The Democratic National Committee has long been criticized as being overtly biased toward the Clinton campaign, particularly Democratic Chair Debbie Wasserman-Shultz. First there was the scheduling of debates when no one was watching and refusing more debates in what was universally viewed as a move to help Clinton. Then, when Clinton lost her lead in the polls, the DNC suddenly scheduled more debates at primetime hours. Now, with Sanders setting records for donations from ordinary voters, the media is reporting that the DNC rolled back restrictions introduced by presidential candidate Barack Obama in 2008 that banned donations from federal lobbyists and political action committees. While it is not clear when this was done, the relative secrecy about the change on such a major campaign issue is pretty shocking. The Washington Post broke the story today. The issue of such contributions was only addressed in one substantive question by the moderators last night in the PBS debate. Many were surprised that neither moderator asked Clinton whether she would release the transcripts of the speeches in light of growing demands to see what she told Wall Street and banking groups.
The Washington Post is reporting “the change in the rules, already apparent to leading Washington lobbyists, was quietly introduced at some point during the past couple of months.” Good government groups have denounced the change, which obviously contradicts everything that Clinton has been saying and Democrats have been saying about cleaning up campaign contribution rules and corporate influence. Yet, news organizations have reported that Clinton was in favor of the rule change.
Famous reform advocate Fred Wertheimer noted that, as the public is clearly resonating with Sanders’ call against such contributions and corporate influence, the DNC is moving in the opposite direct and appears “completely out of touch.”
The move, which was not disclosed until today despite months of this being an issue in the campaign, will obviously fuel those who the system is inherently dishonest and corrupt. The disconnect between what candidates and party officials are saying and what they are doing is astonishing. We still are not having a substantive discussion of the constitutional issues over political speech after Citizens United. Many free speech advocates supported the decision due to the concerns over the government choosing between protected and unprotected speech. Absent a change in the Supreme Court on the issue, the other option is a constitutional amendment that would bar any campaign contributions by corporate entities, including non-for-profit organizations. As the level of mistrust of the establishment grows with stories like this one, such an option may become more attractive for citizens.
37 thoughts on “DNC Rolls Back Rule To Allow Presidential Campaigns To Accept More Money From Federal Lobbyists and PACS”
I don’t care, if Bernie received the Party popular vote he wins.
If they still hand it over to Hillary I’ll vote Trump.
Course I’d rather stay home.
My only battle cry this election is – No more Bush No more Clinton.
Here ya go:
Philly T. – Never heard the one about Hillary’s alien babies. But she may have rescued babies and toddlers from the tarmac as she dodged the snipers’ bullets in Bosnia.
I thought the embassy was where Hillary hid her alien babies. The truth is out there. Way out there.
I heard this in a bar at DuPont Circle last night. It is about the Hillary emails. The main email in question was released by Trey Wingo. Hillary emailed her daughter to not attend some event at some mid eastern embassy in DC. A congressional staff member had been given a tour of the embassy and observed the following in the kitchen. Some “asian or chinese” workers threw some live rats into a large pot. When cooked they removed the skin and bones but threw the meat and guts into another pot with vegetables and served the dish as “Ramidan Stew”. Hillary advised Chelse not to go to dinner at that particular embassy in Washington DC. This email was later tagged as “top secret”.
PA is not much different from Ohio, which only ever has a few districts up for grabs:
Thanks for your post.
A very good scholarly article on redistricting:
There are several good rules for redistricting, including: compactness, contiguity, equal population, preservation of existing political communities, partisan fairness, racial fairness and so on. I think the best chance we have for fair redistricting is the citizen committee, and they should not be allowed to see or use political affiliation distribution maps in their processes.
John “Alexander Fraser Tytler –
“A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until the people discover they can vote themselves largess out of the public treasury. From that moment on, the majority always votes for the candidate promising the most benefits from the public treasury, with the result that democracy always collapses over a loose fiscal policy–to be followed by a dictatorship.”
Great quote. I don’t know if he was rich but he sure was smart as were many of the founding persons. Very very intelligent people. We sorely need intelligent leadership like that today.
John “That’s what I want to do; take advice and orders from poor people. Ya know, there’s a reason they’re poor.”
Well they’re poor because they either don’t know how to produce wealth, they don’t know how to keep wealth, they’ve taken a vow (officially or not) of poverty. Look around. There are not many people capable (I mean that in the purest sense of the word) of producing wealth and rather than learn how to produce wealth many just fall into fits of jealousy. Many who DO produce wealth have other serious issues. They may not know how to produce harmonious relationships or glowing health. It may be even rarer (less than 1%) who are healthy, wealthy, and happy. Of those rare individuals how many even want to run for public office?
So to denigrate someone as unworthy as in “If you’re so smart why aren’t you rich?” is a wee bit narrow minded.
JT is in favor of this one cause he is in favor of Citizens United. All the citizens are united in favor of Trump.
Paul and Philly
Here are Iowa’s congressional districts:
That looks a lot better than:
PA looks like a bunch of amoebas.
It is time to block phillyT for violations of the civility rule.
phillyT’s posts are abuse lacking reasonable argument.
phillyT’s repeated and incessant personal, ad hominem attacks against other commenters. He has nothing to contribute other than invective.
Although JT is a credit to his rank and station in society, he, like other 1%ers, knows that whether clinton or trump wins (“wins”) the election, their interests will be well-protected, and surely bernie has been shown the Zapruder film – to remind him of the limits imposed on a President of The United Snakes of Uhmurrica.
JT and the ratpack here who work for him censor out and delete comments and thence commentors who disagree with JT. Bye bye Miss American Pie.
BarkinDog says to eat itShay too.
And if you’re really just that lazy you can start here:
You are indeed one of the laziest posters ever on this board. Too lazy to google “redistricting plans” or gerrymandering alternatives or, god forbid, think of one yourself and look it up.
There are actually 5-10 great alternatives to gerrymandering, one of the top one being non-partisan citizen boards who, it turns out, are quite capable of getting this right.
Here’s how Republicans steal elections
phillyT – you are the one who is p**sing and moaning about redistricting. I want to see YOUR plan. YOUR solution. I am well aware of what is out there. My state has a supposed non-partisan board that redistricts. It has been until the last one. The Democrats snuck a Democrat in as an Independent. I am aware of what the Democrats have been able to do in the states they control. And what the Republicans can do in the states they control.
Still, phillyT, put up or shut up. Show us your redistricting plan for your state.
Comments are closed.