I thought maybe I could get most everyone here upset with me

[Tom Rinaldo]

I've laid the groundwork for that result carefully over the last year or so - maybe longer than that. I harbor strong partisan opinions but I just don't do polarization that well - which means I'm rarely a good loyalist for any side during conflicts. I too often stray off the reservation when it comes time to recite talking points

Case in point. I genuinely like both Hillary Clinton and Bernie Sanders. I think both of them have devoted their lives sincerely in service to their nation. I think they both have good ideals. I think they both have sound political instincts - that are not always right in every instance. They appeal to similar constituencies but not identical constituencies. But then again, that is always true. No two politicians, even those with similar views, ever appeal to the exact same groups of people. Still, in the big picture, it is clear as glass (at least to me) whose overall interests among Americans each of them is internally sworn to protect.

I had strained relations with some Sanders supporters last year (who ended up becoming Bernie or Busters) because I held positive feelings toward Hillary Clinton. I had strained relations with many Clinton supporters because (among other things) I thought Sanders was correct to make an issue over how some leading Democrats raise money, and how cozy they appeared to be with Wall Street type interests.

I never thought Hillary was corrupted by money, not twenty years ago, not ten years ago, not now. It takes millions upon millions upon millions to play politics in the big leagues. She found a way to harness some of that. And short of having a massive energized active grass roots movement constantly at your back, it takes having a lot of well placed connections to get the gears in motion to grind out scraps of social progress.

Hillary took one road to becoming influential, Bernie took another. But if one thing in life remains constant, it's that times keep changing. So I'm just starting to take note of this thing called the Paradise Papers. Seems to be a massive behind the scenes leak of thousands of documents that reveal how many of the most well connected people in the world accumulate and move money around the globe, often (but not always) in pursuit of narrow self interests at the expense of most everyone else. And I'm looking at the current social and political climate here in America, and I'm thinking - this is going to be big.

So let me be clear about one thing to start with. My world would be infinitely brighter if Hillary Clinton were President today. I have no need for, and there's no point to, bashing Hillary Clinton over matters of wealth and its accumulation. When I do look at the world by dividing it into sides, I know she is a strong defender of mine.

But I still have to say, Bernie was on to something. I strongly suspect that the Paradise Papers will reveal in gory details how the world is rigged against most people. - and the toxic role that capital concentrated in a tiny percentage of hands plays in depriving most of us of even a modicum of economic security in this world. And those revelations are going to make waves. Big ones.

I predict that if the Democratic Party fails to find a way of weaning itself from the teets of well heeled donors for political sustenance - it will continue to be viewed with suspicion, if not actual hostility, by an increasing plurality of Americans. And that will be very bad for all of us, not just for democrats

[Tom Rinaldo]

4. Agreed. Regardless of whether one thinks it's a good or bad idea for him to run for President again

He has lost some credibility by not doing so already - clearly his economic life would have to become an open book if Bernie ever sought higher office again.

[ehrnst]

39. Why do you think that he refuses? (nt)

[yardwork]

51. I guess the removed post asked why Bernie hasn't released his tax returns.

[disillusioned73]

68. I am fairly certain of it..

it's the go-to.. along with "he's not a Democrat", "the houses", the "law suit".. oh & that scaithing writing he did back in the day.. some folks can't move on from their script

It's Trump supporter intellectual level talking points - not worth the time to even address..

[yardwork]

70. Actually, I think that it's weird that he refuses to release his tax returns.

I would have thought that transparency would be a hallmark of a candidate running on his platform - and I'm talking about his current platform.

I receive frequent emails from Bernie and others with whom he is closely associated - notably Our Revolution - and I find the disconnect between their words and their actions to be telling.

[disillusioned73]

71. Well..

since he wasn't the nominee it became & still is a moot point until/ if he runs again..

Trump was allowed to run w/o accountability from our corporate media( all of them) in regards to his taxes, so now a bad precedent has been set.. and it is unlikely that candidates (especially R's) will ever release them again.. I guess we will see though..

[George II]

86. If it's income tax returns being spoken about, many trusted that he'd do so in the last campaign....

...as promised. That never happened, and the mandatory FEC personal financial disclosure never happened, either.

[pnwmom]

11. Right. He couldn't make an issue of DT's unwillingness since he wasn't doing it either. n/t

[RhodeIslandOne]

2. This is a good post

Unfortunately, the Republican party and it's supporters will never play by the rules, nevermind not engage in perfectly legal big money political dealing.

[iluvtennis]

23. Ditto

[CrispyQ]

73. The dems are partly responsible for the fact that the GOP has their boot on our neck.

The dems have looked forward too often & not held the GOP accountable. And now we're in a situation where there is no Constitutional provision in place to deal with a stolen election. Also, my family & friends who were never very political before, but got all fired up after the Con was elected, they are suffering from outrage fatigue & are disengaging, once again, sick of hearing or talking about anything Trump. I'm not sure they can be counted on in 2018. It's as grim as I've ever seen it in this country. In the 60s, the GOP still had a bit of integrity. Now? It's all about looting the treasury.

[MaryMagdaline]

3. excellent piece

How DO we wean ourselves from big money?

[Tom Rinaldo]

5. The first step is always reaching a consensus about the need to do so.

I'm not sure we're, as a Party, close to being there yet.

[ehrnst]

40. And in the meantime, how do we replace the union dollars that sustained us in the past?

Any thoughts?

