Would your opinion of Warren change if she authorized high-dollar fundraisers for the GE?

[brooklynite]

The reality is that she will need $1 B plus to run against Trump, and low dollar fundraising hasn't scaled up to that level in any prior campaign. Add to which, she's done them in the past for her Senate campaign. And, yes, we could all just write checks, but there's a reason charities organize galas to attract their top supporters: because they work.

[rpannier]

1. Would my opinion change? Probably

I'd have to see who she was meeting with
To your end comment, "...because they work."
Yes, they do. To the detriment of the political system

[brooklynite]

7. Did Warren "sell out" when she held fundraisers in 2018?

I don't remember being offered anything...

[rpannier]

9. I didn't say sell out. Not sure how you came up with that

I said my opinion would probably change, but I would have to see who she was meeting with

[brooklynite]

11. "To the detriment of the political system"

[rpannier]

14. It does work to the detriment of the political system

But, that does not imply (except in your mind, apparently) that I consider it selling out
I've watched and participated in US politics from overseas since a little before 2000 and have watched at both state and national level people and organizations get away with, what in a sane society would have amounted to criminal prosecution, instead become civil law. For example the robo-signings where they took away people's homes - the wrong people's homes and they paid a fine
Some of these people and organizations write legislation and the bill is presented still with the organizations name on it -- I think that was Minnesota. The Club for Growth exerts all kinds of influence that they shouldn't be allowed, as do banks, financial institutions, tech companies, etc. And, part of that is they give large amounts of money.
Why didn't the government prosecute the presidents of US banks? They were concerned that it might send the wrong message to the markets. So, (example) HSBC continued laundering money, donating cash and paid a fine

In Korea, a thriving Democracy, the too big to Jail is an actual practice. When a prominent executive goes to jail, he or she is often released early for the good of the economy. Japan, several industries provide their own 'experts' to the government for 1-3 years to aid in oversight and organization issues (the nuclear energy industry for example) and then when they return to their old job, new ones from that company step into those positions.
And the LDP gets huge money in donations

[KPN]

30. Bingo.

[highplainsdem]

2. I'd find her less credible.

[TwilightZone]

3. I have no problem with it, regardless of who wins the nom.

It's a political reality that we're going to need zillions to be competitive. Our nominee is going to need to tap the big donors to help Dems at all levels.

[Cha]

4. If EW were in the GE she'd be

our candidate and we'd do everything possible to help her win.

I'd hope there wouldn't be any gd purity tests then.

It would be great for Biden, too.. whatever it takes.

[MerryBlooms]

17. A+ Exactly, Cha. Perfectly stated. n/t

[Tarheel_Dem]

28. Ditto!

[tirebiter]

5. I don't see taking in the big bucks as a game changer without some proven malfeasance

Even FEC fines can be just paid and move on.

[Gidney N Cloyd]

6. I'd grieve a bit for our system but I wouldn't hold it against Warren.

[IronLionZion]

8. After Dems take the Senate, we need to pass better campaign finance reform

I wouldn't begrudge any Dem presidential candidate for holding high dollar fundraisers to win the general election since that's the system we have. But it needs reforms. Also we need better judges to overturn Citizens United.

[KPN]

31. This

[BeyondGeography]

10. No. And a VP Buttigieg could be a real asset on that front.

[Act_of_Reparation]

12. Individual choices aren't going to fix the money-politics problem.

A systemic solution is the only solution.

[Prosper]

13. Her principles are well known

and any donor could expect her to follow her principles. I would applaud her getting all the money any way she can to win the election.

[TidalWave46]

15. If she authorized them now she would be my top candidate. NT

[beastie boy]

16. Not at all.

She would still be my close number 2 choice.

My reason is this, and admittedly it's nothing but pragmatic: in order to change the system, you have to put yourself in a position to change the system. If big-dollar fundraiser will help her get elected, she should go for it. She doesn't even need to make any campaign promises to get big money out of politics. All she needs to do is act once she gets elected and even out the field for all candidates as far as big money is concerned. But then, if she accomplishes nothing, that would be my cue to get really pissed.

[Eric J in MN]

18. Elizabeth Warren has said that she'll seek money from the rich

...if she’s the nominee.

A future article about CEOs at an exclusive event with her would lower my opinion of her.

[Fiendish Thingy]

19. Hasn't she already said she would do this? Nt

[W_HAMILTON]

20. No, because these "high-dollar fundraisers" still rely on individual donations that cannot...

...exceed the maximum of $2,800.

Whether one takes a maximum donation of $2,800 at a fundraiser or takes a maximum of donation of $2,800 given through hundreds of mini-donations so that the candidate can claim that their campaign is being boosted by grassroots donors donating small amounts (cough, cough), it is still from the same sources.

[Eric J in MN]

22. There are Super PACs and Victory Funds

...for donors to give more than $2,800.

[W_HAMILTON]

23. Warren doesn't accept campaign contributions from those types of PACs.

[Eric J in MN]

24. Not now but she hasn't said she wouldn't in the general. NT

NT

[comradebillyboy]

21. No. It costs a lot of money to run a presidential campaign...

[Hortensis]

25. No. I'd regret what I assumed was necessity but also know

it had nothing to do with corruption. Not only has she earned that, but people need to understand that presidents aren't bought. They're at both the top of their powers and the end of their careers.

[blm]

26. Not for the General. I expect the nominee to allow any legitimate money

Into the campaign. She would have already proved in the primary that she won’t be bought.

[LakeArenal]

27. No no no.

Taking money from corporations really never equaled buying favors.

It just does today. Warren has never been even close to suggesting “pay for access”.

That’s where the Supreme Court screwed up. Not Warren.

[Gothmog]

29. A portion of the funds being used by Warren was raised at these fundraisers

Warren used high dollar fundraisers for her senate campaign and transferred money from these fundraisers to her presidential campaign.

Link to tweet

If Warren is the nominee, she will be doing high dollar fundraisers

[KPN]

32. In the GE, no ... but that extends to whoever our

nominee is as well.

[Blue_true]

33. No. nt

[betsuni]

34. The idea that high-dollar fundraisers makes one corrupt is stupid.

And applied only to Democrats, of course.

[SaschaHM]

35. Nope.

I live in a swing state so I'm bombarded with advertisements and mail every election. The sheer amount of money that is necessary to compete and go toe to toe w/ the Republicans and their owners has to be raised somehow. If it can be raised through low dollar, which I doubt, fine, do that. If not, high dollar it is.

I see no reason to tear down our nominee over something that isn't even on the radar of the opposition.

[ecstatic]

36. My opinion would improve. It would show her ability to change course when presented

with new information. Elections cost money. And I don't believe for one second that she would be corrupted and owned by large donors. I've never believed in that premise.