Also, this is why I have no confidence that there'll be a push for campaign finance reform. The narrative is already changing from "look, we know this is shady but we can't unilaterally disarm against the GOP" over to "there's nothing unethical here at all, never mind that this was super illegal until that court case in 2014". If there's nothing wrong with what the Clinton campaign is doing, then obviously the laws don't need to change back, right?
I haven't seen that argument made here or in other circles.
If you want to re-illegalise it then hold Hillary to account for her promises regarding Citizens United and similar. And if somebody does start making the "no need to change" argument, fight back against it.
It's a pretty common strawman used by people who are offended by Hillary trying to win an election and not a purity contest.
Can't bash her on doing anything illegal (though Sanders seems to be trying anyway), can't really hit her on her policies.
Fine, hit her by calling her a liar.
I've got no issue with Bernie staying in the race until the end. It's odd to read people saying both that his platform is similar to Hilary's and that it has been rejected by the voters. As some one who's listened to Bernie through the years on Thom Hartmann's radio show, I've always thought he was a pipe dream candidate, but he had ideas I loved. Throughout the campaign, seeing him as an actual candidate, I see his flaws and I'm happy to get behind Hilary. That doesn't mean I've rejected his ideas, rather that I've chosen Hilary to be the standard bearer for those ideas because she looks to be a more solid candidate. So yeah, their individual planks are similar, but their emphasis is not. Primary votes for Bernie put the spotlight on the planks most important to me.
I'd like him to clean up his campaign a bit, sure. But honestly, Hilary isn't worried about him. And I think that, more than anything else during this primary season, is what lured me to her side. When the surrogates begged to be let off the chain to attack Bernie, she refused. That spoke directly to me, as a long time Bernie advocate, that she put value in my vote. It allowed me to switch sides without any animosity because she never took swings at "my guy." She is way more confident and composed than many of her hand wringing supporters. There may very well be a large portion of his base that are Bernie or Bust. It may even be a majority, I neither know nor care. I do know that she's going to need every vote, she threaded the needle between her rabid base and his to scoop me up, and it would be wise for us to follow her lead in the manner in which we deal with Bernie and his holdouts. I guarantee there are more like me on the edges of his base that can be swayed and our candidate's method, in my view, is way more effective than throwing shade at Bernie.
Also, this is why I have no confidence that there'll be a push for campaign finance reform. The narrative is already changing from "look, we know this is shady but we can't unilaterally disarm against the GOP" over to "there's nothing unethical here at all, never mind that this was super illegal until that court case in 2014". If there's nothing wrong with what the Clinton campaign is doing, then obviously the laws don't need to change back, right?
How is it illegal? Didn't Obama basically do the same thing during his election? And didn't the Supreme Court address the concept of these victory funds specifically?
In principle, especially with universally proportional allotment, I generally don't have a problem with people staying in until somebody hits the magic number.
I'm just not a fan of the rhetoric and tactics he is currently being associated with, even if he didn't employ them directly, because I fear the risks of the eventual victory becoming Pyrrhic regardless of who wins.
The money was given to the states specifically because it could then be funneled into the DNC. In other words, without the scheme, the states would not have gotten these donations. This was all set up ex ante, and to reneg ex post is creating a commitment problem that would prevent such a scheme from existing in the first place. Maybe that's a good thing in your eyes but that doesn't seem to be the criticism.
That just means that her big "party fundraisers" are in fact funding her own campaign. Which is fine! Candidates raise funds for their campaigns, it's a thing. But she doesn't get too claim that she's funding down ticket races and is Helping The Party when the money is immediately returned to her own campaign fund.
No, they are in point of fact, funding the General Election Campaign for the Democratic Party Nominee. Not Hillary Clinton for America or whatever. If Bernie somehow becomes the nominee it's his money that she raised.
Correct me if I'm wrong: I think one of the thought processes that leads to anger about the donations to DNC is that the money is going to go to Hillary's campaign against Bernie. AFAIK that's not true and the money is going to general election funds.
The money was given to the states specifically because it could then be funneled into the DNC. In other words, without the scheme, the states would not have gotten these donations. This was all set up ex ante, and to reneg ex post is creating a commitment problem that would prevent such a scheme from existing in the first place. Maybe that's a good thing in your eyes but that doesn't seem to be the criticism.
