Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Senator Clinton offers $10,000-a-month contract to South Carolina endorser

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion: Presidential (Through Nov 2009) Donate to DU
 
DeepModem Mom Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Feb-15-07 09:24 PM
Original message
Senator Clinton offers $10,000-a-month contract to South Carolina endorser
NYT/AP: Clinton Offers Contract to S.C. Endorser
By THE ASSOCIATED PRESS
Published: February 15, 2007

COLUMBIA, S.C. (AP) -- A key black Democratic leader in South Carolina has negotiated a $10,000 per month consulting contract with Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton's campaign, a development that came to light when the lawmaker endorsed the presidential hopeful.

The contract with state Sen. Darrell Jackson's firm, Sunrise Enterprises, is not yet signed but will run through the first Southern primary here next January, Clinton spokesman Mo Elleithee confirmed Thursday.

Elleithee denied there was any deal made for Jackson's endorsement.

''Not at all. ... We told him, 'We'd love your support as a community leader and love your help as a respected political consultant inside the state,''' Elleithee said.

Jackson did not return messages on Thursday. He has told several media outlets that he turned down more money from other candidates....

http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/us/AP-Clinton-2008.html
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
Tandalayo_Scheisskopf Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Feb-15-07 09:30 PM
Response to Original message
1. Excuse me! Excuuuuuuuse me!
Who do I have to blow to get a gig like that? ;-)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Catherine Vincent Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Feb-15-07 09:38 PM
Response to Original message
2. She is in it and she's in it to WIN!
Push it, push it
to the limit, limit
cause I'm in it, in it
to win it, win it
Oh yeah!

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
WCGreen Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Feb-15-07 09:40 PM
Response to Original message
3. It happens all the time at the state and local level...
It's how a lot of elected officials make their extra walking around cash....

Cleveland is full of consultants who endorse for cash...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
kevsand Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Feb-15-07 09:41 PM
Response to Original message
4. Eewwww!
That is bad on so many levels...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
illinoisprogressive Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Feb-15-07 09:43 PM
Response to Original message
5. she's trying to buy herself the white house but, is this legal???
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
The Magistrate Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Feb-15-07 09:55 PM
Response to Reply #5
9. Nothing Illegal About It, Ma'am
Attendant publicity may devalue the endorsement somewhat, of course.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Colobo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Feb-15-07 09:44 PM
Response to Original message
6. Pardon my ignorance, but..
Is this normal? Legit? Ethical? If it is, then it's alright, but...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
snowbear Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Feb-15-07 09:45 PM
Response to Original message
7. Wonder who those he turned down were?

..."He has told several media outlets that he turned down more money from other candidates"


Wow!

Attsa lotta dough..
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
benny05 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Feb-15-07 09:50 PM
Response to Reply #7
8. Makes one wonder
Edited on Thu Feb-15-07 09:51 PM by benny05
A few days before that, Jackson was deep in negotiations with Steve Hildebrand, a senior strategist for Sen. Barack Obama's campaign. On the table was a contract worth in excess of $5K a month, beginning on 3/15/07. Separately, Obama was personally soliciting Jackson's endorsement.

Quote from:

http://blogs.thestate.com/bradwarthensblog/2007/02/hillary_shows_d.html

Now the last sentence says "separately", but I don't know if there is a correlation or not since it's in the same paragraph.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Jackpine Radical Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Feb-15-07 09:55 PM
Response to Reply #8
10. The whole goddam thing stinks,
legal or not. I don't care if this stuff is standard practice, whether practiced by Hill, Obama, or Gautama Buddha, it stinks.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
benny05 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Feb-15-07 09:58 PM
Response to Reply #10
13. Yeah, know what you mean
I dislike buying of votes like that. Too bad the endorser sold out period.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Adelante Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Feb-16-07 12:27 PM
Response to Reply #13
23. Hillary is not alone 'buying votes', let's face it
In 2003, Sunrise was hired by Axelrod and Associates to advise on media buys and consult on strategy for Sen. John Edwards's campaign. David Axelrod, now an Obama adviser, was Edwards's media consultant in 2004. Sen. Jackson endorsed Edwards, who won the primary.


The whole system as it stands is anti-democracy.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mtnsnake Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Feb-15-07 09:58 PM
Response to Original message
11. So? Other candidates offered him more money to do the same thing for them
and he turned them down to work with Hillary, so I don't see what the big deal is, other than the guy wanted to work for her for cheaper than what he was offered from the other candidates.

It's not like she was necessarily buying his endorsement. Doesn't it go without saying that if he follows through on a contract such as this that he's going to endorse the person giving him the contract?



Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Colobo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Feb-15-07 09:58 PM
Response to Original message
12. Why do candidates have to do this?
Aren't they capable of earning the endorsement of people on merits alone?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
oasis Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Feb-15-07 10:10 PM
Response to Reply #12
15. Before you sign on as my agent or lobbyist, you have a chance to review the merits of
my product or service. You can measure them against anything my competitors have to offer and act accordingly.

