DNC Reverses Ban on Corporate Cash to Fund Convention

[portlander23]

"We're Baaack...": DNC Reverses Ban on Corporate Cash to Fund Convention
Deirdre Fulton
Common Dreams

Reversing a previous position that sought to limit corporate influence in politics, the Democratic National Committee (DNC) is sweetening the pot for lobbyists and political action committees (PACs) that donate toward next year's nominating convention in Philadelphia.

According to documents seen by The Hill, those who give donations and bundled cash could see returns ranging from "preferred booking in a premiere hotel" to a photo-op at the official convention podium to VIP access to "the official Host Committee celebration, featuring celebrities and other luminaries, live music, and catering by Philadelphia's most recognized chefs."

The Hill reports that DNC chairwoman Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz (Fla.) and other party officials met on Wednesday evening with approximately 50 people including "high-profile lobbyists" to go over the "menu of reward offerings."

People present at the meeting reported spotting representatives from firms that lobby for the energy, banking, and insurance industries—and critics were quick to lambaste the latest evidence of cozy ties between the Democratic Party and K Street.

With help from DWS, the Democratic Party has rediscovered its ability to sell itself to lobbyists. https://t.co/5xGRp5Qvd6

— Dan Riffle (@DanRiffle) October 23, 2015

Will have to remember this when they're bashing #lobbyists... https://t.co/qY8Yp0abuC

— Tommy Goodwin (@tommygoodwin) October 23, 2015

DNC's message to lobbyists for the first post-Obama convention: "We’re back, we’re here, we want your help" https://t.co/qvcUOObPu3

— Robert Faturechi (@RobertFaturechi) October 23, 2015

The DNC is already slating VIP access to corporate lobbyists and bundlers. What Bernie Sanders is running against.

— Zaid Jilani (@ZaidJilani) October 23, 2015

See this link for the literal menu of access being sold:

http://thehill.com/business-a-lobbying/257833-dnc-courts-lobbyist-cash-with-promise-of-vip-access-at-convention

[Kentonio]

1. Hard to find the words sometimes..

Yet people say they can't understand why so many people are turning against the party.

[artislife]

79. How does this convince me

that they even want my voice?

SMH.

[MineralMan]

2. One of the reasons for that is that Congress included a cutoff of

funding for the national political conventions, back in March of 2014 in a bill funding medical research. Most people have forgotten about that. Here's a link from today that explains the cut in funding:

http://www.nationaljournal.com/congress/2014/03/19/2016-conventions-face-massive-shortfall-thanks-congress

The cutoff was in a bill funding research into pediatric disorders.

So, those conventions cost a pantload of money, which has to come from somewhere. Corporate funds are always available, so they're a ready source for such funding.

Thanks, Republicans, you dickheads!

[portlander23]

6. Please make a t-shirt that says "Thanks, Republicans, you dickheads!"

[MineralMan]

7. Not a bad idea. For a T-shirt, though, I'd change the wording to:

Thanks, Republicans,
You Fatuous Dickheads!

I'd add that adjective, because most Republicans don't know what it means and it would piss them off even more. It's not a bad idea, really, that t-shirt...

[emulatorloo]

10. Most Republicans will think you are flattering the girth of their penises.

[99Forever]

3. Gee, that doesn't sound too corrupting.

Way to go, Debbie Downer. Sleazy as can be, always.

[restorefreedom]

4. +1 nt

[moabfan]

5. Well, more reason not to allow Debbie Wasserman-Schultz

to operate at the capacity of the chairwoman anymore. She is clearly incompetent and heavily biased.

[NurseJackie]

8. Would not accepting these donations give the GOP any sort of advantage?

National elections and conventions are expensive. I'm more inclined to see this as a move that helps to level the playing field.

[winter is coming]

11. ...

[Armstead]

12. "We paid for that nice party for you...Now, here's the bill."

[NurseJackie]

13. I don't understand how it benefits Democrats to give the GOP a financial advantage.

If the Dems lose as a result of willfully giving the GOP a financial advantage, and from playing by obsolete rules that no longer apply in 2015, I can't imagine it would be very comforting to hear the excuse of "well, yeah, we lost because they outspent us, but hey, we can still hold our heads high because at least we didn't accept corporate donations."

[JRLeft]

15. When corporations buy our party we lose, why can't you see it?

[NurseJackie]

21. I understand your objections and fears …

… but there is no perfect solution. I think that most reasonable people understand that losing an election and being completely shut-out of the process is a much worse option than the alternative.

