Being Honest

[angrychair]

So, open proposal to HRC: if the argument for currently having and leveraging SuperPACs (currently 12) is because her republican opponents do, than so be it. She has stated she is against the Citizens United ruling as well. Stated she supports campaign finance reform.

Given the above circumstances I challenge Hillary Clinton to demand that all SuperPACs that advocate in her name to publicly display and list any and all contributors, the unbundled source of all funds donated to them and the amount that person contributed. Pledge to make this happen in the next 60 days or disavow any of your SuperPACs that refuse or cannot comply with the request.

Doing this in good faith to move forward the debate on true campaign finance reform.

[think]

1. If she is truly about campaign finance reform this would be done

[upaloopa]

2. You support Bernie right?

We need to defeat the repubs in the general. We should not handicap ourselves before the election.

[angrychair]

5. handicap?

How is publicly disclosing contributions, not materially different than donations directly to her campaign, going to handicap her if she happens to move on to the general?
We, as voters, have a right to know who and how much is being used to further her, or any politicians, campaign effort.

[upaloopa]

8. We should not limit the amount of money

we use against the repubs who will spend close to a billion dollars.
After we win we can try to fix how campaigns raise money.

[angrychair]

16. Didnt say "limit"

I said disclose". Want to know who and how much. That is all. Don't you have any desire to know who and by how much you canidiate is being influenced?

[artislife]

21. But it will never happen.

There will always be the next election that will be too important to lose. There will never be the best time.

[Bread and Circus]

34. after we win we can "try" to fix how campaigns raise money

I won't hold my breath

[JaneyVee]

3. Ironically, she's proving SuperPACs aren't even needed...

As she broke Q2 fundraising records with $75Million without even counting SuperPACs.

[1StrongBlackMan]

13. But she will need the SuperPACs to combat the gop SuperPACs. n/t

[Armstead]

31. And it's reasonable to know who is behind the SuperPACs

I think it would be useful for people to know who the donors are, and the ratio of contributions Goldman Sachs or the Widows and Orphans for a Better World Foundation.

[1StrongBlackMan]

40. Okay ...

But thems ain't the rules. Bernie chose to handicap himself ... Now, Bernie supporters want HRC to do the same?

Nope. Ain't gonna happen, nor should it.

[Kentonio]

55. If she's claiming she'll get rid of Super PACs if elected, then surely..

Her supporters must want the same? In which case why would disclosing who is contributing 'handicap' her?

[1StrongBlackMan]

58. Because it is in the middle of an election where the REAL opposition ...

will not do the same.

One would be a fool to unilaterally change the rules in an election ... But one would be an even bigger fool to do so, to sate a narrow sliver of internet folks, that have announced from Day 1, they won't support you.

[Kentonio]

61. If you support getting rid of Super PACs

Then why would you only donate to one if it was kept secret? Also why do you seem to think only Sanders supporters think transparency is the correct thing to do? Are you actually in favor of the secrecy?

[jeff47]

77. Just make sure you don't look at her burn rate. (nt)

[el_bryanto]

4. While I think it's unlikely that HRC will really be a strong advocate on campaign finance reform

I'm also sympathetic to the argument that she should run according the rules as they are now- yes those rules are pretty terrible, but hurting her chances to win isn't the way to go about it - Clinton is a strong fund raiser, and while it's depressing to me that that is a useful trait to have in seeking public office, you can't really expect her to forgo one of her strrengths.

The Republican certainly won't.

Bryant

[angrychair]

6. How?

How is publicly disclosing contributions, not materially different than donations directly to her campaign, going to handicap her if she happens to move on to the general?
We, as voters, have a right to know who and how much is being used to further her, or any politicians, campaign effort.

[el_bryanto]

9. I agree that we have a moral right to - but we don't have a legal right to.

Or else they would already be required to do so.

Bryant

[angrychair]

19. That is your answer?

"No legal requirement"? You do realize that is why I wrote the post?
If she truely is against Citizens United and for campaign finance reform than one of the major, first steps to reform, is disclosure.
What is wrong with knowing who and how much???

[asjr]

27. It sounds as if your problem is with

the SCOTUS. No one liked it when the felonious five gave Citizens carte blanch to do anything it wanted.

[Armstead]

32. With the SCTos but they didn't force candidates NOT to disclose

Just because she CAN keep her big donors secret doesn't mean she should.