What's the difference? :shrug:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
NCarolinawoman Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Feb-15-07 10:14 PM
Response to Reply #12
16. I'm with you. Are we naive? The concept is repulsive.
:grr: :thumbsdown:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
karynnj Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Feb-15-07 10:09 PM
Response to Original message
14. Money is absolutely corrupting our government
Edited on Thu Feb-15-07 11:02 PM by karynnj
We need more ethics and campaign finance reform - this is legal, but I hate that our government is being bought - or to use my favorite Senator's word - moneyocracy.

Here's Kerry's Senate speech when he and Wellstone introduced Clean Elections.

"Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, I want to speak before you today about a critical challenge before this Senate--the challenge of reforming the way in which elections are conducted in the United States; the challenge of ending the ``moneyocracy'' that has turned our elections into auctions where public office is sold to the highest bidder. I want to implore the Congress to take meaningful steps this year to ban soft money, strengthen the Federal Election Commission, provide candidates the opportunity to pay for their campaigns with clean money, end the growing trend of dangerous sham issue ads, and meet the ultimate goal of restoring the rights of average Americans to have a stake in their democracy. Today I am proud to join with my colleague from Minnesota, PAUL WELLSTONE, to introduce the ``Clean Money'' bill which I believe will help all of us entrusted to shape public policy to arrive at a point where we can truly say we are rebuilding Americans' faith in our democracy.
For the last 10 years, I have stood before you to push for comprehensive campaign reform. We have made nips and tucks at the edges of the system, but we have always found excuses to hold us back from making the system work. It's long past time that we act--in a comprehensive way--to curtail the way in which soft money and the big special interest dollars are crowding ordinary citizens out of this political system.
Today the political system is being corrupted because there is too much unregulated, misused money circulating in an environment where candidates will do anything to get elected and where, too often, the special interests set the tone of debate more than the political leaders or the American people. Just consider the facts for a moment. The rising cost of seeking political office is outrageous. In 1996, House and Senate candidates spent more than $765 million, a 76% increase since 1990 and a six fold increase since 1976. Since 1976, the average cost for a winning Senate race went from $600,000 to $3.3 million, and in the arms race for campaign dollars in 1996 many of us were forced to spend significantly more than that. In constant dollars, we have seen an increase of over 100 percent in the money spent for Senatorial races from 1980 to 1994. Today Senators often spend more time on the phone ``dialing for dollars'' than on the Senate floor. The average Senator must raise $12,000 a week for six years to pay for his or her re-election campaign.
But that's just the tip of the iceberg. The use of soft money has exploded. In 1988, Democrats and Republicans raised a combined $45 million in soft money. In 1992 that number doubled to reach $90 million and in 1995-96 that number tripled to $262 million. This trend continues in this cycle. What's the impact of all that soft money? It means that the special interests are being heard. They're the ones with the influence. But ordinary citizens can't compete. Fewer than one third of one percent of eligible voters donated more than $250 in the electoral cycle of 1996. They're on the sidelines in what is becoming a coin-operated political system.
The American people want us to act today to forge a better system. An NBC/Wall Street Journal poll shows that 77% of the public believes that campaign finance reform is needed ``because there is too much money being spent on political campaigns, which leads to excessive influence by special interests and wealthy individuals at the expense of average people.'' Last spring a New York Times found that an astonishing 91% of the public favor a fundamental transformation of this system.
Cynics say that the American people don't care about campaign finance. It's not true. Citizens just don't believe we'll have the courage to act--they're fed up with our defense of the status quo. They're disturbed by our fear of moving away from this status quo which is destroying our democracy. Soft money, political experts tell us, is good for incumbents, good for those of us within the system already. Well, nothing can be good for any elected official that hurts our democracy, that drives citizens out of the process, and which keeps politicians glued to the phone raising money when they ought to be doing the people's business. Let's put aside the status quo, and let's act today to restore our democracy, to make it once more all that the founders promised it could be.
Let us pass the Clean Mo ney Bill to restore faith in our government in this age when it has been so badly eroded.
Let us recognize that the faith in government and in our political process which leads Americans to go to town hall meetings, or to attend local caucuses, or even to vote--that faith which makes political expression worthwhile for ordinary working Americans--is being threatened by a political system that appears to reward the special interests that can play the game and the politicians who can game the system.
Each time we have debated campaign finance reform in this Senate, too many of our colleagues have safeguarded the status quo under the guise of protecting the political speech of the Fortune 500. But today we must pass campaign finance reform to protect the political voice of the 250 million ordinary, working Americans without a fortune. It is their dwindling faith in our political system that must be restored.