Because if we disarm unilaterally, we are done.

[Tom Rinaldo]

42. Just some thoughts

If someone hires me full time to a progressive think tank maybe in a year or two I could come closer to a plan

There are other types of associations that perhaps can grow to fill some of the void left by shrinking Unions. Consumer Unions, Guilds, Citizen lobbies, Student organizations, etc. Right now we mostly think of them as outside the direct realm of politics, with some partial exceptions such as AARP. If we can grow them plus bring more of a overarching social consciousness to them so that people joined them expecting those organizations to be an ongoing part of political dialogs and coalitions that networked more with each other - that would provide more of a counter weighing counterpart to big money. That happens more in some European nations.

If people come to believe in the authenticity of an organization, even a political party, they are more likely to be financially supportive of it. That is one thing that the Sanders campaign excelled in. It built a strong base of regular small donors who were happy to pledge a repeating donation every month. Rightly or wrongly (no need to debate that here) they thought they knew what they were paying for and believed their money was being spent toward that end.

Public radio stations survive using that model. And they bring in a pretty broad base to support their activities. Branding has to be clear, the message needs to be clear, for that to work. People need to believe that they know what they can expect in return for their support. That message has not been as crisp for the Democratic Party in recent decades - with exceptions around some issues.

For now we might help build some strongly themed issue oriented PACS that by nature of what they advocate are likely to support the election of Democrats. These should be transparent, no hiding of who gives money to them. Addressing concerns raised by Climate Change would be a great example. Green Job promotion in general, can unite some more progressive minded businesses with wealthy liberal donors who are happy to be identified with that issue.

And we should be doing a lot of social research with younger voters, who tend toward being idealistic, as to what it will take to get them more engaged in politics, both with their time and their money. And find a way to harness more of that energy - which right now doesn't run through the Democratic Party by default. Social movements can be transformative, and they usually primarily run on the energy of the young.

I would love to see a high profile PAC that undertook public education on the theme of the merits of progressive taxation.

[ehrnst]

44. So why aren't these organizations a source of $$ for the DNC now?

Are they for Public Radio? You are aware that Public Radio does receive major grants from large foundations, including the Koch Bros, yes? Perhaps not.

Student organizations? You think that they are a replacement for the money that the Unions once had? The energy of the young does not replace ad buys. Even Old Town Media didn't take energy in exchange for cash.

Social research for young voters will not replace the money needed to run a modern campaign. The internal issues within the Sanders campaign due to the limitations of cash are readily available with a search.

Those of us who are not straight white men are aware that the Democratic party is the one working for us, even if the younger energetic ones haven't learned that yet.

[Tom Rinaldo]

46. Well, I'm a straight white male working in the Democratic Party

helping it to work for all of us, and not just straight white men. But the percentage of those who identify as Democrats in the general population has been falling now for decades. It is not just a matter of the young - though it is more acute with them.

And BTW, yes I know about Koch support for Public Radio. Our own network of WAMC stations has been doing very well in recent years dramatically increasing the small donor base.

The issue I raised in the OP was a prediction based on current events and trends. I think we need to get ahead of that curve, and recognizing that need is a good place to start. You don't expect one guy sitting at home between doing myriad tasks to have all the answers worked out in detail for you on demand, do you? It will take a combination of measures to reduce the Democratic Party's dependency of mega donors. Just like it takes a combination of job creating initiatives to restore an economic base for an area where the big employer in town moves away or closes. That happened with IBM where I live a while back. Whether or not our region thought we could do without IBM wasn't germane. A time came when alternatives had to be developed. I predicted that the Paradise Papers will effect public perceptions about whether most mainstream politicians truly have their interests at heart - after they follow the money.

[ehrnst]

48. I believe the number of people identifying with a party has fallen

as have those that identify with a religion or with other orgs.

But people generally vote for candidates of one party or another, and those that understand that a higher income doesn't change all the problems that you have vote democrat.

Which is why we have the majority of the non-white straight male population, which is becoming the majority.

If Democrats don't get who their voters are, and that those voters are the future - far more than any old straight white men are - the sooner they will attract more to the actual party.

[Tom Rinaldo]

50. For the record - you have changed the conversation from what I wrote about in the OP

I wasn't making a case for winning back straight while old male voters, nor under appreciating those who have been reliably voting for Democrats - even if not always in the numbers we need. And if those voters who you talk about representing our future are not coming out to reliably vote in big enough numbers, in off year elections for example, I doubt that's because they feel that the Democratic Party has moved away from being business friendly enough, or because we haven't expanded our definition of the middle class high enough to include those households making hundreds of thousands a year. Or because we don't include enough former Goldman Sachs executives in the top levels of our Administrations when we hold power

[marylandblue]

6. Not likely to happen, but

Last edited Mon Nov 6, 2017, 10:01 PM - Edit history (1)

1) Only accept donations from the individuals. Grass roots funding is much easier than it used to be.
2) Endorse a constitutional amendment taking down Citizen's United.
3) Stand against all forms of dark money. Promote a law that requires every organization that place a political ad must provide a list of donors. If the donor is not an individual or a US corporation, that organization must provide a list of donors, until it traces back to individuals or US corporations.

