The reason why Hillary is accepting(*) SuperPac money is not because she likes Citizens United.

[DanTex]

She's made that perfectly clear, and yet some people are still confused. The reason she's doing it is because you need to win the election to get anything accomplished, and being outspent by huge amounts is not a winning strategy. The rules in place are not good, but those are the rules. Handicapping yourself financially will accomplish nothing.

Put it this way. Suppose you're a manager in the AL, and you think that the designated hitter rule is sacrilegious. Does that mean that you should bat your pitchers, just to prove a point? No. That would be stupid. And if you did that, you would get fired.

(*) Technically, nobody can "accept" Super PAC money because Super PACs are not allowed to be part of campaigns. What I mean by "accepting" is allowing a Super PAC to exist for the sole purpose of supporting her.

[Cleita]

1. That's a good excuse but still she will have to pay back her contributors just like

previous Presidents have had to do so. The only way to stop perpetuating this cycle of corruption is to break it by not taking donations from any industry that harms the people and the environment.

[DanTex]

4. It's not an "excuse", it's a reality. If by "pay back" you mean implementing the kinds of

progressive policies that wealthy liberals like George Soros favor, then you are right, she will do that, not out of any quid-pro-quo, but because that's what she stands for, and that's why people like Soros are supporting her.

[Cleita]

8. Exactly, it is what she stands for. I don't give a crap what Soros likes.

At the end of the day he's another rich guy out of touch with the real problems that need to be solved for everyday Americans. I have known plenty of wealthy liberals since I live on the West Coast and still do and as much as their liberal hearts bleed, most won't put down a foot in neighborhoods like So. Central LA or East LA or even mid-Wilshire after dark. Most have been unaware until recently of police brutality to blacks, Mexicans and other ethnic groups. Most don't know a Vet returned from the wars in the Middle East and their struggles. Rich people have their own struggles, but they can afford the lawyers, accountants and other professionals to help them through and that includes buying their politicians.

[DanTex]

17. She stands for progressive policies, working Americans, and against Citizens United.

The fact that she allows wealthy people like Soros who share her progressive views to support her (Soros is more progressive than her, in fact) doesn't change what she stands for one bit. It just means that she knows what it takes to win an election and 2016 America.

The fact that someone is wealthy doesn't automatically make them conservative. Bernie's senate salary is $175K, which by most definitions makes him wealthy, though not in the 1%. He doesn't get shot at by police officers, and he wasn't wounded in a war. This doesn't mean that he doesn't fight for working class people, PoC, vets, or anyone else.

[Cleita]

20. Bernie isn't even worth half a million dollars. That does not make him wealthy and wealth is

measured by assets not salary. It never has been. It's a mistake that many make. They think they are wealthy because they are making money and when that income is lost whether a job, or other source, like a small business, they find themselves poor again because they always were poor. It's assets that make you wealthy.

[DanTex]

26. $460K net worth isn't too shabby, and $175K a year is quite a bit.

No, he's not a 1%-er, but he's also not someone who has any personal economic struggles, and like I said he doesn't get shot at by police, he doesn't have PTSD, any of that. But he still fights for working class people. As does Hillary. What matters is what they stand for.

And, BTW, Bernie was introduced in his first campaign event by Ben and Jerry, the ice cream guys, both of whom are worth more than all but the very top level Wall Street execs. He has even worked with them on the Citizens United issue: they have an ad out where they describe the difference between Ben and Jerry the people and Ben & Jerry's the ice cream company.

Does this mean that Bernie is beholden to the uber-rich? Of course not. Do you think Ben and Jerry are anything but sincere in their leftist political views? I don't question them at all.

[JaneyVee]

11. Actually, the only way to break the cycle is to...

Appoint SCOTUS justices who will overturn it. Which can only be done by winning the presidency.

[Cleita]

14. Yes, and Bernie will do that. He also will be able to break up the monopolies, which are

a huge problem, which can't be done when you have to kiss the ring of "thems that brung you to the throne" to paraphrase the late and great Molly Ivins.

[JaneyVee]

16. I think you're overstating executive power.

Congress writes laws.

[Cleita]

18. Yes, and he will push Congress to write those laws. He will bring the conversation to the

forefront like a good President should. I don't hear a peep out of the present President or the candidates about this. It's totally ignored like it doesn't exist.