That just means that her big "party fundraisers" are in fact funding her own campaign. Which is fine! Candidates raise funds for their campaigns, it's a thing. But she doesn't get too claim that she's funding down ticket races and is Helping The Party when the money is immediately returned to her own campaign fund.
No, they are in point of fact, funding the General Election Campaign for the Democratic Party Nominee. Not Hillary Clinton for America or whatever. If Bernie somehow becomes the nominee it's his money that she raised.
This is the part that pisses me off the most.
If Bernie were to become the nominee he'd get a bunch of that money thrown at his campaign. Hillary is essentially doing work that benefits a ton of people in the democratic party up to and possibly including Bernie Sanders (if he were able to nab the nomination, and he still had a plausible capability of that while Hillary was doing these fund raisers).
Also, this is why I have no confidence that there'll be a push for campaign finance reform. The narrative is already changing from "look, we know this is shady but we can't unilaterally disarm against the GOP" over to "there's nothing unethical here at all, never mind that this was super illegal until that court case in 2014". If there's nothing wrong with what the Clinton campaign is doing, then obviously the laws don't need to change back, right?
How is it illegal? Didn't Obama basically do the same thing during his election? And didn't the Supreme Court address the concept of these victory funds specifically?
I sure hope he didn't, because it was a felony up until the McCutcheon v. FEC case in 2014.
Also, this is why I have no confidence that there'll be a push for campaign finance reform. The narrative is already changing from "look, we know this is shady but we can't unilaterally disarm against the GOP" over to "there's nothing unethical here at all, never mind that this was super illegal until that court case in 2014". If there's nothing wrong with what the Clinton campaign is doing, then obviously the laws don't need to change back, right?
I haven't seen that argument made here or in other circles.
If you want to re-illegalise it then hold Hillary to account for her promises regarding Citizens United and similar. And if somebody does start making the "no need to change" argument, fight back against it.
Hard Agree.
No one here is saying it's completely ethical, only that it's allowed, and while it's allowed, it's a necessary evil because to not use the technique would be placing multiple races across the county at a disadvantage. You play the game as dictated by the rules; would you play chess and refuse to use your rooks while your opponent is under no such restriction?
Also, this is why I have no confidence that there'll be a push for campaign finance reform. The narrative is already changing from "look, we know this is shady but we can't unilaterally disarm against the GOP" over to "there's nothing unethical here at all, never mind that this was super illegal until that court case in 2014". If there's nothing wrong with what the Clinton campaign is doing, then obviously the laws don't need to change back, right?
How is it illegal? Didn't Obama basically do the same thing during his election? And didn't the Supreme Court address the concept of these victory funds specifically?
I sure hope he didn't, because it was a felony up until the McCutcheon v. FEC case in 2014.
You sure?
The Obama Victory Fund, a joint fund-raising committee that supports both President Barack Obama's 2012 re-election campaign and the Democratic National Committee, raised a total of $39 million during the first half of 2011
Also, this is why I have no confidence that there'll be a push for campaign finance reform. The narrative is already changing from "look, we know this is shady but we can't unilaterally disarm against the GOP" over to "there's nothing unethical here at all, never mind that this was super illegal until that court case in 2014". If there's nothing wrong with what the Clinton campaign is doing, then obviously the laws don't need to change back, right?
How is it illegal? Didn't Obama basically do the same thing during his election? And didn't the Supreme Court address the concept of these victory funds specifically?
I sure hope he didn't, because it was a felony up until the McCutcheon v. FEC case in 2014.
You sure?
The Obama Victory Fund, a joint fund-raising committee that supports both President Barack Obama's 2012 re-election campaign and the Democratic National Committee, raised a total of $39 million during the first half of 2011
Well you see the problem is Hillary's Victory Fund donating to state parties
For some completely incomprehensible reason. Obama's fund also donated directly to the DNC but that's cool because he's not Hillary?
I've got no issue with Bernie staying in the race until the end. It's odd to read people saying both that his platform is similar to Hilary's and that it has been rejected by the voters. As some one who's listened to Bernie through the years on Thom Hartmann's radio show, I've always thought he was a pipe dream candidate, but he had ideas I loved. Throughout the campaign, seeing him as an actual candidate, I see his flaws and I'm happy to get behind Hilary. That doesn't mean I've rejected his ideas, rather that I've chosen Hilary to be the standard bearer for those ideas because she looks to be a more solid candidate. So yeah, their individual planks are similar, but their emphasis is not. Primary votes for Bernie put the spotlight on the planks most important to me.
