General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsHillary Clinton Isn't Ready to Disclose Who's Funding Her Campaign
On the campaign trail, Hillary Clinton has been pushing hard to overhaul of the country's broken campaign finance system. "We need to fix our dysfunctional political system and get unaccounted money out of it, once and for all, even if that takes a constitutional amendment," Clinton said during one of her first official speeches in Iowa last month.
Clinton's campaign finance rhetoric appears to be aimed at super-PACs, the quasi-independent organizations that bolster campaigns by buying ads. But when it comes to the major funders behind her own presidential campaign, the Democratic front-runner has yet to answer questions about how transparent she's willing to be. When Mother Jones questioned the Clinton camp about whether it will disclose the names and fundraising totals of the key supporters—known as "bundlers"—who raise vast sums of cash, a spokesperson declined to provide an answer, saying only that the campaign was still figuring out its plans.
<snip>
Because of the outsize role that bundlers play in paying the bills for would-be presidents, advocates for campaign finance reform have long called for a robust system of disclosure. But under current law, it's up to each candidate to decide whether the names of these fundraisers will ever become public.
The Clinton campaign is initially asking bundlers to collect $27,000 each (that is, 10 donations at the maximum amount of $2,700). Those who reach this goal will earn the designation of "Hillstarter" and score an invitation to a special campaign confab at the end of May. The campaign refused to say whether it will disclose the identities of these Hillstarters—or whether it plans to release information about bundlers who end up raising far more than $27,000 during what is likely to be a billion-dollar campaign.
Lavishing bundlers with perks is standard practice for presidential campaigns. George W. Bush created tiers of bundlers with hokey names such as "Rangers" and "Pioneers." In June 2012, Mitt Romney invited over 800 people who had bundled at least $50,000 for his campaign to an exclusive retreat in Utah, where they could hobnob with the candidate and his senior campaign staff. Bundlers may also receive more valuable rewards. A 2011 study by the Center for Public Integrity found that 184 of the 556 publicly named bundlers from Barack Obama's 2008 campaign had landed administration roles for themselves or their spouses. That figure increased to about 80 percent for the top bundlers who raised more than $500,000.
<snip>
http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2015/05/hillary-clinton-bundler-disclosure-campaign-finance
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
geek tragedy
(68,868 posts)and the Koch brothers drop hundreds of millions.
cali
(114,904 posts)and today with Super PAC funders, and Bill will be working actively with a Super-PAC- but hey, he's not part of the campaign.
This isn't about bundlers it's about transparency- not Hillary's strong point.
geek tragedy
(68,868 posts)All the GOTV, etc will be the super PAC not his campaign.
NCTraveler
(30,481 posts)She is working hard toward that goal. It is going to take an enormous amount of money to do so. Nothing will be taken for granted. That is what I am getting from her roll out.
Ichingcarpenter
(36,988 posts)because of transparency.
NCTraveler
(30,481 posts)"oh..... that's why its secret because of transparency. I made no argument about it being secret because of transparency. To do so would be absurd and would make about as much sense as your reply. Maybe you replied to the wrong person.
Ichingcarpenter
(36,988 posts)and failed to stay on task
to the discussion by obviation
WHY SHE HASN'T REVEALED HER MONEY
BrotherIvan
(9,126 posts)for someone who is using campaign reform as part of her stump speech. If she wants to play big money candidate, she should stop trying to put on the mantle of a populist candidate.
NCTraveler
(30,481 posts)anyone not buying into it in this cycle will not be a contender in any way. We want the rules of the game to change. All of us. The only way to do that is win. Not one person will stand a chance at winning with anything less than a billion. Much more in reality. Do you want change or do you want to cry alone with your principals? You are attempting to define her in a manner that would never work in reality.
dixiegrrrrl
(60,010 posts)Given that election funding is such a hot issue now.
Ichingcarpenter
(36,988 posts)EXCEPT HILLARY.
NYC_SKP
(68,644 posts)But if she does, if we let that happen, we'll lose the general.
Marr
(20,317 posts)Cheese Sandwich
(9,086 posts)Delay is effectively the same as outright refusal, only more savvy.
L0oniX
(31,493 posts)
NCTraveler
(30,481 posts)She will put it to good use. What does Kissinger have to do with any of this?
upaloopa
(11,417 posts)We need to play the game as it is and work to improve it in the future. We should not give away the election because we play nice and they don't.
onehandle
(51,122 posts)How are you guys coordinating your turns?
NYC_SKP
(68,644 posts)We are issued two of them and an iPhone9.
Because we aren't "inconvenienced" by carrying multiple devices.
Ichingcarpenter
(36,988 posts)electronic positron quantum ESP device?
frylock
(34,825 posts)
Historic NY
(37,449 posts)In most cases, there are no rules mandating that candidates release the names of their bundlers. Federal law does require campaigns to list lobbyists who bundle more than $16,000, but even this modest rule is easy to skirt. Large lobbying firms can divvy up the fundraising among various partners to avoid being listed.