General Discussion
In reply to the discussion: Think the leaks are a "nothingburger"? Former DNC Chair Ed Rendell: "Serious" "Truly violates" [View all]unblock
(52,164 posts)a *candidate* who got the short end of the impartiality stick might have a case if the rules under which the candidate decided to invest time and money weren't properly followed. if the dnc took actions that unfairly affected bernie, he would have an easier time proving material damage. if the suspicions turn out to be true, bernie could argue that he was defrauded, though so far it seems he isn't inclined to pursue such a case (and it would be rare for a politician to do so).
a *donor*, on the other hand, would be hard-pressed to show material damage. contributions to the dnc go to a large variety of purposes; the primary process is just one of them. moreover, it's not clear how the donor is damaged or defrauded if there were minor examples of bias. sure, if the entire primary process were a complete sham, then yes, sure, that would be fraud. but there's quite a long distance between, to take your example, setting the debate schedule to hillary's advantage and a complete sham.