As usual, the regular prelude: there are good reasons to oppose and support Clinton or Sanders, but bullshit arguments and repetition of campaign propaganda is ridiculous.
Recently, I described how the Hillary Victory Fund, despite the claims of Clinton and her supporters, is not donating money to state parties, but is, instead, using them as conduits to send extremely large contributions from donors to the Democratic National Committee (DNC funds during a presidential year disproportionately go towards the presidential campaign–in part, that’s what part of the fifty-state strategy fuss was about). But there are new releases by the Federal Election Commission (‘FEC’), and they clearly illustrate how supposed support for state parties is being used to funnel money directly to the DNC.
Take Ohio, whose state party chair issued the following statement:
Sounds awesome. But when we look at the filing data, here’s what we see:
•On 01/04/2016, the Hillary Victory Fund (‘HVC’) transferred $80,000 to the Ohio Democratic Party.
•On 01/04/2016 (the same day), the Ohio Democratic Party transferred $80,000 to the Democratic National Committee.
That’s right: every dollar sent to Ohio found its way to the DNC on the same day (Margot Kidder–yes, that Margo Kidder has covered what occurred before Jan. 2016). It’s clear this isn’t being done to help the state party, but to shuffle funds from rich donors to the party. It’s also clear that Chairman Pepper is, at best, misinformed, or, at worst, a liar.
So why is this disturbing? For one, these idiots can’t even launder money without it being obvious. If I, an amateur, can catch this, this tells me the Clinton campaign really needs to improve its game (though you already knew that from its inability to get its pledged delegates to show up to the damn conventions). It also tells us that at least one state party head isn’t very bright: it’s just not that hard to check the veracity of his statement (guess what? No veracity to be found).
And you think there would be one, just one political reporter with the diligence to dig this up, rather than regurgitate in ‘he-said/she-said’ dueling press releases.
It’s also sad to watch so many Clinton supporters beclown themselves over this. As I’ve noted before, there are good reasons to support and oppose both Clinton and Sanders, but I have no patience for bullshit reasons that are nothing more than the regurgitation of campaign propaganda. If you’re going to engage in motivated reasoning–and we all do this, especially at this point in the campaign–at the very least have better reasons.
mikethemadbiologist
Uh, Mike, look at this:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/monkey-cage/wp/2016/04/20/why-hillary-clintons-lavish-hollywood-fundraiser-was-smart-politics/
Yep. The DNC does get pretty much all the JFC donations. It then can spend them however it wants. But most of that cash won’t be going to Clinton who, believe me, doesn’t need it. This is an old dodge, but there’s nothing here to show any hanky-panky by the Clinton campaign. Which, to repeat, really, really, really doesn’t need more money.
Yo, MIke! How’d your candidate do yesterday?
What are you? A five-year-old?
Hillary needs more millions to buy the loyalty of the state parties and keep any grassroots candidates with big ideas in line. Only a fraction of the millions raised by the joint fundraising went to the states in 2015, and that money was then sent back to Washington. Since Elizabeth Jones serves both as the Clinton campaign’s CEO and also as the Hillary Victory Fund’s treasurer, state parties and candidates will have to be loyal to the Clinton machine if they want to have any support or money in the fall.
Let me get this straight. You are saying that the DNC will only give money to candidates unless they are “… loyal to the Clinton machine.” Which, since you are talking about after the dust settles, will mean that candidates that support the party’s nominee will be more likely to get DNC money.
Well, we need to stop the presses right now. Since when has any US political party ever given big bucks in an election year to candidates who don’t back the party’s nominee for president? In case you are wondering, the answer is: never. As to keeping “… grassroots candidates with big ideas in line” you are obviously not thinking about American political parties. As long as local candidates support the national ticket, neither side cares one whit what they say and think. Both the Pubs and the Dems assume that anything their candidates say to the locals is ok; what else should they say?
Or, short Tracy, this isn’t much of an argument.
Howard Dean, from the Democratic wing of the Democratic party, supported a 50 state strategy at the DNC, much to the distaste of Rahm Emanuel, who prefers to leave progressives out in the cold. Maybe the Clinton/Establishment Democrats will try and use a 50 state strategy and share the wealth, but I think it more likely they are trying to create a Chicago style machine more concerned with power and loyalty than liberal ideals and good government.