Twenty five years ago, I sat before the Foreign Relations Committee, a young veteran having returned from Vietnam. Behind me sat hundreds of veterans committed to ending the war the Vietnam War. Even then we questioned whether ordinary Americans, battle scarred veterans, could have a voice in a political system where the costs of campaigns, the price of elected office seemed prohibitive. Young men who had put their life on the front lines for their country were worried that the wall of special interests between the people and their government might have been too thick even then for our voices to be heard in the corridors of power in Washington, D.C.
But we had a reserve of faith left, some belief in the promise and the influence of political expression for all Americans. That sliver of faith saved lives. Ordinary citizens stopped a war that had taken 59,000 American lives.
GPO's PDF
Every time in the history of this republic when we have faced a moral challenge, there has been enough faith in our democracy to stir the passions of ordinary Americans to act--to write to their Members of Congress; to come to Washington and speak with us one on one; to walk door to door on behalf of issues and candidates; and to vote on election day for people they believe will fight for them in Washington.
It's the activism of citizens in our democracy that has made the American experiment a success. Ordinary citizens--at the most critical moments in our history--were filled with a sense of efficacy. They believed they had influence in their government.
Today those same citizens are turning away from our political system. They believe the only kind of influence left in American politics is the kind you wield with a checkbook. The senior citizen living on a social security check knows her influence is inconsequential compared to the interest group that can saturate a media market with a million dollars in ads that play fast and loose with the facts. The mother struggling to find decent health care for her children knows her influence is trivial compared to the special interests on K Street that can deliver contributions to incumbent politicians struggling to stay in office.
But I would remind you that whenever our country faces a challenge, it is not the special interests, but rather the average citizen, who holds the responsibility to protect our nation. The next time our nation faces a crisis and the people's voice needs to be heard to turn the tide of history, will the average American believe enough in the process to give words to the feelings beyond the beltway, the currents of public opinion that run beneath the surface of our political dialogue?
In times of real challenge for our country in the years to come, will the young people speak up once again? Not if we continue to hand over control of our political system to the special interests who can infuse the system with soft money and with phony television ads that make a mockery of the issues.
The children of the generation that fought to lower the voting age to 18 are abandoning the voting booth themselves. Polls reveal they believe it is more likely that they'll be abducted by aliens than it is that their vote will make a real difference. For America's young people the MTV Voter Participation Challenge ``Choose or Lose'' has become a cynical joke. In their minds, the choice has already been lost--lost to the special interests. That is a loss this Senate should take very seriously. That is tremendous damage done to our democracy, damage we have a responsibility in this Senate to repair. Mr. President, with this legislation we are introducing today, we can begin that effort--we can repair and revitalize our political process, and we can guarantee ``clean elections'' funded by ``clean money,'' elections where our citizens are the ones who make the difference"

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DeepModem Mom Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Feb-15-07 10:21 PM
Response to Reply #14
17. Thanks for posting this, karynnj! nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
FreeStateDemocrat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Feb-16-07 09:54 AM
Response to Original message
18. Her next book "Buying the Democratic nomination in 2008." Coronations are expensive.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Orangepeel Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Feb-16-07 10:03 AM
Response to Original message
19. This man has a political machine in South Carolina
that is why he is valued both as an endorser and as a political consultant.

It is also why he could endorse and/or work for any candidate he wants. He picked Clinton. :shrug:

I am not supporting Clinton, but apparently, this guy does. Hell, if he were going to the highest bidder, he'd be a republican.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Adelante Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Feb-16-07 11:29 AM
Response to Reply #19
21. That would be an unidentified Democratic candidate
.. it would seem, who was the highest bidder, so went unnamed.

Jackson said that when he told an official for another campaign about his Clinton endorsement, the official offered to "double" whatever Clinton offered him. Jackson told the official, whose name and campaign affiliation he declined to identify, that he was offended at the thought that his endorsement was bought.


I have no problem with the man endorsing Clinton. I have a problem with every last candidate in this article, including the unidentified one, who is leaving our election system lying in shit with this kind of behavior. Will it EVER be time to clean the sinkhole of campaign financing? I don't know. I am merely sickened.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
JNelson6563 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Feb-16-07 11:29 AM
Response to Original message
20. Why I don't donate to massive campaigns
So sad that many supporters will donate more than they can afford to their favorite candidate only to have that money spent like this.

Count me out.

I like to donate to my local Dem party, state and local Dem candidates, my state party and, if there's anything left for politics, my pal Howard Dean at the DNC to funnel to the 50 state strategy.

Julie
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
catgirl Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Feb-16-07 11:38 AM
Response to Original message
22. Sold to the highest bidder!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ncteechur Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Feb-17-07 11:05 AM
Response to Original message
24. I don't like it either BUT this is why they are afraid of her
because she will dish it right back to them. She can raise as much money as they can and she will not sit idly by and let them get the upper hand. She is not a novice at campaigning or winning or dealing with old white guys.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Fri Apr 26th 2024, 03:51 PM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion: Presidential (Through Nov 2009) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC