Can someone tell me what I want?

[brooklynite]

I keep reading that people who write big dollar checks to candidates expect something in return. I always thought I was supporting pro-choice, pro-gay rights, pro-immigration, pro-progressive taxation Democrats, but I get the impression I'm supposed to be asking for more. Any ideas what I'm missing out on?

[Kalidurga]

1. You may want progress on some issues.

But, are okay with the status quo for most people who are struggling.

[BreakfastClub]

35. So the OP is not pure enough for you? nt

[Fawke Em]

40. Not the point.

We're not going to progress until we get money out of the system. Corporations don't much care if we have abortions or marry our same-sex partners - in fact, allowing for both of those helps there bottom lines.

What they do care about is that we get candidates who won't nominate Supreme Court nominees that will tip the balance by removing Citizens United. That we don't get a candidate who'll remove their tax havens or raise their taxes. That we don't get one who'll break them up.

We'll never have single-payer or free college or any of the things every other industrialized nation in the world has until we make it LESS profitable for them.

[Kalidurga]

47. I agree with everything you say

But, I must add with our status quo people are dying much sooner than they have to and families are being devastated that are already poor. They are losing people they love and to compound their loss they are thrown even deeper into poverty. I am not okay with the status quo. It seems to me Hillary supporters are fine with it, even though they scream about making progress.

[Ron Green]

2. Your comfort zone is your own.

Everyone's is different, and some people reject theirs.

You've just gotta support the politics you believe in.

[oldandhappy]

3. Suspect you and I are not in the category of people with big wants.

You are supporting things important to you. You probably do not have an oil company or manufacturing plant with parts coming in from around the world. You want fairness.

[nichomachus]

4. Well, you just said what you want

But corporations who write big checks don't want any of that. They want profits, profits, and more profits. They really don't give a crap about anything you say you care about.

Anyone who is not a major corporation and who writes a check to a coporate-supported politician is a fool. You're wasting your money.

[cyberswede]

42. Yep: "But corporations who write big checks don't want any of that."

Nailed it.

[JonLeibowitz]

5. Even if there is no explicit quid pro quo, there is an implied element of corruption

Let me explain. You have a universe of possible candidates. Only those who are able to fundraise significant sums of money, in the current system, are viable. In this campaign, that meant Hillary and Bernie since Hillary sucked all the air out of the room for the big-money donors.

So the question is, does the lack of choice presented to the voters due to this reliance on big dollar donations mean voters often have to choose from ethically compromised candidates who are able to fundraise from these questionable interests.

It isn't so much that HRC and the oil lobbyists have an explicit agreement that she'll be representative of their interests, it is that they choose to support her over other possible candidates because they know she is friendly. If she doesn't represent their interests, they don't donate.

Of course, as an operative of the Clinton campaign I don't expect you to address any of these problems. Just note that liberals had complaints about the campaign finance system before Citizens United; a lot of it had to the influence of lobbyists bundling cash for candidates.

[Armstead]

7. Great answer

[JonLeibowitz]

32. And as expected, brooklynite chooses not to address any of the valid points raised here.

Not exactly shocking.

[Armstead]

6. You are making a phony comparison

I will assume that your motives are as pure as the driven snow. And you can only give so much to an individual candidate as an individual.

But people who are affluent enough to write somewhat large checks and believe in candidates or parties are not the problem.

I doubt you are in a position to shape a politician's opinions based on the (sorry) comparatively measly amount you might donate. Now if you were an Adelson or Koch or otehr mega million backer, it would be different


It's the systemic corruption based on bundlers, lobbyists, Pacs, Super Pacs and innumerable otehr ways that Corporations and Institutional backers can game the sytem and essentially buy or unduly influence politicians.

It's strange...Before the current primary, Democrats used to acknowledge that the political system is broken and Washington tyoo beholden to Big Money and Power.

But I guess once a race involves a Clinton....those old beliefs no longer apply. The politically correct position now is to be an apologist for the same systemic corruption you used to complain about.

