Democratic voters as the enemy /Public financing

[BainsBane]

I see a lot of posts in which members claim they care about the influence of money in politics, yet they focus their anger on Democratic voters who disagree with them, usually over the assessment of a single member of the political elite, like Hillary Clinton. The problem, they declare, are "centrists," "third wayers," people they insist want corporations to maximize the exploitation of the American worker. They talk about a big money "wing" of the Democratic Party.

To imagine the issue of big money is about a single candidate or a wing of the Democratic Party misses the profound role that money plays in our political system, a situation made all the worse by recent Supreme Court decisions on campaign finance. The way to address the issue of money in politics, I assert, is not to target Democratic voters who dare to disagree that Hillary Clinton is the embodiment of corporate influence or who think other issues, like equal rights--marriage equality, civil rights, women's rights--at least or more important than Wall Street reform. The solution is not to treat ordinary Democratic voters as an other or to accuse them of aligning with the 1 percent over a disagreement in tactics or candidates, particularly when those making the charges are often more privileged than those they condemn.

Public financing is the key, I assert, and under our current laws that can only be accomplished through a constitutional amendment. Electing Liz Warren or Bernie Sanders won't change the nature of campaign finance law or the amount of money required to gain the presidency. The problem is systemic, and is not caused or solved through a single candidate. In order to effect that change, American voters need to come together to promote our shared interests in a government that better represents the interests of the people, and a constitutional amendment ending the stranglehold of big money on politics is central to that. That requires solidarity. Ask yourself what you really care about. Do you care about defeating a single candidate, creating your own in-group, or do you want to limit the influence of big money on politics? As long as people continue to target other Democratic voters, they only serve the interests of capital.

[hrmjustin]

1. I detest it when I am called third way for supporting Hillary.

I have nothing to do with them.

Btw I fully support publicly funded elections.

[mmonk]

2. Can you eliminate big money with politicians that side with them due to a label?

[BainsBane]

3. The politician is incidental

They arise in the context of the system. The system limits our political choices. It is not a president who passes a constitutional amendment, and without acting to reform the system, it will only perpetuate. In the meantime, people cling to the futile hope for a political messiah that will never enact the kind of change they want because a president simply doesn't have that kind of power. It's like thinking you can take care of a flood with a single cup. If you don't address the issue itself, it's not possible to find a solution.

[Rex]

4. 'they focus their anger on Democratic voters who disagree with them'

Yes please tell HRC supporters to lay off thanks.

[hrmjustin]

6. Lay off how?

[Rex]

7. Tell them to stop being so angry people have other opinions on who they want to vote for.

Go ahead and tell them.

[hrmjustin]

9. I am sorry that there a few aggressive posters here that say things they shouldn't but

there are anti-Hillary posters that are just as aggressive.

[Rex]

11. Well I am sure things will calm down soon. We are all adults.

[hrmjustin]

12. I have taken to using trash thread a lot and it made my life easier.

The thing that sucks longtime DU friends are divided on this topic. But we will get through it.

[Rex]

14. True, this happens every 4 years.

We divide up and support who we like best.

[hrmjustin]

15. We shall get through it.

[Rex]

21. Yes we will!

[BainsBane]

16. Why it is necessary to ignore the issue?

Is the only thing you care about keeping other Democrats in their place or a single contest among political elites? If you actually care about money in politics, it's necessary to address that issue. If all you do is focus on a single politician, you do nothing about the problem. I thought it was because people hadn't thought about how systemic and profound the influence of money was. I didn't think it was because you really didn't want to change it. But you have the issue laid out before you and ignore it. Is that because you really don't want it to change at all? Do you simply want the money to promote a different individual?

[Rex]

17. Well I don't find a problem with money and Bernie Sanders, why do you want to avoid that issue?

If you are that desperate to promote HRC, then that is your mission and it is your right. Just don't pretend that she does not have ties to the groups that crashed the economy in 2008. If facts really mean something to you, you won't ignore that issue.

I want big biz out of politics, like most progressives to. I want them to pass laws to fix this problem before we have another economic meltdown.

