DNC to reject fossil fuel company donations

[brooklynite]

Source: The Hill

The Democratic National Committee (DNC) will no longer accept campaign donations from fossil fuel companies.

The DNC's resolution, first introduced by Christine Pelosi, a member of the committee and the daughter of House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.), was introduced as a way to connect with grassroots voters and emphasize the party's stance on environmentalism.

"Climate change caused by the burning of fossil fuels represents an existential threat to civilization, and Democrats committed in our 2016 Platform to curbing the effects of climate change, protecting America’s natural resources, and ensuring the quality of our air, water, and land for current and future generations," read the text of the resolution, which passed over the weekend and was provided to The Hill by the DNC.

The decision follows in the footsteps of a previous one made under former President Obama to ban all corporate PAC donations to the DNC.

Read more: http://thehill.com/policy/energy-environment/391933-dnc-to-reject-fossil-fuel-company-donations

[Wounded Bear]

1. Oooh, shit be gettin' real...

[ehrnst]

2. Kick and Reced!

[Maraya1969]

3. This makes me proud again, to be a Democrat

[Sophia4]

4. Thank you, DNC.

[LiberalArkie]

5. I wonder it contributions from BP solar or Shell solar will be accepted?

[ehrnst]

6. If they are, those who hate the DNC will be accusing them of being in bed with fossil fuel...

context be damned...because it feeds the narrative that supports certain candidates.

[Paladin]

7. A smart and fairly safe move by the DNC.

Fairly safe, because fossil fuels money has been overwhelmingly directed at Republicans rather than Democrats, for many years.

[lagomorph777]

21. Also, fossil fuels are a sinking ship economically (let alone politically).

No need to tie the fate of the Party to that mess.

[SkatmanRoth]

8. It is time to get all corporate money out of politics

[ehrnst]

9. What is your definition of "corporate money?"

Organizations like 501(c)(4)s, that can accept dark money from donors, that endorse candidates?

Like the money that funds ads run by SuperPacs against a particular candidates' opponents?

The practice of counting the donations of individuals (over $50) as donations from the industry they work in?

Donations from Unions?

Can you be specific?

[SkatmanRoth]

10. I am talking about non-human sources of money used to influnce elections

If the money does not come from a living person, it should not be used to elect a politician.

When business managers direct funds from the business to an election, the desired outcome is that of the business, not the citizens.

[ehrnst]

11. So unions are corporate money, then. And 501(c)(4)s, because they're non-human.

And if there is no money changing hands - like when a runs ads against a candidates' opponent?

That's dirty money, too, right?

Just trying to get your definition clear.

[SkatmanRoth]

15. Unions are people represented by Union leadership

Unions are people representing people. Union funding election efforts are designed to further the interests of Union membership.

Not For Profit groups are just money furthering an interest.

Dirty money? Like when concerned groups spend huge amounts of money from unknown sources to oppose a particular issue (when this opposition is transparently designed to SUPPORT a candidate)? Like when candidates who support Chamber of Commerce written legislation benefit from 501's that provide ' information to voters ' that trashes their opponent?

Push the big money away and it might clear up a little.

[ehrnst]

16. So when a union Super PAC (527) donates millions to a candidate, that is not "corporate" money.

Last edited Wed Jun 13, 2018, 07:36 AM - Edit history (3)

And you seem to be OK with "non-human" sources so long as they don't represent an industry. Like the United Mine Workers?

Or donations from the National Education Association, AFL-CIO, The American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees, and American Federation of Teachers?

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/onpolitics/2016/05/12/labor-unions-launch-50-million-super-pac/84282910/

And I'm still not clear if you think 501(c)(4) PACs are "corporate money." They don't represent people, but issues.

Can you clarify?

When I talk about SuperPacs running ads, I'm talking about those that that spend millions to run attack ads, to support a particular candidate by running attack ads on the position of their opponents - using their favored candidates' own talking points.

Do you think that the candidates who benefit should report that as a donation?

Do you also think that a $25,000 dollar donation from a wealthy donor should be turned down by a candidate? Is that candidate tainted?

[SkatmanRoth]

18. You are effervescing with concern about my opinion on corporate money in politics

What is your point ehrnst?

Or are you just using me to practice your debate tactics for use in another venue?

[ehrnst]

20. I just wanted to clarify what thoughts you had

the topic of "corporate money in politics" what that involved, the defintion, and what the implications were, after hearing what seemed to be changing defintions.

I have my answer.

[Equinox Moon]

12. Great!

[Hortensis]

13. Excellent! Donations were only tokens anyway,

compared to the Republican Party, but refusing their courtesy donations is a big statement.

[Jim Lane]

14. That previous decision to ban all corporate PAC donations was rescinded.

The article notes: "The decision follows in the footsteps of a previous one made under former President Obama to ban all corporate PAC donations to the DNC."

What it omits is that Debbie Wasserman Schultz subsequently engineered a reversal of that ban.

Last year there was an attempt to reinstate the ban, but it failed: "DNC Members Vote Down Corporate Money Ban". I don't remember reading of any further action on the subject. If the 2017 vote was the last word, then the DNC is now back in the business of accepting corporate PAC donations, except for any that may be covered by the new fossil-fuel policy.

[Vinca]

17. While the symbolism is nice, maybe it would make more sense to take their money and donate it

to climate change research. A fool and his money . . .

[Cha]

19. Good.. who needs to take stupid, dangerous, antiquated,

trump asshole supported, fossil fuels' $$$$$$$?