I guess we shoud all agree that people like Foster Freize, Adelson and the Kochs are just civic minded donors now too. No problemo.

[WhiteTara]

8. George Clooney is such a corporatist and he expects some

real quid pro quo, you know! Broad brush strokes paint everyone.

[Armstead]

10. George Clooney is a great guy with great values

But he and his ultra wealthy friends should not be in a bigger position to collectively drive the money available to politicians -- and thus influence the agenda and winners of elections -- on a larger scale than us average schmucks.

[BKH70041]

21. Thankfully that's not how it works.

Unlike the OP, I do donate a lot to the party. If one were to list the top 50 individual donors to the party for the last 20 years, you would find my name. I've made no secret of that here.

What I have to say about he party, its policies, and it's direction is much more important than that of "average schmucks" because my intellect surpasses those of anyone else here. The dollar amount of my donations is just a bonus.

I don't care if you don't like it, but you will live it, because your betters are leading the way.

Secretary Clinton will be the nominee.

[Yurovsky]

22. I like to play pretend too!

Sometimes I'm a pirate!

Sometimes I'm a billionaire!

Sometimes I'm a billionaire pirate!

You like to pretend to be Richy-Rich Democratic donor! That sounds like fun! Maybe I'll try that out on my next play date!

[brooklynite]

24. I can't speak for the other post...but I can speak for mine

Last edited Mon Apr 18, 2016, 01:23 AM - Edit history (1)

I don't hide my identity (check my profile); so you're welcome to check my FEC filings.

I'd say we're at about $45,000 so far for this election.

[Armstead]

31. Lah de dah....you donate more than I make

I am professional, and am accomplished and well respected for my professional abilities in a career that is soul satisfying and socially constructive. But it is a field and location that is not lucrative.

I give what I can to candidates I support.

However the fact that you are a lucky duck with a well paying job should not give you a greater voice in determining the political future than us folks who work hard but do not get the financial spoils as much.

[BKH70041]

34. And you shouldn't.

I'll gladly speak for myself. And I got a lot of better things to do than to pretend to be someone I'm not, especially for a pol site where I barely post.

But I'm not going to hold back either. Someone needs to explain to these Sanders supporters their place, which at this point is to either start behaving like Democrats or go form their own party. That's their choices and it needs to be made crystal clear to them.

This wild-eyed, anti-Capitalism crap is not welcome in the party. So now when these Sanders supporters are informed they either need to get in line or go form their own party, they can't say that no one ever told them the party leadership would treat them this way, because I am.

I'll be at the National Convention as a guest of a certain NY Senator. If you're part of the group who will be there, maybe we'll have the opportunity to meet.

[AgingAmerican]

28. It's a common thing with the loudest Hillary supporters

They are all rich or important, according to themselves.

[angrychair]

23. Who cares

Play pretend all you want nameless person on random Internet message board.

[Armstead]

30. I'm assuming this is a pose

I find it hard to believe anyone could be that arrogent

[Fawke Em]

43. Our betters?

Just because you make more money than me doesn't make you better than me.

And, if she's the nominee, good luck winning the election without 20-30 percent of Democrats, the Millennials and the Independents.

[snot]

9. Results.

The people who pay the big bucks, get them.

[Autumn]

11. You want to give more money to the Clinton campaign? I don't mind that I do object

to big fucking speaking fees paid to her by corporations, Wall Street and banks unless I know what she is promising them. They aren't paying her those big fees because she is such a wonderful, charming, inspiring speaker because she's not. And that comes from someone who spent 12 years defending her and caucused for her and supported her till she lost the last time. I won't waste another second of my life defending her. Next time you see her explain to Hillary why she is so distrusted, as often as you post you know the issues people have with her.

[TeeYiYi]

12. Depends...

...on who you're writing your checks out to. You may be getting hoodwinked.

