Hillary to hold $1,000 a plate Closed Senate Fundraiser in NC

[KoKo]

Clinton will be the guest at a $1,000-per-person fundraiser Feb. 25 at the home of Johnny Taylor, a Charlotte executive and chairman of the Society for Human Resource Management.

Co-hosts include the Rev. Claude Alexander and former ambassadors Mark Erwin of Charlotte and Jeannette Hyde of RaleighAlso co-hosting is Springs Industries CEO Crandall Bowles. Bowles and Clinton were classmates at Wellesley College.

A spokesman for Clinton declined to discuss the event, other than to say it's closed to the press
and the public. The reception is to raise money for Clinton's re-election campaign. She's widely expected to run for president in two years.

(Link is to personal e-mail received)

[MrBenchley]

1. Good for her....

[KoKo]

4. I personally think that Congress Critters should be barred from Out of

State Fundraising. Now that might not be your opinion but it would seem that's an ethics problem, if anyone cared about ethics anymore.

This is why we on the Left who are trying to compete with the $1,000 a platers and the lobbyists need to give to individual candidates and establish our own money pot. Otherwise the Money and Influence will continue to corrupt our system which is just about gone anyway.

[samdogmom]

5. I agree! Why is she taking money from NC?

Is she running for national office? If not, stick to NY.

[MrBenchley]

8. I don't see it as an ethics problem at all....

Hillary Clinton is a candidate with nationwide appeal and a front runner for 2008. There's nothing unethical about North Carolina Democrats importing her for a pep talk and sizing her up.

And it's worth noting that the current proposal to get "money out of the system" only was discussed here by the Green Party apologists...and then only in a dishonest, hysterical manner.

[KoKo]

9. It's certainly open to debate. More of the Money Machine running

our House and Senate.

Or, is Tom DeLay an example that should be followed?

[MrBenchley]

12. It takes money to run for office, and that's a FACT

Ask me next if I want to debate "ethics" with somebody who decides to slur a prominent Democrat with an irrelevant Tom Delay comparison.

[ieoeja]

24. Make it anonymous.

Anonymous donations should be the law. ALL non-anonymous donations should then be classified as bribery.

This protects our right to back whomever we wish while removing unfair influence over those elected.

[KoKo]

25. Benchley....do you not think that Politics is being "corrupted" from the

Top Down? Why shouldn't our Dems hold $10 or $100 Dollar Fundraisers along with the $1,000 a plate dinners?

Why do you not understand how many voters and possible voters doing this crap disenfranchises? :shrug: I'm honestly trying to understand you position on this.

[KoKo]

26. will you answer when you have time? n/t

[KoKo]

29. Still waiting...would like to hear what you say....thanks....n/t

[MrBenchley]

34. So tell us, Koko

how DOES Hillary's fundraiser prevent you from voting?

[northzax]

53. gee, here I went to a $20/head fundraiser just last weekend

for the Democratic National Committee. Last summer, I went to a $25/head fundraiser hosted by Senator Obama for Tim Kaine's campaign in Virginia. And I'm sure that Senator Clinton has no-cost events in New York, you know the state she represents? Why should she spend money to travel to listen to people who can't vote for her?

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

2. How is this worthy of discussion?

Hell, this happens every day for just about every Senator and Conrgessman.

[KoKo]

6. It's worthy of discussion because it gives the wealthy and well connected

privileges that keep those who don't have "access" out of the House and Senate.

That's why we on the Left have to learn to compete from our little "coin jars."

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

17. Okay, are you going to report when the other 534 MCs do this too?

Or is it just Hillary that you find worthy of reporting on?

[KAZ]

31. You can't be serious.

Do you think $1K is representative of the influence they exert? Don't get me wrong, I'm right there for the jars, the bats, whatever, but our influence is fleeting.

IMHO, I'll take what we can get, as long as the candidate is fighting the good fight.

[MrBenchley]

14. It's just a hook to hang more mindless Hillary-bashing.....

by the "We Hate Democrats" caucus....

[KoKo]

27. I understand that you support Hillary, but can't you enter a discussion

about this without "personal attacks?" :shrug:

[MrBenchley]

33. Sez the guy who threw out the "Tom Delay" slur....

[KoKo]

36. They all do it.....is that your answer? What about fund raisers for the

little folks? When you have candidates who only dine with the wealthy for money then the end result is you get a Tom DeLay or a Newt Gingrinch and all that goes with that. You get Government run by lobbyists and special interests that isn't accountable to anyone except the elite. i.e. what we are dealing with now.