[angrychair]

33. No, specifically

But yes in general.
My point in this OP Is not to prevent her from using SuperPACs. Only to demand, at the very least, the same level of disclosure she has with contributions directly to her campaign.

[artislife]

23. This sounds like: It depends what "is" is.

People are so tired of the gymnastics it takes to move within the "law" instead of moving within morals.

[marym625]

10. Jeb had all the money in the world and we see where that got him.

We've been hearing from the minute Senator Sanders threw his hat in that he wouldn't get anywhere without super pacs, without taking donations from wall street (incessantly so) That he was at 0% and didn't have a prayer

To say that disclosing who is donating would somehow harm her in the ge, makes it even clearer, she should not be the nominee for the Democratic party.

[el_bryanto]

11. I would agree with that

I think that the fact that one of her strengths is her ability to solicit donations and the necessity that she do so is another reason to support Sanders. He doesn't need to solicit this kind of money.

You can't blame Clinton for playing to her strengths; but you do need to ask yourselves if those are the sort of strengths you really want to see in the Democratic Nominee.

Bryant

[marym625]

14. I can blame Clinton for playing to her strengths.

I find the money in this election appalling. I think using money from places that you say you're fighting, under rules you say you're against, is the utmost in hypocrisy. It speaks to character.

There are all kinds of things in this world people can legally do to get ahead that are morally and ethically wrong. The choices we make and how we decide to justify compromise, matters

Content of character means much more to most people than how much money a candidate has.

[el_bryanto]

18. The problem is that most people don't take the time to look beyond the surface

If people did, would any of the Republican candidates be viable? Particularly folks like Trump, Carson, Fiornia, Jeb Bush. People form impressions about candidates based on the message they put out - and the more money you have the more of a message you can put out there.

While I agree it's a pretty lousy way to select a President, I can understand why Clintons team would want her to run the strongest campaign possible under the current corrupt rules.

Bryant

[marym625]

29. I disagree. but even so, it doesn't preclude what the OP requests. n/t

[el_bryanto]

42. Except insofar as you belief a complete accounting of who is giving Money to Clinton

might harm her campaign. It seems likely that it could - people to the left of her pointing out her corporate contributors, and people on the right pointing out those liberals who support her. A lot of that is inside baseball talk, but I can see why they would be concerned.

Bryant

[marym625]

75. I'm so far as it is the right thing to do

In so far as standing on a stage say Citizens United is wrong while using Citizens United to finance your campaign is hypocritical. I don't give a shit who the candidate is.

Doing the right thing isn't always the easy thing. If you can't do it in a campaign, then you should not be in a position of power

[PowerToThePeople]

7. The right wing of DU will not like this idea.

eom

[1StrongBlackMan]

12. I'm pretty sure the campaign will not accept your "proposal" ...

just as a rabbit should never accept a "proposal" from a coyote.

I'm not calling you a coyote; but, your proposal cannot possibly be seen, or taken, as anything in the best interests of the candidate, except to placate a narrow sliver of the left ... that will then, pour through the disclosure to gin up, another, attack on her.

How about we allow Candidate Clinton to play by the rules of the game as they currently exist; then, work to change those rules, from the white house?

[angrychair]

20. Standards matter

How is publicly disclosing contributions, not materially different than requirements for disclosure of donations directly to her campaign, going to handicap her if she happens to move on to the general?


So, you honestly think she will work to change those rules? The next excuse will be "well, we can't change the rules fast enough and I don't want to limit my re-election campaign". The 2024 candidate's excuse will be the same as HRC's now....rinse, repeat.
If you don't hold her to any standard now, why would you once she is elected? It will turn into the excuse train"well, she tried, it was hard, teapublicans in Congress fought it, to close to next election to change now." and so on.

Are you or are you not going to hold her to her word if elected?

[1StrongBlackMan]

36. It appears that "Standards matter" for only you, and a small sliver of DUers ...

that don't support HRC, and seemingly, don't care whether a Democrat is in the White house (unless it's Bernie).

[angrychair]

43. So, scorched earth protocol?

Get elected at any cost? How does that make us any different that teapublicans?
The level of disclosure I am advocating for is no different than contributions made directly to her campaign.
You are advocating for a dark money system for a Democratic candidate because "everyone else is doing it" on the hope she will change the system when she gets elected. You didn't answer my main qestion though:

If you don't hold her to any standard now, why would you once she is elected?
Are you or are you not going to hold her to her word if elected?
If elected, are you, as a Democrat, going to demand and hold accountable, no excuses, that she stick to her word on activily pursuing, through SCOTUS appointments and the Justice Dept and legislative recourse, campaign finance reform?
What if it doesn't happen? Is the excuse this election just as good next election? Election after that? When will it matter enough?