I'd like him to clean up his campaign a bit, sure. But honestly, Hilary isn't worried about him. And I think that, more than anything else during this primary season, is what lured me to her side. When the surrogates begged to be let off the chain to attack Bernie, she refused. That spoke directly to me, as a long time Bernie advocate, that she put value in my vote. It allowed me to switch sides without any animosity because she never took swings at "my guy." She is way more confident and composed than many of her hand wringing supporters. There may very well be a large portion of his base that are Bernie or Bust. It may even be a majority, I neither know nor care. I do know that she's going to need every vote, she threaded the needle between her rabid base and his to scoop me up, and it would be wise for us to follow her lead in the manner in which we deal with Bernie and his holdouts. I guarantee there are more like me on the edges of his base that can be swayed and our candidate's method, in my view, is way more effective than throwing shade at Bernie.
Just because people reject Bernie, does not mean they reject his platform.
On concept level, i like Bernies ideas, but once we get to details, it seems to have no clue what he is doing, and seems to expect things to just happen once he is elected.
“Washington, D.C., is home to nearly 700,000 Americans,” Clinton wrote in the Washington Informer, a newspaper that primarily serves the African-American community in D.C., and yet these Americans “don’t even have a vote in Congress.” Clinton pledged that “as president, I will be a vocal champion for D.C. statehood.”
This is a significant pledge from the Democratic Party’s almost-certain presidential nominee. Although President Obama endorsed D.C. statehood in 2014, he’s put little weight behind that support. And, in any event, a more rigorous effort by the Obama administration to enfranchise D.C. residents is unlikely to have prevailed so long as Republicans control Congress. District residents are overwhelmingly Democratic — Mitt Romney received just 7.3 percent of D.C.’s vote in 2012 — so disenfranchising D.C. residents prevents them from electing Democrats to Congress.
That said, there's one bit of stupid in the piece that needs to be called out:
Republicans, of course, could compromise with Democrats by abolishing the Senate, or by eliminating malapportionment of seats within Congress’ upper house — a measure that would require two separate constitutional amendments (one to neuter a provision in the Constitution that protects such malapportionment and then another to reallocate seats or eliminate the body),
No, it would only take one Amendment, thanks to the doctrine of implicit repeal.
That said, there's one bit of stupid in the piece that needs to be called out:
Republicans, of course, could compromise with Democrats by abolishing the Senate, or by eliminating malapportionment of seats within Congress’ upper house — a measure that would require two separate constitutional amendments (one to neuter a provision in the Constitution that protects such malapportionment and then another to reallocate seats or eliminate the body),
No, it would only take one Amendment, thanks to the doctrine of implicit repeal.
I don't think so? The constitution says you can't make an amendment stopping equal representation in the Senate. So you can't pass the amendment until that bit is gone, and you can't use implicit repeal to get rid of that bit until the amendment is passed.
Otherwise there would be no point to that clause at all.
That said, there's one bit of stupid in the piece that needs to be called out:
Republicans, of course, could compromise with Democrats by abolishing the Senate, or by eliminating malapportionment of seats within Congress’ upper house — a measure that would require two separate constitutional amendments (one to neuter a provision in the Constitution that protects such malapportionment and then another to reallocate seats or eliminate the body),
No, it would only take one Amendment, thanks to the doctrine of implicit repeal.
I don't think so? The constitution says you can't make an amendment stopping equal representation in the Senate. So you can't pass the amendment until that bit is gone, and you can't use implicit repeal to get rid of that bit until the amendment is passed.
Otherwise there would be no point to that clause at all.
So an amendment like
Article 1
The prohobition on changing equal representation in the Senate is abolished
Article 2
Each state gets Senators based on how many slam dunks performed in their territory
Wouldn't work?
Entrenched clauses like that are confusing, like the one proposed to permanently remove the ability for the constitution to abolish slavery.
That said, there's one bit of stupid in the piece that needs to be called out:
Republicans, of course, could compromise with Democrats by abolishing the Senate, or by eliminating malapportionment of seats within Congress’ upper house — a measure that would require two separate constitutional amendments (one to neuter a provision in the Constitution that protects such malapportionment and then another to reallocate seats or eliminate the body),
No, it would only take one Amendment, thanks to the doctrine of implicit repeal.
