If you support Hillary, How Do You Explain Her Allowing Rupert Murdock To Hold A Fundraiser for Her?

[Blackhatjack]

If there is one incontrovertible fact it is that Rupert Murdock is a dyed in the wool NeoCon supporter who started Fox News to smear Democrats and promote Republicans.

So why has Hillary accepted campaign contributions from Murdock? And allowed Murdock to hold a fundraiser for Hillary?

How do you explain that?

Does anyone think Murdock is not looking for a return on his money and efforts if Hillary is elected?

Is Murdock trying to ensure that Hillary is the Democratic Nominee because Repubs WANT TO RUN AGAINST HER?

Just a couple of questions. Any answers Hillary supporters?

[liberalnurse]

1. I'd do the same thing..........

Cross-over voting support, money, money and a pinch of attention.

Fight to win!

[Blackhatjack]

6. Would you allow racist or bigot organizations to throw you a fundraiser also?

Most of them have members who are registered to vote, they have money they could contribute, and you would certainly get a lot of attention.

I don't understand this kind of logic that it is OK to legitimize Murdock and Fox News by allowing them to act as your surrogate and throw you a fundraiser.

[deutsey]

20. Seems to me, you'd have to be somewhat beholden to such a large contributor

You make a deal with the Devil and eventually the payment comes due.

[liberalnurse]

42. I'd judge things on an individual basis....

Being broke and noble is not one of my goals. I'll not cross the illegal line.

[Moochy]

11. Fight to Lose

Tack Right, Tack Left, Tack Up!

Yay we've traced a triangle!

Huzzah for Triangulation!

Fox viewers voting in droves for HRC!!! Cats and Dogs Living Together!! These are apocryphal times !!!

[Tesha]

16. So: Republicans supporting Hillary: OK. Republicans supporting Greens: BAD.

Have I got that right?

Tesha

[Lilith Velkor]

70. Of course!

Being a Democrat means that you are immune from the mind-control rays emanating from money that's been touched by Republicans!

Now it all makes sense! :crazy:

[NightWatcher]

2. great question, 1st rec.... hang on buddy, it's about to get bumpy

[mdmc]

3. There are two corporate political parties

She belongs to one of them. FOX is not evil. It is a corporation. All laws jock the corporations. All politicians jock the corporations.

[Blackhatjack]

4. Fox News spews falsehoods, inaccurate information, and has a nefarious agenda --- 'evil' in my book

There just is no defending Fox News. They pretend to be a "fair and balanced news media outlet" and yet they spew propaganda with no grounding in the truth.

So how should we view Hillary's association with such an organization --since you cannot separate Murdock from his "Fox News" he created and operates?

[mdmc]

7. FOX is pro-corporation. I've never heard them say anything

that is against free trade or that is anti-corporate.

HRC is pro-corporation. FOX is too. THEY ARE MADE FOR EACH OTHER.

Peace and low stress to you and yours my friend.

[Blackhatjack]

12. To Be Accurate, Fox News is a subsidiary of corp parent News Corp, controlled by Murdock...

There is little disagreement that Murdock has used Fox News as a weapon to damage Democrats, smear them and their positions, and to mislead the public on key issues of importance.

I don't think you can give Fox News a pass on engaging in 'evil' and nefarious practices by simply stating they are a 'corporation.'

Was Enron just a corporation which was 'pro-corporation', and therefore should not be held accountable? (because that is just what corporations do?)

[mdmc]

28. Corporations get to make the rules, and get to decide how the rules

are enforced.

Enron was held as 'accountable' as the corporations were comfortable with. The profit remained private, the risk remained public.

Enron and FOX are in it to make money. They have no other purpose, except to serve their owners and make cash.

Hillary getting in bed with FOX means that FOX won't go after her.

[billyoc]

5. You've got that backwards, Murdoch is REPAYING the DLC for allowing him to aquire his monopoly

as a result of the telecom "reforms" they instituted under Bill Clinton.

[Blackhatjack]

9. You may be right --but in any event it REQUIRED HRC's CONSENT.

[blondeatlast]

27. I think you've got it. nt

[truedelphi]

43. We keep hearing that GW Bush is so stupid. Such a moron.

Yet he used signing statements to stop laws from taking effect.

