Before posting something on campaign donations

[MineralMan]

to our party's primary candidates, it would be good to understand the regulations on such campaign donations. Here's a compact source that lays it all out:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Campaign_finance_in_the_United_States

All candidates are subject to these rules, and all follow them. It's best not to make false claims about such things or to distort news stories about campaign donations, I think. By learning the facts, it's easy to avoid doing that.

Thanks for reading.

[Csainvestor]

1. Billionaires contribute tens of millions To Hillary Clinton's Super PAC

Last edited Fri Apr 1, 2016, 01:54 PM - Edit history (1)

Do you suppose Soros and the other Wall Street Billionaires that fund Hillary expect nothing in return?

The Billionaire class has doubled their net worth during Obama's tenure.

[MineralMan]

4. I'm simply giving people a place to look up information.

This thread is not about particular instances at all.

[Warren Stupidity]

11. How stupid do you think people here are?

[MineralMan]

13. I don't actually know anyone on DU personally,

so I don't have an opinion on that.

Is there a problem with posting a link to information about campaign donation regulations? If so, then I humbly apologize. I made no judgments about anyone in my post. I posted a link.

[Autumn]

21. Obviously pretty damn stupid.

[Hassin Bin Sober]

29. Yep:

Bundlers are people with friends in high places who, after bumping against personal contribution limits, turn to those friends, associates, and, well, anyone who's willing to give, and deliver the checks to the candidate in one big "bundle."

[1StrongBlackMan]

9. Yes ... They except something in return ...

they, like any/every other supporter, except that the candidate they support will carry through with their platform.

[DanTex]

14. You really think Soros is looking for a kickback? He's donated huge amounts of money to

liberal causes all over the world for many years. He's also worth over $10B (in real money, not Trump money), so he doesn't need any more. Maybe some people are looking for a kick-back, but not him. He's a liberal philanthropist.

[LisaM]

27. If they're going after Soros on this site....

they're clearly parroting Free Republic talking points. I'm trying really hard to drown out the noise.

[LisaM]

28. Please give an example of Soros demanding a quid pro quo

from any candidate or organization. TIA.

[Warren Stupidity]

2. The rules for "independent" PACs are essentially

there are no rules.

[MineralMan]

5. Yes, that is pretty much correct.

[Warren Stupidity]

8. So your op is a bit bullshitty.

[MineralMan]

16. Actually, it's not.

When someone refers to a candidate's "campaign," that's a very specific thing. My link explains all of the categories in a basic, objective way.

[GeorgiaPeanuts]

25. Do you think we are stupid?

When someone refers to a candidate getting donations from X industry it doesn't mean only specifically to their candidate PAC. You have to be playing really dumb to assume that, especially when the Queen has so many SuperPacs around her and she had to crack open her general election only SuperPac because she was under such a threat from Bernie.

[MineralMan]

26. I'm not even going to respond to that.

Sorry.

[mythology]

3. Please stop trying to inject reason into this

It's much easier for people to make scary claims if they can ignore facts.

[1StrongBlackMan]

6. This will be ignored ...

just like the rules governing primaries and caucuses, and the policies and procedures of the DNC.

It's far more easy to adopt the sophomoric narrative of the day and RAGE!!!!

(But thank the Universe this is the internet, where you can be clearly, loudly and proudly uninformed and still gain a following.)

[MineralMan]

10. You could be right.

It still seems important to me to link to a place where people can learn something about what they're posting about.

I don't have time to explain this stuff thread-by-thread, frankly.

This kind of thing is something Wikipedia does very well.

[1StrongBlackMan]

18. True ... And I thank you for your valiant efforts.

[Avalux]

7. Let's talk about indirect ties, shall we? Sure there are rules, but there are also ways around them.

Don't pretend to be so clueless....

On the eve of the first political contest of 2016, Hillary Clinton will be soliciting campaign funds from wealthy investment bankers at two separate Wall Street fundraisers.

Zaid Jilani of The Intercept is reporting that Clinton will be traveling to Philadelphia and New York City for private fundraisers hosted by financial titans Franklin Square Capital Partners and one of the top executives of BlackRock, respectively. The FS Energy & Power Fund — one of Franklin Square’s prominent investment funds — is primarily responsible for funding fracking and offshore oil drilling, meaning that much of the campaign money Clinton will be raising in Philadelphia will come indirectly from the fossil fuel industry. And as Mother Jones has previously reported, one of Clinton’s lasting legacies during her time as Secretary of State was the propagation of fracking around the world.

