Hillary Clinton Embraces a Super PAC

[cali]

After attacking Citizens United and big money in political campaigns, Hillary is all in- her call for a Constitutional Amendment notwithstanding. That call was and is meaningless; we all know that there's even less of a chance of a CA on Citizens United than one that declares that life begins at conception. As in NO chance at all of getting it through. Not now, not a decade from now. How many states need to approve it along with 2/3 of the Congress? Exactly. She knows it's not possible.

So a word about so-called Super-PACs: There is supposed to be no coordination with the campaign, but Bill will be working with Priorities Super-PAC. Hey, he's not part of the campaign. Wink, wink. And Hillary is off to court donors for Priorities today, just as she did yesterday- there are so many carve-outs that make this acceptable under the law, that the law is like the hole in a doughnut, particularly now that we have a totally non-functional FEC.

Hillary has spent far, far more time fundraising since she announced than campaigning or telling the peons her positions on such things as the tpp, keystone and whether she supports raising the cap. Hey, but she HAS to do it 'cuz Repukes... right?

All I can say, is the flood of big, largely unaccountable money into campaigns makes me sick. But hey, democrats can't be influenced by it. That's only Republicans. Democrats are the Dudley DoRights.

Hillary Rodham Clinton will personally do outreach to potential donors for a super PAC backing her presidential campaign, deepening Democratic acceptance of the outside groups.

Clinton's decision is another sign of how a vast network of super PACs that can accept unlimited donations is reshaping presidential politics

<snip>

Clinton's husband, former President Bill Clinton, is also expected to fundraise for Priorities.

Federal law bars campaigns from directly coordinating with super PACS. Candidates can appear at events, but cannot directly solicit unlimited donations.

<snip>
http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/nationworld/ct-hillary-clinton-super-pac-20150506-story.html

Hillary Rodham Clinton will begin personally courting donors for a “super PAC” supporting her candidacy, the first time a Democratic presidential candidate has fully embraced these independent groups that can accept unlimited checks from big donors and are already playing a major role in the 2016 race.

<snip>

Mrs. Clinton planned to raise money for Priorities in her campaign but initially delayed doing so because of her desire to carefully pace her campaign’s start, her pledge to make campaign finance reform a critical issue and a dispute about the super PAC’s management structure.

<snip>

The Clinton campaign and Priorities officials would not confirm the California events, but a campaign official acknowledged that Mrs. Clinton and her aides planned to do what they could to help the super PAC, within the law.

<snip>

Mr. Obama, who denounced the Citizens United ruling and, like Mrs. Clinton, pledged to curb special-interest money in Washington, was far more tentative in endorsing super PACs.

<snip>

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/05/07/us/politics/hillary-clinton-to-court-donors-for-super-pac.html?_r=0

Hillary Clinton is directly helping a super PAC supporting her presidential candidacy, two sources confirmed to msnbc, potentially complicating her message of reforming money in politics.

<snip>

http://www.msnbc.com/msnbc/hillary-clinton-endorses-super-pac

[wyldwolf]

1. yay! She's not going to unilaterally disarm and cede the election to Republicans! K&R!!

[CanadaexPat]

3. If money were all it took, Bloomberg

would be President.

[wyldwolf]

4. Not true

All the money in the world won't win the presidency unless your name is on the ballot. Bloomberg has never put his name in contention.

Romney spent a wad. Lost. Trump? Lost.

[brooklynite]

10. Money isn't all it takes...but it's a threshold

[turbinetree]

15. I maybe

naïve, but when money is used as free speech from the First Amendment, because I have never seen the word money in the amendment and some how by a corrupt court says its in there, and when some wealthy 1% jerk can sit up on stage and say the following :

"The Tom Perkins system is: You don't get to vote unless you pay a dollar of taxes," Perkins said.
"But what I really think is, it should be like a corporation. You pay a million dollars in taxes, you get a million votes. How's that?"
"The audience at the Commonwealth Club reacted with laughter. But Perkins offered no immediate indication that he was joking. Asked offstage if the proposal was serious, Perkins said: "I intended to be outrageous, and it was."

That is a problem................