Clinton (Bill, that is) could have used signing statements on the 1996 Telecommunications Act.

Then there probably wouldn't be a Murdoch with unlimited media power.

But oh, Clinton (Bill, that is) was just too moral to do that.

Which is why his wife can now reap the gains!

[AndyA]

8. Oh, the responses to this should be good...

:popcorn:

[durrrty libby]

10. The truth is a bunch of his dem employees asked him to do it and he complied

[Blackhatjack]

13. OH MY! LOLOL I needed a good laugh, thanks! That is a good one!

I guess a number of Democratic employees of Fox News/News Corp asked Murdock to quit smearing Democratic Candidates and he did that also, Right?

No way to dress Murdock up as a benevolent impartial benefactor?

[durrrty libby]

17. You asked and that's the truth. I really don't give a flying fuck

one way or the other if you believe it or not

[Blackhatjack]

24. I am sorry, you were serious in your response?

I am having a hard time believing that Murdock is really a supporter of Democratic Candidates.

I don't see any evidence of that with anyone other than HRC.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

38. Are Ted Kennedy, John Kerry, Anthony Weiner, Bob Graham, And Max Cleland Democrats?

http://www.newsmeat.com/billionaire_political_donations/Rupert_Murdoch.php

[Blackhatjack]

66. Direct contribs of $2000 don't compare with a fundraiser that brings in $100k & UP

Take a look at your own link and you will see that almost all the recipients were Repub except for just a handful.

There is no cover here naming a few Democrats who got $2000 or less back in 1999-2001.

[Catherine Vincent]

21. A Clinton supporter gave their reason to you and you dismiss it.

Typical.

[Capn Sunshine]

54. I wouldn't call riotous laughter "dismissing"

It was an honest reaction to a ridiculous piece of whole cloth from someone with no posting record prior to 2007.

Like most of the occupying force that has descended here.

[deutsey]

25. I'm not challenging you, but do you have a link for this?

Honestly, I want to read about the dynamics behind this.

Thanks.

[durrrty libby]

40. Someone posted the article a while back Maybe you can find it through search

[deutsey]

49. The only things I found were MSM articles saying Hillary went to a FOX 10-year anniversary

and afterward Murdoch threw the fundraiser more in response to her job as a senator than as a presidential candidate. These were on the CBS and Financial Times sites.

I'll poke around DU when I get a chance.

:hi:

[leftchick]

65. why don't you find it for us

you can use the search function. Go for it! Otherwise it is bullshit.

[Blackhatjack]

68. I cannot find that explanation anywhere, but I DID FIND THIS... LINK

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/12762092/

"Murdoch fund-raiser for Clinton creates buzz"

Outrage, confusion in political circles over media mogul’s decision

"Media mogul Rupert Murdoch, whose Fox News Channel and other conservative news outlets have been skewering Hillary Rodham Clinton for years, will host a summer fund-raiser for the senator, mystifying some observers and enraging others.

Especially incensed are liberal activists, who for months have decried what they see as a shift to a right on Clinton’s part as the Democrat contemplates a run for president in 2008. They are stunned that she is associating with a man viewed as a cornerstone of the “vast right-wing conspiracy,” a term Clinton herself employed.

“Hillary, help us. Who the hell are you?” thundered Washington Post columnist Richard Cohen.
Liberal blogger David Sirota complained: “The brazenness of this move is almost too much to stomach.”

"Neither Clinton or Murdoch has had much to say about the fund-raiser since it was first reported this week by The Financial Times."

MORE

[leftchick]

72. they must have tied rupert up for this photo

:sarcasm:




they are a cute couple.

[Blackhatjack]

74. In your pic he reminds me of Joe Leiberman... LOL

[leftchick]

81. yes, and Joe is yet another of Hil's neocon pals

[Catherine Vincent]

76. This one too?

[leftchick]

82. are you saying Al is running?

and Ruppert held a fund raiser for him too?

:rofl:

[Catherine Vincent]

85. No. So your rofl'ing was unwarranted. n/t

[rucky]

37. I'd like to know why she complied.

the net result is probably that she lost just as much support as she gained from it.

