but fact of the matter is, under law, SuperPACs are separate and apart from their candidates, and candidates, even if they tell those SuperPACs to eff off, have no control over the decision making in that SuperPAC.

Unless and until we get Citizens United overturned, this is how it's going to be. Hillary Clinton has come out against C.U. and wants to appoint justices on the SCOTUS in order to overturn it.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

7. But..but..purchasing a government is expensive!

[Agnosticsherbet]

11. Super Pacs can not give funds directly to candidates.

Colbert and Stewart proved that Dupre Pacs can work far more closely with a candidate than the late implies, but giving funds directly to a campaign can not be done.

The best they can do is to get lawyers to tell Super Pacs to cease and desist, but that won't stop Super Pacs. The law allowing them needs to be revoked.

[LostOne4Ever]

21. They should reject Super PACs for the entire election. nt

[Recursion]

37. What does that even mean?

What do you think a "SuperPAC" is?

[LostOne4Ever]

39. Let me google that for you

http://lmgtfy.com/?q=what+is+a+super+PAC

[font style="font-family:'Georgia','Baskerville Old Face','Helvetica',fantasy;" size=4 color=teal]By what I mean, they should all denounce super PACs and condemn those working with them, all the while urging all their rivals to do the same.

Not much more can be done to stop them beyond that without a constitutional amendment.[/font]

[pinebox]

25. This is one thing

I'd like to see taken a LOT further.
Go beyond the primaries and into the general. We need campaign finance reform badly and it's just one of many issues I fully support Bernie on.

Actions speak louder than words.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

26. This is a "Hard Choice" only one of them is making.

[Recursion]

35. No it's not. This is so hilarious.

No candidate takes super PAC money. Period. None of them can. That's why Sanders's cynical "pledge" not to is so disappointing.

[Koinos]

27. This poll is based on a misunderstanding.

How can a candidate return money that he or she has not personally received?

Super PACs collect and spend money on behalf of candidates. They do not "give money" directly to candidates or their campaigns.

A candidate can return or refuse money from individual contributors. A candidate can ask, but not compel, a super PAC to cease working on his or her behalf. But in the end super PACs can do what they wish, or so sayeth Citizens United. Their freedom of speech (cough, cough -- their right to spend money) is protected.

[Motown_Johnny]

28. The OP explains it clearly

Reimbursement for moneys already spent

[Koinos]

44. Your version of the OP just isn't there.

Yes: All Democratic candidates should reject AND RETURN super PAC funds (spent/unspent) until primary is completed (that means reimbursing super PACs that have already run ads)

Sounds clear to me, unless you are claiming that candidates should reimburse money that they never received but was spent by a super PAC.

Candidates cannot control what super PACs spend on their behalf.

The poll as stated is worded very badly.

[Motown_Johnny]

45. It is very clear. Maybe you just don't want to accept it.

Yes, candidates could reimburse money spent on their behalf. That would discourage the SuperPACs from spending money that way. Their actions would actually be hurting their candidate since it would force the candidate to spend money they should not otherwise spend.

It is very clear.

[99Forever]

29. The only "misunderstanding" is that...

... Hillary thinks she can have it both ways. We aren't fooled, we know a bought and paid for corporate stooge when we see one.

[Recursion]

34. Actually they can't even ask

There can be zero coordination. A guy from Missouri is in jail for asking a superPAC to pull an ad.

[Koinos]

43. Candidates cannot thwart the free speech protection that has been "awarded" by SCOTUS to super PACs.

[brooklynite]

31. UNREC

Candidates CAN'T reject SuperPAC funds; because they can't accept them. SuperPACs spend money independently.

[MohRokTah]

32. I don't participate in push polls. Pass. eom

[Recursion]

33. If they took any super PAC funds they could go to jail

My God DU is a stupid place sometimes.

No candidate can accept superPAC money. It's illegal.

[zazen]

40. CBS news 8/11/15: "Pro-Clinton super PAC gets $1 million secret contribution"

"WASHINGTON -- Hillary Rodham Clinton told a cheering crowd at her largest rally so far that "the endless flow of secret, unaccountable money" must be stopped. Two weeks later, the main super PAC backing her bid for the Democratic presidential nomination accepted a $1 million contribution that cannot be traced.

The seven-figure donation, made June 29 to the pro-Clinton Priorities USA Action, came from another super political action committee, called Fair Share Action. Its two lone contributors are Fair Share Inc. and Environment America Inc., according to records filed with Federal Election Commission.

. . . ."This appears to be an out-and-out laundering operation designed to keep secret from the public the original source of the funds given to the super PAC, which is required to disclose its contributors," said Fred Wertheimer, director of one such group, the Washington-based Democracy 21.

Wertheimer urged Priorities to return the money and said that Clinton should demand that the super PAC "publicly disclose all of the original sources of money" of any contribution it receives."

[Recursion]

42. It is illegal for her to try to tell the super PAC what to do

That would be a violation of law. There is a Missouri state senator who's in jail right now for doing that.

[oasis]

46. Hillary is in it to win it. This ain't beanbags.

If a candidate wants to compete with one hand tied behind his back, good on him.