[ehrnst]

45. When you say dark money

You mean like not having to disclose donors?

https://sunlightfoundation.com/2016/08/26/bernie-sanderss-new-political-group-wont-have-to-disclose-its-donors/

https://www.nytimes.com/2016/08/25/us/politics/bernie-sanders-our-revolution-group.html

[Tom Rinaldo]

7. Also, in addition to what marylandblue wrote...

We work to mitigate against the power that wealthy interests have in the way that common people always have, we organize. The Union movement of course has always been Exhibit A in that regard. Powerless as individuals, but collectively mighty. And that even included money, good old union dues added up when pooled. Until Big Labor raised most American's standards of living to the point where many no longer felt Unions served a need, Big Labor largely funded the Democratic Party (granted that is an oversimplification.)

The Sanders campaign did create a nationwide pool of activists willing to make regular monthly pledges to the cause, enough to raise as much money as the more standard base that Hillary Clinton largely drew from (yes of course Hillary had many small donors too - but not to the same extent.)

And then we need to network and economize, we must rely on real grassroots efforts to spread a message that costs many millions to pay for via ads. They use wealth to create the fiction of a grassroots movement - as in astroturfing. We need genuine grassroots moments that don't rely on wealth.

[ehrnst]

41. It's not always easy to tell what is grassroots and what is propaganda anymore.

Last edited Mon Nov 6, 2017, 06:30 PM - Edit history (4)

How do you propose we do that?

And it seems we need to accept the expediency of undisclosed donor (dark) money in even the most revolutionary of grassroots groups.

https://www.nytimes.com/2016/08/25/us/politics/bernie-sanders-our-revolution-group.html?_r=0

[SpankMe]

8. Great narrative. Thanks. n/t

[progressoid]

9. The share of Millennials who identify as independent is up eight points since 2008.

We're finding that at the local level, it's getting harder to get young people involved in the party. We need them if we expect any kind of progress in the future. Not to mention winning back the 1000 seats we've lost in the last decade.

[MaryMagdaline]

24. Independents in primaries

Independents very often cannot vote in the primaries. Here in Florida, independents are shut out. If they cannot affect the outcome of who gets the nomination, we are losing their influence and making them angry in the process. We are in s tough place to garner independent support.

[Tom Rinaldo]

25. I chair our local Democratic Committee, and that is my experience also

We are almost all in our 60's. I spent two years trying to get younger members, and finally got two people in their 50's to agree to serve. Independents are a growing plurality, they become the majority with the younger voting groups. This is not a good trajectory for the Democratic Party to be on. Something has to change in order for that to change for us.

[progressoid]

28. Same here.

I'm not the chair but on a committee or two. We started tracking the visits to our facebook pages, websites, etc. And the two groups that are consistently low are 18-25 (both genders) and 60+ men.

[llmart]

64. I don't think that's unusual historically...

I have no statistics right now to back my statement up, but I've seen many an election cycle in my almost 69 years and the 18-25 age group historically isn't that politically aware/active on a large scale. My generation was but only because of the Viet Nam war (my opinion) because it affected them personally (the possibility of being drafted).

[Tom Rinaldo]

77. The movement away from Party identification toward Independent status perhaps...

...should be of more concern to today's Democratic Party. Aside from whether or not they consistently vote, youth are leaving our tent, and in many cases electoral politics in general. The Democratic Party is less often looked to as a leading vehicle for social change. Interest in supporting a vibrant Democratic Party is waning.

[coolsandy]

80. I know several Independents. All they want to do is vote when it is time. They don't want to work

for any agenda. Use the tag of I to keep from having to fight for or against issues. I'm not accusing ALL Independents of this, jut look at Bernie. However, this has been my experience with the young Independents I know. Seemingly they don't even want to "think" just wait for their peers or a popular issue slogan, FB or YT and go for what sounds good to them.

[treestar]

60. Don't they need progress in the future?

Why don't they realize themselves what they need to do?

[GoneOffShore]

10. A well thought out post. Thank you.

I had a couple of small quibbles, but on reflection, I'll leave them unvoiced as they were somewhat rhetorical, and on re-reading your post, found the answers.

You certainly make excellent points.

[Tom Rinaldo]

15. I guess that's partial vindication for the subject line anyway

But I actually thought this one was pretty alert-proof even if it annoyed some. Guess it just goes to show. Thank you.

[grantcart]

13. Sanders was good as a diagnostician

His prescriptions varied from the great to the unfunded to gibberish.

Penny Pritzger served as Commerce Secretary with distinction and without any scandal.

The Pritzger family has made significant contributions to charity, education and served as public service. I don't see any reason why we should not welcome them making significant contributions to the party that they have been faithful and loyal members of.

[Tom Rinaldo]

16. I love true public service from the ranks of the well connected

It used to be many wealthy individuals gladly accepted massive loss of earnings in order to give back to their country through public service. Some still do, but not the crew that someone like Trump attracts. They take turns putting in a few years using government to rig the system, so that they all can become even wealthier upon return to the private sector.

There is clean as well as dirty money found at every level of donations. But if we have to choose between regulating our political sphere to either facilitate huge political donations, or to prevent them all, I would easily choose the latter.

[grantcart]

38. Actually it used to be that clever and earnest people strove to wealth so they could give their time

George Washington was one, if not the, wealthiest Americans of his generation having made savvy investments when he worked as a surveyor and anticipated where roads would open up new lands.

Jefferson had little interest in money and was only motivated to earn enough so that he could spend the rest of his life as a politician-philosopher and ends up leaving little to his children.