But we can't verify your assertion or mine, so...

[Tesha]

14. Two words: "Youthful indiscretion". Hey, it worked for Bush! (NT)

[Blackhatjack]

15. Has Murdock held a fundraiser for any other Democratic Presidential Candidate?

Looking..... I don't see any evidence that Murdock has held a fundraiser for any of the other Democratic Presidential Candidates.

It would be a good debate question to ask if the other Democratic Candidates have been approached by Murdock who has offered to hold a fundraiser for them?

[Moochy]

18. Looks around for Clinton Murdoch Fundraiser Defenders

[Blackhatjack]

19. I guess there are no Hillary supporters out there who can explain this? Silence......

[bpeale]

22. ::crickets chirping::

[durrrty libby]

23. Obviously, you can't handle the truth, but keep searching until

you find something to fit your delusions

[Blackhatjack]

30. I think I made a factual assertion that you cannot deny. I asked why?

Murdock held a fundraiser for Hillary Clinton's Presidential Campaign. A fact.
Hillary Clinton gave her consent for Murdock to act as her surrogate and host the fundraiser. A fact.

I asked Why did this happen?

How does that qualify as a delusion?

[LanternWaste]

26. Out of curiously

Out of curiously, is Sen. Clinton the only Democratic candidate that has taken contributions from less-than-questionable sources?

[Blackhatjack]

31. Well I am sure we could involve other Dem Candidates, but let's focus here til we get an answer...

Really this is limited to one candidate (Clinton) and one fundraiser(Murdock).

[LanternWaste]

34. I see.

I see. I thought it seemed both pertinent and relevant. An equal opportunity slime, if you will.

[Blackhatjack]

36. I'd be glad to discuss other candidates if we could get an answer to this one first...

Or is it your intention to change the focus of the OP and avoid getting an answer to this inquiry?

Sometimes it is hard to get an answer from people who change the focus of the question asked.

[Catherine Vincent]

29. If you think about it, no one knows why.

It would only be speculation. No one can get in Murdoch's head or Hillary's head. If Sen. Clinton wins the nomination, I would think republicans would be questioning Murdoch for this, not so called concerned Democrats.

Senator Clinton is taking the money and running with it. I would too.

[Blackhatjack]

33. Don't you think Hillary has an obligation to Dems to explain why she consented?

If we are going to support her as our Dem Party Nominee in the General Election, don't you think Democratic Party voters deserve to hear why she consented to allow an avowed Republican backer to act as a surrogate for her campaign to hold a fundraiser in her name?

THere is a question of Party loyalty given that Hillary Clinton will be our Nominee running against a Republican Party Nominee who obviously will receive backing from Murdock and Fox News?

[Catherine Vincent]

39. No. n/t

[onenote]

52. Does John Edwards owe an explanation for accepting contributions from a couple of Fox News

employees?

http://opensecrets.org/indivs/search.asp?key=acjzg&txtState=(all%20states)&txtEmploy=fox%20news&txtAll=Y&Order=N

I don't think so.

[Blackhatjack]

57. I was not aware that a couple of Fox News employees threw a fundraiser for Edwards...LINK PLEASE?

[onenote]

58. I wasn't aware that Murdoch threw a fundraiser for Clinton's presidential campaign. LINK PLEASE?

[Blackhatjack]

63. See Link at post #62. WHere is the link to the fundraiser thrown for Edwards? Link PLEASE?

[Rosa Luxemburg]

32. the fact that Roop is donating worries me

[DemocratSinceBirth]

35. He's Also Given To Max Cleland, John Kerry, And Ted Kennedy

http://www.newsmeat.com/billionaire_political_donations/Rupert_Murdoch.php

[Hobarticus]

46. Hey hey HEY! No facts here, bucko!

Only wild-eyed speculation allowed!

[Blackhatjack]

50. The contributions you identified were non-Presidential 1999 - 2001, $2000 or LESS EACH....

He gave $2000 to Kerry in 2001, $1000 to Cleland in 2001, and $1000 to Kennedy in 1999. None of the three were running for President in 2000.

