THE DEMOCRATS...(Sponsored by Kelloggs)

[txaslftist]

The purpose of this post is to think about two competing trends in the Democratic Party and just put them out there. The first is the rising contributions of corporate sponsors to the democratic party, and the second is the rise in personal contributions from individual donors.

In my mind, the corporate sponsorship of the party is somewhat inconsistent with populism, which is where I think the future of the party lies. I think the "insider's circle" inside the beltway, the leadership of the Democratic party, has been seeking these kind of corporate sponsors. This tends to make the party more pro-business and more 'republican lite', IMO.

On the other hand, there are movements in the party like that of Governor Dean, whose strongest support seems to come from individual donors. This leads to a more radical, power to the people kind of agenda, which is where I think the party needs to be going.

What are the thoughts of DUers on this issue?

[electropop]

1. The corporate cash will kill the Democratic Party

unless we re-take it from the grass roots. If we allow the Dems to continue the trend of corporatization, they will become indistinguishable from, and as deadly as, the GOP. However, right wingers will continue to vote straight GOP. Swerving to the right is simply not a viable option for the party. We need to be obviously different from and better than the GOP.

[RubyDuby in GA]

2. Sing it with me......

Power to the people!!!

That's nice that they have money, but as Governor Dean's campaign showed, little people have money too. And the little people are what this party is about. As soon as the idiots in Washington, excuse me - our "leaders" in Washington remember that, we'll all be better off.

[AntiCoup2K4]

13. Power to the people, right on!

Power to the people
Power to the people
Power to the people
Power to the people
Power to the people
Power to the people
Power to the people
Power to the people, right on

Say you want a revolution
We better get on right away
Well you get on your feet
And out on the street

Singing power to the people
Power to the people
Power to the people
Power to the people, right on

A million workers working for nothing
You better give 'em what they really own
We got to put you down
When we come into town

Singing power to the people
Power to the people
Power to the people
Power to the people, right on

I gotta ask you comrades and brothers
How do you treat you own woman back home
She got to be herself
So she can free herself

Singing power to the people
Power to the people
Power to the people
Power to the people, right on
Now, now, now, now

Oh well, power to the people
Power to the people
Power to the people
Power to the people, right on

Yeah, power to the people
Power to the people
Power to the people
Power to the people, right on

Power to the people
Power to the people
Power to the people
Power to the people, right on

[Kota]

3. I think you have to have both. It takes alot of money and

individual donors alone won't cut it.

[Kerrytravelers]

4. I'd like to see us return to the party of the people...

and we need to be very careful who our big donors are. TheDemocratic party should only take money from big donors who abide by our platform, meaning if a company is a major polluter or abuses thrid world labor and outsources American jobs, we should decline their donations... and make the decline public knowledge. Then the people will see where our values lie.


I was never a Deaniac, but I so desperately want Dean as DNC chair!

[Kota]

5. I think with Dean it will trend towards a party of the people.

And the big donors will fall into place.If we have someone in there that the corporate or big donors want, I think it will be tough to get the grassroots people to follow.

[John_H]

6. Can you let us know what you will say when corporate contributions

increase under chairman dean?

[Walt Starr]

7. Corproations should be barred from making political donations as

corporations are not citizens.

People who work for corporations or own stock in corporations must be allowed to make political donations, but the corporations themselves are fictions and should not have the rights of the citizenry.

[Donald Ian Rankin]

11. It wouldn't be enforceable, I think

It would be very difficult to stop coporations giving money to individuals to give to political parties, nominally in their capacity as private citizens.

[Name removed]

8. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[IrateCitizen]

9. Democrats should be leading the fight for Clean Elections...

Clean Elections campaign financing, as enacted in Maine and Arizona, enables candidates to forgo private contributions in order to get public funds to run their campaigns. After they meet a certain threshold of $5 contributions to confirm the legitimacy of their candidacy (threshold is dependent upon what office you're running for), they become eligible for public funds. If their opponent opts out of spending limits, then they become eligible for more funds to keep up.

Results from the states in which it has been enacted thus far are encouraging. Politicians are more responsive to the people and less beholden to business lobbyists. More people run for office, and more seats are contested. "Regular people" with broad support but without fundraising contacts can afford to get in the political process.

Paul Wellstone championed this cause on a federal level, and I recall that John Kerry also supported it. But the support of this issue from the party as a whole is pathetic. It would have broad, bipartisan appeal (I've met many RWers who like the idea) and would actually make our government more representative of popular wishes.

The only thing I can figure out is that a good many Democrats holding elected office see it as a threat to their position and privilege, and therefore don't support it.

[DrGonzoLives]

10. But do you get matching funds?

See, that's the problem. If one opts out of public financing, one can get as much as they want; that's a problem if the government simply cannot give you that much to keep up.

Either everyone plays by the same rules, or we keep the current system - we can't have this "opt-out" bullshit, or else it renders the whole legislation moot.

[IrateCitizen]

12. Yes, you get matching funds...

That's the contingency in place for those candidates who avoid spending limits by using their own money.

The reason it has to be a choice for candidates is that if it weren't, it would be pursued as a violation of free speech according to Buckley v. Valeo. Candidates cannot be forced to enter into the public financing system, but it needs to be an available option.

Furthermore, when one candidate is running on public financing, and another is running on private financing, it opens up the candidate being funded privately to all kinds of charges of corruption and quid pro quo. It's an advantage to run on public financing then, because you can say that you don't owe any of these interests anything if you're elected, and your opponent will.

Before you send your blood pressure through the roof, Doc, I'd suggest that you do a quick search on "Clean Money Clean Elections" and read up on it a bit. I suspect you'll find much to agree with.