2016 Postmortem
Related: About this forumAbout Those Super Delegates : How Hillary Clinton Bought The Loyalty Of 33 State Dem Parties...
http://www.counterpunch.org/2016/04/01/how-hillary-clinton-bought-the-loyalty-of-33-state-democratic-parties/from the link:
Collusion between the Clinton campaign and the DNC allowed Hillary Clinton to buy the loyalty of 33 state Democratic parties last summer. Montana was one of those states. It sold itself for $64,100.
The Super Delegates now defying democracy with their insistent refusal to change their votes to Sanders in spite of a handful of overwhelming Clinton primary losses in their own states, were arguably part of that deal...
In August 2015, at the Democratic Party convention in Minneapolis, 33 democratic state parties made deals with the Hillary Clinton campaign and a joint fundraising entity called The Hillary Victory Fund. The deal allowed many of her core billionaire and inner circle individual donors to run the maximum amounts of money allowed through those state parties to the Hillary Victory Fund in New York and the DNC in Washington.
The idea was to increase how much one could personally donate to Hillary by taking advantage of the Supreme Court ruling 2014, McCutcheon v FEC, that knocked down a cap on aggregate limits as to how much a donor could give to a federal campaign in a year. It thus eliminated the ceiling on amounts spent by a single donor to a presidential candidate.
snip
From these large amounts of money being transferred from state coffers to the Hillary Victory Fund in Washington, the Clinton campaign got the first $2,700, the DNC was to get the next $33,400, and the remainder was to be split among the 33 signatory states. With this scheme, the Hillary Victory Fund raised over $26 million for the Clinton Campaign by the end of 2015.
If a presidential campaign from either party can convince various state parties to partner with it in such a way as to route around any existing rules on personal donor limits and at the same time promise money to that states potential candidates, then the deal can be sold as a way of making large monetary promises to candidates and Super-delegates respectable. The leadership of a very broke Montana Democratic Party decided in August of 2015 that this was a seductive deal they were willing to make. And by the end of that year scores of 10,000 donations came in from out of state...
the whole sordid tale @ link...
http://www.counterpunch.org/2016/04/01/how-hillary-clinton-bought-the-loyalty-of-33-state-democratic-parties/
DanTex
(20,709 posts)CorporatistNation
(2,546 posts)TRUTH!
brooklynite
(94,794 posts)Of course, maybe you're right; maybe the fact that Sanders hasn't offered any support for the Democratic Party is a reason from Democratic leadership not to support him.
spyker29
(89 posts)Wants all the benefits of an organization without paying dues. Thanks for pointing it out.
MineralMan
(146,338 posts)Not everything you read on the Internet is complete or accurate. This one of those cases. Bernie has signed the same agreements, but no money has flowed to the states from him.
Further, superdelegates are not all party functionaries. Some are, of course, but they are still individuals who decide how they will vote at the convention for themselves.
I think this piece from counterpunch.org is perhaps more than a little biased in one direction.
In any case, it's not telling the whole story, nor the whole truth. Sorry.
2banon
(7,321 posts)Openly rigged electioneering puts a lie to the face of our faux democracy.