[Vincardog]

27. That is why we have to get Bernie the Congress he needs to fix this corrupt system.

[George II]

42. You're mixing two issues.

[Cleita]

43. Yes?

Could you be more specific as to what two issues I'm mixing?

[George II]

46. What money will she have to pay back to her contributors?

[Cleita]

47. That's one issue but not the correct one. Try the word favors instead of money.

Still waiting for the two separate issues.

[George II]

48. One issue, the OP topic, is Super Pacs, the other that you mention is Hillary contributors.

By law they can't be one and the same. Ergo, two issues.

[Ed Suspicious]

49. We get the semantic distinction. We're not new here.

[George II]

50. You should be telling that to the person I responded to, the one who asked the question.

[Ed Suspicious]

2. You really don't hear how much that sounds like the battle cry of the sell-out? How inspirational.

That will GOTV. I got to get all this money or else I won't be able to stop people from giving out all this money. I got to spend all this money else I won't be able to stop people from wanting people to spend all this money.

[DanTex]

5. It sounds like a way to win the election, rather than lose and then blame the system.

And, yes, a strong GOTV effort requires a lot of funding.

Again, losing the election will accomplish nothing. Winning the election will mean new SC justices that can overturn CU.

[Ed Suspicious]

3. Just one more hit, cries the junkie.

[virtualobserver]

6. the problem is that she will have no credibility in attacking the Koch brothers.....

in this election.

Bernie can pin the corruption on them and the Republicans.
He can say that the Billionaires are trying to buy our country.

It is a very powerful argument in the GE.
Hillary will not be able to make that argument.

[DanTex]

10. This is true, in part at least.

There will be more soft money on the GOP side, but yes, if she had no SuperPAC, she would be able to more forcefully attack the likes of the Koch Brothers.

Obama faced the same dilemma when he chose to reject matching public funds in 2008. And then in 2012 when he "accepted" Super PAC money.

In the end, it's a political calculation, and given the amount of money the GOP will have, I'm pretty sure that the extra funds are more important than the political optics of having a Super PAC. I think she will win on the issues, and on her experience, and on the craziness of the GOP, and having a well-funded campaign will allow her to spread that message.

[virtualobserver]

23. I don't see it a mere issue of perception

and we shall see if funds are more important than ideas in this election.

It isn't just about winning.....it is about the quality of the mandate that you have after you win.

[Sheepshank]

12. Of course she will...Koch policies are heinous and regressive to the 99%

When have they ever pushed a social issue that helps minorities or civil rights. The opposite, they do everything intheor power to suppress civil rights.

You really can't see that?

[virtualobserver]

22. She will already be making that argument against the Republican candidate

People will already assume that the backer of that candidate agrees with the candidate.

She will not be able to call the Kochs or Adelson on the attempt to buy the election itself.

[Iliyah]

7. K & R

Hopefully Citizens United can be muted, but in order for that to become a "reality" someone other than a GOP controlled by corporate masters be in the WH. It would a better congress if it were Dems but I'll take Senate for now.

HRC is a strong leader. Unfortunately money is a main factor in USA politics.

[Cleita]

21. Bernie Sanders has said that one of his priority in office is to overturn Citizens United

not mute it and he proposes a Constitutional amendment to do it. I don't every remember Hillary or the other candidates saying so.

[Gothmog]

9. President Obama was forced to use Superpac money in 2012

That is the only way to be competitive in today's legal system after Citizens United. I am also glad that Hillary Clinton has promised to only appoint SCOTUS nominees who would vote to overturn Citizens United

[azmom]

13. A power no government can supress

The challenge remains. On the other side are formidable forces: money, political power, the major media. On our side are the people of the world and a power greater than money or weapons: the truth.
Truth has a power of its own. Art has a power of its own. That age-old lesson – that everything we do matters – is the meaning of the people’s struggle here in the United States and everywhere. A poem can inspire a movement. A pamphlet can spark a revolution. Civil disobedience can arouse people and provoke us to think, when we organize with one another, when we get involved, when we stand up and speak out together, we can create a power no government can suppress. We live in a beautiful country. But people who have no respect for human life, freedom, or justice have taken it over. It is now up to all of us to take it back.”
― Howard Zinn, A Power Governments Cannot Suppress

[AgingAmerican]

15. McGovernment™

Of the corporation, by the corporation, for the corporations.