TYY

[msongs]

13. you support hillary. that makes you (insert perjurative here ) to the bernie sanders crowd

[Agony]

14. Yeah, right...

like there is no difference between Clinton, Sanders and Teachout wrt the FIRE sector.

This is exactly why the US political system is rigged.

You don't have to ask for what you are hoping to get. <----that is the beautiful part for you

follow the money.

ordinary people have to beg for the right to health care retirement dignity decent wages and you don't have to ask for anything BECAUSE YOU ALREADY FUCKING HAVE IT. I notice that none of those things are in your damn list….

some of us weren't born yesterday.

[DisgustipatedinCA]

15. If you're wealthy, as you've claimed to be many times, I don't have a lot of interest in what you

want.

We occupy completely different worlds. My concerns revolve around my family and our middle-class existence. I don't even pretend to understand what people like the person you're claiming to be want--you should already have what you want. If not, maybe you can get another tax cut soon.

[morningfog]

18. I tend to think they are false persona, playing s part.

There is a word to describe such posters. Otherwise, they are just sad.

[DisgustipatedinCA]

19. If he really is that rich, he does seem to mention it a lot more than actual rich people do.

I don't know what the case is, but I do know that most wealthy people have the good sense not to talk about their wealth all the time.

[ChisolmTrailDem]

38. Mentions it every chance he gets. Name drops, goes to salons, hob-knobs with the 1%... nt

[Fawke Em]

44. If the name's real, then he's a former Comcast executive.

Explains a lot, actually.

[aspirant]

16. He wants attention, why do you think he posts here?

[morningfog]

17. Wait a second, you mean you are monied? I never would have known.

Except that you post it everyday. Rich and boring I guess.

[Dem2]

25. Ad hominem

It's quite the popular post these days.

[Chan790]

20. No. I have another question though.

If you're supporting "pro-choice, pro-gay rights, pro-immigration, pro-progressive taxation Democrats" why are you supporting Sec. Clinton who has conditionalized her support for all of those things?

She's not pro-choice...she's willing to work with Republicans to find reasonable restrictions on abortion.
She's not pro-gay-rights...she had to be dragged kicking and screaming into supporting marriage equality.
She's not pro-immigration...she has supported several GOP border-lunacy proposals.
She's not pro-progressive-taxation...she's an ardent champion of middle-class tax-cuts that shift tax burden down onto poorer Americans.

She's also not terribly pro-labor, pro-women, pro-minority...I'm not exactly sure what Hillary does support that makes her more than a claims to be so she is Democrat. She sure doesn't act like or hold Democratic values.

[redstateblues]

29. Totally disagree

Sorry but Hillary was one of the most liberal Senators in Congress-She is pro choice, she is pro gay- Bernie was anti gay marriage a while back-the old "leave it up to the states-Vermont is not ready"-She is pro immigration- she may not tax the rich enough for you but she will tax the rich-Bernie has a big fat tax raise for the middle class in his proposals. That alone would lose the GE if Bernie was nominated. If she is so anti minority why do minorities overwhelmingly vote for her? I'm a 35 year Union member and I can tell you she is pro union. She may not be pure enough for you but she is more in step with the American electorate-that's why she is winning the popular vote by a large margin. I'm a lifelong, staunch Democrat and I don't cotton to anyone telling me I'm not a Democrat because I don't march lockstep with your definition of what a Democrat is. I don't agree with everything the Governor of LA stands for but I'd much rather have a him than some Tea party type. Meanwhile Bernie has not lifted a finger to use his popularity to raise money for down ballot Dems. That ain't no way to start a revolution. If Bernie somehow wins the nomination, I will vote for him- I won't feel good about it but you can count on it.

[Chan790]

33. You're entitled to your own opinions...but not your own facts and I have citations for my claims.

She is factually everything I accused her of being and has done the things I accused her of doing. Because you are not entitled to your own facts...your agreement with reality is not necessary.