I don't believe that candidates should raise money outside their own states. I do believe that Parties should rely on donations to the Party to fund candidates. We already have the Democratic Congressional Committee, the Senate Campaign Committee than we can all donate to.

For some very high profile Senators and House Reps to be be going around the country collecting money from the most wealthy in states outside their own is Top Down Governing. I think it's wrong because of what it leads to and the lobbyists have used this opportunity to gain a foothole in writing our legislation instead of "We the People."

I've said this before on this thread....I will keep saying it. We need to get to the root of the problem or we will see a continuation of the corruption we are dealing with now and we wont have a country left.

[MrBenchley]

38. Yeah, you hate Hillary and you're looking for any excuse to bash her

I got that.

"For some very high profile Senators and House Reps to be be going around the country collecting money from the most wealthy in states outside their own is Top Down Governing."
No, it's called politics.

"I don't believe that candidates should raise money outside their own states."
Yeah, I saw how you speak out when we have all these "Send money to Christine Cegelis" and "Send money to Paul Hackett" threads...oh wait, you didn't say boo.

[KoKo]

39. But that's the difference. It's "We the People" sending the money to

candidates who aren't high profile and it's "We the People" who will have
access to them when they are elected. It's our only and last chance to make a difference with our "coin jar" donations.

$1,000 a plate dinners for Hillary, Kerry, Biden, Bayh or any other sitting Senator here in NC is very different from us "little folks" giving money to new candidates who will represent us and our "coin jars."

That's what I'm trying to tell you.

[MrBenchley]

41. So in other words out of state money for candidates is only okay

if and when you approve. Got it.

[KoKo]

44. It's the Dinners, Benchley. We aren't charging admission when we give

online. We aren't setting a price for admission to the candidate.

You still can't understand the difference?

[MrBenchley]

47. In other words, okay when you do it

not okay when Hillary does it.

And the only difference I can see is that nobody much wants to see the bozos you're backing.

[northzax]

51. why should she listen to you

or anyone else who's not a resident of the State of New York? Don't you have your own senators to worry about? I guarantee that a New York resident with $50 gets more attention than a NC resident with $1000 to give.

Do you know anything about Senator Clinton? You know she meets with New Yorkers all the time, right? and that she has the second largest staff for constituent service on the Hill? The only dealings I have had with her office were very professional, and I'm not a resident of New York.

[blm]

3. Clinton has tons of money with no opposing candidate. Has she been sharing

her donations with other Dems in tough 2006 races?

[KoKo]

7. You might know the answer to that better than I ...but I assume she's

collecting money that will also go to her "War Chest" for '08.

[flpoljunkie]

10. Interesting article on Leadership PACs and how much candidates give out.

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=10000103&sid=aoCwuhYo4wsI&refer=us

Besides Frist, McCain, Bayh and Clinton, the top 25 PACs include two others set up by senators who may run for president: Republican Chuck Hagel of Nebraska and Democrat John Kerry of Massachusetts.

Hagel, 59, donated 13 percent of the money he raised last year to federal candidates and committees, topping Clinton's 8.3 percent. Only Kerry, 62, the Democrats' presidential nominee in 2004, beat the average among the 25. Kerry's Keeping America's Promise PAC gave away 29 percent of the $2.2 million he raised last year to federal candidates and committees, his filing shows.

``He thinks that it's the most important thing that he can do after the 2004 elections,'' said Jenny Backus, a spokeswoman for Kerry's PAC.

<>Clinton focuses on two-year election cycles and plans to donate more to candidates this year, spokeswoman Ann Lewis said. Helped by PAC funds, the senator has attended state fundraisers and brought in more than $50 million for Democratic campaigns since 2000, Lewis said.

[KoKo]

11. On the surface this sounds good and worthwhile...but...it gives her and

others great power to pick and choose. Do they give it as "blind money" to all Democrats running or to ones they choose. Do they support candidates before they file or do they wait until they've filed.

Paul Hackert's situation comes to mind in that would he qualify for money from a Senate Dem who could give him funds if the Senator prefered him to Brown. Or vice versa if a Senator decided to support Brown over Hackert.