Personally, I see no shame in doing everything legal thing necessary that keeps the party competitive against the Republican money machine. I also think it's foolish to claim a "morally superior" policy when it's obvious that doing so puts the party at a disadvantage.

[JRLeft]

26. And this is why wages are going down.

[NurseJackie]

38. Okay... if you say so.

[JRLeft]

59. Watered down policies and outright pro industry policies are

why jobs continue to get shittier and wages continue to sink.

[NurseJackie]

64. I think we've taken this as far as we can. You're on your own from here.

[BootinUp]

16. Of course it doesn't, but you are presuming

that common sense will sway people,

[NurseJackie]

22. I know. It's frustrating. It's clear to me that nobody is likely to *change* their opinion …

… but perhaps by stating the facts, I can help to keep someone from forming the *wrong* opinion that's based on inaccurate information and "morally-superior" opinions.

[Live and Learn]

24. So your common sense theory is, 'if you can't beat them, join them'?

No matter the morality, right? Sorry I can't go there and neither can Bernie.

[BootinUp]

33. Common sense dictates

that we need to elect politicians that are in favor of / have proposed / promised to change campaign finance laws, select judges that will overturn Citizens United...etc. We can't elect these candidates with both hands tied behind our backs. There will always be differences of opinion on how to stay true to ones principles while accomplishing it.

[Live and Learn]

35. When you elect candidates that lack morals, there is no guarantee that they will select judges

to overturn Citizen's United. Why would they when they benefit from them?

[BootinUp]

37. I would not support someone like that. Neither should you. nt

[Live and Learn]

39. I know mine has morals. nt

[NurseJackie]

34. And in a reality-based world …

… it seems that the other side's theory is "if we can beat them, then surrender and let them win".

Of course that's not truly what their theory is, but the end result is the same.

I think you're making an error when you characterize it as "joining them". No, the reality is that the Dems are not "joining" the Republicans, and suggesting such things is childish hyperbole. It's clear to reasonable people that they are doing what's necessary to fight them on a level playing field and remain competitive on a national level.

Winning is everything. Intentionally putting the party at a financial disadvantage, and remaining politically impotent after the loss is foolish.

I struggle to think of an analogy that would work well in this situation. The only thing I can come up with would be to describe how silly it would be for a group of soldiers to refuse to load their firearms with ammo that was not "union-made" or that was "made-in-China". They're coming under fire and they're surrounded on all sides, but because of their superior moral convictions, they'll ONLY use union-made, made-in-USA ammo. They have plenty of "made-in-China" ammo, but they'd rather be killed or captured before they'd do such a treasonous thing. To these short-sighted soldiers, using the non-USA ammo would be to "join the other side". They want to set an example for other soldiers and they're willing to surrender to show how much it means to them.

[Live and Learn]

36. None of us are surrendering.

We are trying to accomplish fairness through the election process. If that doesn't work, we still won't be surrendering.

Oh freedom...

[NurseJackie]

41. Of course I know you're not surrendering. I was just trying to make a point.

But by winning (and by playing as mean and dirty and vicious and as cutthroat as the other side, and doing everything that's legally permitted) we'll find ourselves in a much better position to affect the changes we desire. To do anything less increases the chances that the Dems will be on the outside looking in, powerless to do anything at all.

[virtualobserver]

44. playing dirty etc suppresses the voters that could join us if we had principles as a party

suppressing the vote is not a winning strategy

[NurseJackie]

47. Politics and national elections are a blood sport. Nice guys finish last.

People who believe otherwise will never be convinced of what the reality is. But those are the same people who are always, always dismayed and shocked when nice-playing Dems lose elections. I'm so relieved that those in charge of the DNC are smart enough to know that. All the whining and hand-wringing from anonymous posters on internet discussion boards won't change that. It is what it is. Cope.

[virtualobserver]

53. 70% of Americans agree with Bernie and most Democrats on the issues....

in spite of that, mainstream democrats are hanging on by a thread.

Hillary is losing to absolute nutjobs in national polls...polls that call her untrustworthy.

Those nutjobs could then pull off the trifecta and hold absolute power.

Hillary lost to Obama by playing the game this way, so don't count your
emus before they hatch.

[NurseJackie]

57. Well, try not to worry too much, there's nothing you can do about it anyway.

I know it's a distressing thing that we don't have a perfect election system, but it is what it is. You can't change it by refusing to do everything it takes to win, or by criticizing those who are willing to do so. Our party leaders have made the correct decision.

