We can argue over who deserves the label, but does anyone still deny there are Corporate Democrats?

[Tom Rinaldo]

I'll try to be fair about this and concede upfront that the way in which elections are financed in America makes any politician who wants to remain financially competitive during election cycles susceptible to outsized influence from corporate lobbyists. I'll even go a step further and acknowledge that many Democrats, who regularly receive above average levels of support from corporate special interests, do still strive to balance the needs of their constituents with those of their corporate sponsors. In so doing they still usually do a noticeably better job of addressing the needs of those truly in need than do Republicans similarly showered with money from corporate lobbyists.

Taking corporate money does not necessarily make one a corporate Democrat. Taking huge hauls of corporate money, at levels way above whatever is "the norm", from specific special interests that clearly expect some degree of loyalty in return, IMO earns one the label "Corporate Democrat." Personally, I considered Joe Lieberman a Corporate Democrat, and I consider Kyrsten Sinema a Corporate Democrat. In some, perhaps even in many cases, I will still work to help someone who I consider a Corporate Democrat win reelection in a November election. All things considered, in some cases I might even support one in a primary over someone "more progressive". But I have lost patience with those who deride the very existence of Corporate Democrats. Yes they dwell inside the Democratic Party's "Big Tent." That doesn't negate what they are.

[Elessar Zappa]

1. Yes, they exist.

But in my opinion there’s far fewer of them now than there were years ago, such as during the Reagan-Clinton era.

[Tom Rinaldo]

4. Agreed n/t

[sop]

2. Corporate media refers to them as "Moderate Democrats."

[Tom Rinaldo]

3. That is true, but I don' t think that is fair to all moderate Democrats

Some of them are simply legitimately more moderate on the ideological spectrum than are some other Democrats, without the strong dependency on corporate money and the agenda that flows from that.

[Hortensis]

19. Sure. Mainstream Dems are predominantly moderate/middlin' liberals.

But notably the liberal mainstream is by far the biggest (obviously) but also easily the most diverse. The body of a bell curve that ranges all the way from liberal-lite (toward the conservatives side of the range) to and including strongly liberal.

We saw this in the demos of those who voted for moderate liberal Joe Biden in the primaries compared to those who weren't happy with Biden even as a backup choice and strongly preferred candidates outside the liberal mainstream.

[stillcool]

5. I find corrupt to be a more accurate definition

anyone can buy a politician.

[Tom Rinaldo]

6. True, but less discerning

I think corrupt is an apt umbrella term, but most of the most toxic buying of politicians is done by large organized interests with broader economic concerns than a particular personal favor. And when that occurs most of the time it is done via corporate PACs and lobbyists.

[jaxexpat]

16. Corruption by any name smells the same.

Equivocation by the "informed" is the rotten apple in the barrel. And all you get is a barrel of smelly apples.

[Tomconroy]

7. I am glad there are corporate Democrats. If you don't like

it Joe Manchin told you what to do: Elect more Progressives. Red state Democrats are a blessing!

[Lunabell]

8. I don't understand why they're in the party.

What's the difference? We are supposed to be for people, not corporations, which are not people.

[Ford_Prefect]

11. I suspect it is not so much where they started as where they have been herded to.

Corporatists seem to come in degrees and flavors as well depending on the issues and the local outcome.

The press seem not to be so discerning when it suits them to paint with a broad brush.

[Politicub]

23. Because the Democratic coalition is a better descriptor than Democratic Party

We are a party made of many parties, in other words.

While the more conservative and moderate democrats sometimes get in the way of progress, and they annoy the fuck out of me, they are necessary for our majority. The Corporate democrats’ agenda is often in conflict with progressive values. As politics is the art of the possible, it is painful to see things that we progressives see as no-brainer issues get dismissed by more conservative members of the coalition. As I have gotten older, I temper my idealism with a hefty dose of reality.

Coincidentally, this is one reason why the Democratic Party members criticize it for having a messaging problem. The issue is, it’s hard to craft a message that resonates with disparate audiences. It’s nearly impossible, in fact. It’s easy for conservatives to have more succinct messages because they’re a party of craven, greedy republicans and easily-manipulated simpletons who all reside in a media echo chamber.

[LymphocyteLover]

9. I would use the term for any Dem who supports policies that benefit corporations over people

who consistently does it or does it on huge issues-- not so much about donations

[ancianita]

10. Nope. And I can list a whole pile of Fossil Dems. We got bigger fish to fry & for better reasons.

[FakeNoose]

12. Sometimes it's hard to tell them apart from actual Repukes

... aside from ... you know ... loyalty to Chump.

Just sayin'

[tiredtoo]

13. Use extreme caution when discussing this

I got booted out during the primaries for making such statements.

