Hillary rejects Larry Flint donation

One new donor the Clinton camp rejected, though, was Hustler founder Larry Flynt, who had his $1,000 check sent back.

Lewis said the reason was "campaign standards."

Flynt, a vocal supporter of the Clintons during the Monica Lewinsky scandal, was miffed by the rebuff.

"I was shocked," said Flynt, who said he also had a check rejected by the Democratic National Committee. "How are you going to get people to vote for you, if you won't even take their contributions? They gotta come off all pious," he said, adding Republicans never returned his money.


What do you guys think about it?

I think she made the right decision, accepting the donation would have given the rightwingers a tool to attack her.
Link

donate to them anonymously.

I think her rejection of the money is mean spirited. Larry Flynt wrote (or had someone write) an excellent political book. If what he is doing is not protected by the First Amendment or otherwise against the law, then he should be prosecuted for it. If what he is doing is legal, his donations should be treated like anyone else's.

reject some donations. If Flynt wants to "express himself" by insisting that someone accept his money, surely a politician has the right to "express herself" that she does not want it, and that is at least as great as his right. He is of course free to find another candidate who will accept his contributions, and he can vote against anyone who refuses them. It appears to me that what she did IS treat his donations like anyone else's--that she can pick and choose not to accept anyone's, on any basis.

Other politicians, such as John Edwards, have refused to take certain types of corporate contributions (e.g., from Washington lobbyists) in order to behave in ways that are consistent with philosophies they have professed to voters.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

my words would be a bit more "colorful". :hi:

and the conniving Lucretia Borgia of the Democratic Party that sees no wrong in selling herself to corporations but finds fault in the contributions of a soft porn magazine publisher.

She is no friend of ours for she is, like Biden, an apologetic supporter of Bush's war crimes in Iraq.

I've always understood "Hustler" to be one of the most graphic porn mags out there. Not being a porn mag aficionado, perhaps I'm wrong.

That is the only part of your statement that I have to argue with... otherwise, what you said is dead on.

which is demeaning at the very least. Hillary is right to
reject Flynt donation. My respect for Hillary went up another
notch.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

And, no, it's not just for his mag. Although.....

I do think Hill did the right thing though. Perception can be a killer in this political climate.

Larry may be a little unconventional but his cash still says "in god we trust". Cant be any wore than cash from Fallwell! At leat Larry is honest about it. Which candidate would you support? One who recieved donations from Flint, or Fallwell?

Tell you what, if heaven is filled with people like Fallwell, Dobsin, Robertson, et all, I'll take my chances in hell.
B. Gill

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

they are gonna attack her no mather what. Maybe she should take the money but then again, its a hard choice.

There must be a paper trail for every last cent. You can't prove compliance with FEC regulations with a Hefty bag full of cash. I sort of thought Larry Flynt was smarter than that - that he knew what the deal was concerning his business and politicians - unless he deliberately wanted to make Hillary out to be some kind of snob.

to was Dennis Kucinich!

http://www.newsmeat.com/media_political_donations/Larry_Flynt.php

Its correct about Kucinich, but it makes it look like Bill Clinton got $20K from Flynt. In fact, Flynt gave Clinton $10K and Clinton returned it (one installment of $1K and one of $9K).

onenote

Wrong decision, for sure.

She's already aligning herself with the "Culture Warriors" and the "Morality Police."

Sickening.

Hustler's support would have been a wedge issue among the core Bush support group of highschool dropout white homophobes.

the educational group that votes Democratic by the largest margin. Gore won the group by 20 %.

Here's the exit poll results.

http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2000/results/index.epolls.html

and the post-grads... go figure.

John Edwards is the one we want.

I'd take money from anyone. I'd even take money from the KKK, just to use it against them.

going as far as the Supreme Court, he is a hero in my book. The fact that he owns Hustler means nothing to me, he is well within his rights to publish his magazine and has exposed many hypocrites in it....

I think Hillary made a real mistake. If the RW made a big deal out of it, his fights for our rights would have been exposed and I don't think the RW's would want that for his fights make them look like fools, since it was them he fought...

vs. Jerry Falwell. It was a stunning decision upholding free speech.

are generally uplifting to women?

