A recent op-ed in The Observer revealed startling news about open, legal corruption in the Democratic primary system being exploited by Hillary Clinton and the Democratic National Committee under Debbie Wasserman-Schultz.
Bernie Sanders and Hillary Clinton are both speaking out against money-in-politics on the campaign trail, but Hillary hypocritically accepts hundreds of millions in SuperPAC money, "breaking boundaries" set by President Obama to limit these PAC money orgies in 2008.
One SuperPAC in particular is greasing 33 state Democratic parties as the superdelegates in the same states "coincidentally" pledge to Hillary, even after the voters in those states chose Bernie:
A joint fundraising committee between the Clinton campaign and the DNC--called the Hillary Victory Fund--raised $26.9 million as of December 31, 2015, much of which has gone directly to the DNC and other Democratic candidates across the country. Thirty-three state Democratic parties signed pacts with Ms. Clinton's campaign, meaning she is essentially buying support from Democratic leaders around the country. In short, the Clinton campaign controls the money and decides which states receive it after the campaign and the DNC get their cut.
According to Bloomberg, New Hampshire received $124,000, where six out of six superdelegates supported Ms. Clinton while over 60 percent of the primary vote favored Mr. Sanders. Nevada and South Carolina also have pacts with the Hillary Victory Fund, where Ms. Clinton has already won support from three of Nevada's eight superdelegates and three out of South Carolina's six superdelegates.
With this, Bernie supporters ask whether some of his record-shattering campaign contributions should also perhaps be used to shower onto down-ticket Democratic candidates, or more directly, to give to states to convince superdelegates to buy their support.
It's doubtful, as Bernie seems to be running a transformational campaign to rid money-in-politics rather than play the "inside game". But Bernie did tell Rachel Maddow
recently that he would attempt to shame superdelegates who vote for Hillary even when majorities of their constituents voted for him. Part of the argument is also that polls suggest Bernie would do better against Trump.
For those who don't know, a superdelegate is a "special" Democrat, usually elected officials but also party "dignitaries" given the equivalent of 10,000 primary votes to cast any way they see fit. If it sounds undemocratic, Wasserman-Schultz confirmed so on live TV when asked by Jake Tapper of ABC News
who asked why Democrats would put up with having their votes erased by party insiders. She did not defend the "rigged" practice one bit, confirming the purpose of superdelegates:
"Unpledged delegates exist, really, to make sure that party leaders and elected officials don't have to be in a position where they are running against grassroots activists"
In short, we don't want actual democracy to ruin our plans for installing corporate-backed candidates. In total hypocrisy, Hillary told an Ohio debate crowd that she would end the "revolving door" practice of recirculating officials between government positions where they regulate their own industries and corporate posts where they are handsomely rewarded for having served private masters while on taxpayer time.
In reality, Hillary's campaign chair John Podesta, is Washington's most powerful revolving door operator, showering money on to candidates of both parties who support his policy goals as founder of the mega-influential DC think tank Center for American Progress.
Podesta also headed PrioritiesUSA, another massive SuperPAC supporting Hillary, openly directing billionaire bucks to build out "infrastructure" such as writing policy, planning PR and media astroturfing, and hiring government officials as soon as they leave their positions. Podesta here
joins forces with Jeb Bush to promote pay-for-play in the education space, serving notice that they have plenty of cash and influence for those who push Common Core tests and evaluations in public schools.
The Koch brothers have nothing on CAP, whose network of elected officials, party bosses, union bosses, media flacks, campaign bundlers and corporate cronies leave absolutely nothing to chance.
(OpEdNews Contributing Editor since October 2006) Inner city schoolteacher from New York, mostly covering media manipulation. I put election/finance reform ahead of all issues but also advocate for fiscal conservatism, ethics in journalism and (more...)
|The views expressed in this article are the sole responsibility of the author
and do not necessarily reflect those of this website or its editors.