I do not see the same influence these minimum contributions would garner as compared to hosting a fundraiser that raises Hundreds of Thousands of dollars in contributions for Hillary Clinton.

[onenote]

51. uhh...the fundraising event you're harping on also was non-presidential

It was in 2006 and was in connection with Clinton's senate race.

But you must have known that, right?

[Hobarticus]

56. Getting tired of you people and your fancy facts...

:evilgrin:

[Blackhatjack]

62. She was collecting money for her Presidential Run in 2008... LINK

Here is an AP report on the fundraiser


http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/12762092/

"... Clinton’s motive for accepting a Murdoch-sponsored fund-raiser is not quite as clear. She faces minimal opposition in her Senate race — something Murdoch acknowledged this week in an interview on Fox News. And with at least $20 million in her campaign account — a figure that dwarfs that of all her potential rivals for the Democratic presidential nomination — Clinton doesn’t really need the money."

<snip>

"Liberal blogger David Sirota complained: “The brazenness of this move is almost too much to stomach.”

Neither Clinton or Murdoch has had much to say about the fund-raiser since it was first reported this week by The Financial Times."

<snip>

"Media mogul Rupert Murdoch, whose Fox News Channel and other conservative news outlets have been skewering Hillary Rodham Clinton for years, will host a summer fund-raiser for the senator, mystifying some observers and enraging others.

Especially incensed are liberal activists, who for months have decried what they see as a shift to a right on Clinton’s part as the Democrat contemplates a run for president in 2008. They are stunned that she is associating with a man viewed as a cornerstone of the “vast right-wing conspiracy,” a term Clinton herself employed. "Hillary, help us. Who the hell are you?” thundered Washington Post columnist Richard Cohen."

MORE

[mrreowwr_kittty]

41. Same reason it's okay for her to get support by religious bigots. IOKIYAHRC. nt

[ElizabethDC]

44. Murdoch held a fundraiser for her Senate race. He's not supporting her for President

and he's said that the doesn't think he will.

[Blackhatjack]

64. That is a canard. She collected the money for her 2008 Presidential Run ... LINK

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/12762092/

"But Clinton’s motive for accepting a Murdoch-sponsored fund-raiser is not quite as clear. She faces minimal opposition in her Senate race — something Murdoch acknowledged this week in an interview on Fox News. And with at least $20 million in her campaign account — a figure that dwarfs that of all her potential rivals for the Democratic presidential nomination — Clinton doesn’t really need the money."

[Gold Metal Flake]

45. There is an innocent explaination....

...somewhere....

[EstimatedProphet]

47. If you support DU, how do you explain them allowing advertizing from an anti-Michael Moore site?

Well?

I couldn't care less where she gets fuding from.

[Yuugal]

48. It makes perfect sense to me.

Since republicans are just as generous to rich people as they are to corporations, Murdoch would prefer one, but he knows people are fed up and the dem is gonna win this time no matter how much they try to slant reality or cheat. So he does what any good businessman would do, he cuts a deal with the enemy. Probably a very straightforward deal too: I help you get in, you keep your hands off my empire. If Murdoch doesn't help Hillary get in.... a real honest to goodness populist might win and give him headaches. If he supports the repugs he knows hes gonna lose and get retribution from dems. There is really no other choice for him than to support Hillary and be glad he is getting an already bought and paid for member of the ruling class who will be content with throwing us peons a few meaningless bones while supporting the system, lobbyists, outsourcings and endless war.

For Hillary's part, its a no-brainer. She wants the power and here is a guy who can help get her there, period.

[CorpGovActivist]

53. I Support Rupert Murdoch...

... and have since I first became eligible to vote.

After all, The Simpsons debuted my senior year of high school, and I've been a faithful viewer ever since.

; )

Now, accuse me of enabling Rupert all you want, but please know that since the advent of TiVo, I do fast forward thru the commercials, as my way of protesting the ad fees he earns.

- Dave

[Blackhatjack]

55. LOL Just shows those who intend evil sometimes screw up .....

There are programs appearing on the Murdock network which are non-partisan, but there is no way to avoid the fact that Murdock is intent on backing Republicans and their attempts to destroy the Democratic Party.