Personally, I like the guy, even though he often has egregious taste.

I'm one of those feminists (like Nadine Strossen, President of the ACLU) who believes that pornography — when viewed by consenting adults — is just fine, and certainly protected speech.

And before anyone here mentions pedophilia, remember that child porn is ILLEGAL, as well it should be.

high?

Re: the BBC article — I'm supposed to take the word of a guy named Mike who is just a reader of the article? The article itself does not mention this.

The second article — someone mentions an EU study. I'd like to see that, but until then, no sale.

The third article — again, an anonymous poster on a message board.



I'd like to hear from Mongo or BenBurch on this, since they have more real info on the business.


Edited to add: Listen, I have to go meet someone. Will see you later.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/1986869.stm

Actually, this first article does try to show both sides of the argument. Of course the pro-porn side of the argument is made with data:

In 1969 Denmark lifted all restrictions on pornography, and sex crimes declined. For example, between 1965 and 1982 sex crimes against children went from 30 per 100,000 to about 5 per 100,000. Similar evidence was found for rape rates.

And the anti-porn side in "feelings"and slogans:

Rather than protect women, as Glenda Jackson believes, porn incites men to commit violent sexual acts. As activist Robin Morgan famously proclaimed: "Pornography is the theory and rape is the practice."

The only mention of suicide is not in the article itself, but in the comments by an obviously biased person.
----------------------
http://www.thefword.org.uk/comments/2004/03/index

Again, the only mention of suicide rates are from an anti-porn comment in the article. Perhaps you should have read the article instead where you would have got useful information like:

Feminists for Free Expression counter the argument that pornography promotes violence against women by stating that, "Studies in the U.S., Europe and Asia find no link between the availability of sexual material and sex crimes. The only factor linked to rape rate is the number of young men living in a given area. When pornography became widely available in Europe, sexually violent crimes decreased or remained the same. Japan, with far more violent pornography than the U.S., has 2.4 rapes per 100,000 people compared with the U.S. 34.5 per 100,000". People who say that porn is responsible for the many violent attacks that take place on women every year are probably the same people who claim that rock music makes kids shoot their classmates.

Here's a link to the actual article in question, which you did not see fit to post http://www.thefword.org.uk/features/2003/12/the_feminist_minefield
------------------
http://www.reason.com/hitandrun/2005/09/porn_under_a_ba.shtml
Again, some off hand comment to the article. Not exactly a credible source backed by statistics.
----------------------------
http://www.tranquileye.com/historyofporn/boogie_nights.html

Your 4th article is anecdotes about the industry in the 1970's, when it was ILLEGAL to shoot porn and backed with mostly mob money. Long time industry veterans (Nina Harley, Annie Sprinkle for example) will tell you that it is not the same as it was 30 some odd years ago. Do performers with drug/alcohol problems enter the industry? Yes. It is one of the few jobs where people with substance abuse problems can find work. But with the cost of producing films today, anyone who starts failing to show up for shoots gets blackballed pretty fast in the industry.
-----------------------------------------

But the topic at hand, suicide rates and porn. What do we know? The answer is not much - in the US there is no stats tracking occupation with suicide. But some occupations noted with high suicide rates are physicians, guards and dentists (no mention of porn performers). Should we ban these occupations?

http://www.straightdope.com/mailbag/msuicide.html
http://www.apa.org/monitor/jan01/suicide.html

For the UK, here is what I found:

Women aged 16-59

Government inspectors 458 365 4 3
Vets 415 387 2 3
Medical Practitioners 347 322 27 25
Pharmacists 270 141 10 9
Physiotherapists 248 99 9 3
Ambulancewomen 234 402 2 3
Other health professionals 220 81 22 7
Literary/Artistic Professions 173 112 16 7
Teachers, higher education 171 74 16 7
Nurses 149 154 286 247

http://www.a1b2c3.com/suilodge/figuk1.htm#Occupation

So, without some link to the actual study refereed to in the comments on different articles, I have nothing to respond to.

bullshit from Hillary and the DNC.

as for the Flint money? Well, when you take all of that money from Citibank, I guess you just have you're standards. :sarcasm:

incensed when that porn star attended the Bush fund raiser a while back.

considereing Flynt actually brought down Livingston during the impeachment crisis (IIRC he revealed info about his affair). He also exposed Bob Barr payinng for the abortion of some ex gf.