This "the most liberal Senators in Congress" claim that Clintonites love to trot out...is bullshit, it's according to a RW think-tank that throws that label in any given cycle on whoever they deem to be the frontrunner or most-prominent Democrat. It has no correlation or connection to reality beyond "Hillary is a prominent Democrat we can tar with a label without any need for proof of the assertion."

Some of us don't consider the label to be a slander and don't care who RWNJs think is-or-was the most-liberal Senator.

[SoLeftIAmRight]

26. yes - but you will not listen

lol

[Ash_F]

27. Interesting platform positions there brooklynite

pro-choice - Clinton would compromise on constitutional restrictions, Sanders would not

pro-gay rights - Clinton was a hard no on gay marriage until recently. Sanders was for it much earlier.

pro-immigration - Clinton was for a 'smaller' fence than Trump. Sanders is against.

pro-progressive taxation - Clinton's tax plan is at least not the Republicans' . Sanders is inarguably more progressive.

But hey vote your conscious.

[Vinca]

36. It sounds like you're supporting Bernie. What's with the hospital sign?

Hillary says she's open to compromise on abortion rights which seems to nix her for you.

[NCTraveler]

37. From reading your posts on this board.....

It is my understanding that you are a pretty high net worth individual. You have always voiced concerns for income inequality, equal rights, progressive immigration policy, and much more. I don't think you are missing anything. I think it's a great statement of your character. I consider you a friend and ally.

I don't mind if you get greedy and ask for more. lol.

[QC]

39. You wanted another opportunity to remind everyone here that you have money?

That would be my guess for the purpose of the thread.

[cherokeeprogressive]

41. You desire more than anything to see a female President and you don't care who it is.

That's about all I can glean from your posts.

[Joe the Revelator]

45. Ah, another name dropping, 'LOOK HOW RICH I AM' post from this poster...

Refreshing that some things never change.

[MineralMan]

46. Hmm...ask for what you want, whatever it might be.

See if you get a response. Me? I'd ask to get that 1958 Austin Healey Sprite I used to own back. I'd love to be driving it around this summer. But, no. I sold it in 1972 to some kid who totaled it a week later. Damn! Sweet, funny little car it was, too.

[JCanete]

48. I respect your contribution and I imagine you're doing it for altruistic reasons,

but you must have a lot of money to be able to donate so much. That does mean that Clinton's policies will almost certainly continue to benefit you and your family in the long run. Status quo and incremental change is a pretty comfortable position for you to get behind. It doesn't mean that you're wrong and that Clinton isn't going to push the country in the direction it needs to go in, but it doesn't come as any surprise to me that you would find Bernie's position on trade agreements, college tuition, money in politics, etc. far out of your comfort zone.

Just as it should be no surprise to you that I'm a 40 year old working stiff who barely makes 35,000 a year in the bay area, and hell yes I'm pro Bernie. From my perspective, its not because I'm poor that I support him. I've had more opportunities than many many people. Its them who I feel I'm casting my vote for, but still, when world-views align with personal benefit, its not a shocker that those happen to be our world views. There's a whole lot less cognitive dissonance that way.

You may not be one of those people who wants a quid pro-quo when they write a check, indirectly or directly, but your experience still colors your world-view, and people with money have more influence in politics than those without it. Many of them are going to have less revolutionary dispositions when it comes to matters of economics. From my perspective, that right there is enough to make money in politics extremely problematic.

But please tell me that you don't actually believe money doesn't buy influence, cuz shit, that must be the story for all the Republican congressmen as well. Everybody is just voting their crazy conscience. Hell, I feel better about our political system already, and here I thought it was bought and paid for, with K Street propelling the Capitol over Silicon Valley as the richest area in the United States, but that must just for the hell of it, not for influence on policy.

True, everybody could be an honest actor, including Hillary, but it still means that for whatever reasons, her world-view aligns too damn comfortably with corporate interests over those of the poor and middle-class for my tastes, and that the big money and its media machine is still there to make sure she gets in. At the end of the day, it doesn't matter if she's bought and paid for, or just propelled with big money to victory, the results for us are the same.