[BainsBane]

23. OMG

I am not promoting Clinton. I have said it is not about a single individual. Clinton is merely an example because it is all some people are capable of thinking of. Sanders says the current system does not allow him to run. Did you pay any attention to his statement about that? He isn't running because big money has so corrupted the process it makes it impossible for him to do so.
Clinton can drop dead tomorrow and the system will remain the same. After this current election cycle, the system will remain the same, and you will still be talking about supporting someone who can't run due to a system you refuse to recognize.

Laws cannot be passed that will fix the problem because SCOTUS has overridden those laws. They have declared that money equals speech and a corporation a person. The ONLY way to change that is with a constitutional amendment requiring public financing.

[cascadiance]

32. The constitutional amendment to get rid of corporate personhood "rights" and money as "free speech"

... would also help with this problem. We need to be careful with an amendment mandating public financing. With the money is not free speech argument, we could shut down the previous SCOTUS ruling that ruled Arizona's matching funds of publicly financed candidates to privately financed candidates since money would no longer be protected as "free speech".

I would argue that in addition to pushing public campaign financing, we should be pushing for instant runoff voting, which would give the opportunity for decent third party candidates to challenge the two party system lockout of them that exists today with the winner take all way of voting we have now. They would no longer necessarily be spoilers and reviled the way that Nader was after 2000, but could in some cases be able to break through and win office without necessarily being beholden to campaign finance bribery. Right now, it is a lot easier for lobbyists to "buy the field" when they can control both the Republican and Democratic Party candidates in races. But with instant runoff voting, due to its nature, it would likely be impossible for them to "buy the field" with a voting populace that will gravitate towards a candidate that isn't bought off without fear that they are voting for a "spoiler" candidate. Public financing would work hand in hand with instant runoff voting to help provide means to finance decent third party campaigns as well.

And with these in place, then I would argue that the Democratic Party candidates would be more likely to throw out lobbyists and be more willing to listen to their people constituents, as they would know that if they don't they would be more apt to lose out to third parties when they "corrupt" themselves with lobbyist money than Republicans would. It would then serve us to provide more honest elections from all candidates I think.

[HereSince1628]

5. Comparison of Clinton and Sanders Donors over their careers

When you are done looking at this ask which seems closer to corporations and oligarchal money and which seem closer to unions and working people and democracy

It's disingenuous to suggest that Sanders can't get campaign finance done alone. No one can get it done alone. But Sanders is very outspoken about getting rid of the corrupting influence of big money used by oligarchs to purchase control of Congress

Bernie Sanders top campaign contributors over career

Machinists/Aerospace Workers Union $95,000
Teamsters Union $83,700
United Auto Workers $75,400
National Education Assn $69,850
Communications Workers of America $65,607
United Food & Commercial Workers Union $65,500
Laborers Union $63,250
Carpenters & Joiners Union $61,500
American Assn for Justice $60,500
American Fedn of St/Cnty/Munic Employees $59,198
National Assn of Letter Carriers $52,000
Intl Brotherhood of Electrical Workers $48,500
United Transportation Union $47,500
Sheet Metal Workers Union $46,000
Operating Engineers Union $45,100
United Steelworkers $42,250
UNITE HERE $41,875
Service Employees International Union $41,382
American Postal Workers Union $36,200
American Federation of Teachers $35,567










Hillary Clinton top campaign contributors over career

Citigroup Inc $782,327
Goldman Sachs $711,490
DLA Piper $628,030
JPMorgan Chase & Co $620,919
EMILY's List $605,174
Morgan Stanley $543,065
Time Warner $411,296
Skadden, Arps et al $406,640
Lehman Brothers $362,853
Cablevision Systems $336,288
University of California $329,673
Kirkland & Ellis $311,441
Squire Patton Boggs $310,596
21st Century Fox $302,400
National Amusements Inc $297,534
Ernst & Young $297,142
Merrill Lynch $292,303
Credit Suisse Group $290,600
Corning Inc $274,700
Greenberg Traurig LLP $273,550

[Rex]

8. Yeah I did that once with Obama and HRC.

It caused me to realize I was wrong, HRC if far more corporate than the POTUS.