[1StrongBlackMan]

53. It is you that is holding the torch, in a rather transparent effort ...

to ... I really don't know what it is you are trying to accomplish ... Well, I do; but ...

[angrychair]

60. What am i doing?

Advocating for a level of disclosure in SuperPACs no different than contributions made directly to her campaign. Why is the standard different? I would love to have it for all candidates but my primary concern is a candidate in my own Party that I would be voting for if she moves forward into the general. My request would be no different of Bernie if he had SuperPACs and I don't focus on MoM as he is polling below 2% and he is likely to drop out before the first primary votes as funding drys up.

[frylock]

69. Big of you to finally come out and admit that standards don't matter.

[1StrongBlackMan]

71. Standard do matter ... So does disingenuousness. n/t

[frylock]

72. Another breakthrough!

[1StrongBlackMan]

73. Well ... All this ...

the candidate I don't, and never will, support should do as I want ... makes it pretty clear.

[angrychair]

30. To add on

I can point to dozens of stories and fables that speak to the corrupting influence of "a little wrong for the greater good".

[Sheepshank]

15. hey, why not ask her to saw off her own leg?

In the middle of the race, you want Hillary to arrest and slow down her own campaign?

Why do Bernie supporters come up with so many inane ideas for Hillary to try and hinder her own campaign. Where is god's green earth does that ever make any sense?

While I'm all for getting rid of big money in these campaigns, I am more importantly all in, for an equal playing field. And we are in the fight of our lives for the Whitehouse, and helping Republicans along the way isn't they path better travelled.

Hillary has already said she is committed to nominating SCOTUS that will vote to overturn CU. We all know, that CU decision plays so much more in the favor of Republicans than Democrats anyway. I think she has made the statement that is freaking out the big money donors and Rove.

[angrychair]

22. Same question

I gave 1SBM
How is publicly disclosing contributions, not materially different than requirements for disclosure of donations directly to her campaign, going to handicap her if she happens to move on to the general?


So, you honestly think she will work to change those rules? The next excuse will be "well, we can't change the rules fast enough and I don't want to limit my re-election campaign". The 2024 candidate's excuse will be the same as HRC's now....rinse, repeat.
If you don't hold her to any standard now, why would you once she is elected? It will turn into the excuse train"well, she tried, it was hard, teapublicans in Congress fought it, to close to next election to change now." and so on.

Are you or are you not going to hold her to her word if elected?

[Sheepshank]

25. it's what happens to the donors.....

they pull out, her campaign falters and the Republicans reap the benefit. It's about creating that level playing field and not changing the rules during the game......and you want to sudenly create some mounds. Bernie may be you noble knight in shining no PAC armor, but that was his choice. You tell me why she would want to arrest her momentum, when it's just as expedient to do so after she is POTUS?

[angrychair]

35. Disagree

The level of disclosure I am advocating for is no different than contributions made directly to her campaign.
You are advocating for a dark money system for a Democratic candidate because "everyone else is doing it" on the hope she will change the system when she gets elected. You didn't answer my main qestion though,

If you don't hold her to any standard now, why would you once she is elected? It will turn into the excuse train" well, she tried, it was hard, teapublicans in Congress fought it, to close to next election to change now the rules." and so on.

Are you or are you not going to hold her to her word if elected?
Are you, as a Democrat, going to demand and hold accountable, no excuses, that she stick to her word on activily pursuing, through SCOTUS appointments and the Justice Dept and legislative recourse, campaign finance reform?

[Sheepshank]

46. wll of course you disagree. And that is ok n/t

[angrychair]

48. So, you are choosing not to answer?

Are you, as a Democrat, going to demand and hold accountable, no excuses, that she stick to her word on activily pursuing, through SCOTUS appointments and the Justice Dept and legislative recourse, campaign finance reform?
What if it doesn't happen? Is the excuse this election just as good next election? Election after that? When will it matter enough?

[Sheepshank]

49. Oh, I answered, you just didn't like what I wrote..remember? you said you disagree.

as for any follow up, what's the point? You disagreed with the original premis anyway, why waste our time?

