And this is not negotiable.

Apr 17, 2015 9:37 AM EDT
By Jeanne Cummings

"I'm in," said lobbyist Heather Podesta in an email blast to friends and associates urging them to contribute to Hillary Clinton's presidential campaign.

Podesta won't be alone. Lobbyists Steve Elmendorf, an adviser to Clinton's 2008 campaign, and Scott Pastrick, a veteran of President Bill Clinton's 1992 victory, are also back in action after the Clinton campaign sent word this week that it's abandoning President Barack Obama's policy of refusing campaign checks from lobbyists.

The creation of largely unregulated nonprofit political groups and super-PACs, along with Obama's unprecedented success with small donors, enabled him to bypass a previously vital source of funds -- the bundling of campaign contributions by lobbyists. Some lobbyists were able to make their presence felt in other ways -- via donations to the campaign from family members, for example. But lobbyist ranks include many former Democratic White House and Capitol Hill aides, for whom the president's ban chafed. Excluding lobbyists from peak fundraising also meant shutting them out of valuable perks that top bundlers received, such as private briefings from senior campaign aides or a prestigious ambassadorship.

Clinton campaign bundlers are being asked to raise no more than $27,000 each in the next month. That effectively means collecting just 10 checks of $2,700 (the federal maximum for a campaign per election) to achieve the status of a "Hillstarter." The campaign hasn't indicated whether it will set higher targets or designate additional classes of bundlers later in the election -- though both seem likely.

more...

http://www.bloombergview.com/articles/2015-04-17/clinton-brings-lobbyists-in-from-the-cold

by the bank$ter$, other big money and the MIC.

And anyone who thinks otherwise is only fooling him/herself.

..for her campaign...

However, many other countries can contribute to her campaign.

It is illegal for foreign countries or individuals to contribute to federal campaigns. Now it may be a distinction without a difference but it is there.

Republicans sure don't want campaign finance reform or a return of the Fairness Doctrine.

You have to work within the present system to can change it. You have to find a way in before you can change it.

...by keep electing Democrats that vote with these Republicans.

The institutional Democratic Party was deliberately sold, piece by piece, to the moneyed interests that simply could not abide the religulous lunatics. And it was sold by the DLC, the Clintons, and now the Turd Way crowd. The Democratic Party we grew up with is deader than Dillinger these days.

Bernie Sanders is saying nothing that Hubert Humphrey, RFK, LBJ or FDR wouldn't be saying today and he is viewed, even by many here at DU as the lunatic fringe. How far we have fallen.

Obama fumbled the progressive ball. Hillary would hand it to the corporations. The progressives have no candidate...

No you don't. Historically other methods have worked ...

but it's time for the National Razor to start shaving some plutocrats and their owned enablers.

but I got a large charge out of your post! It just cracked me up, although I hope it doesn't take lopping off heads to straighten out the mess this country is in. It will take a long time to clean up, but it has taken thirty years to get this way. I think most of the problems we are dealing with go back to Reagan and his crew of assholes, too many of whom are still around... just look at Jeb Bush's team.

already been done. If the present leaders got to see some heads roll because of war crimes etc I think they would start mending their ways. But if Lynch is no different than Holder I do not look for that to happen.

I for one do not think we are going to have a real armed revolution. Why? Well we are against the death penalty. We do not believe in killing. We think that we can talk our way out of our problems. I just can't see that attitude leading to a revolution.

Fortunately Bernie is calling for a political revolution and I am ready to follow him. Lead the way Bernie.

He's certainly the last person standing who preaches the same gospel as the sadly missed Ted Kennedy.

in his state to keep him in the Senate. IMO there are none others like him.

Yet, nothing happened.

And also why I voted for Bill Clinton in 1992 and 1996.

Then, too, nothing happened.

I'm starting to notice a pattern.

You'd have to be blind, deaf, and or willfully ignorant not to notice.

Sure we get to "choose" between 2 hand-picked (by the establishment) candidates. Whoopee!

Most of us turn up anyway and pick the least objectionable of the 2, but I can't think this will continue much longer.

Full disclosure: I was juror #6. SMH at this alert.



AUTOMATED MESSAGE: Results of your Jury Service

Mail Message
On Sat Apr 18, 2015, 02:16 PM an alert was sent on the following post:

I cannot view the Democratic Party as serious until...
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10026528511

REASON FOR ALERT

This post is disruptive, hurtful, rude, insensitive, over-the-top, or otherwise inappropriate.