Obama in 2012, top donors;
University of California $1,212,245
Microsoft Corp $814,645
Google Inc $801,770
US Government $728,647
Harvard University $668,368
Kaiser Permanente $588,386
Stanford University $512,356
Deloitte LLP $456,975
Columbia University $455,309
Time Warner $442,271
US Dept of State $417,629
DLA Piper $401,890
Sidley Austin LLP $400,883
Walt Disney Co $369,598
IBM Corp $369,491
University of Chicago $357,185
University of Michigan $339,806
Comcast Corp $337,628
US Dept of Justice $334,659
US Dept of Health & Human Services $309,956

[BainsBane]

10. Way to miss the point

My point is about getting money out of politics, not justifying some money over other money. If you don't really care about the influence of big money, don't bullshit people into pretending you do.

[HereSince1628]

13. Come on BB LOOK! You are embarrassing yourself.

HRC -IS- connected through campaign donations to the places that corrupt government, crash the economy and use their special relationships to protect them

[BainsBane]

18. The problem is not limited to one individual

Thinking about a substantive problem rather than surface issues is not embarrassing myself. Clinton can drop dead tomorrow and where will you be left? Promoting a different individual within the same corrupt system. What you don''t get is the current system makes it impossible for a socialist like Sanders to run for higher office. He has come out and said as much. You reduce a crucially important issue to the lowest common denominator. Is it because you don't like thinking about the pervasive nature of the problem, or because you don't want to do anything about it? How does clinging to an absurd idea that it is all about one individual help in anyway?

[HereSince1628]

22. Elizabeth Warrens Top Contributors

The point is there -ARE- politicians out there who aren't tainted, and being free of that makes them POPULAR among POPULISTS
Lesser evil is still evil. It's time to break with Stockholme Syndrome

EMILY's List $507,095
Moveon.org $453,517
Harvard University $312,550
Massachusetts Institute of Technology $76,200
Boston University $73,700
Massachusetts General Hospital $72,060
University of California $71,950
Brown Rudnick LLP $68,077
League of Conservation Voters $55,551
Ropes & Gray $53,450
Commonwealth of Massachusetts $49,080
Thornton & Naumes $43,450
Mintz, Levin et al $42,600
Council for a Livable World $41,181
University of Massachusetts $41,150
Brandeis University $40,050
Google Inc $39,075
Berger & Montague $36,500
Bingham McCutchen LLP $35,000
Goodwin Procter LLP $35,000

[BainsBane]

24. Okay, I get it

You're not interested in anything other than moving the pieces around on capital's chessboard. Point made.
Clearly I underestimated the extent to which the status quo is supported by people claiming to be leftist. I won't trouble you with any suggestions for political reform again. You don't care.

[PotatoChip]

25. Damn. I was hoping there would be a meaningful discussion on Public Financing. (nt)

[HereSince1628]

28. No I realize it's going take time. IMO 2016 is a very tough time to win

3rd terms for the same party were never common and have only been done once since FDR Our odds are poor with almost anyone we'd run. Sanders and Warren are popular, Warren won't run. Sanders is unlikely to carry conservative dems because as we saw in 2008 PUMA is as likely from the right-side as anywhere else. Their projection of their wings thinking onto the left is very probably why those on the right keep wailing about solidarity.

As anyone in Wisconsin, Ohio or Michigan can tell you a divided legislature is one that's less likely to hurt people.

Rebuilding a popular party means breaking with the corporatist elites. If we are going to turn away from oligarchy and money corrupted government THIS is a good year to start that.

Control of the Congress is where initiation of constitutional amendments usually happens. We need people who believe in that change in congress, many more progressive people need to win seats in both houses. Someone who whips that effort to success is more important than another anti-labor, pro trade-imbalance 'economic conservative.

[Rex]

19. Geez here is Mittens top contributors in 2012 notice anything?

Goldman Sachs $1,033,204
Bank of America $1,013,402
Morgan Stanley $911,305
JPMorgan Chase & Co $834,096
Wells Fargo $677,076
Credit Suisse Group $643,120
Deloitte LLP $614,874
Kirkland & Ellis $520,541
Citigroup Inc $511,199
PricewaterhouseCoopers $459,400
UBS AG $453,540
Barclays $446,000
Ernst & Young $390,992
HIG Capital $382,904
Blackstone Group $366,525
General Electric $332,875
EMC Corp $320,679
Bain Capital $285,970
Elliott Management $281,675
Rothman Institute $259,500

[hifiguy]

20. The workers versus owners divide

could hardly be clearer. It's why I stand with Bernie.

