Sanders on Clinton’s Clooney fundraiser: ‘It is obscene’

[Zorro]

Bernie Sanders likes George Clooney. But the Vermont senator says Democratic frontrunner Hillary Clinton’s use of the actor in a pair of high-priced fundraisers next month is nonetheless “obscene.”

“It is obscene that Secretary Clinton keeps going to big-money people to fund her campaign,” Sanders said in an interview on CNN’s “State of the Union” Sunday.

Clinton is asking donors for $353,400 for two seats at the head table with herself, Clooney and his wife, Amal, at the April 15 event in San Francisco. The next night, the Clooneys will host a $33,400 per person fundraiser for Clinton at the couple’s Los Angeles home.

“I have a lot of respect for George Clooney. He’s a great actor. I like him,” Sanders said. “But this is the problem with American politics … Big money is dominating our political system. And [my supporters and I] are trying to move as far away from that as we can.”

https://www.yahoo.com/politics/bernie-clooney-hillary-clinton-171452613.html

Looks like Clooney goes under the bus now. At least he'll have good company -- Maddow, Dean, Wenner, and Krugman are already there.

[SHRED]

1. Is this for her campaign personally or the DNC?

[bettyellen]

7. much more money goes to the DNC, and then states Dem parties. There is a formula and part of

every ticket bought has to be split between the three. The DNC and states get everything past 2,700- if the people have not already given anything to Hilary. So the DNC and states could be spending this money on Bernie in November I think!

[FarPoint]

29. Yes you are correct

Shared. Makes me ask or question what has Bernie contributed?

[CorporatistNation]

35. Ya Think?

Really.... Clooney... Under the Damn Bus With Ya!

[Tanuki]

8. It is a Victory Fund event. HRC can receive no more than

2,700 for the primary and 2,700 for the general from any individual, and the remainder goes to the DNC and 32 state committees. Thus, the bulk of the proceeds from these pricey tickets goes to support down-ticket Democratic candidates all over the country. I hope we are united in our desire to take back the House and Senate, and I don't agree that it is obscene for HRC to harness her "star power" to raise some needed campaign capital for lower profile candidates who are facing Koch-funded GOP rivals. This might well be their only chance to remain competitive.

[frylock]

2. You guys sure do loves some bus metaphor

The wheels on the bus go derpa derp.

[QC]

34. I wish the Ministry of Truth would send out some new talking points.

These are stale.

[Aerows]

40. Damn, frylock

you never fail to entertain!

Where may I send your internets? You won them today!

[fun n serious]

3. She is raising money for down ticket races.

Bernie knows that but wont go there.

[beam me up scottie]

4. “I have a lot of respect for George Clooney" = throwing him under the bus?

My goodness people are desperate to smear Bernie today.

I wonder why?

[ForgoTheConsequence]

5. Under the bus?

Only simple minded morons venerate celebrities in the first place. Clooney is a great actor, he is also a very wealthy man, of course he is supporting the candidate who will let him keep more of his wealth.

[OKNancy]

6. He is misinformed then

The Clooney fundraiser is for down-ticket Democrats, not for her campaign.
He may actually know that, but thinks it makes a good soundbite

[Henhouse]

11. Bernie's fib will help him with his own fundraising, too....nt

[Hekate]

9. Down-ticket Democrats need the money, and this is what the fundraiser is for....

Would all the people kvetching about this fundraiser like to swing the Senate and House -- or not? Would they like to swing some state governorships and legislatures -- or not?

In just my local California district we are going to have several hotly contested seats open up, and word is out that some major rightwing money is going to be thrown at those races. From my point of view, what would be "obscene" is Democrats just rolling over and letting that happen without a fight. If George and Amal Clooney would like to help out, let me be the first to thank them.

[ThePhilosopher04]

10. Doesn't matter where it goes. It's who the money comes from and the expected access and favor

that comes with it. It some ways, it's even worse because we're talking about an entire party on the take.

[beam me up scottie]

13. Exactly, money buys influence and that's what Bernie is talking about.

Such ridiculously transparent spin, pretending he's attacking George Clooney.

[FarPoint]

31. The system is what it is today for the November 2016 vote.

So, deal with it.

[beam me up scottie]

33. Hillary 2016: Because we don't deserve better!

[FarPoint]

39. Catch your breath ...

See reply # 16

[beam me up scottie]

42. Nah, I think I'll keep laughing at the supporters of the big money candidate.

While you try to smear Bernie for this. Hillaryous.

[FarPoint]

45. Your stuck.

You'll figure it out some day. Stay strong.

[beam me up scottie]

47. It's "you're". Better luck on your next insult!

[FarPoint]

49. No it is not.

It shall be what ever I says it is and want it to be ....Mocking a DU'er is so Rush Limbaugh of you...try actually discussion verses bullying next time. You can disagree but being cruel is an attempt to belittle another ,it is hurtful. So, now you can continue to laugh... Happy Easter Holiday to you my fellow DU'er.

