They can't keep any leftover funds for themselves so they just move it to another campaign.

I just wish all of them would stop picking on each other, and especially get off their high horses of purity over how others raise campaign funds. As long as all contributions are raised and reported properly, I see no reason why any candidate should tie one hand behind his/her back and disdain any legal source of funding just in order to project an aura of I'm-a-person-of-the-people-and-I-reject-your-filthy-rich-person-lucre which is bullshit anyhow. And don't imply that a candidate who accepts contributions from wealthy people is corrupt or corruptible (even the wealthiest donors are limited to $2800, just like you and me).

As long as we have a stupid election system that depends on tons of money for advertising, candidates need to be able to compete with the GOP, which doesn't even pretend to have scruples. Don't bring a spork to a knife fight.

Really, he's a Harvard grad and he didn't do more homework on this?

I'm liking Pete less and leas, TBH. She raised the money based on her beliefs which have not changed. Nobody lied, nobody died...

C'mon Pete, don't do this...

from her Senate campaign were raised from wealthy donors at traditional fundraisers, not that the rollover was itself improper. Fair point; she was busting on him for the equally-legal fundraiser he had. My point is that candidates shouldn't be criticizing each other for legal fundraising methods, as Amy Klobuchar quite properly pointed out.

Rather like the bank robber who moves their ill-gotten gains to offshore accounts, then chides others for robbing a bank.

....for something she herself has done in the past was wrong.

As they say, "let he (she) who is without sin cast the first stone."

what big money is controlling her?

Really, think about it. What big donor would support what she is doing when it is against his/her own self interest to do so?

even if they might end up paying higher taxes. "A review of the 20 richest Americans, as listed by Forbes Magazine, found that 60 percent affiliate with the Democratic Party, including the top three individuals: Bill Gates, Warren Buffett and Larry Ellison. Among the richest families, the Democratic advantage rises even higher, to 75 percent." https://www.debt.org/faqs/americans-in-debt/economic-demographics-democrats/ Clearly, it's not correct to assume that holding a fund-raiser aimed at the wealthy is pointless, based on the false assumption that all wealthy people are conservative, or that wealthy Democrats don't exist. They aren't; they do; and they donate to Democrats. Warren Buffett has stated publicly that he believed it was wrong that rich people like himself could pay less in federal taxes, as a portion of income, than the middle class, and voiced support for increased income taxes on the wealthy.

Warren.

They're Democrats. They donate to Democrats because they want to get one elected - maybe Warren, maybe someone else. I don't know whether Warren Buffett, who thinks he should pay more taxes, specifically supports Warren. But he evidently believes he shouldn't pay less taxes, which puts him at odds with the GOP. He might be donating to all of them.

Don't get me wrong; I like Warren and if she gets the nomination I will support her enthusiastically. But these economic purity tests are pointless and don't serve anyone. If Warren Buffett offers to hold a fund-raiser for her she should accept the offer.

Even if they have no prayer of winning just so they can spend from their campaign finance accounts. That’s likely what DiBlasio was doing — he had money left from his last mayoral run.

Because it'll come back in the general election.

Plus, really, we're all going to choose a candidate because of what's GOOD about him/her, not what's bad about everyone else. Instead of debates, I wish there would just be townhalls where each candidate made a case-- why I'd be a good president, and what I want to do for America.

No arguing, no insulting.

I'm already sick of these debates, and it's not even election year yet.

I'm pretty sure that wasn't Pete's point.

But I think it fell flat.

but he made an excellent point with that rejoinder. And the look on Warren’s face said she was embarrassed that he had called her out.

You can't go after someone for having a fundraiser in a wine cave or whatever they call it when you yourself not too long ago did the same. It's the epitome of hypocrisy.

$5000, $2500, $1000!

but it sure as hell is hypocritical to raise funds in the very same way he did, transfer those funds to your presidential campaign giving yourself a $10 million head start, and then complain because he raised funds in the same way.

Just curious - some seem to be portraying these types of fundraisers as typical or even traditional - but others say that Obama held them too. And then others chime in with yes but not as much.

Anyone know?

Warren has given $10.5M from her Senate Committee.
Sanders has given himself $8.1M from his Senate Committee and $4.6M from his last Presidential Committee, a total of $12.7M.
Booker has given $3.6M from his Senate Committee.

I haven't checked any other candidates' filings, but it's not uncommon to do so, maybe just not the order of magnitude that Sanders and Warren have done, i.e., >$10M.

At the crux of this issue after the Thursday debate is that Warren criticized Buttigieg for his lavish "wine cave" fundraiser while during her Senate campaign she held at least one equally lavish fundraiser, perhaps more. Then she rolled the proceeds of that fundraiser, in part, into her presidential campaign.

She just should have let it go - he did nothing illegal and did nothing that she hasn't done in the past. She came out of it looking very bad.

for his/her fundraising methods, even those that were accomplished by legal means and properly reported, the criticizer is tacitly implying that the other candidate is corruptible, if not corrupt. But there are many wealthy Democrats who might be happy to help your candidate get elected, so why turn down their money? Do we have to assume that all candidates are corruptible? I'd hate to think that of any of the people on that stage the other night, and I don't.

I agree 100% that there is too much money in political campaigns, most of which goes into the black hole of advertising. I would like to see an end to "bundling" - I think donations should go directly from the individual to the campaign and reported as such. I also think that multiple donations of any amount up to the maximum of $2700 from one person should be aggregated and counted as a single donation even if made in increments. That would prevent candidates from claiming multiple donations where in reality it was just one person stretching their total contribution over time to make it look like the candidate was getting more donations (and thus, by implication, is more popular). So, if Joe Schmoe gives $3 every hour until he reaches the maximum, that's one donation and not 900 donations. If a candidate does this he/she is bullshitting us.

Super PACs are a thing because of Citizens United, so unless/until that case is overruled we're stuck with it. OK, then, let's use it. Use every single legal method available, and fuck purity. You might argue that by using unsavory (if legal) fundraising methods we are condoning and accepting them. Maybe so, but if you can't get elected because the GOP, which cares nothing about unsavory things, has outspent and defeated you, you won't accomplish jack-shit.

Her attacks look hypocritical, when she raised funds in precisely the same way.

Worse, these kind of attacks are bad for the party.

We have a common foe to beat in 2020. Getting derailed by petty personal attacks and purity tests that an accuser doesn't pass herself is damaging to all.

For fuck's sake!

This is not the path to victory.

We're the only party asking these questions because it is central to our message about big money in politics.

In fact we would be remiss if we DIDN'T ask these kinds of questions.

The answers might blow back on many, including Sen. Warren.

This stuff is not helpful to our party. And definitely not helpful to Warren's campaign, given her fundraising past.

I can't belive she embraced this path. Bad move.

Warren is a rock star in our party. I doubt there are many Democrats who don't admire her. I certainly do. But this is not a good look.

I'm not sure threads at DU help any candidate.

I just hope they don't hurt.

that you have done yourself.

then used the money raised for your presidential campaign.