What are the rules about this? Is it sort of a nod and whisper as to who gets the funds...or is it "Blind" and wouldn't the money have a "string attached" even if it was blind with the Senator's ideological preference getting some notice by the Democratic Senatorial Committee or the House Congressional Commitee?

:shrug:

[flpoljunkie]

20. Article says they give money to candidates and committees alike. Assume

these donations are of their choosing.

[wisteria]

13. Good point! I could get rich betting on the outcome of the NY

Senate race. She is virtually unopposed. Who is she kidding, this is for 2008. IMO, people give to her thinking that somehow this is for Bill too. You know the 2for idea- back door Presidency.

[Freddie Stubbs]

15. Oh course she has

http://www.fecinfo.com/cgi-win/x_pacdonations.exe?DoFn=&CmteID=C00363994&sYR=06&DW=0

[blm]

18. That's a perspective that people need to assess.

.

[RufusEarl]

16. How about a $10.00 a plate dinner,

hell most the folks i know can't afford a grand to eat dinner!

[KoKo]

23. That sure would allow for more "Bottom Up" politic than the "Top Down"

we have these days. Who are these candidates going to listen to? The $1,000 a pop folks or the $10.00 a plate folks.

Frankly they should open their fundraisers up so that the average person does have some input. It would even things out quite a bit.

Have a 10, 50, 100, 500 and up fundraisers. Work a little harder to listen to the views who will be asked to vote for you. Instead the Big Donors get to set the agenda where the small voters barely pay the "postage" when they give their own money. Pool that money and put together a "Poor Peoples" PAC and then invite them to attend a cookout on local park grounds were everyone can come. Have them speak and take questions.

Sure would open things up a bit.

[Catchawave]

28. $25-$50 for grassroots sized affairs

including food and overhead, comes to about $10 for the war chest :)

[donheld]

19. Our side has to get their money from some where

We need the big bucks too.

[KharmaTrain]

21. How Else Are Campaigns Funded?

People bitch that Democrats don't do this and won't do that and don't have a spine and so on and so on...and there's a damn good reason...without any real power in the government they have very little to go on. The only way this is going to change is by winning elections and retaking both Houses...and this is going to take lots of manpower and money. It doesn't grow on trees, it doesn't fall into people's laps.

This year each House seat will cost at least $2 million and each Senate seat could cost as much as $50 million. One of the biggest, if not THE biggest expense is TV time. Without it, any candidate faces tremendous challenges in getting name recognition and surely will face a GOOP machine that, while financially winged, is still well financed (and has those self-financers some on here so detest). To win Ohio, Sherrod Brown will need to buy TV time heavily in Pittsburgh, Charleston, WV, Cincinnati, Cleveland and Columbus. To win in North Carolina, it's expensive to buy Raleigh/Durham, then Charolotte...and that doesn't cover the western part of the state where buys would have to be made in other states. Now is the time to get the money raised so ad rates can be locked in for the fall.

The major change in eliminating the fairness doctrine wasn't "equal time" (that was never part of what that law was about), it as regulating advertising rates. Previously, stations had to charge their lowest advertising rate to all politicians (thus the Sunday morning graveyard rate applied to ads shown on the 11pm newscast)...now that law is gone and unless a candidate locks up lots of time early, they'll get stuck paying up the ass later on.

I'm glad Hillary is willing to lend her name and drawing power to help a local party...especially in a Red state. The money will be very helpful. This is how the game is played...why put oneself at a severe disadvantage by getting on a high horse when you're in no position to do so. You know the Repugnicans won't think twice about pouring twice the amount of outside money into those districts.

If you want to discuss REAL campaign reform...eliminating the non-stop, full-time election industry, I'm all for it, but that comes AFTER you've got the power and the ability to make the changes, not before.

Cheers...

[Hardrada]

22. She will need it so she can lose the Iowa caucuses

more spectacularly. We don't need warmonger candidates. She shall not pass!

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

30. Hope It Works Out Well For Her.

Not sure what else to say.

[saltpoint]

32. Senator Clinton is allowed to appear at fundraiser dinners. / nt

[KoKo]

37. For those who can spend a Thousand a Pop....

So, tell me who will she care about the most in her Presidency? Who gets access to her for policy decisions? A retired schoolteacher who gave her $50. or someone who is able to go to many of these dinners where the $1,000. is the norm for getting access?