[frylock]

74. I didn't see your answer. Can you reiterate?

Or at least link to your answer about holding your candidate accountable?

[1StrongBlackMan]

38. Saw off her own leg to satisfy the "demands" of people that have made it clear ...

they won't vote for her.

[Armstead]

41. Is disclosing whoo is suppoting her "sawing her legs off"

I think a lot of people who are not in the anti-Clinton camp might appreciate a little honesty. People have become so cynical and apathetic because of stuff like that.

[1StrongBlackMan]

54. And those in the anti-HRC, i.e., those making these "demands" ...

should try a little honesty ... or be less transparent in their dishonesty.

People have become so cynical and apathetic because of stuff like that.

Funny ... those that are cynical and apathetic are NOT the people making these "demands."

[Armstead]

65. The cynical and apathetic is widespread because of the systemic corruption of the system

This is not about gotcha. And I don't think it's being dishonest at all. It's called practicing what you preach.

People who are proposing this (all right,Sanders supporters in this case ) are deadly serious about trying to make the systemic changes that most people (except for wingnuts and oligarchs) claim to want, and say they support, and to fight things people claim to oppose like the toxic effects of Citizens United.

If she is against "dark money" she should be wiling to shine a light on it...If she's taking money that would reflect undue influences, well......Maybe she shouldn't be taking money from the wrong places.

The only way to start to change things is to start walking the talk.

[angrychair]

68. So, am i being dishonest?

Asking for a level of disclosure for SuperPAC donations that is no different than contributions made directly to her campaign, is somehow my subversive attempt to undermine HRC's campaign?
I have to admit that I really am perplexed.
It has nothing to do with my primary or general vote and everything to do with holding a candidate that associates a label I call myself, liberal and progressive, to the same standard I would expect of anyone using those labels to describe themselves.

[angrychair]

45. Really

I challenge you to find a post that I have ever posted that says I would allow a teapublican to get elected over any Democratic candidate. In my 9 years on this site, I have never made a personal attack on another DU member and I don't think I have ever had a post hidden. I have never challenged HRC on anything other than policy, positions and standards and that standard is no different than the one I hold Bernie too.
It has nothing to do with my primary or general vote and everything to do with holding a candidate that associates a label I call myself, liberal and progressive, to the same standard I would expect of anyone using those labels to describe themselves.

[Sheepshank]

47. lol...there is that n/t

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

17. She's kinda like the alcoholic who swears he's gettin off the booze..after a few more drinks.

[Rose Siding]

56. I think she's more like the victor who doesn't take a knife to a gunfight

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

59. Considering her foreign policy record she'd be more likely to send the army to the gunfight.

See IWR vote as reference.

[frylock]

70. In this analogy, the serial numbers will have been removed from her gun.

[aidbo]

76. +1

[sabrina 1]

24. Good challenge. You can't SAY one thing and do another, sorry!

[VanillaRhapsody]

26. "Standards Matter"......winning is an afterthought apparently

[angrychair]

37. Winning at any cost?

I can point to dozens of stories and fables that speak to the corrupting influence of "a little wrong for the greater good".

[VanillaRhapsody]

39. Beating the Republicans at any cost....

[angrychair]

44. So, scorched earth protocol?

Get elected at any cost? How does that make us any different than teapublicans?
The level of disclosure I am advocating for is no different than contributions made directly to her campaign.
You are advocating for a dark money system for a Democratic candidate because "everyone else is doing it" on the hope she will change the system when she gets elected. You didn't answer my main qestion though:

If you don't hold her to any standard now, why would you once she is elected?
Are you or are you not going to hold her to her word if elected?
If elected, are you, as a Democrat, going to demand and hold accountable, no excuses, that she stick to her word on activily pursuing, through SCOTUS appointments and the Justice Dept and legislative recourse, campaign finance reform?
What if it doesn't happen? Is the excuse this election just as good next election? Election after that? When will it matter enough?

[LeFleur1]

57. Sadly This donations to campaigns by corporate America is the Way the Game Is Played Today

None of us like the rules, but many of us don't think we should handicap ourselves either.