71% of Americans agree winning is more important than losing with dignity.

[virtualobserver]

67. I'm not worried at all.....Hillary and the DNC are on the wrong side of the wave

You'll see.

[NurseJackie]

69. Well, you certainly sound distressed.

[virtualobserver]

73. my only distress has to do with a party leadership that just doesn't get it

Corporations ARE buying our government. The DNC is an embarrassment.


As offensive as the Republicans are, in that sense they are authentic....they say what they really want.

Why would anyone take Democrats seriously when they say that they want money out of politics?

[NurseJackie]

75. Why should any Koch-funded Republican fear losing a national election …

… when their under-funded Democratic opponent can't afford airtime and can barely afford yard-signs?

Well, I exaggerate to make a point, but I think you get what I'm saying.

I get your point too. We do have the same goals, we just differ on how to get there.

[virtualobserver]

88. the problem with the Hillary/ DNC strategy is that you give up the ethical high ground.....

that you have when you run without SuperPACS and corporate money.

What has money done for Jeb! and Ted Cruz? Not much.

If you start with the ethical high ground, you can hang the Koch brothers money around the Republican nominee's neck like an anchor.
The power of that concept can not be overstated. It turns their advantage into a disadvantage, and into something they must justify or defend.
They have to prove that they are not a puppet.


Bernie will be able to raise the necessary cash, and his supporters can afford to buy the yard signs.....but it is his message that will either win...or not.

[NurseJackie]

89. I take your point, but claiming the "high ground" is the least of my worries.

Those who disagree will surely complain as much or as loudly as they want, but it will never change for this national election. It's done. Over.

Besides, an impotent loser (candidate or party) who took the "high ground" has NO chance of affecting meaningful change if they're not the ones in charge of policy-making or appointing federal and supreme judges.

From my perspective, Koch money is not the anchor you describe. Just ask Walker, he's been elected twice (or thrice if you include winning the recall election). He's out of the national scene for now, but this was just the first time he dipped his toes in the water. He'll be back. Accusations of being a puppet are meaningless to them. They don't care. They laugh and continue on as if nothing happened.

Bush? Cruz? ... Morons with more baggage than Koch money can lighten. Koch money can't fix broken campaigns, but it can unfairly tilt the playing field for the Republican who eventually wins the nomination. People who think otherwise are fooling themselves.

Bernie's got a long way to go, and reliable national polls aren't looking too good for him. Maybe he'll win the nomination. But at this point, it seems doubtful.

Good luck. May the best candidate win.

[virtualobserver]

90. Walker went out with a whimper..who is the non-moron that Koch money can launch to the stratosphere?

[NurseJackie]

91. I don't know. We'll have to wait and see.

[99Forever]

49. ...

"We have met the enemy and he is us."


Becoming the filthy, rotten, greedy, corrupt slime I detest, is not an option for me.

You are free to do so if you choose. I won't be going with you.

[NurseJackie]

50. At this point, the path you prefer will lead to loss, failure and political impotence.

I admire your heartfelt feelings about this specific issue. I agree that things need to change. But until they do change, and until we have a system where everyone must play by the same rules, I prefer a realistic approach that acknowledges and considers the current political environment and rules.

Although it's distasteful to the squeamish, and faint-hearted, it's what's absolutely necessary to win. I have no shame in that approach, and I'm exceedingly pleased that those in charge of our party are smart enough to understand the same.

[99Forever]

51. Nonsense.

That's nothing but excusing bribes and corruption. If you aren't part of the solution, you ARE the problem.

[NurseJackie]

54. Until we can reverse Citizens United, it's foolish to disarm.

Voluntarily disarming, as you appear to be suggesting, is a foolish decision. It does not "solve" anything. It only empowers the other side to do more of the same. I'm very glad that our party leaders understand that simple fact.

[99Forever]

58. Asked and answered.

You either have ethics or you don't.

All the rest is excuses for corruption.

[NurseJackie]

68. It really doesn't matter, does it?

At this point it's probably a good idea to accept that there's nothing you can do about it. I understand your frustration. But I think it's important to think strategically and without allowing excessive anger emotion to cloud one's judgement. It's also important to remember that the real enemy is the GOP, and not the ones who are willing to fight dirty to defeat them.

[99Forever]

71. Welcome, btw.

Sorry I neglected to say that sooner.