I don't think so? The constitution says you can't make an amendment stopping equal representation in the Senate. So you can't pass the amendment until that bit is gone, and you can't use implicit repeal to get rid of that bit until the amendment is passed.
Otherwise there would be no point to that clause at all.
So an amendment like
Article 1
The prohobition on changing equal representation in the Senate is abolished
Article 2
Each state gets Senators based on how many slam dunks performed in their territory
Wouldn't work?
Entrenched clauses like that are confusing, like the one proposed to permanently remove the ability for the constitution to abolish slavery.
I wouldn't think so, because the amendment is still one monolithic block.
You play the game as dictated by the rules; would you play chess and refuse to use your rooks while your opponent is under no such restriction?
In the early days of chess, a popular exhibition was for great masters to play a game in which their victory only counted if mate was delivered via a specific piece, otherwise it was a loss. A bishop or knight was a handicap, but a specific pawn would be especially difficult and impressive.
This is utterly irrelevant, I just love chess history.
You play the game as dictated by the rules; would you play chess and refuse to use your rooks while your opponent is under no such restriction?
In the early days of chess, a popular exhibition was for great masters to play a game in which their victory only counted if mate was delivered via a specific piece, otherwise it was a loss. A bishop or knight was a handicap, but a specific pawn would be especially difficult and impressive.
This is utterly irrelevant, I just love chess history.
It also still supports my point. It's an additional handicap voluntarily taken on, and sure, victory is all the sweeter when you win a stacked game, but the stakes are a bit higher here than in chess. ;-)
You play the game as dictated by the rules; would you play chess and refuse to use your rooks while your opponent is under no such restriction?
In the early days of chess, a popular exhibition was for great masters to play a game in which their victory only counted if mate was delivered via a specific piece, otherwise it was a loss. A bishop or knight was a handicap, but a specific pawn would be especially difficult and impressive.
This is utterly irrelevant, I just love chess history.
It also still supports my point. It's an additional handicap voluntarily taken on, and sure, victory is all the sweeter when you win a stacked game, but the stakes are a bit higher here than in chess. ;-)
Hey, I play stealth games by trying to kill as few enemies as possible. I also try not to commit wanton slaughter in GTA games.
What I'm trying to say is that I do it for fun. The outcome of my games won't change the face of the planet.
That said, there's one bit of stupid in the piece that needs to be called out:
Republicans, of course, could compromise with Democrats by abolishing the Senate, or by eliminating malapportionment of seats within Congress’ upper house — a measure that would require two separate constitutional amendments (one to neuter a provision in the Constitution that protects such malapportionment and then another to reallocate seats or eliminate the body),
No, it would only take one Amendment, thanks to the doctrine of implicit repeal.
I don't think so? The constitution says you can't make an amendment stopping equal representation in the Senate. So you can't pass the amendment until that bit is gone, and you can't use implicit repeal to get rid of that bit until the amendment is passed.
Otherwise there would be no point to that clause at all.
Constitution says you can't make a law. But like congress cannot bind congress the constitution cannot bind the constitution. Whatever is written last is law. You can as such modify the constitution "implicitly" in the same way that you can modify law implicitly.
0
Options
MrMisterJesus dying on the cross in pain? Morally better than us. One has to go "all in".Registered Userregular
Also, this is why I have no confidence that there'll be a push for campaign finance reform. The narrative is already changing from "look, we know this is shady but we can't unilaterally disarm against the GOP" over to "there's nothing unethical here at all, never mind that this was super illegal until that court case in 2014". If there's nothing wrong with what the Clinton campaign is doing, then obviously the laws don't need to change back, right?
How is it illegal? Didn't Obama basically do the same thing during his election? And didn't the Supreme Court address the concept of these victory funds specifically?
I sure hope he didn't, because it was a felony up until the McCutcheon v. FEC case in 2014.
You sure?
The Obama Victory Fund, a joint fund-raising committee that supports both President Barack Obama's 2012 re-election campaign and the Democratic National Committee, raised a total of $39 million during the first half of 2011
Well you see the problem is Hillary's Victory Fund donating to state parties
For some completely incomprehensible reason. Obama's fund also donated directly to the DNC but that's cool because he's not Hillary?