Flynt exposed the hypocrisy of many repuke slimeballs during the impeachment mess.

Hillary is a prudish, sanctimonious fool.

I don't particularly ike the guy myself, but he has a right to participate in the political process and contribute.

I don't trust Hillary, and find her too much an end justifies the means sort of woman. Sound ethics and good principles faithfully stick too is the framework that made a politician like Oregon's former senator Wayne Morse grow into a statesman he is considered to be. Hillary should she isn't even trying to make that high a cut, just as Bill did so well.

Bill and Hillary Clinton, wannabe members of underachiever's anonymous.

Hil cedes the ground that political litmus tests should be applied to Democratic donors. Something the Repugs do not do.

Hillary, you are a damned idiot for doing this.

involved. Larry does not have skin this thin---but in returning his "donation" he gives Hillary effective cover/plausible deniability for his next campaign on Republican hypocrisy.

I mean, Larry's no virgin. And he likes to be a player. Now, he can write his exposes in time for the 2006/08 elections, and Hillary Clinton can deny she was behind them.

I mean, come on. 1,000 dollars from Larry Flynt? Token, chump change--he tips that in Vegas. This is PR--good PR, but PR none the less.

donation is not important.

bit through his publishing empire. A little from here, a little from there...it adds up. If Larry wanted to, quite a bit of money would get to the Senator.---1k is a token amount.

But I think he agreed to send, and she agreed to refuse. Then they both get what they want, plus, they get to take away a Repug talking point. It's a great PR move, for both of them.

Larry isn't thin-skinned, and Hillary isn't stupid.

to support too -

Free Speech Coalition
National Coalition for Sexual Freedom
Assoc of Club Executives

to name a few.

I think you are watching a carefully orchestrated PR stunt; Larry Flynt isn't so thin-skinned as to really take offense in this manner, and Hillary may be many things, but stupid ain't one of them.

I read this article and came away with two gut reactions:
1) PR stunt they agreed on.
2) Larry's about to embark on a new bunch of revelations and pre-emptive distancing from Senator Clinton will give them both plausible deniability.

I suspect that Senator Clinton's campaign managers will work hand in hand with Mr. Flynt's operatives to help bring down any opposition to her in any way they can. But returning the check gives symbolic cover. This is how a campaign is run, when the grownups are in charge.

Look, Larry Flynt is "shocked?" Like Claude Rains was, I bet.

rights now. Larry Flint was a main player. I'm glad she rejected it because I don't want her to run.

or some other two faced opportunist right wing hack gives her some dough.

lately:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/09/14/AR2005091402628_pf.html

other Corporate interest dangling a check in front of her hypocritical face...but not pornography, damnit! She has her standards. Meanwhile Bill is in the bathroom with a copy of Hustler..

worrysome. It's cut from exactly the same cloth as the repubs/bush filtering out who's good enough to attend bush's rallies.

Flint is a US citizen, a voter, with equal protection under the law and with equal rights under the law. To reject a contribution from a US citizen on moral (not legal) grounds is undemocratic at a most basic level. This country has always stood for being the big tent, where everyone can exercise freedom of speech and is free to live and work and prosper in any way they personally choose as long as the laws of the land are obeyed.

So now we have self-righteous democratic leadership to parallel the self-righteous republicans.

That's not a direction I want to see in politicians I vote for. My vote goes to those who have the objectivity to respect and honor ALL Americans and leave judging their morals up to the courts and - if one believes - to God.

And yes, I can remember Flynt helping during the impeachment and I for one, who was watching the attempted coup by the republicans in shock and awe, was grateful for every hand that stood up on deck and fought the storm.

Larry Flint practically single-handedly saved the Clinton presidency and at the same time, exposed the total hypocrisy of the rabid rightwing who would have gotten away with all their moralizing were it not for his efforts.

Imo, he's an American hero ~ he took on the Religious Right when he fought Falwell in court, and stood up for the 1st Amendment and won that too. I would actually prefer him in the WH than Hillary. At least he doesn't pander to anyone.