ALERTER'S COMMENTS

This is democratic underground no? These post are becoming more numerous and are a blatant violation of the goal of this website to elect democrats.

You served on a randomly-selected Jury of DU members which reviewed this post. The review was completed at Sat Apr 18, 2015, 02:20 PM, and the Jury voted 0-7 to LEAVE IT.

Juror #1 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: It is the person who wrote this alert that concerns me,
a great deal. THINK about what you're suggesting and THINK
about the words this long time poster in excellent standing
has said in his OP. If you come to the conclusion that this
OP and these words should be hidden, we as a party are
doomed. LEAVE IT.
Juror #2 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: I completely agree with the OP. Blind party loyalty is for slaves and fools.
Juror #3 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: I didn't know that Democrats discussing their party is against the TOS. Silly alert.
Juror #4 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: The goal of this website is to "elect Democrats?" Not to discuss policy and political issues? Has there been a DNC coup around here that nobody told me about? If this post is a violation of TOS I'm in the wrong place.
Juror #5 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: Why hide a decent post?
Juror #6 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: The third way may not like it, but he's right.
Juror #7 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: WTF? Why the heck was this alerted on?

Thank you very much for participating in our Jury system, and we hope you will be able to participate again in the future.

Last edited Sat Apr 18, 2015, 04:27 PM - Edit history (1)

Hard to believe, but this was alerted on.

We have a very vocal minority, and they can be very annoying

for supporting a principle. I think it is disturbing to us sometimes when we discover how some of our fellow Democrats are thinking?

And, that discussing the party that I belong to is not just a good idea but a necessity when the party goes astray.

The Party can never be bigger than the principles for which it must stand. It is a necessity to speak up. We are lucky that DU is still hanging on...

who are already sharpening their knives and icepicks.

Anyone who threatens the status of their Anointed One must be targeted for revocation.

That's the *message* I'm getting, and I'm a Bernie Sanders supporter, and I'm just waiting for him. If not, then I'll just hold my nose and vote for Clinton and expect the status quo. Republicans will be able to narrowly sustain the House, but lose the Senate, if Hillary is the Democratic nominee.

If Bernie is the Democratic nominee, then progressives will jump in, and rout nearly every single Republican in power because Bernie will need a progressive Senate and House to engage on progressive issues instead of the same dead issues that America has been dealing with since 2000.

For saying that I will never vote for her.

Funny as hell.

and you love Margaret Thatcher and Ronald Reagan so much, is it any wonder people would question what you are doing here?

I've been here from 2001 and have become enured to it.

you have to break a few eggs. If you are not ready to break a few eggs, forget about that omelette.

You can not get to where you want by doing what you suggest. It is necessary to control the system to change it, unless you want to dump the whole system.

I don't agree with you that it is "necessary to control the system to change it". If that were the case, we would never have any change. Should we think for ourselves or should we let some oligarch politicians tell us what we should think? The power is with the people. They may have to search far and wide and for a very long time, but eventually they will find the truth.

How do you appoint judges without controling the White House.

How do you take a corporaton to court without controling the Justice Department.

just can't seem to grasp that the President isn't a King. Also, not having any DC/Beltway connections made his first term difficult...yet he was roundly criticized. Now, without an election upcoming, he's able to start accomplishing those promises denied earlier by the venom in Congress.

Also, how do you get corporate money out of Winning Politics without repealing Citizen's United?

advantage. If so, then managing to funnel the most money to certain canidates provides an advantage.

Not that having more money doesn't help. However, we shouldn't always treat correlation as causation. There are plenty of people who are only interested in currying favor, so they're going to donate to people who are ahead (or look at people who donate to individuals who are unopposed!). Likewise, if some fringe candidate is running against an incumbent, they're likely to get almost no money.

politics. Secod to that would be having a left majority on SCOTUS. With the current fascist five most campaign regulations won't withstand their ruling.

they just haven't actually done anything about it. If there's been one thing there's no shortage of, it's lip service.

Of course, due to gerrymandering, GOP will control the house for at least a decade.

If it's "on top of her priorities".

Who is forcing her to accept money she doesn't want?

If she or any other Dem doesn't win, any meaningful reform goes bye bye.

Sometimes you have to play by their rules to beat them at their own game.

If we know this, the Democratic Party and every Democratic office holder knows it. Yet, not a peep is heard.

shows how every election gets more important .

Or do you think outlawing these "communication giants" would be compatible with it, or be viewed as such by the SCOTUS?

as opposed to being an actual Democrat.