jimnyc
02-18-2016, 07:55 PM
What a shocker!!!
-----
In a giant step backwards in eliminating special interests in Washington, the Democratic National Committee overturned a ban introduced by Barack Obama in 2008 restricting donations from federal lobbyists and super PACs. Unfortunately for Bernie Sanders’ supporters—who take pride in the Democratic presidential candidate’s refusal to accept funds from super PACs—the decision disproportionately benefits Hillary Clinton, as she is the only Democratic presidential candidate taking such donations.
Campaign finance reform has been a major issue this political cycle, as both Democratic presidential candidates have incorporated it into their platforms—but only Mr. Sanders has acted on his proposal by refusing to accept super PAC money. According to The New York Times, Ms. Clinton received $47.9 million from super PACs in 2015, despite openly advocating for campaign finance reform. Ms. Clinton’s actions contradict her words, and suggest her proposals for reform are merely for political expediency.
Like Ms. Clinton, DNC Chair Debbie Wasserman Schultz also accepts money from super PACs and corporate interests. Given Ms. Wasserman Shultz’s campaign financing strategies—in conjunction with the virtual bankruptcy the DNC is facing under her leadership—the rescinding of the ban on donations from federal lobbyists and super PACs should come as no surprise, but what it demonstrates is still sobering. Special interests have undermined the trust between the government and the American people to the extent that public outcry against corporate influences are resulting in regressing policies for campaign finance reform. As Mr. Sanders leads calls for politicians to ethically rid themselves of ties to wealthy individuals and corporations, the Democratic Establishment is doing everything possible to inoculate themselves from those calls to action.
Growing calls for Ms. Wasserman Schultz’s resignation have stemmed from her alleged favoritism for Ms. Clinton—ranging from her position as co-chair of Ms. Clinton’s failed 2008 presidential campaign, to criticism over her limited and poorly scheduled Democratic presidential debates—and the pressure has risen substantially as she faces a primary challenger in Tim Canova, a former consultant to Mr. Sanders on Federal Reserve reform.
http://observer.com/2016/02/how-the-dnc-helps-clinton-buy-off-superdelegates/
-----
In a giant step backwards in eliminating special interests in Washington, the Democratic National Committee overturned a ban introduced by Barack Obama in 2008 restricting donations from federal lobbyists and super PACs. Unfortunately for Bernie Sanders’ supporters—who take pride in the Democratic presidential candidate’s refusal to accept funds from super PACs—the decision disproportionately benefits Hillary Clinton, as she is the only Democratic presidential candidate taking such donations.
Campaign finance reform has been a major issue this political cycle, as both Democratic presidential candidates have incorporated it into their platforms—but only Mr. Sanders has acted on his proposal by refusing to accept super PAC money. According to The New York Times, Ms. Clinton received $47.9 million from super PACs in 2015, despite openly advocating for campaign finance reform. Ms. Clinton’s actions contradict her words, and suggest her proposals for reform are merely for political expediency.
Like Ms. Clinton, DNC Chair Debbie Wasserman Schultz also accepts money from super PACs and corporate interests. Given Ms. Wasserman Shultz’s campaign financing strategies—in conjunction with the virtual bankruptcy the DNC is facing under her leadership—the rescinding of the ban on donations from federal lobbyists and super PACs should come as no surprise, but what it demonstrates is still sobering. Special interests have undermined the trust between the government and the American people to the extent that public outcry against corporate influences are resulting in regressing policies for campaign finance reform. As Mr. Sanders leads calls for politicians to ethically rid themselves of ties to wealthy individuals and corporations, the Democratic Establishment is doing everything possible to inoculate themselves from those calls to action.
Growing calls for Ms. Wasserman Schultz’s resignation have stemmed from her alleged favoritism for Ms. Clinton—ranging from her position as co-chair of Ms. Clinton’s failed 2008 presidential campaign, to criticism over her limited and poorly scheduled Democratic presidential debates—and the pressure has risen substantially as she faces a primary challenger in Tim Canova, a former consultant to Mr. Sanders on Federal Reserve reform.
http://observer.com/2016/02/how-the-dnc-helps-clinton-buy-off-superdelegates/