On this one we'll just have to agree to disagree. IMO, anyone "who are willing to fight dirty to defeat" others, are the enemy. Corrupt is corrupt. The label a corrupt politician wears, makes them no less corrupt.

[NurseJackie]

72. Thanks for the welcome.

[still_one]

42. It doesn't. It is a nice ideal, but the reality is that it is unless both sides do it, we are at a

disadvantage.

The fact is it takes money to win elections.

If folks don't like the way things are run, then they should either run or support candidates in local and state elections that will become part of the DNC that will conform to their views.

Change is brought about by both people who vote and don't vote. The impression that not voting is not participating is flawed. Not voting is an implicit expression of something, and usually contributes to an outcome.

It would be irresponsible to not take every advantage possible to win. What one does after they win is key

[Baitball Blogger]

9. Sounds like DWS is already auditioning for her golden parachute job.

[JRLeft]

14. As long people believe corporations supporting the candidates and the party

have no impact on governing, nothing will change.

[ibegurpard]

17. if you're going to accept more cash

Then use it to fund state level infrastructure and GOTV...not to fund a fucking party!!! Goddamn assholes!

[mhatrw]

18. Which corporation will win the bid to rename the White House? nt

[hifiguy]

62. Goldman. Bet on it.

[dreamnightwind]

19. Welcome to the Goldman Time Warner Democratic Convention

Eventually they'll leave out the word "Democratic" entirely, too offensive to the donors.

I'm so done with this way of running a party.

[Truprogressive85]

20. DNC for sale

Those lobbyists and blunders will be getting more than photo-ops , VIP access or some posh hotel
They donate to the party, come back for favors later

The DNC can not say they are in favor in reversing Citizens United or stopping dark pools of money in our politics than go begging for cash

[Live and Learn]

23. Crap! nt

[Jackilope]

25. Bill Maher is wrong. There is a huge difference between the chicken and the fish.

One is a slick and oily synthetic entree served up by the sleeziest of backers, the other is the genuine deal.

I believe my red state switched and Independents can vote in Democratic primaries. If so, this move by the DNC is the straw breaking the camel's back. The system is rigged and I am mad as hell.

I know Bernie is a man of his word, but I do wish he'd run Independent if not getting the Democratic nomination.

[raindaddy]

27. Let's be honest... the traditional populist Democratic party has been transformed...

into the Moderate Republican Party by the neoliberals..

The number of Dem. party members has been leaking for years, if this trend continues under Clinton I'm not staying in a party that no longer represents me.

[jalan48]

28. It's like the Political Super Bowl. Neither team will play for free with all that money out there.

[still_one]

29. I wonder if President Obama did that, if we would be instead referring to President McCain

Senator Barack Obama announced Thursday that he would not participate in the public financing system for presidential campaigns. He argued that the system had collapsed, and would put him at a disadvantage running against Senator John McCain, his likely Republican opponent.

With his decision, Mr. Obama became the first candidate of a major party to decline public financing — and the spending limits that go with it — since the system was created in 1976, after the Watergate scandals.

Mr. McCain, who has been a champion of the public financing system, affirmed Thursday that his campaign would accept public financing.

Mr. Obama announced his campaign finance decision in a video message sent to supporters and posted on the Internet. While it was not a surprise — his aides have been hinting that he would take this step for two months — it represented a turnabout from his strong earlier suggestion that he would join the system.

“The public financing of presidential elections as it exists today is broken, and we face opponents who’ve become masters at gaming this broken system,” Mr. Obama said. “John McCain’s campaign and the Republican National Committee are fueled by contributions from Washington lobbyists and special interest PACs. And we’ve already seen that he’s not going to stop the smears and attacks from his allies running so-called 527 groups, who will spend millions and millions of dollars in unlimited donations.”

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/06/20/us/politics/20obamacnd.html?_r=0

[Android3.14]

30. Preparing for a Clinton corporate love fest?

[fredamae]

31. Why I left the Dem Party.

there are no excuses for their corporate shilling, favoritism, biases against progressives, manipulation of "our" debates etc, etc, etc.

[raindaddy]

48. I think someone needs to sue this party for using the title Democratic Party.

[hughee99]

32. It will be awkward if Sanders wins the nomination,

Goes to the convention and has DWS tell him that a couple of guys paid a lot of money for a private meeting with him.

[Bohunk68]

43. Then he will inform DWS that he did not agree to such a thing, she did.

Therefore, she can have the interview with the money people. After all, DWS is the one that made the agreement.