[cherokeeprogressive]

19. I've seen the exact same reason used for justifying campaign promises someone doesn't intend to keep

"because you need to win the election to get anything accomplished."

If you need an example, let's go with renegotiating NAFTA.

I think the more apt explanation in the case of SuperPac money is "win at any cost".

[hootinholler]

24. (*)

Technically no candidate can coordinate with a super pac even to tell them disband.

I think there's an exception for the super pac funded 'correct the record' or something because it appears to be coordinated, but then again I could be wrong.

[DanTex]

29. This is true technically, but in practice I'm pretty sure a candidate can somehow indirectly get a

SuperPAC to stop doing things if he/she doesn't want them to.

For example, Bernie has rich friends too, like Ben and Jerry. I imagine that if Bernie wanted Super PAC support, they would happily contribute. He wouldn't even have to tell them directly (and he shouldn't, because that would be against the law). But the fact that he has forcefully stated that he doesn't want SuperPAC support means wealthy liberals that might want to step up and start a Super PAC for him aren't going to.

[hootinholler]

36. Not all of them

There is a super pac supporting Bernie. I don't recall the name of it, but I do recall Hillary supports complaining about it like it was under his control.

Still I'm not sure how the correct the record works since the campaign is sending people there to get answers.

[Motown_Johnny]

25. We are not confused.

We do not believe that it is impossible to win without becoming part of the problem.

We also don't really trust her (like most of America).


Put it this way. You are on a highway with no speed limit so you decide you must drive as fast as the car can possibly go. What could possibly go wrong?

[DanTex]

30. If I'm in a race, on a highway with no speed limit, then I'm not going to go 65, even if

I think that's what the speed limit should be. At least not if I'm racing to win.

And if the winner of the race gets to decide what the speed limit is in the future, then I would really want there to be someone in the race that goes all out for the victory rather than driving slowly to prove a point.

[Motown_Johnny]

37. but the winner is just another corporate shill

Sure, on social issues Hillary is better than an (R). But if we really want to change the system we can't elect someone who is dependent on that same system.

[DanTex]

41. I think Hillary is pretty far from a corporate shill. Particularly when it comes to Citizens United

She and Bernie are in complete agreement on this. And on many other issues. Hillary is better than any R on all issues, not just social issues.

And she's not "dependent" on SuperPAC money. She, and other Democrats, would all fare better with stricter campaign finance laws. But since those are not in place, better to play by the rules and win than handicap yourself and lose.

[GeorgeGist]

45. Very lame analogy.

[Ed Suspicious]

51. Tell it to the tortoise.

[ibegurpard]

28. She's already shown how the money influences her policies

Her campaign people are Wall street insiders, she's taking money from them and Glass Steagall reinstatement is off the table. We got generalities about how she will be tough on Wall Street and this one specific thing that was ALREADY IN PLACE us off the table. She has no credibility. Too much of a record that contradicts the narrative she's trying to sell.

[hobbit709]

31. so who will get her attention? Her $pon$or$ or the rest of us?

Give you 3-1 that she'll pay more attention to Goldman-Sachs than some blue collar working stiff.

[Fearless]

32. I don't believe her for a second.

If she needs dirty money to win, she should lose.

[artislife]

33. Not another sports analogy, I hate sports analogies

Cameron from HOUSE...heh




I am not feeling your analogy anyway. I would change leagues if I was the manager.

Which actually fits the Bernie movement.

[DanTex]

34. Bernie could always run for PM of Canada. Or Senator from Vermont.

But president of the US is not gonna happen if he handicaps himself.

[artislife]

35. But he is running.

[LiberalAndProud]

38. Beholden to monied interests either way.

I think the results are self-evident as we see TPP on path to law and ANWR drilling unfold.

