Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

KoKo

(84,711 posts)
Mon Apr 18, 2016, 08:41 PM Apr 2016

How Hillary Clinton Bought the Loyalty of 33 State Democratic Parties


How Hillary Clinton Bought the Loyalty of 33 State Democratic Parties
April 1, 2016
by Margot Kidder

Collusion between the Clinton campaign and the DNC allowed Hillary Clinton to buy the loyalty of 33 state Democratic parties last summer. Montana was one of those states. It sold itself for $64,100.

The Super Delegates now defying democracy with their insistent refusal to change their votes to Sanders in spite of a handful of overwhelming Clinton primary losses in their own states, were arguably part of that deal.


In August 2015, at the Democratic Party convention in Minneapolis, 33 democratic state parties made deals with the Hillary Clinton campaign and a joint fundraising entity called The Hillary Victory Fund. The deal allowed many of her core billionaire and inner circle individual donors to run the maximum amounts of money allowed through those state parties to the Hillary Victory Fund in New York and the DNC in Washington.

The idea was to increase how much one could personally donate to Hillary by taking advantage of the Supreme Court ruling 2014, McCutcheon v FEC, that knocked down a cap on aggregate limits as to how much a donor could give to a federal campaign in a year. It thus eliminated the ceiling on amounts spent by a single donor to a presidential candidate.

In other words, a single donor, by giving $10,000 a year to each signatory state could legally give an extra $330,000 a year for two years to the Hillary Victory Fund. For each donor, this raised their individual legal cap on the Presidential campaign to $660,000 if given in both 2015 and 2016. And to one million, three hundred and 20 thousand dollars if an equal amount were also donated in their spouse’s name.

From these large amounts of money being transferred from state coffers to the Hillary Victory Fund in Washington, the Clinton campaign got the first $2,700, the DNC was to get the next $33,400, and the remainder was to be split among the 33 signatory states. With this scheme, the Hillary Victory Fund raised over $26 million for the Clinton Campaign by the end of 2015.

The money was either transferred to the Hillary for America or Forward Hillary PACs and spent directly on the Hillary Clinton Campaign, often paying the salaries and expenses within those groups, or it was moved into the DNC or another Clinton PAC. Some of it was spent towards managing the Hillary merchandise store, where you can buy Hillary T shirts and hats and buttons.


The fund is administered by treasurer Elizabeth Jones, the Clinton Campaign’s chief operating officer. Ms. Jones has the exclusive right to decide when transfers of money to and from the Hillary Victory Fund would be made to the state parties.

One could reasonably infer that the tacit agreement between the signatories was that the state parties and the Hillary Clinton Campaign would act in unity and mutual support. And that the Super Delegates of these various partner states would either pledge loyalty to Clinton, or, at the least, not endorse Senator Sanders. Not only did Hillary’s multi-millionaire and billionaire supporters get to bypass individual campaign donation limits to state parties by using several state parties apparatus, but the Clinton campaign got the added bonus of buying that state’s Super Delegates with the promise of contributions to that Democratic organization’s re-election fund.

If a presidential campaign from either party can convince various state parties to partner with it in such a way as to route around any existing rules on personal donor limits and at the same time promise money to that state’s potential candidates, then the deal can be sold as a way of making large monetary promises to candidates and Super Delegates respectable.

Continued ...Buying of the Dem Delegates at:

http://www.counterpunch.org/2016/04/01/how-hillary-clinton-bought-the-loyalty-of-33-state-democratic-parties/

9 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies

thelordofhell

(4,569 posts)
2. A report from the intrepid Lois Lane published on April Fool's Day.......
Mon Apr 18, 2016, 09:10 PM
Apr 2016

And people still fall for it.........

zalinda

(5,621 posts)
3. The reason people fall for it
Mon Apr 18, 2016, 09:54 PM
Apr 2016

is because it sounds true. The vast majority of people don't think anything is beyond DWS and Hillary Clinton.

Z

concreteblue

(626 posts)
4. Nothing IS beyond DWS/Clinton campaign.
Tue Apr 19, 2016, 12:53 AM
Apr 2016

There is simply no bottom to their slime barrel. DWS supported Republicans and has sold the party to big money interest. Clinton's campaign has lied so much and outright made up shit about Senator Sanders that it is VERY apparent that this is true.
Also. Counterpunch is NOT a satire sire, even on April 1st.

cprise

(8,445 posts)
5. A nice big corporate PAC money trough for "downstream" candidates
Tue Apr 19, 2016, 01:12 AM
Apr 2016

"Downstream" being a perfect term for an oligarch party that can run a passable Presidential campaign -- and nothing else. Grassroots are deemed a threat... irredeemably "other".

I'd like to know how buying state and local races with fatcat funds is going to rid politics of its big money bosses. All the DNC Clintonites know how to do is plant more crops of failed candidates who are conditioned to rely on oligarch money.

Gothmog

(145,265 posts)
9. Sanders is being selfish and is refusing to help state parties and that is a good thing?
Fri Apr 22, 2016, 03:38 PM
Apr 2016

Super delegates get to consider who is best for the party including which candidate is really a member of the Democratic Party and which candidate is raising money for other candidates, committees and parties. Sanders is being selfish and is refusing to raise money for anyone else and super delegates will that that selfishness into account

Latest Discussions»Issue Forums»Editorials & Other Articles»How Hillary Clinton Bough...