[Aerows]

43. LOL!

Nailed it, BMUS!

[randome]

14. What, you think a bundle of money is physically handed to someone...

...with a post-it note on it that says, "This is from George Clooney"? The money is pooled and then distributed. As long as Sanders has been in Congress, he should know how that works. Maybe he wasn't paying attention.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]You have to play the game to find out why you're playing the game. -Existenz[/center][/font][hr]

[ThePhilosopher04]

15. Yes, the money is pooled but you don't think there are strings attached when it's "distributed"

to candidates? We all know the real answer.

[randome]

17. No, we don't know the real answer, but some are assuming.

Of course some big-wigs may be expecting favors but that doesn't mean they get what they ask for. What 'strings' do you think would be attached to money that is split between, say, a dozen different candidates? Do you really think that every Democratic candidate is 'on the take'? Determined pessimism aside, I don't think so.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]You have to play the game to find out why you're playing the game. -Existenz[/center][/font][hr]

[ThePhilosopher04]

20. No I don't, but it doesn't change the fundamental problem of a small number ...

of donors making huge donations. And yes they do expect favors and often get them.

Not everyone who comes in contact with a person infected with a deadly virus gets sick, but many do.

[kristopher]

38. Actually we do know the real answer - Statistics Rule.

In the first place your framing glosses over what the donors get -

some big-wigs may be expecting favors but that doesn't mean they get what they ask for.

But they get to ask directly, don't they? That is called "access" and it isn't something you or I have.

What does that mean where the rubber meets the legislative/regulatory road?

APRIL 18, 2014
Is America an Oligarchy?
BY JOHN CASSIDY
From the Dept. of Academics Confirming Something You Already Suspected comes a new study concluding that rich people and organizations representing business interests have a powerful grip on U.S. government policy. After examining differences in public opinion across income groups on a wide variety of issues, the political scientists Martin Gilens, of Princeton, and Benjamin Page, of Northwestern, found that the preferences of rich people had a much bigger impact on subsequent policy decisions than the views of middle-income and poor Americans. Indeed, the opinions of lower-income groups, and the interest groups that represent them, appear to have little or no independent impact on policy....

http://www.newyorker.com/news/john-cassidy/is-america-an-oligarchy


The original study the New Yorker is reporting on:

Sept 2014 journal "Perspectives on Politics"

Testing Theories of American Politics: Elites, Interest Groups, and Average Citizens
Martin Gilens and Benjamin I. Page

ABSTRACT
Each of four theoretical traditions in the study of American politics—which can be characterized as theories of Majoritarian Electoral Democracy, Economic-Elite Domination, and two types of interest-group pluralism, Majoritarian Pluralism and Biased Pluralism—offers different predictions about which sets of actors have how much influence over public policy: average citizens; economic elites; and organized interest groups, mass-based or business-oriented.
A great deal of empirical research speaks to the policy influence of one or another set of actors, but until recently it has not been possible to test these contrasting theoretical predictions against each other within a single statistical model. We report on an effort to do so, using a unique data set that includes measures of the key variables for 1,779 policy issues.
Multivariate analysis indicates that economic elites and organized groups representing business interests have substantial independent impacts on U.S. government policy, while average citizens and mass-based interest groups have little or no independent influence. The results provide substantial support for theories of Economic-Elite Domination and for theories of Biased Pluralism, but not for theories of Majoritarian Electoral Democracy or Majoritarian Pluralism.

The last paragraph of their findings:

Despite the seemingly strong empirical support in previous studies for theories of majoritarian democracy, our analyses suggest that majorities of the American public actually have little influence over the policies our government adopts. Americans do enjoy many features central to democratic governance, such as regular elections, freedom of speech and association, and a wide-spread (if still contested) franchise. But we believe that if policymaking is dominated by powerful business organizations and a small number of affluent Americans, then America’s claims to being a democratic society are seriously threatened.

https://scholar.princeton.edu/sites/default/files/mgilens/files/gilens_and_page_2014_-testing_theories_of_american_politics.doc.pdf

"...America’s claims to being a democratic society are seriously threatened."

[JackRiddler]

25. What, you think the recipients are idiots and don't know where it comes from?

They certainly do, and it's not any one person but a class that they serve.

[SHRED]

44. George talks about it here

[OKNancy]

16. Sanders took money from Hillary's congressional fund, HillPac

It helped him with his race. There is nothing wrong with it.

$10,000
#9 on list at link - https://www.opensecrets.org/politicians/contrib.php?cid=N00000528&cycle=2006

---

I guess Sanders owes her favors. LOL

[randome]

19. He 'evolved'?

[hr][font color="blue"][center]You have to play the game to find out why you're playing the game. -Existenz[/center][/font][hr]

[FarPoint]

32. Beautiful find.

Thank you.

