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.
Super delagatess need reelection cash too. My back itches.
JT will be happy when you all vote Republican.
The other component of the 1% is George Soros.
There’s no mistaking who Soros is backing.
I am a one percenter. I want whomever the Koch Brothers want. I am not sure who that is yet. Jeb, I think.
Karen
Absolutely agree about the money. Fix that and undo the sick gerrymandering and we might have a shot.
John,
Thanks for posting the same thing over and over, day after day. Now that I’ve seen that you don’t have any new ideas, I can skip right over your copy&paste screeds.
phillyT – please draw a district map for your state that you feel is not gerrymanded and post it. Love to see your solution to the problem.
Karen S,
So you prefer arbitrary dictatorship as opposed to freedom?
Does that make sense to you? “Get all Big Money out of politics…” Michael Bloomberg, Donald Trump, etc., can’t pay their own campaign costs?
What shall we do? Listen to poor people with no money? Did you read this one:
“the people are nothing but a great beast…
I have learned to hold popular opinion of no value.”
Alexander Hamilton
That’s what I want to do; take advice and orders from poor people. Ya know, there’s a reason they’re poor. Have you read 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.”
The Founders didn’t even intend for poor people, the “working masses,” to vote – they imposed criteria to be applied to the vote in their restricted-vote republic, which was required for the republic and the American founding documents to work.
Freedom produces efficiency. Free markets produce the best products and the lowest prices. Free constituencies produce the best candidates.
If you agree with freedom, you have to accept the outcome of freedom.
P.S. The saving grace is that terms last only 4 years.
Get all Big Money out of politics – including Wall Street, Big Business, Big Oil, AND Big Unions. It’s all the same – buying influence.
Politics as usual. If we keep voting for business as usual, we’ll keep getting business as usual, and shouldn’t complain.
“the people are nothing but a great beast…
I have learned to hold popular opinion of no value.”
Alexander Hamilton
Democrazy, not republicanism, created this electoral Frankenstein-cum-communism. It’s nonsensical to limit political contributions while billionaires contribute to themselves as candidates.
People must accept the outcome of freedom. People must accept the outcome of freedom.
Let’s go back to the beginning. Ben Franklin said that we gave you “a republic, if you can keep it.”
Ben Franklin’s was a restricted-vote republic with voters required to be Male, European, 21 with 50lbs. Sterling or 50 acres. The vote was eminently important in the minds of the Founders. Good, moral, educated and qualified voters were essential to the new American “republic.”
The “republic,” which America could not keep, was distinctly not a “one man, one vote” democrazy.
The Founders feared a vote of the “working masses” and rightly so.
“Democracy” dilutes the vote so that the vote might be manipulated.
To Mr. Franklin, representative governance began in the home with the man’s vote representing the family.
The incoherent 19th amendment simply cancels the head-of-family’s vote or allows the vote of “unmarried” and abnormal people.
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.”
The Founders established small, severely restricted and limited government to facilitate freedom and free enterprise without interference by government. They never conceived of voting by the masses, welfare, redistribution or entitlements. That was dreamed up by Karl Marx, 60 years later.
“…A REPUBLIC, IF YOU CAN KEEP IT.”
Oops.
And politicians wonder why voters are disillusioned and angry. Wasserman-Schultz is appalling and her support of HRC is equally disgusting. Obama has a lot to answer for. What an enourmouse disappointment.
GO BERNIE!
Here comes the kitchen sink. It is just the beginning of many, I expect.
The DNC and DWS (Ms Wasserman-Shultz) are as tone deaf as can be.
And even though Democrats got more than a million votes more than the Republicans in the last election, they could not overcome the well-run bottom up organization of the Republicans, which has managed to gerrymander the living hell out of most states.
The old saw is a true as ever:
Democrats want to fall in love, and Republicans want to fall in line. Granted this year’s Republicans might want to be in a line to stone immigrants, poor people and minorities, but a line nonetheless.
All the Dems who ran away from President Obama in the last election went down in defeat. I’m talking about you Alison Grimes! If you think the Dems are going to get off the couch for THAT, you seriously don’t have a clue.
Lobbyists paid off Congress to promote endless war and not prosecute bankers after they destroyed the economy. The policies of Obama and Clinton are the policies of Wall Street and the military industrial complex. Bernie Sanders is able to offer an alternative vision of society because he has not been corrupted.
Hey, get the low information voters to pay attention to the source(s) and amount(s) of money and before you know it they won’t even care who is being bought and for what. So go ahead and bitch, moan and complain about how CU has corrupted our political process. Because while you are pointing fingers at the 5 on SCOTUS, the actual unethical and in many cases, unconstitutional behavior is committed by the politicians that are for sale.
Americans recognize that the Washington culture is both cynical and mendacious.
Any wonder that we are saying “Basta” to the Washington establishment?
I think JT is more concerned about the hypocrisy of the DNC and its power players.
And the world wonders why people are turning to Sanders and Trump. The jig is up on all the professional politicians and I personally hope more and more American outsiders run for office. Millions spent for election to jobs that pay a fraction of that and they con us into believing its about dedication to America, yea right.
Bernie blew Hillary out of the water last night on the PBS debate. Not only were his ideas more coherent, his speech more fluid, and his emphasis more meaningful, but his physical appearance was more natural, more appealing, and healthier looking than hers.
WTF?
Odd story coming from Turley. He is, of course, on record as approving of Citizen’s United.
Unless I’ve really been asleep, Bernie Sanders doesn’t accept corporate bribes, ahem money. The “gang of 5” traitors on the un-Supreme Court has “blessed it”, falling right in line with their corporate/plutocratic/federalist masters.
Easy to criticize this move, but none of the candidates have refused corporate money and last time we checked the Supreme Court blessed it.