Is it possible that many of the donors believe Hillary would be able to work better with everyone to move the country forward. We'd all like only the things we believe in to be passed, but that's not the way our government is suppose to work. The Teaparty doesn't know that, and now it is frightening to think that some people who support Bernie have the same mindset as the Teaparty. Will it do our country any good at all to stop everything that a President tries to do? We must have someone who is able to work with those they don't agree with, to compromise to a point and no further, to explain the consequences of legislative action, to lead. Hillary can and will do that. How she has handled personal and political tragedies, her work to this date for women and children, her work to pass health care for all, her work with foreign governments and her knowledge about how THEY work are all positives. Her belief, a valuable one, that all corporations are not bad, that laws need to be made, but not to destroy, to make them work better for everyone. She has said the banks need to be reigned in. And that's true. They do. The 'untrustworthy' label is ridiculous.

If Bernie is the nominee I'll vote for him and cross my fingers that he will be elected and that he can work within our government to move it ahead for all citizens.
If Hillary is the nominee, and is elected, I'll be relieved and I'll support her efforts to move toward a better world. Hillary has always been more liberal than her husband, and I have no doubt she'll do everything she can to make a better life for everyone, not just one group of people.
I'd like to see everyone work for the candidate of your choice without talking like a right wing nut. Support your candidate, then support the nominee and do your part for America.

[angrychair]

64. Cant say i agree completely

I challenge you to find a post that I have ever posted that says I would allow a teapublican to get elected over any Democratic candidate. In my 9 years on this site, I have never made a personal attack on another DU member and I don't think I have ever had a post hidden. I have never challenged HRC on anything other than policy, positions and standards and that standard is no different than the one I hold Bernie too.
It has nothing to do with my primary or general vote and everything to do with holding a candidate that associates a label I call myself, liberal and progressive, to the same standard I would expect of anyone using those labels to describe themselves.
It is hard to overlook the implication in your post that I am "talking like a right-wing but" by asking for a level of disclosure no different than contributions made directly to her campaign.

[Uncle Joe]

28. Kicked and recommended.

Thanks for the thread, angrychair.

[NurseJackie]

50. More like "being silly".

It's never going to happen. Why would she do anything that would give the GOP an advantage?

Would you then vote for her if she did? I seriously doubt it. I know it, and Hillary knows it.

She's doing quite well, thank you. There's no need for her to do parlor tricks or respond to campaign-weakening challenges in an effort to entertain Bernie followers who'd never vote for her anyway.

[angrychair]

52. Really

I challenge you to find a post that I have ever posted that says I would allow a teapublican to get elected over any Democratic candidate. In my 9 years on this site, I have never made a personal attack on another DU member and I don't think (been 9 years) I have ever had a post hidden. I have never challenged HRC on anything other than policy, positions and standards and that standard is no different than the one I hold Bernie too.
It has nothing to do with my primary or general vote and everything to do with holding a candidate that associates a label I call myself, liberal and progressive, to the same standard I would expect of anyone using those labels to describe themselves.

[NurseJackie]

63. And that's over-reacting.

I said that the challenge to her was silly, that its effect would be to weaken her campaign, and that people who make such absurd demands of her wouldn't support her even if she did.

You're free to draw your own conclusions, and to imagine that you've been insulted. And, if you desire, you're also free to find hidden meaning in words that were never said. I don't care.

Bottom line is this: What you're suggesting would only serve to give an advantage to the GOP, besides, it is never going to happen, so why fret over it?

[angrychair]

66. I do appreciate feedback

As it can be helpful in the future when crafting posts.
With that in mind I humbly submit my own feedback, there is no hidden meaning in the statement "that people who make such absurd demands of her wouldn't support her even if she did."
Secondly, how is asking for a reporting requirement for SuperPACs, that is no different than contributions made directly to her campaign, so absurd?

I again state, I have never challenged HRC on anything other than policy, positions and standards and that standard is no different than the one I hold Bernie too.

HRC will never see my post but primary voters on DU will. We discuss these topics here and it is a valid question.
I re-state for clarity, It has nothing to do with my primary or general vote and everything to do with holding a candidate that associates a label I call myself, liberal and progressive, to the same standard I would expect of anyone using those labels to describe themselves.

[Monassa]

51. It'd be a step in the right direction

[hill2016]

62. would that be

illegal as it's coordinating with the SuperPACs, by issuing a demand "do this ... within ... days ... or I will ... "?

[angrychair]

67. No

If you have not, I would strongly encourage you to watch Colbert's series of episodes related to SuperPACs and how he skewered the concept of coordination between a candidate and their respective SuperPACs. There is enough levity to drive a aircraft carrier through.