[brooklynite]

46. You recall that Sanders has been happy to show up at DSCC events for deep-pockets contributors?

[arcane1]

40. Why We Can't Have Nice Things, Exhibit A n/t

[brooklynite]

45. Surprisingly reasonable...

The Host Committee is asking for a lot more (admittedly, their contribution is tax-deductible).

Sorry if this seems blunt, but a convention that brings together tens of thousands of people in a major US City can't be done on Bernie Sanders-level contributions.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

52. I'm sure that Hillary will loudly decry the use of corporate money by the DNC...

however I could be wrong.

[hifiguy]

65. Of course, all the time she is stuffing their cash in her pockets.

[jfern]

55. The DNC is broke

It's time for DWS to go. However, the candidate she supports thinks she's doing a great job.

[LoveIsNow]

56. Is victory truly all that matters?

"As soon as men decide that all means are permitted to fight an evil, then their good becomes indistinguishable from the evil that they set out to destroy."

Christopher H. Dawson

[NurseJackie]

60. When it comes to defeating Republicans, my answer is YES, absolutely.

Disarming one's self, in the middle of a political war, in the hopes that the other side will do the same thing, will lead to failure. I'm sorry, but it's true. Being philosophical about it won't change the reality.

[LoveIsNow]

74. Let me clue you in.

Team names mean absolutely nothing. When Democrats transform ourselves to be more like Republicans, when we allow them to drag us to the right, the oligarchs still win. We can pat ourselves on the back for our electoral "victories", but they won't bring back the middle class, or fix our embarrassing transportation infrastructure, or solve youth unemployment.

I'm sorry but it's true. Clinging to illusory pragmatism and pyrrhic victories won't change reality.

America needs a change in direction, not merely to move more slowly in the wrong direction.

[NurseJackie]

77. Well …

Anyone who believes that our electoral victories will be meaningless and unproductive, should just imagine how unproductive electoral defeats will be.

Irrational and unrealistic optimism won't change reality either.

Common sense tells me that the the aggressive methods I choose to support have a far greater chance of success than the passive ones that you support.

It's a difficult pill to swallow, but that's the truth. Complain about it all you want, but you won't change it. The decision has been made.

[LoveIsNow]

78. Your decisions are your own.

I personally believe that true change will only come when things seem at their worst. Right now too many people are still to comfortable to participate in the revolutionary change that our country needs.

I would suggest you take your own advice about unrealistic optimism as you undertake your quest for a saviour astride a gleaming blue donkey.

[NurseJackie]

80. Oh, I get it …

… it makes perfect sense now. We must lose in order to win. We must destroy in order to rebuild. We must disrupt in order to innovate. We must give up power in order to gain power.

Got it. Good luck with your efforts to intentionally make things worse. You'll need it.

[LoveIsNow]

83. I'm just a realist doing my job.

Have a nice rest of your weekend!

[NurseJackie]

84. No further explanation needed.

I understand more than you probably intended me to.

[LoveIsNow]

85. Sure...

I'm just checking out, because I have better things to do than have my words ignored and built into straw men.

[NurseJackie]

86. No worries, I understand completely …

… I think it's probably for the best anyway. Good luck to you.

[hifiguy]

61. Be honest about it and just auction off the whole goddam party.

What a shock - corporate shill DINO DWS is behind this. The stink is strong enough to knock a buzzard off a shitwagon.

[PoliticAverse]

63. Direct link to the list of perks on scribd.com...

http://www.scribd.com/doc/286529951/2016-PAC-Convention-Packages

[JRLeft]

66. This is precisely why people aren't motivated to support the democratic party.

[pa28]

76. It'll be funny to watch these funding commitments get DK'd if Bernie wins the nomination.

I bet Debbie re-locates the convention to the ballroom at the Ramada Inn by the airport.

[winter is coming]

81. I guess they evolved. n/t

[liberal_at_heart]

82. Democracy bought and paid for.

[sadoldgirl]

87. Already I can see the signs all around the arena

"Big Pharma loves to support this convention"

"Goldman/Sachs welcomes you"

"welcome delegates, we are Monsanto, need
help with your yards?"

"Have fun,delegates, happy to help out,now,
Insurance for all of you as well."

" We will have lots of real estate ready for
you, after you have cast your votes"

Great ideas from the great mind of DWS!

[PoliticAverse]

92. Sponsor logos should be behind the podium on the stage for all to see. n/t

[Fearless]

93. Gee I wonder what big donor was behind this one.