Can you run a viable Presidential campaign without corporate $$$?

[cali]

No.

The system has been structured so that it's a necessity.

BUT.

It is possible to raise a lot of money from small donors. Howard Dean blazed that trail and how did he do it?

By running as an unabashed liberal

<snip>

He made it cool to radiate a confident liberalism

Early in the race, Dean articulated his belief that Democrats did not need to dilute their views to win in red states. They just needed fresh rhetoric that exploded liberal stereotypes and resonated beyond their own social circles.

<snip>

http://theweek.com/article/index/245970/4-ways-howard-dean-changed-american-politics

Obama followed suit in raising money from small donors largely via the internet.

In 2008, he raised about 34% of his funds in the general from small donors:

<snip>
In the general election, Obama got about 34 percent of his individual donations from small donors, people who gave $200 or less, according to a report from the Campaign Finance Institute. Another 23 percent of donations came from people who gave between $201 and $999, and another 42 percent from people who gave $1,000 or more.

His numbers for the primary were similar. He got about 30 percent of his money from donors who gave $200 or less. Another 28 percent of donations came from people who gave between $201 and $999, and 43 percent from people who gave $1,000 or more.

<snip>

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2010/apr/22/barack-obama/obama-campaign-financed-large-donors-too/

Our election system when it comes to money is corrupt- no doubt about it:

President Barack Obama answered questions on this topic in an interview with CNBC's John Harwood on April 21, 2010.

"In the 2008 campaign, you got a lot of money, about $1 million from employees of Goldman Sachs," Harwood said. "Your former White House counsel Greg Craig is apparently going to represent Goldman Sachs. In light of this case, do either of those things embarrass you?"

"No," Obama said. "First of all, I got a lot of money from a lot of people. And the vast majority of the money I got was from small donors all across the country. And moreover, anybody who gave me money during the course of my campaign knew that I was on record again in 2007, and 2008, pushing very strongly that we needed to reform how Wall Street did business. And so, nobody should be surprised in the position that I'm taking now because it is one that I was very clear about in the course of the campaign."

<snip>

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2010/apr/22/barack-obama/obama-campaign-financed-large-donors-too/

Corporations will have more leeway in the 2016 elections than ever.

We aren't going to have a candidate who doesn't accept corporate dollars. But there are corporations and corporations. There are guides to corporations. I'd rather see a candidate getting big bucks from the alternative energy sector than big oil. I'd rather see a candidate taking dollars from the the organic food sector than from Monsanto. And I'd rather have a candidate who didn't owe the financial sector.


http://mashable.com/2011/10/25/measure-social-good-business/

[Cali_Democrat]

1. Ya, but Howard lost

Dean now says he supports Hillary for prez in 2016 and she will have loads of corporate cash if she runs.

[cali]

2. so what does that have to do with the OP? Nothing

and Dean also says he's thinking of running himself.

Hillary is filthy. She is a corporate creature at the feet of some of the worst corporations in this country.

We can do better than that.

I hope.

[Cali_Democrat]

3. What does it have to do with the OP? A lot

Dean lost running on the donor model mentioned and now he has succumbed to the corporate cash model.

[cali]

4. How has he succumbed to the corporate cash model?

Until he runs a campaign that's mired in it or comes out in support of it, he hasn't.

And he didn't lose based on running on the small donations.
'

[Cali_Democrat]

8. When you come out and say...

that you support the one candidate that will bring in the most corporate cash, maybe of all time, you have succumbed to the corporate cash model.

[cali]

9. he hasn't officially endorsed her.

[Cali_Democrat]

11. LOL. Of course he's not going to "officially" endorse someone years before the primary even starts

But he came out and said that he supports Hillary at this point.

[cali]

13. post the link.

[Cali_Democrat]

15. Howard Dean: 'At This Point, I'm Supporting Hillary Clinton'

http://talkingpointsmemo.com/livewire/howard-dean-at-this-point-i-m-supporting-hillary-clinton

[cali]

16. That's from August. Since then, he's talked about running himself

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/09/24/howard-dean-new-hampshire_n_3980854.html

[Cali_Democrat]

18. I know it's painful, but reality sucks sometimes.

Dean isn't running. It's pretty obvious.