The innovation of the HVF is not that it is donating any money to the DNC, or having any joint fundraising, but rather, the innovation of the HVF is that it is donating money to State parties who then immediately re-donate that money to the DNC and thereby end up passing more total money to the DNC than campaign finance law would allow to be directly transferred. This is the behavior that was illegal until 2014. Now, sure, everyone is free to not give a shit about them doing this, but "it's just what Obama did" is simply false. It's not what Obama did and it was indeed illegal at the time he ran. Those facts are not under reasonable dispute.
Also, this is why I have no confidence that there'll be a push for campaign finance reform. The narrative is already changing from "look, we know this is shady but we can't unilaterally disarm against the GOP" over to "there's nothing unethical here at all, never mind that this was super illegal until that court case in 2014". If there's nothing wrong with what the Clinton campaign is doing, then obviously the laws don't need to change back, right?
How is it illegal? Didn't Obama basically do the same thing during his election? And didn't the Supreme Court address the concept of these victory funds specifically?
I sure hope he didn't, because it was a felony up until the McCutcheon v. FEC case in 2014.
You sure?
The Obama Victory Fund, a joint fund-raising committee that supports both President Barack Obama's 2012 re-election campaign and the Democratic National Committee, raised a total of $39 million during the first half of 2011
Well you see the problem is Hillary's Victory Fund donating to state parties
For some completely incomprehensible reason. Obama's fund also donated directly to the DNC but that's cool because he's not Hillary?
The innovation of the HVF is not that it is donating any money to the DNC, or having any joint fundraising, but rather, the innovation of the HVF is that it is donating money to State parties who then immediately re-donate that money to the DNC and thereby end up passing more total money to the DNC than campaign finance law would allow to be directly transferred. This is the behavior that was illegal until 2014. Now, sure, everyone is free to not give a shit about them doing this, but "it's just what Obama did" is simply false. It's not what Obama did and it was indeed illegal at the time he ran. Those facts are not under reasonable dispute.
So it's effectively the same thing even though on a technical level it's procedurally different.
The HVF is using a loophole that is now legal. I still don't see the problem.
Yes, @Viskod. We get that you are morally offended by the moving money. However, it's legal and useful, and so long as it continues to be both, it's going to happen, because not engaging in the practice would just be handicapping the party for no good reason.
Turn your righteous indignation toward campaign finance reform if you hate the situation so much. You keep trying to use it to bludgeon Clinton, but it has nothing to do with her and everything to do with the law and the Supreme Court. Get out there and contact your congresscritters, start a petition, whatever.
Will you be complaining about it when Arizona has a disproportionate share of cash dropped into it in excess of their 10k limit?
This discussion is tired and I'm sick of you pretending it's just because we don't understand how it works.
You're just a goose.
I've never said that no one here understand how this works.
I've never blamed Clinton or associated her with any other this other than just having her name in the title of the entity moving the money. I'm not attacking her in any way or trying to say she's at all responsible for this. These are just baseless goose shit assumptions.
I've never said this process was illegal. In fact, I have specifically stated that as far as I know, transferring money like this is perfectly legal.
I'm perfectly fine with this in the cases of state committees that are all in and on board with it. Its their money, they can give it to the DNC if they want.
I have a problem with it just being automatically moved by the HVF from the state committees. It just looks shady for them to be doing it their selves instead of the state committees giving it directly to the DNC on their own, and I think if a state wants to keep all or any of it for any reason, then they should be entitled to without reprisal by the DNC, because it is their money.
Also, this is why I have no confidence that there'll be a push for campaign finance reform. The narrative is already changing from "look, we know this is shady but we can't unilaterally disarm against the GOP" over to "there's nothing unethical here at all, never mind that this was super illegal until that court case in 2014". If there's nothing wrong with what the Clinton campaign is doing, then obviously the laws don't need to change back, right?
How is it illegal? Didn't Obama basically do the same thing during his election? And didn't the Supreme Court address the concept of these victory funds specifically?
I sure hope he didn't, because it was a felony up until the McCutcheon v. FEC case in 2014.
You sure?