[bigdarryl]

39. The average voter could give a shit about superpacs

I ask people about this in my circles most don't even know what it is.When I explain to them what superpacs are they have a what's the big deal look on there face

[George II]

40. Even Bernie Sanders has a Super PAC soliciting contributions for him.

[Cleita]

53. Bernie has rejected money from billionaires and doesn't want any super pac from them.

http://www.cnn.com/2015/04/30/politics/bernie-sanders-presidential-run-first-interview/

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/h-a-goodman/bernie-sanders-wont-accept-money-from-billionaires-donald-trump-donated-100000-to-hillary-clinton_b_7799576.html

[George II]

54. But there is at least one, maybe more, Super PAC supporting Sanders.

And the Clinton campaign has not received more than $2700 from anyone. Period.

[BainsBane]

44. There are a number of pro-Bernie Super PACs too

Including Bet on Bernie 2016 and Billionaires for Bernie. People want to emphasize whether a candidate claims to disapprove of the PACS spending money on the candidates behalf or they don't, when the issue is the system that allows this sort of activity to take place. That can only be changed through SCOTUS or constitutional amendment.

Additionally, Clinton is not making empty promises about not "taking" money from Super PACS because it is illegal. She isn't playing on the electorate's ignorance of campaign finance law.

[Cleita]

52. According to Open Secrets Bernie made a whole $46,207 in PAC money in 2013/14

the latest data that they have.
http://www.opensecrets.org/politicians/pacs.php?cid=n00000528&cycle=2014

Total PAC Money for 2013-2014: $46,207

Number of Contributions: 31
Sectors, 2013-2014

Agribusiness $500
Finance, Insurance & Real Estate $2,000
Health $9,500
Labor $29,200
Ideological/Single-Issue $5,007

Based on Federal Election Commission data available electronically on Monday, March 09, 2015.

He has rejected the money from billionaires.

[George II]

57. Super PAC contributions aren't included on a candidate's "opensecrets" page.

And you're just looking at his 2014 cycle - he's actually received almost $2.5M from PACs.

[Cleita]

58. I think I put up that it was 2014.

The PACS he's taken money from are labor unions and other grass roots organizations. No billionaires are involved.

[George II]

59. Look at this Opensecrets page for Sanders:

http://www.opensecrets.org/politicians/contrib.php?cycle=Career&cid=n00000528&type=I

Of his top 20 career donors worth $1,205,587, $1,188,087 came from PACs. That's 99%!!!

Only $17,500 came from individuals.

For the 2014 cycle (last one itemized on the site), 94% of his top 20 donor $ were from PACs.

[Cleita]

60. All those billionaires! That is what is being claimed. Hardly. Most are labor organizations.

American Assn for Justice $60,500 $500 $60,000
American Fedn of St/Cnty/Munic Employees $58,198 $1,200 $56,998
American Postal Workers Union $37,700 $0 $37,700
Carpenters & Joiners Union $62,000 $0 $62,000
Communications Workers of America $68,000 $1,500 $66,500
Intl Brotherhood of Electrical Workers $53,000 $0 $53,000
Laborers Union $64,000 $0 $64,000
Machinists/Aerospace Workers Union $105,000 $0 $105,000
National Assn of Letter Carriers $61,000 $0 $61,000
National Education Assn $84,350 $3,350 $81,000
Operating Engineers Union $46,100 $0 $46,100
Plumbers/Pipefitters Union $36,000 $0 $36,000
Service Employees International Union $43,764 $5,500 $38,264
Sheet Metal Workers Union $47,000 $0 $47,000
Teamsters Union $93,700 $700 $93,000
UNITE HERE $42,875 $3,250 $39,625
United Auto Workers $79,650 $750 $78,900
United Food & Commercial Workers Union $72,500 $0 $72,500
United Steelworkers $41,750 $750 $41,000
United Transportation Union $48,500 $0 $48,500

[George II]

61. From whom do those PACs get their funds?

[Cleita]

62. From their members, the electricians, steel workers, service workers, teachers, etc.

Depending on the union, it could be from their dues or from extra collections. Since the billionaires' clubs have their super pacs, the unions have taken the same rules for themselves.

So boohoo if Goldman Sachs and the Kock Industries don't like it. They opened the door.

[George II]

55. "Clinton is not making empty promises about not "taking" money from SuperPACS because it is illegal"

That's a HUGE point - indeed it's an empty promise. When he says that, he's just magnanimously agreeing to abide by the law. BFD!

[BainsBane]

56. Worse than that

It uses the public's ignorance about campaign finance as political currency.