[demosurvivor]

14. I thought the democrat party was a huge tent

with lots of different types of democratic views. And one can get booted for discussing the different views? I thought we lived in a democracy.

I guess it's good to know what has transpired in the past.

[tiredtoo]

15. Don't want to rehash old stories but,

Hang around for the next primary and watch the action here. Some are still occasionally blaming the Bernie Bots for Hillary's loss.

[demosurvivor]

42. Now that's some scary shit.

I don't know what to say. Granted, everyone has their own opinion, but damn, that's a bit too far for me.

[Elessar Zappa]

21. "Democrat" party?

Are you on the right website?

[bluewater]

31. ...

[demosurvivor]

43. I'm beginning

to wonder.

[LiberalLovinLug]

17. Thank You!

I wish it was not so verboten to even bring this topic up in here. You are a brave man.

And I don't know why. I also was censored for simply linking to an article, from a reputable news source used many times on here, that was discussing how BOTH parties are guilty of catering to large corporate lobbyists and money and how that affects politics. We should be able to discuss this topic in here. Its actually quite an important topic considering how much influence corporations have in shaping policy. Especially considering the present day where corporate shills are blocking and whittling down legislation that would help so many people.

And please, MSM, stop calling them "moderates".

[Elessar Zappa]

24. If

it was an article that said both parties are the same then it will be deleted here. And rightfully so, IMO. But I didn’t see said article so I can’t say on way or the other.

[LiberalLovinLug]

37. Well, of course it said both parties are the same, when it comes to accepting corporate money

But that is a fact isn't it? Why is that so difficult to discuss or even see the words? I wish I could find the article again, it was a couple years ago. It was more about the influence of corporate cash in politics in general, and the danger in that. It would hardly do a service to journalism to pretend it was only affecting one party.

I agree with the OP that Democrats will be much more sensitive to social needs, and will balance the corporate demands much more fairly than the Republicans. And I'm also not nessasarily demanding they relinquish that donor support. Because why bring a knife to a gun fight. Although I would love to see a candidate....like Sanders....win a nomination and fund his or her campaign purely through millions of small donations, and turn back any corporate (or union) donations, and are able to run a Presidential campaign and win that way. With the help of many volunteers, and people helping create video content etc on their own to help. Just imagine a President, starting their term, with no strings to the billionaire/corporate class at all? A President that could truely govern from a clean slate, with no debts to large donors who want to help write legislation?

Of course they give more to Republicans, because they get more from them. But just because D's only get 3/4 or even 2/3 whatever it is they receive, those donations still goes a long ways for them. And all that is meshed with those D's who are wealthy themselves with their own investment holdings. And the wealthiest seem to always be the ones in high positions in the party. Those are the facts. Whether you think its a problem big enough to bother to worry about or not is up to you.

[maxsolomon]

18. There are Dems who accept that Corporations exist and aren't going away

and believe they need to be regulated. I guess "Corporate" Dems think that Corporations are a net benefit to society and are willing to engage with them.

Do Progressives Dems, or "Anti-Corporate" Dems, think Corporations are a net detriment?

[Yo_Mama_Been_Loggin]

20. This 👆

[Elessar Zappa]

26. That's not what people mean

when they say corporate Democrat. It means any dem who is in thrall to corporate interests over the concerns of the average citizen. It doesn’t mean that progressives think corporations are a net detriment.

[maxsolomon]

48. isn't "in thrall" a subjective judgment?

"corporate democrat" gets thrown out generically, but who are we talking about specifically?

manchin/sinema, obviously. klobuchar? schumer? cantwell? feinstein? durbin? casey?

are they "in thrall"? how many of the 50 are "corporates" in the senate?

[Elessar Zappa]

50. It's based on their voting record.

If they vote Republican half the time, chances are they aren’t in office to help the non-rich. Manchin and Sinema are most definitely “corporate” Democrats. The others not so much.

[Nixie]

28. +1000, the same people don't recognize there are red state

Democrats and blue state Democrats, yet want everything to fit on the pin head of what Bernie said.

[LiberalLovinLug]

38. I think any large monetary private influence is a net detriment to any government

A better system of government, is every party eligible to run would be given a set sum, paid through taxes, to use for campaigning. They could also raise money though private donations but a cap set per individual, maybe $1000. And Citizens United struck down or at least new law legislation brought in to nullify it.

Also a set amount of free ad time on major networks. And the privileged networks that are granted licence to use the public airspace, to make money, are required as part of the deal to provide this time for free as part of that agreement for a licence in service to the democracy they get to operate under.

These are requirements in other world democracies.

When you are starting your term, with a bunch of IOUs in your back pocket you have to take care of before anyone else....that is starting from a "net" position. If the goal is to serve ALL citizens equally for the whole term.

[maxsolomon]

49. so, it becomes an issue when there is a quid pro quo understanding.

i agree, dems should not engage in quid pro quos for campaign donations.

