General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsI cannot view the Democratic Party as serious until...
...they, as a Party, denounce the reliance of money in politics and the immediate need for campaign finance reform.
Also, the Party should call for the immediate return of the airwaves to the people and outlaw these communication giants that are corrupting our political system.
Until that is done, I cannot see how we will ever get out of the weeds...
NYC_SKP
(68,644 posts)And this is not negotiable.
mylye2222
(2,992 posts)Purveyor
(29,876 posts)Apr 17, 2015 9:37 AM EDT
By Jeanne Cummings
"I'm in," said lobbyist Heather Podesta in an email blast to friends and associates urging them to contribute to Hillary Clinton's presidential campaign.
Podesta won't be alone. Lobbyists Steve Elmendorf, an adviser to Clinton's 2008 campaign, and Scott Pastrick, a veteran of President Bill Clinton's 1992 victory, are also back in action after the Clinton campaign sent word this week that it's abandoning President Barack Obama's policy of refusing campaign checks from lobbyists.
The creation of largely unregulated nonprofit political groups and super-PACs, along with Obama's unprecedented success with small donors, enabled him to bypass a previously vital source of funds -- the bundling of campaign contributions by lobbyists. Some lobbyists were able to make their presence felt in other ways -- via donations to the campaign from family members, for example. But lobbyist ranks include many former Democratic White House and Capitol Hill aides, for whom the president's ban chafed. Excluding lobbyists from peak fundraising also meant shutting them out of valuable perks that top bundlers received, such as private briefings from senior campaign aides or a prestigious ambassadorship.
Clinton campaign bundlers are being asked to raise no more than $27,000 each in the next month. That effectively means collecting just 10 checks of $2,700 (the federal maximum for a campaign per election) to achieve the status of a "Hillstarter." The campaign hasn't indicated whether it will set higher targets or designate additional classes of bundlers later in the election -- though both seem likely.
more...
http://www.bloombergview.com/articles/2015-04-17/clinton-brings-lobbyists-in-from-the-cold
hifiguy
(33,688 posts)by the bank$ter$, other big money and the MIC.
And anyone who thinks otherwise is only fooling him/herself.
kentuck
(110,950 posts)..for her campaign...
However, many other countries can contribute to her campaign.
former9thward
(31,802 posts)It is illegal for foreign countries or individuals to contribute to federal campaigns. Now it may be a distinction without a difference but it is there.
AuntPatsy
(9,904 posts)Novara
(5,754 posts)Republicans sure don't want campaign finance reform or a return of the Fairness Doctrine.
You have to work within the present system to can change it. You have to find a way in before you can change it.
kentuck
(110,950 posts)...by keep electing Democrats that vote with these Republicans.
The institutional Democratic Party was deliberately sold, piece by piece, to the moneyed interests that simply could not abide the religulous lunatics. And it was sold by the DLC, the Clintons, and now the Turd Way crowd. The Democratic Party we grew up with is deader than Dillinger these days.
Bernie Sanders is saying nothing that Hubert Humphrey, RFK, LBJ or FDR wouldn't be saying today and he is viewed, even by many here at DU as the lunatic fringe. How far we have fallen.
Obama fumbled the progressive ball. Hillary would hand it to the corporations. The progressives have no candidate...
TBF
(31,922 posts)No you don't. Historically other methods have worked ...
hifiguy
(33,688 posts)but it's time for the National Razor to start shaving some plutocrats and their owned enablers.
MadashellLynn
(411 posts)but I got a large charge out of your post! It just cracked me up, although I hope it doesn't take lopping off heads to straighten out the mess this country is in. It will take a long time to clean up, but it has taken thirty years to get this way. I think most of the problems we are dealing with go back to Reagan and his crew of assholes, too many of whom are still around... just look at Jeb Bush's team.
jwirr
(39,215 posts)already been done. If the present leaders got to see some heads roll because of war crimes etc I think they would start mending their ways. But if Lynch is no different than Holder I do not look for that to happen.
I for one do not think we are going to have a real armed revolution. Why? Well we are against the death penalty. We do not believe in killing. We think that we can talk our way out of our problems. I just can't see that attitude leading to a revolution.
Fortunately Bernie is calling for a political revolution and I am ready to follow him. Lead the way Bernie.
hifiguy
(33,688 posts)He's certainly the last person standing who preaches the same gospel as the sadly missed Ted Kennedy.
jwirr
(39,215 posts)in his state to keep him in the Senate. IMO there are none others like him.
Octafish
(55,745 posts)Yet, nothing happened.
And also why I voted for Bill Clinton in 1992 and 1996.
Then, too, nothing happened.