[cali]

19. lol. it's not painful, and Dean may well

support Hillary, but that wouldn't be a surprise to us VT Progressives.

I'm talking, in the OP, about the model his campaign pioneered for small donor contributions, not who he'll support.

Now could you present an argument why us Progressives should support Hillary?

We know why you conservative dems support her and we recognize partisanship and cult of personality, but why should actual dem progressives support her?

[Cali_Democrat]

21. Why should I present an argument that progressives should support Hillary? That's silly.

Hillary is not a progressive and progressives shouldn't support her.

Where did I say I support Hillary? Link?

You won't be able to find one because I don't.

You crack me up.

[KittyWampus]

27. And I'll also add to your subthread…. Dean did NOT RUN AS AN UNABASHED LIBERAL/

[cali]

29. yes, he did.

[Cali_Democrat]

30. I'm curious

Did our little exchange inspire your latest OP?

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10024050756

I'm honored!

[Cali_Democrat]

31. No he did not

More revisionist history from you.

[Nye Bevan]

5. Since it is illegal for corporations to contribute to federal election candidates' campaigns,

I would have to say "yes".

http://articles.washingtonpost.com/2013-02-25/politics/37286007_1_contribution-limits-campaign-finance-corporations-and-unions

[Douglas Carpenter]

10. you are being cynical and disingenuous

There is not a single person in America including you that doesn't know for an absolute certainty and beyond the slightest shadow of any doubt that the overwhelming majority of funding for federal campaigns comes from corporations. You and everyone else in America knows and knows beyond a shadow of doubt that those laws are meaningless. Funding is simply filtered through PACS and committees in a way that technically fulfill the letter of the law - while insuring corporations provide the bulk of funding for federal campaigns.

[cali]

17. Disturbing to see both that claim and the

opinions that corporate funding is just fine.

[Douglas Carpenter]

20. If one relates to politics on idealistic principle of wanting to move the country forward and seek a

newer world - it is indeed disturbing. If one relates to politics like it is the grand national version of campaigning for prom queen - "we want our cool people to win - not that other group we don't like" - then I suppose all principles are expendable and one does what winners have to do.

[cali]

12. that's a thin veil. In reality corporations finance candidates

period. that's hardly a secret.

More loopholes than it's possible to count

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

Remember this little SC case?

The Supreme Court's conservative bloc sounded poised Wednesday to strike down on free-speech grounds a 102-year-old ban against corporations spending large amounts of money to elect or defeat congressional and presidential candidates.

If the justices were to issue such a ruling in the next few months, it could reshape American politics, beginning with the congressional campaign in 2010. Big companies and industries -- and possibly unions as well -- could fund campaign ads to support or defeat members of Congress.

http://articles.latimes.com/2009/sep/10/nation/na-court-contributions10

[Nye Bevan]

22. So why did anyone go to the trouble of filing the lawsuit you cite,

if corporations already are in control of campaign financing?

[Douglas Carpenter]

24. oh just cut the Crap. You are not serious

[cali]

25. They wanted to extend their control And that happened with CU

Can't believe you're denying the facts like this.

I thought you were a bit more honest.

[Douglas Carpenter]

6. with the right Internet savvy teams mixed with aggressive grassroots organizing a lot can be done

Of course corporate money will still have a number of advantages.

[GladRagDahl]

7. No, you can not...

..which ensures a corrupt president.

[Fumesucker]

14. Probably yes

However what you *can't* do, or it hasn't been remotely shown that you can, is run a credible presidential campaign with the corporate class solidly against you.

[Laelth]

23. Factual and informative OP. Thanks. k&r n/t

-Laelth

[KittyWampus]

26. "unabashed liberal". WRONG. Total rewrite of history which many DU'ers will sign on to...

because they want to believe.

Totally incorrect.

Dean was running, and had a record as, a center left politician.

[Douglas Carpenter]

28. he had a history as a centrist - many actual positions were centrist - but he did run as an

unabashed liberal and did make his appeal to the liberal base "the democratic wing of the Democratic Party"