I stopped supporting Hillary when I watched her snivel and stutter through her Iraq War Resolution speech and why she thought bombing innocent men, women and children was a good thing to do. Her speech was right after Sen. Byrd's historic speech that night, and I cried when her cave in to the political winds, rather than do the right thing. That was a crime, imo.

I guess my money wouldn't be acceptable to the elites who control this party either, so I'll just keep it.

Keep on fighting for the Constitution Larry!! Someone needs to do it. We sure can't depend on our elected politicians!!

Oh, and as for his magazine, I've never seen it, don't want to and no one is forcing me to. It's legal, and someone's reading it or he wouldn't be the wealthy man he is today. I guess this is political correctness gone awry. Good luck to her, I don't want her to run. There are too many things I disagree with her on.

I'm sure I won't measure up to their 'campaign standards'...

a sense of moral superiority, in fact, establishes the Democratic Party's political process as that of a "club" with exclusive membership. Who else is being denied membership in the process because they don't pass moral bar? Where are they going to draw the line? What if the ACLU did that?

I used to do some sailing. Like our path through this life, when we set sail, we determine where we are and set a course for where we want to go. On the way there we spend much time recalibrating, because the wind and water keep pulling us off course. It's scientific. We use facts about our actual location, not "feelings". If we used feelings we'd get seriously lost, and .... probably drown.

I've watched as the Democrats continue to lose elections, the way the leadership seems to be calibrating their course without accurately determining their present position first. It's as if they are relying totally on the reflection of themselves from the perspective of the corporate media and the fascist right wing, as the factual basis for setting the next leg of the journey. That would be like trying to set a course by using a film of oneself sailing that was made by someone on another boat. Maybe I'm stretching the metaphor too far, but this does seem to be an example of losing one's bearings: making an effort to out-moral the republican self-righteously moral, which isn't really moral in the first place.

In so doing, they take on the traits of the republicans that are the exact traits that Democrats don't want and don't vote for.

It's obvious that Democrats have been winning elections, including 2000, 2002, and 2004 but those elections were stolen. Maybe that would be a good place to start when charting a political course to win an election.

wing will attack. If we do we are lost. Hillary is trying to keep the right wing happy? Good reason not to vote for her. I am curious what "standard" was used to deny the contribution.

c'mon, has anyone swwn a Barely Legal Vid. I know i have. Would you want to be asscociated with that and run for president?

If she intends to become president she did the correct thing.

Larry Flynt is not respected by mainstream America.

Democratic Party? Are these people also to be excluded from having their rights protected by elected Democrats? Who else isn't good enough to be considered "mainstream America."

We need our leaders to seek the moral highground here, and this is not it. Hillary, before the terrible impeachment years, used to exemplify that quest. While it may be justified considering what she's had thrown at her, the temptation obviously has been overwhelmingly strong to take the low road.

This is not about Hillary Clinton's, yours or my personal preferences, it's about being living examples of democratic principles. The Democratic Party can not survive as a private club to which only "mainstream Americans" can belong. Who is going to make the value judgments? Will they advertise that they are ostracizing some people? Think of the moral rammifications of that kind of behavior

This shouldn't be about whether donations to the Democratic Party are acceptable to the Party (!!) but whether Americans support the Party's candidates with their donations. Otherwise, this is elitism. Frankly, speaking for myself, I want to remain one of the rabble descended from the poor, huddled masses, the wretched refuse yearning to breathe free, thank you.

"The spirit of the Declaration of Independence, with its linchpin statement that 'all men are created equal,' was meant to be realized, to the greatest extent possible, by each succeeding generation. 'They meant to set up a standard maxim for free society," Lincoln said, 'which should be familiar to all, and revered by all; constantly looked to, constantly labored for... even though never perfectly attained.' "
Atlantic Monthly, "Lincoln's Great Depression" by Joshua Wolf Shenk, October 2005, p. 62.

As to mainstream America, they love porn as much as anyone else but they pretend they don't in public.

He's on our side with a BIG megaphone and he's got it stuck right in the ear of NASCAR America.

Mainstream America respects him; you would do well to start. We can afford to lose Hillary, we can't afford to lose Larry.

wouldn't hurt a presidential candidate.