I'm starting to notice a pattern.
TBF
(31,922 posts)You'd have to be blind, deaf, and or willfully ignorant not to notice.
Sure we get to "choose" between 2 hand-picked (by the establishment) candidates. Whoopee!
Most of us turn up anyway and pick the least objectionable of the 2, but I can't think this will continue much longer.
TBF
(31,922 posts)Full disclosure: I was juror #6. SMH at this alert.
AUTOMATED MESSAGE: Results of your Jury Service
Mail Message
On Sat Apr 18, 2015, 02:16 PM an alert was sent on the following post:
I cannot view the Democratic Party as serious until...
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10026528511
REASON FOR ALERT
This post is disruptive, hurtful, rude, insensitive, over-the-top, or otherwise inappropriate.
ALERTER'S COMMENTS
This is democratic underground no? These post are becoming more numerous and are a blatant violation of the goal of this website to elect democrats.
You served on a randomly-selected Jury of DU members which reviewed this post. The review was completed at Sat Apr 18, 2015, 02:20 PM, and the Jury voted 0-7 to LEAVE IT.
Juror #1 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: It is the person who wrote this alert that concerns me,
a great deal. THINK about what you're suggesting and THINK
about the words this long time poster in excellent standing
has said in his OP. If you come to the conclusion that this
OP and these words should be hidden, we as a party are
doomed. LEAVE IT.
Juror #2 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: I completely agree with the OP. Blind party loyalty is for slaves and fools.
Juror #3 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: I didn't know that Democrats discussing their party is against the TOS. Silly alert.
Juror #4 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: The goal of this website is to "elect Democrats?" Not to discuss policy and political issues? Has there been a DNC coup around here that nobody told me about? If this post is a violation of TOS I'm in the wrong place.
Juror #5 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: Why hide a decent post?
Juror #6 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: The third way may not like it, but he's right.
Juror #7 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: WTF? Why the heck was this alerted on?
Thank you very much for participating in our Jury system, and we hope you will be able to participate again in the future.
Enthusiast
(50,983 posts)Ron Obvious
(6,261 posts)Last edited Sat Apr 18, 2015, 04:27 PM - Edit history (1)
Hard to believe, but this was alerted on.
This post is disruptive, hurtful, rude, insensitive, over-the-top, or otherwise inappropriate.
ALERTER'S COMMENTS
This is democratic underground no? These post are becoming more numerous and are a blatant violation of the goal of this website to elect democrats.
You served on a randomly-selected Jury of DU members which reviewed this post. The review was completed at Sat Apr 18, 2015, 02:20 PM, and the Jury voted 0-7 to LEAVE IT.
Juror #1 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: It is the person who wrote this alert that concerns me,
a great deal. THINK about what you're suggesting and THINK
about the words this long time poster in excellent standing
has said in his OP. If you come to the conclusion that this
OP and these words should be hidden, we as a party are
doomed. LEAVE IT.
Juror #2 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: I completely agree with the OP. Blind party loyalty is for slaves and fools.
Juror #3 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: I didn't know that Democrats discussing their party is against the TOS. Silly alert.
Juror #4 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: The goal of this website is to "elect Democrats?" Not to discuss policy and political issues? Has there been a DNC coup around here that nobody told me about? If this post is a violation of TOS I'm in the wrong place.
Juror #5 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: Why hide a decent post?
Juror #6 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: The third way may not like it, but he's right.
Juror #7 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: WTF? Why the heck was this alerted on?
Nice to see such a clear-thinking jury; their views exactly coincide with my own
On Edit: This they're/their error must not stand!
kentuck
(110,950 posts)Enthusiast
(50,983 posts)awoke_in_2003
(34,582 posts)We have a very vocal minority, and they can be very annoying
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)Tierra_y_Libertad
(50,414 posts)kentuck
(110,950 posts)for supporting a principle. I think it is disturbing to us sometimes when we discover how some of our fellow Democrats are thinking?
Tierra_y_Libertad
(50,414 posts)And, that discussing the party that I belong to is not just a good idea but a necessity when the party goes astray.
kentuck
(110,950 posts)The Party can never be bigger than the principles for which it must stand. It is a necessity to speak up. We are lucky that DU is still hanging on...
Response to Tierra_y_Libertad (Reply #24)
1000words This message was self-deleted by its author.
hifiguy
(33,688 posts)who are already sharpening their knives and icepicks.
Taylorz
(53 posts)Anyone who threatens the status of their Anointed One must be targeted for revocation.