[betsuni]

41. "Corporate Dems" is the new "neoliberal" and "Democratic establishment."

Insinuating corruption/immorality/not progressive/capitalist compared to the pure uncorrupted grassroots progressive democratic socialist populist. The belief that both parties have the same economic policies except for some social issues.

A $27 donation from an employee of a pharmaceutical company is grassroots and pure. A $250 donation from the same person is a corporate Dem "taking" money from Big Pharma.

[zaj]

22. Yes, they exist and they are important and add value

Democrats need to be the rational middle, and that means recognizing the value of both liberal and conservative ideologies. And recognizing the key role of big, American, global companies play in the strength of our nation (relative to the rest of the world).

We need to see both the failures of these companies (what we do easily) and the strengths of them as well.

We are out of balance. We need to fix wealth distribution. We need to fix racial abuses. We need to build a fairer economy.

But we also need to do it without losing our sense of balance.

That's going to be hard.

[PatrickforB]

29. Thoughtful post. Indeed it will be hard.

Once greed becomes entrenched in policy it is very hard to get rid of the corruption that comes with it.

If you are a policy wonk like I am, you might want to read Lynn Stout's brilliant work on the Myth of Shareholder Value.

It is a pretty seminal work on the doctrine of shareholder primacy, for sure.

[zaj]

36. Will read, I appreciate the notion for sure.

Other books I suggest in return...


Thank You For Being Late by Thomas Friedman (NY Times)
American Schism by Seth David Radwell (business exec)
Democracy In Chains by Nancy MacLean (Duke)
The Coming Jobs War by Jim Clifton (Gallup)
Conservatives Without Conscience by John Dean (Watergate)
The Righteous Mind by Jonathan Haidt (NYU)
The Road To I freedom by Timothy Snyder (Yale)

[PatrickforB]

45. I've read two of these. Thanks for the titles :)

[PatrickforB]

25. I rail against 'corporate Democrats' all the time, and lament the

corporate corruption that plagues our tax policies, our courts, and our election financing. But here's the thing - these people are children of the times. They are both users and victims of these policies that make profit more important than people, and systematically transfer money from the public treasury from programs that materially benefit individuals like those reading this thread, and give it instead to oligarchs in the form of corporate profits, government contracts, and tax cuts.

Honestly, until we get rid of these policies, we will continue to have so-called corporate Democrats, because if you want to get elected to national office it is ALL about money and likeability. Americans, unfortunately, tend to be profoundly ignorant when it comes to how policies affect them. Oh, they can tell you all about every little nuance surrounding each player on their favorite sports team, who what celebrity is having an affair with, or who is 'winning' in the latest reality TV show, but may not even be able to pick out America on a map.

That's on purpose. I just signed up for my 2022 benefits in open enrollment, and the documents that go with the healthcare coverage are so complicated it isn't even funny. I'm an economist with a graduate degree, and I have to read them several times before I can even understand them. But my costs this next year are up 21.1%.

Remember the Ferengi? Our healthcare system reminds me of them. "Oh, you didn't read the fine print under paragraph 16 on page 5,281? Sorry, you're SCREWED!!!" That certainly is how it is if you are trying to stay in the middle class in this capitalist utopia. And it is WORSE, infinitely WORSE if you are poor.

We are going to have to grow up as a species and begin thinking and planning to address human need rather than giving more and more to a greedy few at the expense of everyone else.

[jalan48]

27. Corporations are more powerful than the average citizen and can buy representation. Too

many Americans have a naive belief that their representative puts the needs of the citizens above those of the corporation.

[LiberalArkie]

30. Can a Democrat who has a large stock portfolio ever vote against oil and pharma?

[Tomconroy]

32. FDR and JFK were very wealthy men who indeed had

substantial portfolios. LBJ was too. John Kerry married into great wealth. A stock portfolio is not a disqualifier.

[IronLionZion]

33. Long past time for some real campaign finance reform

the McCain-Feingold law needs plenty of updates to level the playing field for candidates without corporate money

[brooklynite]

34. I dispute the assertion...

There are moderate and even conservative Democrats. There are Democrats who believe in policies to support local or national businesses. I don't accept without evidence that there are Democrats who choose to support corporations to the exclusion of their constituents.

[Tom Rinaldo]

40. For the record, I didn't say they "support corporations to the exclusion of their constituents."

In fact I went to some effort NOT to say that . One could fairly summarize that I believe some give disproportionate attention to the concerns of some major corporate interests. But, with perhaps an occasional pure grifter as an exception (and every institution and/or cause known to humanity draws at least a few pure grifters to themselves) I accept the Democrats I am describe above as Democrats. Which means, as I said above, they do not exclude the interests of their average citizen constituents, the way that Corporate Republicans often do without hesitation. But there is a spectrum of responsiveness in which the needs of competing interests cam be weighed differently during high stakes showdowns during which something has to give.