The Obama Victory Fund, a joint fund-raising committee that supports both President Barack Obama's 2012 re-election campaign and the Democratic National Committee, raised a total of $39 million during the first half of 2011
Well you see the problem is Hillary's Victory Fund donating to state parties
For some completely incomprehensible reason. Obama's fund also donated directly to the DNC but that's cool because he's not Hillary?
The innovation of the HVF is not that it is donating any money to the DNC, or having any joint fundraising, but rather, the innovation of the HVF is that it is donating money to State parties who then immediately re-donate that money to the DNC and thereby end up passing more total money to the DNC than campaign finance law would allow to be directly transferred. This is the behavior that was illegal until 2014. Now, sure, everyone is free to not give a shit about them doing this, but "it's just what Obama did" is simply false. It's not what Obama did and it was indeed illegal at the time he ran. Those facts are not under reasonable dispute.
Thank you for laying that out Mr. Mister, I've been trying to figure out the controversy about the victory fund for a bit, but couldn't spend the time to google up a good source to explain it.
So my only question from here on out is, "So everyone agrees it is legal as of now right? So why are they upset Clinton is doing it?" Because yeah, unless you've made a pledge to your supporters to not engage in such practices (similar to Bernie's no Super Pac stance) I don't see the issue.
Yes, @Viskod. We get that you are morally offended by the moving money. However, it's legal and useful, and so long as it continues to be both, it's going to happen, because not engaging in the practice would just be handicapping the party for no good reason.
Turn your righteous indignation toward campaign finance reform if you hate the situation so much. You keep trying to use it to bludgeon Clinton, but it has nothing to do with her and everything to do with the law and the Supreme Court. Get out there and contact your congresscritters, start a petition, whatever.
Will you be complaining about it when Arizona has a disproportionate share of cash dropped into it in excess of their 10k limit?
This discussion is tired and I'm sick of you pretending it's just because we don't understand how it works.
You're just a honking goose.
I've never said that no one here understand how this works.
I've never blamed Clinton or associated her with any other this other than just having her name in the title of the entity moving the money. I'm not attacking her in any way or trying to say she's at all responsible for this. These are just baseless goose shit assumptions.
I've never said this process was illegal. In fact, I have specifically stated that as far as I know, transferring money like this is perfectly legal.
I'm perfectly fine with this in the cases of state committees that are all in and on board with it. Its their money, they can give it to the DNC if they want.
I have a problem with it just being automatically moved by the HVF from the state committees. It just looks shady for them to be doing it their selves instead of the state committees giving it directly to the DNC on their own, and I think if a state wants to keep all or any of it for any reason, then they should be entitled to without reprisal by the DNC, because it is their money.
You call it money laundering dude.
The whole time you've tried to paint Clinton's organization as some kind of criminal element in this process doing something morally bankrupt. Even trying to insist they are taking the money against the wishes of the state committees
Yes, in the sense that the DNC cannot accept it directly legally. It has to be funneled through the state committees before the DNC can take it. It's not the DNC's money to take.
Yes, in the sense that the DNC cannot accept it directly legally. It has to be funneled through the state committees before the DNC can take it. It's not the DNC's money to take.
And they don't, the state committees have agreements with the DNC, about who's money the DNC can have, and they give that money to them freely.
Yes, I do not believe the HVF shouldn't transferring the money to the DNC if the state reps do not want them to. That doesn't mean I think Hillary Clinton is leaning back into a giant leather chair in front of a fireplace quietly muttering "excellent..." if it should happen.
The whole time you've been trying to find some way of framing Hillary raising money for the party as some kind of seedy self funding plot where she launders money to herself via the state committees, with no intention of ever sharing that money with the rest of the party.
More importantly that's how the Sanders campaign has tried to frame it.
Even more importantly they do this to try to dodge the fact that they have offered no help to the party infrastructure at all.
Yes, in the sense that the DNC cannot accept it directly legally. It has to be funneled through the state committees before the DNC can take it. It's not the DNC's money to take.
And they don't, the state committees have agreements with the DNC, about who's money the DNC can have, and they give that money to them freely.
Well if you're going to just continually ignore the fact that reps have stated anonymously that they actually do, and say so anonymously out of intimidation by the DNC for not falling in line there's really nothing more I can say to you. If you want to say that the author of that article or his sources are just flat out lying then say so.
Yes, I do not believe the HVF shouldn't transferring the money to the DNC if the state reps do not want them to. That doesn't mean I think Hillary Clinton is leaning back into a giant leather chair in front of a fireplace quietly muttering "excellent..." if it should happen.
