Kamala Harris changes course, says she'll reject corporate PAC cash

[BeyondGeography]

https://www.cnn.com/2018/04/23/politics/kamala-harris-rejects-corporate-pac-donations/index.html

(CNN)California Sen. Kamala Harris will join other leading Democrats in rejecting corporate PAC money, she announced in an interview on Monday.

The decision marks a reversal from Harris, who refused at a town hall in Sacramento earlier this month to swear off corporate donations. Harris publicized her new position during a visit, taped Friday, with "The Breakfast Club," a New York radio show. When asked by co-host Charlamagne Tha God about her earlier response, Harris said she had reconsidered.

"I was asked that question (at the town hall) and I wasn't expecting the question. And I thought about it afterwards," Harris said. "I think that money has had such an outside influence on politics, and especially with the Supreme Court determining Citizens United, which basically means that big corporations can spend unlimited amounts of money influencing our campaigns, right? We're all supposed to have an equal vote, but money has now really tipped the balance between an individual having equal power in an election to a corporation. So I've actually made a decision since I had that conversation that I'm not going to accept corporate PAC checks. I just, I'm not."

...Harris' decision follows those of her colleagues and fellow 2020 Democratic presidential prospects Sens. Kirsten Gillibrand of New York and Cory Booker of New Jersey. They promised to forswear corporate PAC money in separate announcements, just a few hours apart (Gillibrand going first), back on February 13.

It also means that all five of the Senate's top potential candidates for the 2020 Democratic presidential nomination -- including Bernie Sanders, the Vermont independent, and Elizabeth Warren of Massachusetts -- have said they will not accept corporate PAC cash.

[InAbLuEsTaTe]

1. Kamala, another 2020 Democratic presidential hopeful following Bernie's lead...

smart move!! I will have to give her a serious look now should she decide to run in 2020, as this is essential for any serious candidate. Glad she changed her mind on taking dirty corporate cash and came over to Bernie's way of thinking.

[Orsino]

3. It's risky, but I applaud it. n/t

[BeyondGeography]

4. It is a clear point of differentiation between the parties for voters

Plus it is the right thing to do.

[Orsino]

5. The right thing to do is to limit or eliminate private money in elections.

(But yeah, this is the rightest thing Harris can do on her own.)

[InAbLuEsTaTe]

6. Kamala's a little late to the party after her initial statement refusing to swear off corporate cash

but I credit her for giving the issue more thought and coming to the right conclusion. She definitely should be applauded for that...

[Orsino]

8. It's not necessarily the right conclusion if it effectively prevents her from competing.

I hope she doesn't have cause to regret the decision, and would hate to see her flip-flop.

Private financing of elections is perhaps the greatest ill of American politics, and it is painful to see politicians having to tip-toe around the issue.

[InAbLuEsTaTe]

9. I certainly respect differing opinions on this; I just don't think it'll hurt us in future elections

It sure didn't stop Bernie from competing and all those 2020 Democratic presidential hopefuls can't be wrong... I think Kamala, Elizabeth, Booker, Gillibrand, and others have fully come to realize, as Bernie did years ago, that this is precisely the issue that can take us over the top.

That's why I will refuse to support ANY Democrat in the 2020 primary who doesn't swear off dirty corporate cash. It's a winning issue for us and will draw such a clear line of demarcation between principled Democrats and compromised Rethuglians.

[Orsino]

12. It's hurting each of us in every election.

I don't think that private money should be able to buy even a piece of an elected official. I hate seeing them all bought to varying degrees, but especially my favorites.

[InAbLuEsTaTe]

13. Not ALL... just be glad that some Democrats are finally coming around on this issue.

[Orsino]

14. In a world in which candidates can legally be purchased like timeshares...

...we can't tell to what extent any one of them has been corrupted. We often don't know with how much or from whom, and can no longer be sure what a clean politician looks like.

[RandySF]

2. What a long strange trip

I remember lounging with in her in a living room when she was San Francisco DA.

[NCTraveler]

7. Stop this shit Democrats.

Use all tools legally available. They are just going to print stories about how PAC’s are simply supporting you at an arms length. We are at an all hands on deck moment. Take the damn money and use it.

[comradebillyboy]

11. Indeed, unilateral disarmerment is a bad strategy.

[KWR65]

10. What new vehicle have they invented to get money from corps?