Benjamin Franklin had no interest in passing money to his progeny and used wealth to create benefits for the community and allow him to live a philosopher's lifestyle. He started voluntary fire departments and became the world's best know person when his experiments with electricity helped him solve one of the great questions of his time - finding a solution to lightning attacks that were becoming increasingly menacing to more and more towns who had both higher density and larger wood structures. When he launched his invention, the lightning rod, he purposely did not take out a patent on it so that everyone could make their own for free.

Teddy Roosevelt's father (who was one of the largest property owners in New York City at the time) spent the Civil War going from camp to camp signing up Union soldiers to his salary allotment plan which allowed Union soldiers to automatically remit part of their salary back to their families. Before the allotment plan was put into effect the Union army suffered substantial morale problems because large number of troops were drinking up all of their salary and families in Maine and Illinois, et al were starving. Without it the Union effort might have collapsed.

These are not a few examples but reflect the overriding interest of wealthy Americans in our Revolutionary and past century roots. We could continue with Roosevelt, Kennedy, etc.

Choosing to sacrifice this great American tradition because regulating it is too difficult is not just abandoning one of the great traditions of American service it is wrong strategically and a formula for failure.

Why should the honest Americans who have means be penalized because of the illegal acts of those who seek to turn the government into a personal ATM? Moreover it is exactly the same as the NRA analysis of gun laws. If you restrict legal funding by ethical people of wealth then you are only limiting funds to the progressive side. Those that seek to subvert democracy will have a million ways to continue to do what they do and continue to conceal it, eliminating it will only hurt those that are open and transparent.

[Tom Rinaldo]

43. There is never a shortage of ways in which those with wealth can use it for social good.

Of course this is still to be encouraged. Wealth in itself should not be demonized. Greed though should be. And opportunities to directly purchase government should be limited to the extent both reasonable and feasible. I'm not sure where you think I was suggesting "penalizing" honest donors. Honest people who want to do good, even in the political realm, have many avenues potentially to explore. Self serving ones mostly have interest in efforts that serve their own vested interest - and for that reason they look for vehicles that provide anonymity or concealment of their true intent. Bogus non profits with a strictly partisan agenda that essentially "launder" donations for example can be cracked down on.

[grantcart]

53. Your suggestion to eliminate contributions from rich contributors because enforcing regulations is

too difficult penalizes honest contributors because they will be eliminated while dishonest people like the Koch brothers and Wilbur Ross will simply find new avenues of subterfuge.

While there is a basis for regulating and making contributions more transparent there is no constitutionally acceptable way of eliminating it as you wish so its really a waste of time to discuss it.

The larger issue which you missed entirely is that accumulating wealth so that you can become part of the progressive and even revolutionary political/philosophical life of the country wasn't something that some people were involved in but was a core part of our history. I am sure that there were many other ways that Gen Washington or President Jefferson could have done but they chose to use their wealth for revolutionary actions.

You want to abandon a key core American value because regulation and transparency is too difficult, the Constitution protects against such an attempt but if it were put into effect the wealthy benefactors of the reactionary right wing would subvert it in a New York minute while law abiding progressives would follow the law. It would in effect be a one sided disarmament that would adversely affect the Progressive movement.

[Tom Rinaldo]

54. Here is what I actually wrote

"I predict that if the Democratic Party fails to find a way of weaning itself from the teets of well heeled donors for political sustenance - it will continue to be viewed with suspicion, if not actual hostility, by an increasing plurality of Americans."

Here is what you wrote:

"Your suggestion to eliminate contributions from rich contributors because enforcing regulations is too difficult penalizes honest contributors because they will be eliminated while dishonest people like the Koch brothers and Wilbur Ross will simply find new avenues of subterfuge.

While there is a basis for regulating and making contributions more transparent there is no constitutionally acceptable way of eliminating it as you wish so its really a waste of time to discuss it."

Nowhere did I suggest seeking unconstitutional measures to eliminate the ability of rich contributors from making political contributions. I did suggest that if the Democratic Party becomes associated with, in the eyes of large sections of the public mind, being overly solicitous to the concerns of the wealthiest sector of our society - that it would ultimately be detrimental to our electoral prospects.

In fact I am puzzled by your choice of words here:

"...because enforcing regulations is too difficult penalizes honest contributors because they will be eliminated while dishonest people like the Koch brothers and Wilbur Ross will simply find new avenues of subterfuge."

Where did I write that enforcing regulations should not be attempted due to excessive difficulty doing so? Your comment sounds like an argument made by the NRA regarding "gun control" - there's nothing wrong with our regulations about guns - we don't need to tighten anything - just enforce the laws on the books and everything will be fine. If guns are outlawed only outlaws will have guns etc.

And it is the platform of the Democratic Party to seek a constitutional amendment to over ride Citizens United. That would be a constitutional remedy to the Citizens United ruling that four SC Justices and many legal observers believe was contrary to our Constitution. But even leaving all of that aside. I posited a problem that will soon be inflamed in the realm of politics when the public becomes more familiar with the contents of the Paradise Papers. There are political ways to respond to that potential problem. One is to attempt to position the Democratic Party so as to be less dependent of mega donors for survival. That can be pursued in many ways, most of which would not involve having to forbid anything, just reorienting our efforts, close associations and priorities.