[MrBenchley]

42. So because you're cheap, you're sore that other people aren't?

[saltpoint]

48. Money talks. The U.S. is a capitalist country. I don't like the unfair

and unequal arrangements in power and influence any more than you do, but until we re-draft the economy as a socialist, economic democracy, instead of the current starve-the-naked economy of greed and power, there's no point singling out Sen. Clinton or anyone else for going through the steps.

Is there any presidential candidate of any party who doesn't do this to one extent or another?

[Catchawave]

40. Always the voice of reason Old Crusoe

:hug:

[saltpoint]

46. Hi to you, Catchawave... and nice to see you on DU...

and I send good vibes for the Webb campaign... looks like you're on board. Let's get some more Democrats in that damned Congress!

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

35. But..but..this is a democracy. Sure it is.

oligarchy (ŏl'əgärkē) , rule by a few members of a community or group. When referring to governments, the classical definition of oligarchy, as given for example by Aristotle, is of government by a few, usually the rich, for their own advantage. It is compared with both aristocracy, which is defined as government by a few chosen for their virtue and ruling for the general good, and various forms of democracy, or rule by the people. In practice, however, almost all governments, whatever their form, are run by a small minority of members. From this perspective, the major distinction between oligarchy and democracy is that in the latter, the elites compete with each other, gaining power by winning public support. The extent and type of barriers impeding those who attempt to join this ruling group is also significant.

[bleedingheart]

43. In her defense...Senator Clinton's office contacted me when I asked

her to appear at a fundraising dinner for our local democratic group.

They didn't immediately turn me down...they actually tried to accomodate it based on their schedule and could not.

I got a nice letter and was given the name of an individual to contact for future events.

Dennis Kucinich's office actually called me at my home to give his regrets.

They will come to small town dinners...and they also go to big time fundraisers...

[KoKo]

45. What were you going to charge for admission? Do you remember?

And, who have you had in the past?

[bleedingheart]

49. we were going to charge $25/ticket

that included dinner...we actually made most of our money from ads in the banquet's brochure...although I want to change that because it is hard to get people to place ads...I think the ticket price should be around $50 if dinner is provided or $30 for an appetizer/wine party..

In the past we have had Congressman Murtha and some state senators. (I have only been involved for the past 6 years and prior to the time I worked the dinner...they never attempted to bring in a national speaker...) ...this was for our local club's dinner...

Our county dinner..($30 a ticket) has been lucky enough to get Teresa Heinz Kerry and one of Robert Kennedy's kids...

It is really hard to do these kinds of events and I am quite sure that many of these elected officials get request for tons of groups.

I personally was very interested in having Clinton come and called her office two times to check on the status and they did not turn me down during those calls...all they said was that her schedule was still open (I was calling them 2-3 months in advance)..when I told them that they could be honest with me and just say no...they didn't do that...they said that her schedule is hard to put together...sometimes they just don't know until a few weeks before an event if they can do it...

In the end I had a state senator come and a supreme court candidate (here in PA they are elected)

[KoKo]

54. That's a fair price...but it's still wrong...even if it's good for your

group... There should be another way for high profile Dem stars to come to states and yet not "eclipse" those who might be candidates, if the money it brings in...tends to favor the "stars" who collected it.

I still stand by what I said, though. Get this Big Money out of politics and let Hillary, Spector and the rest talk to their own people in the states they run in.

When Dems need to rely on Rock Stars to pull in money then it's like the Repugs who rake in the dough every time Rove, Gingrich, Limbaugh, or DeLay speaks.

This isn't what it was supposed to be about. But, I'm a Populist...and I do believe in Sovereign States Rights...because our Constitution knew that the STATES would be an alternative if our Government ran amok like a rogue Elephant. I think these times have come. Let the people in their individual states decide who they support without "outside" influence. Whether it's Repug or Dem. Let's no hang our hopes on "SuperStars" who bring in the crowds and the bucks.

Let the folks who have nothing have a voice in Government...that's what I'm trying to say.

[bridgit]

50. good, sure, why not....

[The Straight Story]

52. What, no one is complaining about Rev. Claude?

Got to watch out for them evil christian folks meeting with candidates :)