And if you have someone running for office and there is a possibility that four U.S. Supreme Court seats could be in play-------I think I want someone in office that will put in place progressive FDR/ Johnson type justices on that bench.
Since the current five right wing republican / tea party/ libertarian majority crowd are / is basically under cutting the very fabric of this country in there rulings---such as Citizens United and McCutcheon, voting rights, water and air, food , equality ect.....
Instead of gallivanting around the country further installing this scheme of bribery, because of:
One the courts are just as corrupt, look no further than the Aspen retreat and the Palm Springs retreat when these justice go to be with none other than the KOCHS.
And two because of the MSM complete failure of performing there job description----I am a old Walter Cronkite fan, ---------he didn't mince words and reporting the facts
Just a naïve point of view, and that is why as a union worker, and citizen of a small d-democracy, and I support Bernie Sanders Senator of Vermont

[wyldwolf]

18. So?

I wouldn't walk defenseless into a fight againts people with guns unless I, too, had a gun - no matter how much I'm for gun control.

[NYC_SKP]

2. She has to play the game in order to win so that she can fix the crooked system, or something.

It's OK, don't worry, she just wants to "have a conversation", this won't lead to more outsourcing of jobs or H1B visas.

But do look out for your social security and don't expect any support for a higher minimum wage or increased regulation of the banking industry.

Anyway, don't worry about a thing! You don't even need to watch the six debates if you don't want to.

In 2008 there were 26 of them, WAY too many.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democratic_Party_presidential_debates,_2008

No worries!

[hobbit709]

5. Someone had a cow but couldn't even convince one person on the jury.

On Thu May 7, 2015, 06:14 AM an alert was sent on the following post:

Hillary Clinton Embraces a Super PAC
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10026634127

REASON FOR ALERT


This post is disruptive, hurtful, rude, insensitive, over-the-top, or otherwise inappropriate.

ALERTER'S COMMENTS

LOL. So sick of these posts, do you really think Bernie doesn't have a super PAC? Do you really think Bernie's wife Jane isn't involved with the PAC "Friends of Bernie"? This types of posts are disenfenious at best, and it's OTT that we have to deal with Bernie SPAM and lies.

You served on a randomly-selected Jury of DU members which reviewed this post. The review was completed at Thu May 7, 2015, 06:21 AM, and the Jury voted 0-7 to LEAVE IT.

Juror #1 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: If you dont like the post, then say so, but dont try to use the Jury system to hide negative post about Hilary.
Juror #2 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: to the alerter: But HRC SPAM is evidently OK.
Juror #3 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: That is no reason to alert.
Juror #4 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #5 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: All's fair in love and primary season
Juror #6 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #7 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: Alerted is "so sick of these posts"? So what? Not a TOS violation. But at least "disenfenious" was amusing.

[cali]

6. lol. good. let folks alert on news stories.

Fine to post the Bernie is a gun nut story 4 times in GD in a few hours, but post about Hillary in a way that some Hillary supporters don't like? That's unfair! And really? A guy who doesn't even own a gun is a "gun nut"?

[donnasgirl]

9. Gun nut

Now that is a good one, To sum up who Bernie Sanders is easy, he is a person who took his oath of office seriously to uphold the Constitution of the U.S.. I find him to be a very rare individual in a cesspool called Washington DC.

[MissDeeds]

8. Pathetic attempt at censorship

It's going to be a long, long primary season.

[Travis_0004]

7. Results of Jury service

Edited because it was already posted. Glad to see that people have common sense.

[djean111]

11. I believe the Dems who get huge money are now addicted to the huge money, and that yeah,

saying CU should go away is so very easy, isn't it. I think we are getting inured to campaign blather.
"potentially complicating her message of reforming money in politics." - bwahahaha! more like perfectly illustrating her message of reforming money in politics.

[stonecutter357]

12. good

[Scuba]

13. Hey, why have positions on issues when you have huge name recognition? I mean, c'mon ...

... positions are unpopular, doncha know?

[donnasgirl]

14. Good one Scuba LOL

But to some that's true.

[ibewlu606]

16. Wow!

So now it's ok for a candidate to prostitute themselves for large contributions because "our candidate" is doing it.

[trumad]

17. Yawn