You have taken what I wrote and spun it into a political thriller beyond recognition. It's almost like you suppose that my next post will likely propose mandatory political reeducation camps for everyone with wealth exceeding six figures. I see a problem on the horizon, yes I do. I think we need to look at ways to address it, that is true. That is what I proposed discussing. There are many options potentially available to mitigate against what I was warning about. They include options as non threatening to the rights of progressive wealthy donors as finding and expanding other funding streams that make it easier for Democrats to pick and choose more carefully who we seek to aggressively court for major contributions.

If you don't see any risk associated with the status quo for Democrats it makes sense to me that you see no need to explore how it can be altered to reduce that political risk. If you do, however, then that is a topic I hoped to calmly explore by posting the above piece.

[whathehell]

63. Bad analogy..

The Pritzger family own the Hyatt hotels which, about ten years ago, in the summer, saw a strike by it's housekeeping staff. The Pritsker's rather feral response was to turn UP the Heat in the hotel light bulbs so as to make the housekeepers hot & uncomfortable...

To put it mildly this is NOT an action union supportingou Bernie would approve.

[George II]

84. "turn up the heat in the hotel light bulbs"? Really. How did they do that?

[whathehell]

89. You would have to ask The Chicago Tribune..

since they reported it.

[joet67]

14. I agree. When someone outside our party

forcefully and unequivocally stands up for traditional Democratic Party values and gets beaten, it’s a sad testament to how the DLC corrupted the DNC.

I read a report just yesterday about millennial feelings, and I think we may be in trouble long term.

I grieve for what could have been

[Hamlette]

17. money is power

and if all the well heeled in the US go to the GOP it would be troubling.

Additionally, many of the well heeled donors are strong defenders of my side. Those who believe the saying "those to whom much is given, much is expected".

I agree we should not rely on them but I don't think we should shun them. We could ask that they not engage in activities that hurt others and my suspicion is that most on our side don't. I just think we need to be careful with all purity tests.

[Adrahil]

18. The only thing I will say...

Is that you need to be able to the see the forest for the trees.

It's okay to have issues with the details. It's not okay to let that interfere with the fact that WINNING MATTERS. It matters more than any one position. Really.

[Tom Rinaldo]

19. Our brand name is the forest

Why do people tend to trust Democrats more than Republicans, if they do at all? According to a study just released that was posted on DU, half of Americans have less than $1,000 in total savings. That is an amazing figure. Who is their lobbyist, since they can't each pay for one on their own? In law, simply the appearance of a conflict of interest is grounds for needing to recuse oneself.

I am thinking of the big picture. Maybe I don't always see it clearly enough, but that is what I was looking at when I wrote the OP.

[B2G]

20. "I thought maybe I could get most everyone here upset with me"

Want some pointers?

[Tom Rinaldo]

22. LOL Clearly this wasn't my most productive exercise in my regard

I do find that it generally works better if one alternates pissing off one side and then the other in serial postings.

[bluestarone]

21. great post

wouldn't be a beautiful dream come true for everyone to agree to just ONE party against the Repubs? THAT would be the ONLY way to use big money! repeating THE ONLY WAY!!But i feel it will be a lost cause to fight the big money donors of the Repubs without 100% of small donors money. (unless someone comes up with a way to get lazy people off their ass and VOTE)

[NCTraveler]

26. I enjoyed reading this but don't think your last paragraph....

poses much of a possibility outside of appearances alone. We would have to take on campaign finance reform. Big money would simply continue it's trend of moving to PAC's.

[Tom Rinaldo]

31. True

But, among other things, there has to be the political will to take on finance reform. And if the political status quo on both sides of the aisle depends on status quo funding - there will be no high profile political leadership willing and able to make the case to the American public for that reform in a compelling enough manner to bring about change in that direction. This is a battle that must be fought inside the Democratic Party as well as outside of it.

I will not use this thread to debate how many positives vs negatives the 2016 Sanders campaign advanced - but it did elevate and celebrate the role of individual small contributions in a political campaign - and made a strong case against the danger implicit - even if not always actualized - in a dependency by political figures on mega donors to finance election campaigns.

I liked that Sanders actually talked about PACS during his campaign, and how they collect (and obscure sources of) money to influence elections. We clearly need more discussion on the role that PACS play and how they should be regulated

[NCTraveler]

35. Again, proven appearances.

"but it did elevate and celebrate the role of individual small contributions in a political campaign"

You highlight that with this follow up. "even if not always actualized"

"We clearly need more discussion on the role that PACS play and how they should be regulated"

I agree with that.

[Omaha Steve]

27. Marta & I....

Voted for Hillary in the general election last November.

OS

[jalan48]

29. World's 8 richest men are worth as much as 3.6 billion people.

I'd say this might be a problem. With all that wealth comes power and the ability to rig the political system to the benefit of the uber rich. Are we going back to a feudal state where we beg for what we want?

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/worlds-8-richest-men-are-worth-as-much-as-3-6-billion-people-davos-world-economic-forum/

[Binkie The Clown]

30. Maybe the answer is NOT to wean the policital parties off big money. Instead...

maybe there is a way to wean big money off of conservative policies. In reality, business does better under Democratic administrations. Big money needs to be reminded that their long-term interests are NOT best served by short-term greed. If we can educate big money, then it seems natural that big money will get behind progressive policies that serve them better in the long run.

[Tom Rinaldo]

32. Under centrism perhaps, as compared to hard right wing policies

Those motivated most by the profit margin do not have their lust for domination quenched by progressive policies. Even Teddy Roosevelt - Republican that he was, knew that.