Can you
A: Name the reps who do not want them to?
B: Explain why these particular reps should get to override whatever decisions state party has made with DNC?
0
Options
MrMisterJesus dying on the cross in pain? Morally better than us. One has to go "all in".Registered Userregular
Also, this is why I have no confidence that there'll be a push for campaign finance reform. The narrative is already changing from "look, we know this is shady but we can't unilaterally disarm against the GOP" over to "there's nothing unethical here at all, never mind that this was super illegal until that court case in 2014". If there's nothing wrong with what the Clinton campaign is doing, then obviously the laws don't need to change back, right?
How is it illegal? Didn't Obama basically do the same thing during his election? And didn't the Supreme Court address the concept of these victory funds specifically?
I sure hope he didn't, because it was a felony up until the McCutcheon v. FEC case in 2014.
You sure?
The Obama Victory Fund, a joint fund-raising committee that supports both President Barack Obama's 2012 re-election campaign and the Democratic National Committee, raised a total of $39 million during the first half of 2011
Well you see the problem is Hillary's Victory Fund donating to state parties
For some completely incomprehensible reason. Obama's fund also donated directly to the DNC but that's cool because he's not Hillary?
The innovation of the HVF is not that it is donating any money to the DNC, or having any joint fundraising, but rather, the innovation of the HVF is that it is donating money to State parties who then immediately re-donate that money to the DNC and thereby end up passing more total money to the DNC than campaign finance law would allow to be directly transferred. This is the behavior that was illegal until 2014. Now, sure, everyone is free to not give a shit about them doing this, but "it's just what Obama did" is simply false. It's not what Obama did and it was indeed illegal at the time he ran. Those facts are not under reasonable dispute.
So it's effectively the same thing even though on a technical level it's procedurally different.
The HVF is using a loophole that is now legal. I still don't see the problem.
It is not the same thing, because the entire point is that it allows much larger sums to be passed through. Individual donations to the DNC are capped at ~30,000. But when you bundle in the $10,000 that individuals are allowed to donate to each State, that pushes the theoretical individual limit nearly twenty times higher. Now, the highest they've actually gotten for single donations is in the ~340,000 range because not all States have agreed to participate. That's still more than ten times the previous legal limit. And multiplying donations by ten is absolutely a functional difference in campaign finance land, where the entire point of the laws is that the numbers matter.
As I said, you are free to not give a shit. But it is just false to say that this is what Obama did. The point of controversy with the HFV is precisely its point of departure from what Obama did.
Yes, in the sense that the DNC cannot accept it directly legally. It has to be funneled through the state committees before the DNC can take it. It's not the DNC's money to take.
And they don't, the state committees have agreements with the DNC, about who's money the DNC can have, and they give that money to them freely.
Well if you're going to just continually ignore the fact that reps have stated anonymously that they actually do, and say so anonymously out of intimidation by the DNC for not falling in line there's really nothing more I can say to you. If you want to say that the author of that article or his sources are just flat out lying then say so.
You find me one office in America where every single employee working there thinks the company's plan moving forward is a good idea and doesn't at all feel cajoled into a plan they don't agree with.
Sleep on
+5
Options
MrMisterJesus dying on the cross in pain? Morally better than us. One has to go "all in".Registered Userregular
Also, this is why I have no confidence that there'll be a push for campaign finance reform. The narrative is already changing from "look, we know this is shady but we can't unilaterally disarm against the GOP" over to "there's nothing unethical here at all, never mind that this was super illegal until that court case in 2014". If there's nothing wrong with what the Clinton campaign is doing, then obviously the laws don't need to change back, right?
How is it illegal? Didn't Obama basically do the same thing during his election? And didn't the Supreme Court address the concept of these victory funds specifically?
I sure hope he didn't, because it was a felony up until the McCutcheon v. FEC case in 2014.
You sure?
The Obama Victory Fund, a joint fund-raising committee that supports both President Barack Obama's 2012 re-election campaign and the Democratic National Committee, raised a total of $39 million during the first half of 2011
Well you see the problem is Hillary's Victory Fund donating to state parties
For some completely incomprehensible reason. Obama's fund also donated directly to the DNC but that's cool because he's not Hillary?