Taking money from a very liberal, very activist socially conscience rapper is not going hurt? That would be used against her less than taking money from Flynt?

And where did Penthouse come in? Larry Flynt has nothing to do with Penthouse; it's own by a Fl real estate developer; probably a good friend of Jebbie's.

is not the same as "associating with". Do we screen all donations to the Democratic Party based on everyone's ideas of who is good enough morally and who is not? So we can please the right wing media (who won't be pleased no matter what the Democrats do) or the fascists in the US, obviously that 30% that keeps hangin on?

Accepting donations from American citizens doesn't mean the democratic party or their candidates ENDORSE the business or personal lives of the citizens giving the donations. Good grief, have we come that far that we are like a bunch of wimpering babies in a corner, oh please Mr. Right Wing, please don't hurt me for DOING NOTHING WRONG?

When it comes to association, that could damage your persona...seems to me, that there is more to that kind of association than just accepting a donation...That kind of association to me, means that you interact on a personal level, on a regular basis, or take advice from those contributing...and he sure didn't ask either her or the Democratic party to do that..but I wonder if, this wasn't made a bigger issue than it ever needed to be, and why? Was he trying to prove something and what IS she trying to prove, with her refusal, that was then made public? Seems to me there is more to this story than what meets the eye...
windbreeze

accepting contributions from Penthouse during a Presidential debate vs the repug nominee.

Will it help or hurt that candidate? Will it help or hurt that cause?

I say it will hurt.

how we pick and choose people to be in our party and reject the ones we don't think are good enough.

party? How elitist should we be?

Maybe we should exclude women who make porn. Or maybe people who are in porn. What about people who are atheists? Maybe people who have had extramarital affairs? What about people who don't go to church regularly?

Who do you want judging people?

Edited to add: Mrs. Clinton has the right to do whatever she wants, of course. But I think her move is wrong and just another empty act of political expediency from her. At this point, I have more respect from self-described smut peddler Larry Flynt than I have for Hillary.

from him if you ask me.

What about TV shows that are not woman-friendly? Movies? Books? It's a slippery slope that would only enforce the rightwingers meme about "elitism".

I'm sure there is a socialist women's party for you to spread your hatred for the constitution - and remake our society into the authoritarian's left version of a facsist state.

imo. What does Mainstream America respect? Illegal wars that murder tens of thousands of people? I bet Hillary has taken donations from some people whose morals I would question as a Christian.

She worries more about how the right sees her than she does her own party. She always has. She's like an abused wife always wanting to please the abuser.

Larry Flint is a US citizen. I didn't see her telling him not to put his money into help saving her husband's presidency.

She has denied him his first amendment rights. I don't like porn, but I like illegal war even less. Hillary it appears, likes war, I have yet to hear her condemn that brutal, murderous war she voted for.

Larry Flint should run for office. I would trust him more than I would her. She doesn't represent ordinary people, she's an elitest and associates only with big money people.

And that's who reads his magazines.

Just so you know, a few of the articles in the Hustler now on the newsstand -

Last Days of Democracy - TheocracyWatch Founder's Take on Fundamentalist Christians.

The Christian Mafia: Rule by Divine Right

In Their Own Words - God Squad's Threatening Blueprint.


Not to mention his Asshole of the Month column - this month it's Judith Miller with to John Gibson and Enron's board of directors.

Larry is a true patriot who gives a vioce to actual investigative journalists. You should be very glad he is out there, not owned by the media machine.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

porn magazine publisher while she has immersed herself in the pornography of corporate donors and the smut of the Iraq War?

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

that could use Larry's money.

Paul Hackett, the guy in Rhode Island, Bob Casey, etc...


Hillary can certainly do without it, and without the negative perceptions the associations with people like Flynt and Jerry Springer bring.


I would recommend everyone who is disappointed with Hillary's decision to write Flynt and ask him to send the money to Paul Hackett, Bob Casey - e.g. people who are running to oust incumbent Re-puke-liKKKan senators.

most would call a no-brainer. Especially, for a feminist.

and the hottest adult entertainment is run by lesbians for lesbians.

Let's stop pretending that sex is not exciting!

uplifting for women! I hope my daughters will become stars!!

and you are probably also looking at it through some moralistic sex is bad prism.

