2016 Postmortem
Related: About this forumClinton Campaign & DNC Allowed Hillary To Buy Loyalty of 33 State Dem Parties, Including Nevada
Collusion between the Clinton campaign and the DNC allowed Hillary Clinton to buy the loyalty of 33 state Democratic parties last summer....
http://www.counterpunch.org/2016/04/01/how-hillary-clinton-bought-the-loyalty-of-33-state-democratic-parties/
underthematrix
(5,811 posts)cliffordu
(30,994 posts)With the 'I'm with her' crowd.
This is why we can't have nice things.
Like honest elections
The oligarchy in all it's grandeur.
'I can't be bought. But I can be rented'
silvershadow
(10,336 posts)a conspiracy theory. Bookmarked. The empress has no clothes.
CreekDog
(46,192 posts)it would help him get his agenda in place.
elleng
(130,865 posts)so we're told there's NO CHANCE for Senator Sanders to prevail.
'Collusion between the Clinton campaign and the DNC allowed Hillary Clinton to buy the loyalty of 33 state Democratic parties last summer. Montana was one of those states. It sold itself for $64,100.
The Super Delegates now defying democracy with their insistent refusal to change their votes to Sanders in spite of a handful of overwhelming Clinton primary losses in their own states, were arguably part of that deal.
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.
The idea was to increase how much one could personally donate to Hillary by taking advantage of the Supreme Court ruling 2014, McCutcheon v FEC, that knocked down a cap on aggregate limits as to how much a donor could give to a federal campaign in a year. It thus eliminated the ceiling on amounts spent by a single donor to a presidential candidate.
In other words, a single donor, by giving $10,000 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 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 spouses name.
From these large amounts of money being transferred from state coffers to the Hillary Victory Fund in Washington, the Clinton campaign got the first $2,700, the DNC was to get the next $33,400, and the remainder was to be split among the 33 signatory states. With this scheme, the Hillary Victory Fund raised over $26 million for the Clinton Campaign by the end of 2015.
The money was either transferred to the Hillary for America or Forward Hillary PACs and spent directly on the Hillary Clinton Campaign, often paying the salaries and expenses within those groups, or it was moved into the DNC or another Clinton PAC. Some of it was spent towards managing the Hillary merchandise store, where you can buy Hillary T shirts and hats and buttons.
The fund is administered by treasurer Elizabeth Jones, the Clinton Campaigns chief operating officer. . .
What do billionaires like Esprit Founder Susie Buell of California, and businessman Imaad Zuberi of California, and media mogul Fred Eychaner of Chicago, and Donald Sussman hedgefund manager from New York and Chicago real estate mogul J.B Pritzker, and gay activist Jon Stryker of NY, and NRA and Viacom lobbyist Jeffrey Forbes and entertainment mogul Haim Saban all have in common?
They all appear to be brilliant business people who have all given millions to Hillary Clintons presidential campaign and to her various PACS. And they all gave the Montana State Democratic Party $10,000 each in 2015. It is doubtful that many of them have any interest in Montana politics, or that they have even bothered to visit.
None of these are awful people; they are simply awfully rich. And they like their friend Hillary and want her to be the president. And if some of their millions will buy her way into the White House then so be it. None of this is illegal. But it makes a mockery of Ms. Clintons pledge to further the cause of campaign finance reform.'
Does anyone recall concern expressed at DU when these arrangements were disclosed???
truedelphi
(32,324 posts)To put this all together.
A person has to ask, "If a Political Party has no ethical responsibility to honor the voters, and cares not at all for the will of the voters, is it not okay for said voters to work to totally change or even disband that Party by the means available to them?"
elleng
(130,865 posts)I'm sorry I didn't take more time when the 'deal' was initially made public.
senz
(11,945 posts)People need to know more about how Hillary operates.
Live and Learn
(12,769 posts)senz
(11,945 posts)Thanks, amborin.
eridani
(51,907 posts)WA State Dems didn't go for it, though all the superdelegates are still in the tank for Hillary, despite Sanders getting 70% of the pledged delegates.
TheFarS1de
(1,017 posts)the more odious it becomes . The truth is that democracy has become a pipedream in this day and age , Orwell keeps getting proved right again and again of late .
K&R
Waiting For Everyman
(9,385 posts)Cheating isn't winning.
Cheating is the only thing consistent about her. She has done it through this whole primary, and her whole career. Corrupt as the day is long, and proud of it.
Her name has been known for a long time, but few people knew until lately what she was really up to. Many still don't know because of the Repubs "crying wolf" about nonsense so many times, but people will be finding out the truth about her as time goes by, and they are not going to be happy about being duped into voting for her under false pretenses.
That's what happens when the media doesn't cover the known facts. This OP is one example of it.
Skwmom
(12,685 posts)What a shock.
Recursion
(56,582 posts)But the dictionary definition certainly doesn't apply here.