[BainsBane]

26. Sanders has said the system doesn't allow him to run

That is what I am addressing. The system frames our political options. Clinton and Sanders will go their ways eventually, and the system will continue to grow ever more monstrous. Pretending an individual will solve it is folly. We have to address the cause, not the symptom.

[Half-Century Man]

27. Completely publicly financed elections.

No broadcast political advertisements not connected to a specific candidate and campaign. (radio, TV, Web sites not sought out by specific requests of the surfer).
No attack ads.
3d party printed material is fine (minus the attack portions).
Staged events/political rallies are fine.
Protests/counter protests on public property are fine.


wolf-pac.com
Make it happen. Help it happen.

[Scootaloo]

29. Ignoring the problem does not make it go away

But that is what you are advertising.

Big money's influence in our politics is a problem. On this we seem to agree.

Will Republicans fix that? of course not, so we can write them off entirely. In our current political system, that leaves Democrats.

But...

You are telling us to ignore the Democrats who are sold out to big money, to give them a pass because they are Democrats, and then just wish for them to be magnanimous enough to double-cross their corporate sponsors and legislate against big money in politics. That's not going to happen any more than it will with Republicans. After all, if they've already sold out, then they've made their choice on where they stand, and it isn't with the 99%. Now the problem is, many of these puppets are in leadership positions of the party.

So we are left in a situation where one party is completely sold out, and its competition is mostly sold out. Where does that leave us, we who are interested in having politicians that aren't sold out?

[HereSince1628]

30. We really need a dem candidate who can whip support for progressive candidates

3rd term wins to the WH are few and difficult. Dems haven't done it since FDR. It's unlikely to happen without something special going on. Why not make that the turn away from corporate corruption of both democratic and national politics

A divided Congress provides the best protection from having ALEC boiler plate shoved down our throats. We need a presidential candidate and an election year cause that advances control of the Senate and makes real gains in the House

This is a rebuilding year. lets quit the path DLC/3rd Way/Pragmatic Corporatists have been giving us since '92

[Scootaloo]

31. I've been trying to explain this to people...

A party cannot take its base for granted, and go running off to find romance with the opposing party's base. Which is what so many Democratic candidates, and possibly even the party, seem intent on doing.

Republicans will vote Republican. They're not going to switch. An Alison Grimes-ish "I'm NOT like Obama!" campaign isn't going to impress them. But it WILL disgust the Democratic base - liberals. Progressives. and yes, the left.

"But the undecideds! The swing voters!" the counter-argument goes. Well, most undecides are that way becuase they do not know what the politicians "really stand for." And if you're campaigning on some sort of mealy-mouthed, vague "bipartisanship" angle... there's good reason for their confusion! Give these voters a clear and concise message that stands on actual principles. "I will reach across the aisle" is not a principle, because that stance ends up determined by someone else's positions, and not the candidate's.

President Obama is a foot in the door. We need to use this as a springboard, to surpass him on progressivism / liberalism. This seems to frighten some DU posters, and I can only speculate as to why.

[HereSince1628]

33. Yes

[TheKentuckian]

34. The problem is systemic so further empowering as the representatives of our party

the folks in our party that most embrace the problem and giving them a free hand to go along with its openly ardent champions is not a path to solving it whatever one might argue is the solution including a constitutional amendment as is offered here.

Make no mistake it is embracing the problem whatever hope carrot is thrown out as a never to be seen dream down the road.
The Siren Song of faith based punting and stalling sounds easy and ever so "reasonable" but leads surely to rocky shoals and wrecking our only craft.

No, this isn't about any single politician or tactical disputes but about a direction some would lead and it is not away from the darkness but into it no matter what misinformation and bizarre rationalizations to dismiss our lying eyes some would tell us.
The fabrications and fairy tales they may even be telling themselves to maintain the illusion a little longer.

The first rule of getting out of a deep hole is to stop digging not to keep on drilling away.