The HBO series Pornucopia really showed that the adult film industry is not a monolith, in fact as a previous poster indicated, women play a key role in the business. One episode in Pornucopia dealt with that side of the business that appeals to lesbians. It was run by lesbians and the clientele were lesbians.

The Religious Right may babble morality while waving their Bibles, but they are the ones that are truly immoral. When the Promise Keepers had their convention in my red state city, they went from their prayers to Jesus into the arms of hookers. I think that this behaviour is far more dangerous than that of couples that rent a video to get them in the mood in the privacy of their home.

that it's a GOOD thing to distance ourselves from pornography, would be up in arms had she refused a donation from a gay rights group? apples and oranges you say? you say gay rights isn't about "sex"? neither is Larry Flynt's donation, he's standing up for freedom of speech, period. by snuffing him, you're snuffing a large number of people who are being attacked by the right only for enjoying sex. he has no political agenda other than trying to maintain OUR rights.

Think of Hillary as the Judy Miller of the Democratic Party.

She'll reject Flynt's $ money 'cause he shows pics of nekkid women, but has no problem with taking all the $ Tata pumps into her campaign, even though they're putting her constituents out of work.
Corporate politiwhore :grr:

I would vote for her in the general election but I wouldn't be happy about it.

should clue in Hillary and the fucking DNC morons that people are looking for leaders not saints.

To Hillary it is more inmoral to have people watch skin flicks, and it is okay to torture and murder people in the name of Jesus.

I will never vote this woman!

Jesus christ on a cracker, they already have all the "tools" they could ever NEED to attack the woman! (Lesbian-Vince-Foster-killer-Monica-Whitwater-Filegate-Bill-adulterous-husband-and on and on and on...) What the hell is a lousy $1000 contribution from Larry Flynn going to add, I mean really?

I am a feminist who does not like porn, but I stand with Flynt on the 1st Amendment.

Hillary should have too.

you're right, they will smear hillary anyhow but is a hard decision.

and I wouldn't have a problem with her keeping it either. Just as I don't have a problem with her keeping the $5K she got from the Wal-Mart PAC (but wouldn't have a problem if she had returned it either). No one has a "right" to have their contribution accepted. If Larry Flynt wants to run an ad in the papers saying he supports Hillary, that's his right.

By the way, nearly a decade ago, Bill Clinton apparently also returned a contribution from Flynt. (Flynt gave BC $10K in Oct 1996, of which $9K was returned almost immediately and the remaining $1K was returned in 1997. http://www.opensecrets.org/indivs/search.asp?NumOfThou=0&txtName=flynt&txtState=CA&txtZip=&txtEmploy=&txtCand=&txt1994=Y&txt1996=Y&Order=N

What's particularly fascinating is that it appears the repubs received (and kept) contribs from Flynt in the mid 1990s..

sdwho

If you click on the Clinton links, you'll see that $10K was returned to Flynt by Clinton (in one installment of $9K and a second installment of $1K).

onenote

:thumbsdown:

Edited to add: Saw an interview with Flynt a few years ago (when the movie about him was out). He was interviewed by John Hockenberry, who is also wheelchair-bound. He mentioned how Flynt gave millions of dollars each year to spinal cord research organizations, and how that will never be acknowledged because of who he is and what he does.

Here's a link: <http://archive.democrats.com/display.cfm?id=159>

Nor am I donating to ANY Democratic Organization until THEY get their SHIT together!!!!

Voting for the War could NOW be explained away quite easily, but SHE still says it was the correct thing to do!!

If I were a politician right now, I would simply say "Yes, I felt it was the correct thing to do back then, but having seen what has happened to date, I now feel I made a MISTAKE!!

This IS something I think many many many Americans would understand! Why they aren't doing it is waaaaay beyond my comprehension! If they aren't careful there's a good possibility that the Greens are going to take a lot of people into their fold! I've had many emails from Democratic friends who are saying just this thing. Going Green!!

Who's Your Daddy??? Who's The Leader???

Did he used to be one?

Interesting that they would not return it, being the party of family values and all.

That said, I have a soft spot for Larry. He may be a sleezeball, but damn it, he's OUR sleezeball.

he sells a lot more magazines.