I think our societal solutions right now lie left of center

[hueymahl]

33. Money corrupts

Money (and corporations) have no conscience. Corporations, by design, are the ultimate sociopaths. Morality does not exist - their morality is making more money. So, yeah, maybe some progressive policies will benefit corporations in the short term and they will "support" those causes. But what about the corruption, addictive influence of big money when progressive policies (like higher taxes) no longer fit with what big money wants?

Oh wait. We have seen this movie before.

[Ukapau]

37. Wash, rinse, repeat, wash, rinse, repeat. Yup -- the Dems' policies bail the country out and then

the greedy oligarchs take over for a while.

Good points you are making! "Money and corporations have no conscience" and the big ones are forever greedy and never sleep.

[treestar]

62. That is at least an idea

Which is positive and constructive.

[PatrickforO]

34. This is a good post. Of course, I'm the quintessential idealist.

I look at things as they are and ask why we cannot change them to be how they should be.

We should have single payer healthcare.

Social Security should be expanded.

College at state schools should be free because it is an investment we make in our children, and we should not allow predatory capitalism to be perpetrated upon them.

Prisons should NEVER be for profit, and prisoners should not be used as slave labor to earn profits for corporate shareholders.

Since we spend more on our military than the next 9 countries combined, this expenditure should be cut down to 2000 levels over a ten year period, and those monies saved back should be spent on efforts to make people's lives better with things like health care, and maybe even nursing care for the elderly.

We should keep our parks pristine, and not shrink them.

Costs to get into national parks should not be precipitously raised like they are being, because this is only to pass on more of the costs to the American middle class while rich people and corporations get tax cuts.

Taxes should be substantially increased for both people and corporations (right now, the effective tax rate for US Corporations is around 16%, so laugh next time someone solemnly intones the US has the 'highest corporate tax rate in the world' without qualifying that statement with the word 'nominal.') in order to afford these programs that would produce far more economic security and economic justice for Americans.

If we did this it would be a good start, but what we really need to be working towards is planning at least two generations out to preserve the earth, mitigate global warming, and keep air and water clean. This way, our children and grandchildren can enjoy this earth the same as we've been able to. It really IS time for us to start thinking as a species...of course the right wingers, nationalists and some 'christian right-wing evangelicals' won't like that idea.

But we do.

So, to your point, will the Democratic party end up failing right alongside the Republican party because we can't wean ourselves from corporate donors?

Sadly, yes. We are not wise enough as a species to do what is necessary for our species to survive and thrive. Look at this thread - all the people who smugly say, 'well this is how things ARE, so we can't have it any different,' or 'the OTHER party won't quit using corporate donors so we can't either...'

Will homo sapiens survive the next few hundred years?

Probably not.

[LisaM]

36. We have to get rid of Citizens United first.

Many, many Democratic (and a few Republican) politicians would like to get rid of the big money in politics. But as long as Citizens United is on the books (and remember, it came about because of an anti-Hillary documentary), how do we keep competitive?

I would love publicly financed (and shorter) campaigns. But how to achieve it? And, how to keep people who are new to politics from spending all their donations on specific candidates rather than larger groups (like political parties) that can spread the wealth a little bit?

And unless we limit the amount that can actually be spent (not raised), how do we keep politics from favoring the rich? We'll just get more people financing their own campaigns (I know that the Obamas and Clintons are wealthy now, but they didn't start out that way, and earned most of their money from book deals and speaking fees). A lot of recent Republican candidates have come from wealthy families - Bush, Romney, Trump....

[Progressive dog]

47. Unilateral disarmament is not a winning strategy

I predict that if the Democratic party "weans " itself off well heeled donors, the Republican party will win even more seats. The GOP has already proven that money and media beat truth.

[Tom Rinaldo]

49. Well we simply disagree then

"Weaning" is not the same as "Cold Turkey". There is planning involved and an effort made to locate and provide an alternative. It is time to start that planning. It is time to lay that groundwork.

What we are doing now is not working out so well for us any longer. Continuing with the same strategy is unlikely to bring different results. You don't have to use the fact that Republicans control every branch of the Federal Government, look at the State level. How many State legislatures do Democrats now control? How many Governorship's?

Cynicism toward politicians is continually growing and every scandal that involves the influence bought with money increases it. And cynicism always plays to the Republicans advantage when they can get away with saying "both sides do it". And they get away just fine saying that even if they get caught three times as often as Democrats. Idealists get disgusted and turn away, which leaves the field to the Republicans, which is exactly how they want it. And they have done very well with this status quo. And it is all about to get worse. People are about to receive a road map to exactly how the super rich manipulate the political process. The Democratic Party is leaking members relative to Independents who are growing. And that process is happening fastest with Millennials - who are now more numerous than surviving Boomers.

You and I no doubt agree that there is a huge difference between the Democratic and Republican parties. Unfortunately that view is not shared widely enough to even get our own voters to the polls during off year elections.

[Progressive dog]

88. If the "weaning" is unilateral

then it is worth nothing. A slow decline of the Democratic party is not something I would work towards, even if somehow it makes me feel superior. Anyway, the Democratic party is not leaking voters because it has too much money.

[Persondem]

52. The fix is to shorten the political season to just the election year.

No raising of money by any candidate, PAC or whathaveyou org. to promote a candidate or an issue until Mar.1 of the election year. Yeah, I know that would take big changes.