[iemanja]

35. You mean does capitalism exist?

Yes.

[WarGamer]

39. According to 2020 polling, more Billionaires supported D's than R's...

The Billionaire class is a politically diverse group nowadays.

[aocommunalpunch]

44. They exist and until the money is removed

they will continue to be susceptible to its influence. That influence does NOT have the same interests as the public. Ditch the donors.

[brooklynite]

47. Disagree...

This presumption assumes that elected officials act only because of their contributions, e.g. if liberals could offer more cash, their votes would change. I find that completely implausible. Contributions flow to elected officials and candidates who support the donors positions.

[Tom Rinaldo]

51. Why are you talking in absoultes when the issue hasn't been framed that way?

Much like my answer to your reply to me above, where I pointed out that I never suggested that anyone was "exclusively" responsive to the wishes of their major donors, I don't think the post above yours suggested that elected officials "act only because of their contributions." The actual context referenced "influences" not instructions/commands. We are discussing a matter that invokes human nature, so almost by definition there are a multitude of shades of gray involved. So yes, it becomes difficult to infer what mix of motivations prevail in any decision short of outright textbook criminal bribery. Influences however are real, and not all influences are created equal.

Those who lack sufficient influence often find their needs deprioritized in relation to those who have ample influence to apply. It's as old as humanity. And at least since money supplanted barter as the economic engine of society, money has been a prime influencer.

I don't deny that all kinds of people, both rich and poor, tend to steer financial support toward politicians who they agree with. That is not the same as specific lobbying campaigns however, where a broad range of elected officials are courted, not just favored political "soul mates." In addition, many major donors give money to two candidates competing against each other for the same office. Undoubtedly they withhold support from a candidate with whom they sharply disagree on a matter of great importance to them, but there is a vast sea of grays falling on the spectrum between "known strong ally" and "identified fierce opponent." Lobbyists attempt to win over politicians to their chosen cause, including those whose support they are initially not fully assured of. In political terms we sometime say that provisions of this or that act were subsequently "watered down" as support for them gets chipped away. Lobbyists are usually deeply involved, and it is not controversial to assert that, in the vast majority of instances, that wealthy people have much more influential lobbyists than do poor people.

Personally I find it simplistic to flatly assert that "Contributions flow to elected officials and candidates who support the donors positions" without acknowledging that a corollary exists, candidates adopt positions that they have reason to believe will attract major donor support. If you strip money away from the equation that becomes self evident. Candidates (not always but sometimes) adopt positions that they know will win them votes whether or not those positions reflect their own personal views. We have a word for that: pandering. It is naive to believe that pandering for money is no less a part of the political landscape than pandering for votes.

[aocommunalpunch]

52. That's about it.

Money has a megaphone right now. It’s easier to hear a megaphone. Ditch the donors and see what else can be heard.

[Tom Rinaldo]

53. Sadly, in some cases it is more than just having a louder megaphone

I am referring here to the infamous "revolving door", whereby some political figures take great care to plan an exit strategy from elected office that will land them into a suitably comfy career afterlife to politics should they ever be turned out of office by the voters. That doesn't always require an explicit prearrangement, but it doesn't take an above average IQ to determine which votes will or will not keep one in the general good graces of certain sectors. We ALWAYS have to remain on guard against the way concentrated wealth can warp the political process.

Look, I'm a Democrat and proud of it. Both major political parties are huge and complex coalitions, and minor parties are ineffective at doing more than occasionally raising the profile of a specific issue for public debate. Subsequent to the days of Jim Crow 1.0, diverse as it may be, all of the causes I believe in have found a home and champions for them within the Democratic Party. From my perspective, the worst honest Democrat is inevitably better on almost any issue than the best honest Republican, and there are damn few of the latter. The vast majority of people in America, not just politicians, are always keeping an eye out for number one. Again, that's human nature. True activists are always in a small minority.

When someone seeks elective office, they decide to align themselves with either the Democratic coalition or the Republican coalition. They make a real choice and that choice matters. Those who choose to work with Democrats are on our team unless they later prove otherwise. In a very blunt but real way, the acid test for any member of Congress is who they vote to install as leader of their respective chamber. I value those who vote for Democratic leadership because that enables our side to exercise real power on behalf of the American people. But constant pressure is needed from grassroots democrats, their literal voters, to make sure that the influence of concentrated wealth is kept reasonably in check. Yes, even inside the Democratic Party.

[jcmaine72]

46. I'll leave it at this, because I don't want to get tombstoned

Every institution in this nation, to varying degrees, is tainted by capitalism and all the avarice and corruption that's part and parcel of it.