[CorpGovActivist]

67. Some of the Most Biting Anti-Bush Satire...

... has come from programming on FOX (e.g., The Simpsons).

Although I agree with you that he is largely affiliated with GOP races (overwhelmingly so), his giving hasn't been exclusive to the GOP.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rupert_Murdoch

http://www.fec.gov/finance/disclosure/norindsea.shtml

For the FEC database, it's helpful to know that he shows up under a few different permutations of his name.

For sure, I see that he has given to candidates that I find repugnant. But - given that he lists principal residence in NY - I'm also not surprised to see that he gave to his Senators and other lawmakers there, ignoring their party affiliation.

Other candidates (e.g., Edwards) have taken money from sources I am not fond of, as shown below (the two Edwards presidential campaign committees and his Senate race committee):

http://query.nictusa.com/cgi-bin/can_ind/P40002347 (two links on this page for his separate bids at the Oval)

http://query.nictusa.com/cgi-bin/can_detail/S8NC00122/ (his Senate race)

Cherry-picking the RJR tobacco execs who gave to him might have the same effect as the OP.

- Dave

[Blackhatjack]

69. There is a HUGE Difference between small 'hard money' contributions and throwing Fundraisers...

Campaign finance laws prevent large 'hard money' contributions from individuals(even if they are billionaires!).

However, when you throw a fundraiser where hundreds of thousands of dollars are raised, that has a much larger impact.

Plus, Hillary had to give her consent in advance for Murdoch to conduct the fundraiser as her surrogate.

There are bones to be picked with all the candidates about who contributes to their campaigns. But this is such an obvious convergence of two individuals from different sides of a very contentious political divide that it was bound to raise questions on both sides --which it did!

Her silence in explaining her decisions in this matter do not allay any misconceptions that people have about her.

[CorpGovActivist]

71. I'm Keeping an Open Mind...

... and haven't landed on a candidate yet. But - for weeks now - I've thought Edwards is pushing a little bit too hard on the issue of public funding, leaving himself wide open to attacks regarding his own contributor lists of campaigns past.

I agree that: "when you throw a fundraiser where hundreds of thousands of dollars are raised, that has a much larger impact."

http://www.northcountrygazette.org/news/2007/08/24/fieger_indicted/

"Kevorkian Attorney Indicted For Edwards Fundraising"

You wrote: "Plus, Hillary had to give her consent in advance for Murdoch to conduct the fundraiser as her surrogate."

Well, I'm willing to buy that Edwards was unaware of the activities involving his own fundraiser: "Kevorkian attorney Geoffrey Fieger, 56, of Bloomfield Hills, Mich., his law partner Vernon Johnson, 45, Birmingham, Mich., conspired to make more than $125,000 in illegal campaign contributions to the 2004 presidential campaign of U.S. Senator John Edwards. ...snip... The indictment states that Sen. Edwards’ campaign was unaware of Fieger and Johnson’s actions. Sen. Edwards and his campaign staff have cooperated fully with this investigation."

But if I'm willing to extend the benefit of the doubt to Senator Edwards, I think I have to extend the same benefit of the doubt to Senator Clinton.

- Dave

[Blackhatjack]

73. OK here is the difference.....

For a campaign to accept campaign contributions that have been collected in a fundraiser which names the candidate, and in which the candidate participates, then the candidate must consent or she/he must return the money.

However, if individual campaign contributions 'land at the candidate's doorstep' and the candidate had no participation in the collection of those contributions, then the candidate may accept the donations as long as the contributions meet the minimum standards that govern 'hard money' donations. IF the candidate learns subsequently that ANY individual contribution received by the campaign does not meet the minimum requirements, then the candidate must return the contribution or donate the proceeds to a fully vetted charity.

Hillary Clinton knew in advance that Rupert Murdoch was going to hold the fundraiser, and she consented to it, and accepted the donations that resulted from it.

From what I know the Geoffrey Fieger contributions were collected without Edwards advanced knowledge or participation. Edwards fully cooperated with the investigation, and have disposed of the contributions received in accordance with law.