But imagine Mar. - May candidates declare, raise $$ and build organizations.
June - July The primaries happen in approx. 2 week intervals in an ever changing order based on geography - NE, SE, MW, W, SW, then the order rotates in 4 years.
Aug. - Nov. General election to happen on the second Sat. of Nov.

That would keep a good percent of the money out of politics. Our representatives could spend more time doing the people's business, and we would have much less time to get tired of, and jaded by, the whole damn process.

[blue-wave]

55. I wholeheartedly agree with you in principle

but, why do people view the democratic party with suspicion when the repukes are the ones who are coddling the big "1%" teets? We need to compete in the game. It cannot be done with little or no money. The repukes continue to win elections with their huge wads of cash, we lost how many state rep seats? How many governor chairs? How many senate seats? How many U.S. House seats? They are beating us with and because of money. That is the cold hard fact.

They have bought the mass media and are directing the narrative. We need to turn that around. With the poor and middle class profusely bleeding financially at this moment in time, there are not enough small dollar donors to even put up a small skirmish defense, let alone a full scale assault on the repuke agenda.

[Boomer]

56. Thank you and couldn't agree more

What an eloquent summarization of my own political perspective about the world and about the Democratic Party.

[Honeycombe8]

57. I don't think it's news, or new, that money controls things in a country. Any country.

That won't change. Power is called power because it's,,,well, power. Money is power. But you can have power w/o money, and power trumps money.

A tale as old as time. It's not the fault of Democrats or Republicans or Independents or Greens that they accept donations in a system that requires you advertise and gain access to millions of people in a huge country. That's the reality.

The appointment of Alito by Bush, after Gore did not win the election, ushered in the official corporate age, with Citizens United enshrining and formalizing the power role of American corporate oligarchs to run the country. And so it is.

As long as money is required, politicians will be required to accept donations. All politicians.

[whathehell]

58. Had the Dems not sat back while they saw unions dying & jobs being offshored

they would not have HAD to "wean themselves off the teets of well heeled doners".

[treestar]

59. How come the Republican party can do it?

And still attract voters from the victims of the rigging?

[jimlup]

61. Well Said!

My feelings too summed up more eloquently than I could have said it.

[adigal]

65. Bernie and Trump talked about similar things, which is why I kept saying Trump would win

And Trump never meant it. But that caring about those left behind works. And is actually good politics if you are a Dem and care about people. Bernie is a really good communicator in that he can take a complex topic and simplify.

Case: I heard some Republican on the other day, CNN or MSNBC, chucking and scolding the host for talking about talking points. OK, that was actually good for them. Then the host asked why this is not a tax cut for the rich and he started going on and on and giving numbers, %s, terminologies, all meant to confuse the viewer, I think. The issue is that he didn't confuse the viewer in a good way - he made it so incomprehensible that I, a very well informed person and viewer, tuned him out cause I couldn't understand what the hell he was talking about.
An uninformed viewer's eyes would have glazed over in about 10 seconds, it was so crazy. Blah blah, He is lying!! Trump did distill things to a way that the idiots with no teeth could understand. (sorry, but I am done with being nice about them.) Bernie does that, too, but is actually telling the truth.

We need politicians who talk like Bernie! They need to use words with negative diction. Pelosi actually tweeted something the other day that was good, but I can't remember.
This tax cut is a scheme.
It is a fraud upon the middle class.
This is a get-richer Trump family tax cut.
Trump's pals at Mar-A-Lago will love this tax cut.
Trump's golfer pals will love this tax cut.
Trump charlatan tax cut for his pals.
Trump's carnival barker tax cut.

This is what we need!!

[bucolic_frolic]

66. Yes but this cuts to the core of everything we buy

Capitalism thrives on profit. No profit, no incentive. No incentive, no motivation. No motivation, no work.

When we buy things we all love and need and want, we give profits to the producers of what we buy.

We are bad consumers. We overpay. We give fat profits to companies because we are poor judges of
what it really costs to put products together. Autos and houses being two prime examples. And we have
no pricing power other than to walk away.

How many of us curtail our spending, or focus on reducing profit margins for what we buy? None of us.

So capital gets concentrated in the hands of the few that way. We complain, but have little power, or incentive,
or understanding. We are cogs in a wheel. This is how we interface with our economic system. There is little
choice.

[Tom Rinaldo]

74. You wrote as though Trusts never form to distort pure market forces

or that once they do we are powerless to break them up. Tell that to the ghost of Teddy Roosevelt. We are not all powerful. Neither are we powerless.

[BumRushDaShow]

67. Once again, this clip sums it up

from over 40 years ago -

[disillusioned73]

69. K&R.. great post

The first domino that needs to fall is Citizens United, without a vigorous campaign against it (I'm talking general election) - to get the braindead masses to connect the dots.. nothing will change..

[zentrum]

72. Just heard Van Jones

...say that he strongly supports Donna Brazile's efforts to bring "sunshine" to the Democratic Party and that this was a necessary exposure so that we can start winning again. He said the truth is "messy" but that there definitely needs be deep change and that "if the same people are in charge" as are in charge now we will have the same outcome we have now, in future elections.

It was on WNYC this AM, in a lengthy interview of him, and I'm sure it can be reheard as an audio later today.

[frazzled]

75. Then Bernie should start in his own state of Vermont

which has become a massive tax-haven for corporations via the captive insurance business (which he has protected against government attempts to regulate it):

At conferences of the offshore insurance industry, next to the booth for Bermuda, can often be found one promoting Vermont.