That's the *message* I'm getting, and I'm a Bernie Sanders supporter, and I'm just waiting for him. If not, then I'll just hold my nose and vote for Clinton and expect the status quo. Republicans will be able to narrowly sustain the House, but lose the Senate, if Hillary is the Democratic nominee.
If Bernie is the Democratic nominee, then progressives will jump in, and rout nearly every single Republican in power because Bernie will need a progressive Senate and House to engage on progressive issues instead of the same dead issues that America has been dealing with since 2000.
darkangel218
(13,985 posts)darkangel218
(13,985 posts)For saying that I will never vote for her.
Funny as hell.
Kali
(54,990 posts)and you love Margaret Thatcher and Ronald Reagan so much, is it any wonder people would question what you are doing here?
Tierra_y_Libertad
(50,414 posts)I've been here from 2001 and have become enured to it.
Agnosticsherbet
(11,619 posts)This was not unusual.
What you call for the party to do requires the ability to control the agenda. The control of the agenda comes from controling a majority in the House and Senate. How do they do that by eschewing money. It requires legislation. And, again, 94.2 percent of the time the candidate who spent the most won.
(To me, that number indicates that advertising is such a driving force that it gives a huge advantage to the side that spends the most. Standing on a soapbox in the town square is not likely get the word out to the people who vote.)
Breaking up those telecomunication giants requires control of the White House and the justice department.
You are a bit hazy on what laws they actually broke. It is not against the law to be sleezy, self-servinging propagandists. So the only avenue I see is through anti-trust, which if successful would break them up. It would not outlaw them. That assumes that they broke any laws as written.
Certainly, we should reregulate the media as they were before Reagan. That, however requires legislation, which requires control of the House and the Senate.
I agree that what you say is necessary. I just do see getting there without, at first, speding a shitload of money.
kentuck
(110,950 posts)you have to break a few eggs. If you are not ready to break a few eggs, forget about that omelette.
Agnosticsherbet
(11,619 posts)You can not get to where you want by doing what you suggest. It is necessary to control the system to change it, unless you want to dump the whole system.
kentuck
(110,950 posts)I don't agree with you that it is "necessary to control the system to change it". If that were the case, we would never have any change. Should we think for ourselves or should we let some oligarch politicians tell us what we should think? The power is with the people. They may have to search far and wide and for a very long time, but eventually they will find the truth.
Agnosticsherbet
(11,619 posts)How do you appoint judges without controling the White House.
How do you take a corporaton to court without controling the Justice Department.
libdem4life
(13,877 posts)just can't seem to grasp that the President isn't a King. Also, not having any DC/Beltway connections made his first term difficult...yet he was roundly criticized. Now, without an election upcoming, he's able to start accomplishing those promises denied earlier by the venom in Congress.
Also, how do you get corporate money out of Winning Politics without repealing Citizen's United?
Enthusiast
(50,983 posts)libdem4life
(13,877 posts)Chathamization
(1,638 posts)Agnosticsherbet
(11,619 posts)advantage. If so, then managing to funnel the most money to certain canidates provides an advantage.
Chathamization
(1,638 posts)Not that having more money doesn't help. However, we shouldn't always treat correlation as causation. There are plenty of people who are only interested in currying favor, so they're going to donate to people who are ahead (or look at people who donate to individuals who are unopposed!). Likewise, if some fringe candidate is running against an incumbent, they're likely to get almost no money.
okaawhatever
(9,453 posts)politics. Secod to that would be having a left majority on SCOTUS. With the current fascist five most campaign regulations won't withstand their ruling.
Rex
(65,616 posts)hughee99
(16,113 posts)they just haven't actually done anything about it. If there's been one thing there's no shortage of, it's lip service.
JaneyVee
(19,877 posts)Of course, due to gerrymandering, GOP will control the house for at least a decade.
darkangel218
(13,985 posts)If it's "on top of her priorities".
JaneyVee
(19,877 posts)darkangel218
(13,985 posts)Who is forcing her to accept money she doesn't want?
JaneyVee
(19,877 posts)If she or any other Dem doesn't win, any meaningful reform goes bye bye.
darkangel218
(13,985 posts)So preach , but don't practice. Got it.
JaneyVee
(19,877 posts)Sometimes you have to play by their rules to beat them at their own game.
Enthusiast
(50,983 posts)If we know this, the Democratic Party and every Democratic office holder knows it. Yet, not a peep is heard.
olddots
(10,237 posts)shows how every election gets more important .
Donald Ian Rankin
(13,598 posts)Or do you think outlawing these "communication giants" would be compatible with it, or be viewed as such by the SCOTUS?
woo me with science
(32,139 posts)treestar
(82,383 posts)as opposed to being an actual Democrat.