[bettyellen]

37. OMG wealthy Hollywood people will take over the government!!!! Oh nooooo!!

[trumad]

12. Obscene raising money for Dems

Says the brand new Dem

[ThePhilosopher04]

18. It's not "obscene" to raise money, it's obscene to raise it in large chunks from a few sources

who expect something in return. Candidates are beholden to their funding sources. You know that, and I know that.

[Tanuki]

21. What do you think is the cut-off dollar amount for obscenity?

[ThePhilosopher04]

24. I think elections should be publicly funded

with taxpayer dollars, to avoid any hint of corruption. So to answer your question, I don't like the idea of any direct, individual contributions to candidates, regardless of amount. That said, we have the system we have and I think Bernie's model is the best out there. Like all candidates, he's beholden to his contributors, but at least they are large in number and the dollars are not concentrated among a few individuals. Better put, he's beholden to the masses, which is what representative democracy is supposed to be about.

[Tanuki]

46. I don't like the current system either, but do you really expect

Clinton (or Sanders either, for that matter) to unilaterally disarm financially, knowing the kind of money the Koch brothers, Sheldon Adelman, Art Pope, etc. will be putting up for the worst of the worst GOP candidates? Sanders has high-ticket fundraisers, too, you know. I am not going to diss the people who shell out to meet him and support his vision of the future. I'm not going to question their motives and presume they are looking for some quid pro quo. The reason I asked about the dollar cut-off amount is that Bernie has events at which people are being asked to kick in a minimum of $10,000 to be listed as "co-hosts," and I wondered if you had a problem with that. Some of the e-mails Jeff Weaver and Tad Devine send to Bernie's rank-and-file supporters strongly imply that they are above this sort of thing, but Bernie goes to these events so he knows perfectly well. If you don't believe me, check this out:

https://secure.berniesanders.com/page/contribute/los-angeles-fundraising-reception

[ThePhilosopher04]

52. The Bernie "event" you linked ...

is not even close to the same as the Clooney event, and you know it. To compare the two events is dishonest on it's face.
But to answer your question, yes, I do have a philosophical problem with it as I stated in my previous post.

[Tanuki]

54. Why is it dishonest? Some would consider ten thousand

dollars too high a price and obscene. That's why I asked what your personal cut-off dollar amount would be, but you have evaded that question and now turn around and insult me as "dishonest."

[FarPoint]

53. Well said..

Too bad Bernie posters continue with their negative behavior towards fellow DU'er.up thread I'm mocked.....I believe you said it the best make the accurate assessment. Thank you.

[Live and Learn]

55. +10,000 nt

[trumad]

50. Uh huh

[Sunlei]

22. Most of this $ goes to DNC & States,if Bernie wins primary that money will help him in the general?

[angstlessk]

23. I do love me some Clooney....BUT

He is in the wrong camp!

[MattP]

26. Does Bernie have victory fund for the Senate and House races?

What camp should Clooney be in? Is Bernie raising money for other Democrats to pass his agenda

[Mike Nelson]

27. Mr. Clooney and his wealthy...

...peers believe their own taxes should be raised to pay for Democratic ideals. Nice to see them putting up the $$$

[SalviaBlue]

28. Some people can only hold one thought in their brain at a time.

Yes, it is obscene. Yes, it is the way our system currently works. You can respect the people involved but want it not to have to be this way.

In our system as it is today, some people are more equal than other people because they have more money. More money = more say.

Bernie's bottom line in this Clooney/Obscene statement was that we need publically funded elections so that politicians cannot be more accessible to rich people. I agree with him.

[OutNow]

30. I don't have $353,400 to contribute

I don't even have $33,400 to donate to a candidate and I don't even know anyone with that much money to contribute to a candidate. I've always thought that anyone with that much money would be a Republican since Republicans have always been the party that defends the rich against people like me. I am wrong?

[bettyellen]

41. We are talking about Hollywood- not your typical wealthy conservatives.

I doubt there is much they expect from her, except not to be demonized like the RW zealots do.

[Jackilope]

36. The financing of politics and huge price tags to dine with the elites is obscene.

Who ponies up money like that? All this for supposedly serving the rest of us unwashed masses and peons.

I'd rather go for the guy that actually wore comfortable shoes and did protest and walk picket lines with the working poor.

I would rather we had campaign finance reform and a real fourth estate. I'd rather have politicians that worked for the people, not the wealthy and elite. Fix these issues and things are less obscene.

[restorefreedom]

48. the money stranglehold over politics IS obscene. nt

[mhatrw]

51. Hail Caesar!

[Live and Learn]

56. Sanders is correct. It is obscene. nt

[WhiteTara]

57. Maybe he should pony up some money for down ticket races.