While that may seem strange for a chilly, landlocked state, Vermont is an offshore haven in one very real sense: It offers American companies lucrative tax breaks through unusual insurance arrangements.

“Vermont does the promotion the same way Bermuda does the promotion,” noted Andrew Barile, an insurance industry consultant.

More than 560 United States companies, including Wal-Mart Stores, Starbucks and McGraw-Hill, have set up Vermont-based entities to insure their biggest risks and liabilities, giving them a tax benefit in the process. Vermont now rivals the Cayman Islands and Bermuda as the insurance destination of choice for American companies.

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/04/04/business/04vermont.html

For modest licensing fees, a small tax on premiums, and a friendly regulatory climate, Vermont provides a host of advantages for large corporations and wealthy families toward forming captives. Corporations can substantially lower their insurance costs, and captives provide shelter from certain federal corporate taxes. Premiums on small captives, also known as “cell” captives, hold special tax benefits for corporations. The benefits are so good, in fact, that in 2015 captive insurance was on the IRS’ “Dirty dozen” list of abusive tax scams

http://www.greenmountaindaily.com/2016/01/29/criminal-history-and-allvermont-loves-captive-insurance-companies/

[Tom Rinaldo]

76. I don't believe in sacred cows when it comes to politics

That's number one. Number two is I don't insist on purity before I am wiling to be generally supportive of a politician. I think, to put it in classic terms, we the people have to remain engaged in politics and not expect some magically pure leader to make all of the right decisions for us. I know sometimes quite decent people in politics compromise their principles for one or another reason. I like Joe Biden also, but I know that he folded for the credit card industry when he was a Senator from Delaware.

[frazzled]

78. I thought the issue was the Paradise Papers and the hiding of wealth

and evasion of taxes.

You were the one who said:

But I still have to say, Bernie was on to something. I strongly suspect that the Paradise Papers will reveal in gory details how the world is rigged against most people. - and the toxic role that capital concentrated in a tiny percentage of hands plays in depriving most of us of even a modicum of economic security in this world. And those revelations are going to make waves. Big ones.

[Tom Rinaldo]

79. It transcends individual political leaders and whatever shortcomings they might have.

I don't have time to do a deep dive into Vermont politics right now - and the OP was never intended to delve into every specific instance wherein Democratic coalition figures are failing to help forward or implement the narrative addressed. My reply simply acknowledged that I didn't write this to promote Bernie as a Saint.

[frazzled]

81. I think you did

Otherwise, why did you not simply make your post about the issue of wealth accumulation and tax evasion as revealed in the Paradise Papers? Why the long, reasonable-sounding diatribe replaying the last election season only to climax with "I think Bernie was on to something"? Why bring either Clinton or Sanders into it at all?

And then you revert to the "they all have shortcomings" line when I point out a pretty significant shortcoming, thinking that is the way to shrug it off. You offered the example of Joe Biden and his support of the credit-card industry. But as I recall, Joe Biden never made the evils of the credit-card companies a touchstone of any of his campaigns. Bernie Sanders did make the whole 1% the centerpiece of his campaign and continuing public entreaties.

So I agree with you: Bernie Sanders is not a saint. And when we have discussions about issues like the Paradise Papers, we shouldn't be invoking him via roundabout replays of the 2016 primaries. You wrote it, I analyzed it, and whatever you feel your intentions were, you have to understand that that is not how it appears to readers.

[Tom Rinaldo]

82. Readers, like everything else, vary

as do opinions of what is read. I feel that I communicated effectively with most readers as written with the references used, and that of course is a subjective view also. I think you made some cogent points, for what it's worth. I respect your contribution to the discussion. Maybe others will have their own responses to share with you.

[LiberalLovinLug]

87. For what its worth, to me the OP's purpose was not to deify Sanders.

He made sure to go out of his way to praise Hillary as well. I don't know why for some it has to be all about Bernie. Its funny to hear some posters react so knee-jerk to his name. Its so ironic that even when an OP goes out of their way to try and walk on rice paper and be as diplomatic as possible, some still make it all about Bernie (only in a critical way), while at the same time complaining how its only always about Bernie!

I can see why he'd conjure up the names of the two candidates. Because it was a great example of two very different approaches to election finance. What better examples to use? I thought he was quite genteel and careful in his wording and went out of his way to not offend, yet still make his points. The Clintons are THE example of third way strategies. They wrote the book on it. Not necessarily abandoning small donors, but putting more of the efforts into wooing big business dollars, competing with the GOP for them, this became the new norm. The Clintons were a big part of promoting the DLC with a board made up of CEOs from industry. This secretive band of unelected corporate bigwigs led decision making in the party for decades. Only disbanded in 2011, but whose influence carried on. And look where we are now.

So the Clintons are a big part of one side of the story. And Sanders, who is the most visible politician fighting for election finance reform is another prominent player. That's why , I gather , their names were brought up. This has nothing to do with the primaries.

[George II]

83. With the Koch brothers and other deep pocketed contributors pouring hundreds of millions...

....of dollars into republican candidates' campaigns, how do you propose we counter that if the Democratic Party (and our candidates) "weans itself from the teets of well heeled donors"?

[Tom Rinaldo]

85. Read through the replies, it has already been subject to a fair amount of discussion. n/t