BlackRock, based in New York City, has longstanding ties to Hillary Clinton. Cheryl Mills, who sits on the board of the Clinton Foundation, is also a member of BlackRock’s board of directors. Mills was also one of Clinton’s top advisors at the State Department, and worked in the Bill Clinton administration:

Prior to founding BlackIvy, Cheryl served as counselor and chief of staff at the U.S. Department of State where she managed the foreign policy and operational priorities for the $55 billion agency… She previously worked in Washington, D.C., where she served as deputy counsel to the President at the White House. Cheryl’s legal experience also includes serving as associate counsel to the President, as deputy general counsel of the Clinton/Gore Transition Planning Foundation.

As her Clinton Foundation bio notes, Cheryl Mills also worked as an associate at Hogan Lovells (now Hogan Hartson), the same law firm where current Attorney General Loretta Lynch and Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts worked. And as Jilani pointed out, BlackRock raising money for Clinton is a good business strategy for them, as a Clinton presidency would mean that BlackRock’s business model of long-term investments over short-term trading will be rewarded with additional handouts from the federal government.

http://usuncut.com/politics/wall-street-hosting-fundraisers-for-clinton-before-iowa/

[Csainvestor]

15. Pritzker family has contributed 3.8M

Pritzker runs a private equity and venture capital firm. Net worth of $3.2 billion.

Penny Pritzker, was a top Obama fundraiser and was appointed Commerce Secretary under the Obama administration.

Always remember, the billionaire class has doubled their networth under Obama.

[Avalux]

20. Yes I know. Our government is bought and paid for by them.

As much as I still like Obama, he is establishment and has played along.

[99th_Monkey]

12. Most OPs I see are not quibbling about the minutia of rules and such

Rather, they are pointing to the implausability of mega-donors not expecting anything in return
for their "generosity" .. thus insulting the intelligence of voters.

[MineralMan]

17. Perhaps so. There have been many posts about

donations to candidates' "campaigns," though. There seems to be some misunderstanding about that particular issue.

My link is an attempt to help people find information.

[Armstead]

19. Politics has been corrupted by Corporate Cash. Everyone acknowledges that. Including Clinton.

It is accepted as fact by politicians from most parts of the political spectrum -- including those who are the beneficiaries of it.

This is a losing argument.

[MineralMan]

22. Yes, it has. I'm not arguing about that.

We need to get rid of CU and move toward public funding of campaigns, with very limited contributions from individuals, I think.

That is, however, not the system that is currently in place. Hence my link to a concise explanation of the regulations.

This is not a partisan post. It has nothing to do with any particular candidate at all.

It's an informational post.

[kennetha]

23. Sanders is engaging in cheap Demagoguery on Clinton's "corporate" contributions.

unfortunately, his followers are swallowing it hook, line, and sinker.

[MineralMan]

24. I commented in your thread.

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

30. Yes, of course there are regulations governing campaign contributions.

Presumably, bag men for the fat cats are no longer surreptitiously tossing plain envelopes full of cash over their candidates' transoms or leaving them under a rock in the park. That isn't necessary any more. We live in a fetid swamp of political corruption where the regulations forthrightly permit and even encourage bribery, but we don't smell the stench any more because we've become so used to it ("nose-blind," they call it in the air freshener ads). Sure, corporations can't give money directly to campaigns, but even though we all reject Mitt's and the Supreme Court's premise that corporations are people, they are comprised of people and they can act only through people.

So Goldman Sachs can't donate directly to a campaign (although it can hire a known future candidate to give a one-hour speech for a sum of money that would support four average families for a year and call it a fee for services rendered). And Mr. Blankfein can donate only $2700 out of his own pocket. He can also ask his subordinates at GS to do likewise, but they are certainly free to ignore the Big Boss' "suggestion," since jobs are a dime a dozen these days. GS can, however, donate whatever amount it wants, without any requirement for disclosure, to a super-PAC created to help fund a campaign. The rules say there can be no coordination between the campaign and the PAC, wink wink, nudge nudge. If you believe that kind of coordination doesn't happen, I've got some genuine Rolex watches in the trunk of my car that can be yours for $5 apiece.

The notion that there are no implied quid pro quo expectations arising from the direct donations to a candidate, bundled or otherwise, of agents and employees of certain industries, or to the PAC by the corporations themselves, is risibly naive. If I am the CEO of Megafilth Oil and Fracking Co., which pays me a jaw-droppingly generous salary along with stock options and all manner of lavish perks, I want to do what I can to keep that gravy train on the tracks and running in my direction, and I will donate to the candidate most likely to benefit my company. And I will also make sure it quite legally bestows considerable largesse on that candidate's super PAC, which of course does not coordinate in any way, shape or form with the campaign.

But I don't smell anything. Do you?

[Orsino]

31. These rules are exactly why billionaires circumvent them with other rules.

Compliance is nothing to brag about.