Yet, you must remember that the indictment came from a politicized DOJ that used its investigative powers to target Edwards supporters by demanding financial records from banking institutions without warrants. Fieger swears he did nothing wrong, and is going to fight the indictment. It would be very foolish for Fieger to have done this in a criminal way, given there were other ways he could have accomplished the same thing in a legal manner. I have my doubts there will be a conviction on these charges.

[CorpGovActivist]

75. I Like Edwards' Campaign Finance Stance...

... but I think his advisors may be pushing the point a bit too far, ignoring their wide-open flank on past lists.

These nuances of campaign finance law (while interesting to legalistic types like you and me) won't break through when the ads start flying in Iowa and New Hampshire, cherry-picking his own "less-than-desirable" campaign finance affiliates.

For weeks now, I've been shaking my head as he continues to make that a central theme of his campaign. Her campaign is going to swing hard, eventually, and I'm afraid he's going to look a little caught-off-guard if/when it happens.

- Dave

[Blackhatjack]

77. Everyone knows that there will be no change in D.C. unless we move to public financing of elections

Edwards probably has fewer questionable sources of campaign contributors than Clinton. Talk about tortured over her contributors, Clinton will be staked out and quartered if she tries to make an issue over contributors to other campaigns. If that attack emerges, it will likely come from a surrogate second-tier candidate.

Edwards has not taken any corporate campaign contributions. THat should be the standard for all Democratic Candidates.

However, until all the candidates are operating under the same rules of public financed elections, you have to work within the present rules to survive and win. THen you can push to change the law.

[CorpGovActivist]

79. I Won't Relish the...

... "I told you so," when it happens, but Edwards is gonna get blindsided by ads in Iowa, cherry-picking his past campaigns' donor lists to portray him as "just as dirty as the other guys."

I'd lay hard money on it - though, again, I wouldn't relish the "I told you so."

For good measure, the ads will probably say something like, "The only reason Edwards is making such a big deal about this this time around is that he didn't raise enough money to have an actual viable choice about whether or not to forego public funding. Edwards has 'gotten religion' on public funding, just when his own campaign funding has sputtered."

Again, those aren't my personal views, but I'd lay hard money that some variation of that theme is going to emerge - and soon.

: (

- Dave

[Blackhatjack]

80. Those comments have already been made by lower level campaign officials...

The comment about accepting public funding occurred almost immediately after Edwards Campaign announced they were accepting public funding.

The other comment about Edwards is 'just as dirty as the other candidates' when it comes to campaign contributors was made anonymously to a reporter(Hmmmm ... wonder who anonymous was?).

Even so, the top Dems know that if that door is opened in the Primaries Clinton and Obama(yes Obama!) stand to lose a lot more than Edwards.

Who have you identified on Edwards' past campaign donors list that you think will top Clinton's 'fugitive from justice' HSU?

[CorpGovActivist]

83. I Think His Senate Race List...

... is probably more worrisome than his last presidential run (but there are problems there, too). By the very nature of where he was running (NC), there are some "hometown company execs" whose names show up that might cause exclamation points to shoot out of various primary constituencies' collective heads (e.g., tobacco money is big in NC politics).

Also, some will look askance at the large number of trial lawyers (also a potential sore spot in the general, were he to be the nominee). Even with the explanation that he was an admired member of the legal community in NC - you know the populist feeling about lawyers.

; )

- Dave

[LynneSin]

59. Who is Rupert Murdock?

:shrug:

[hiphopnation]

60. she's an adroit politician

seriously, what's there to explain?

i'm way more scared of richard perle and bill kristol than rupert murdoch, sorry.

[dysfunctional press]

61. i don't support hillary.

so i guess that it's a moot question.

[Mark E. Smith]

78. I have an answer

Can you ensure that your candidate is pure as the driven snow
in his fund raising?

Politics is a dirty business, you know. If you're looking for saints
you are in the wrong neighborhood.

I used to believe in moral absolutes. But then I turned 18.

Glass houses and stones, you know.

[cuke]

86. You're pretty smart. I don't even understand what needs to be explained

They offered money and she took it. There's no evidence she ever did anything untoward in exchange for it.

I just don't understand what the OP wants explained

[Hekate]

84. Money is the mother's milk of politics. How do you explain that? nt