The innovation of the HVF is not that it is donating any money to the DNC, or having any joint fundraising, but rather, the innovation of the HVF is that it is donating money to State parties who then immediately re-donate that money to the DNC and thereby end up passing more total money to the DNC than campaign finance law would allow to be directly transferred. This is the behavior that was illegal until 2014. Now, sure, everyone is free to not give a shit about them doing this, but "it's just what Obama did" is simply false. It's not what Obama did and it was indeed illegal at the time he ran. Those facts are not under reasonable dispute.
Thank you for laying that out Mr. Mister, I've been trying to figure out the controversy about the victory fund for a bit, but couldn't spend the time to google up a good source to explain it.
So my only question from here on out is, "So everyone agrees it is legal as of now right? So why are they upset Clinton is doing it?" Because yeah, unless you've made a pledge to your supporters to not engage in such practices (similar to Bernie's no Super Pac stance) I don't see the issue.
As far as I can tell, they are upset at the use of a fundraising scheme that enables such large individual donations because they believe that individual donations that large exert an undue influence on the political process (a belief apparently shared by the legislature, given that it made donations that large illegal up until they were overruled by a 5-4 conservative majority of the Court in 2014).
Marty: The future, it's where you're going? Doc: That's right, twenty five years into the future. I've always dreamed on seeing the future, looking beyond my years, seeing the progress of mankind. I'll also be able to see who wins the next twenty-five world series.
Also, this is why I have no confidence that there'll be a push for campaign finance reform. The narrative is already changing from "look, we know this is shady but we can't unilaterally disarm against the GOP" over to "there's nothing unethical here at all, never mind that this was super illegal until that court case in 2014". If there's nothing wrong with what the Clinton campaign is doing, then obviously the laws don't need to change back, right?
How is it illegal? Didn't Obama basically do the same thing during his election? And didn't the Supreme Court address the concept of these victory funds specifically?
I sure hope he didn't, because it was a felony up until the McCutcheon v. FEC case in 2014.
You sure?
The Obama Victory Fund, a joint fund-raising committee that supports both President Barack Obama's 2012 re-election campaign and the Democratic National Committee, raised a total of $39 million during the first half of 2011
Well you see the problem is Hillary's Victory Fund donating to state parties
For some completely incomprehensible reason. Obama's fund also donated directly to the DNC but that's cool because he's not Hillary?
The innovation of the HVF is not that it is donating any money to the DNC, or having any joint fundraising, but rather, the innovation of the HVF is that it is donating money to State parties who then immediately re-donate that money to the DNC and thereby end up passing more total money to the DNC than campaign finance law would allow to be directly transferred. This is the behavior that was illegal until 2014. Now, sure, everyone is free to not give a shit about them doing this, but "it's just what Obama did" is simply false. It's not what Obama did and it was indeed illegal at the time he ran. Those facts are not under reasonable dispute.
So it's effectively the same thing even though on a technical level it's procedurally different.
The HVF is using a loophole that is now legal. I still don't see the problem.
It is not the same thing, because the entire point is that it allows much larger sums to be passed through. Individual donations to the DNC are capped at ~30,000. But when you bundle in the $10,000 that individuals are allowed to donate to each State, that pushes the theoretical individual limit nearly twenty times higher. Now, the highest they've actually gotten for single donations is in the ~340,000 range because not all States have agreed to participate. That's still more than ten times the previous legal limit. And multiplying donations by ten is absolutely a functional difference in campaign finance land, where the entire point of the laws is that the numbers matter.
As I said, you are free to not give a shit. But it is just false to say that this is what Obama did. The point of controversy with the HFV is precisely its point of departure from what Obama did.
But they were still functionally the same thing. They were a way to collectively raise funds and pool resources with the DNC so they could have more money available for competitive races.
It seems like the only thing that has changed is that now their is an added wrinkle of the state parties that allow them to raise even more money (which seems to be a good thing) but it's still being pooled and would be distributed the same way.
You're right, I couldn't possibly give a shit less about this. Because it seems exactly the same in spirit and I would be willing to bet the only reason Obama didn't do the exact same thing when he was running is because he couldn't.
That is Bernie Sanders obvious position. That is one of his stated goals for this primary.
That there is a significant amount of democrats that support his ideals and they shouldn't be ignored.
Correction: There is a large minority of Democrats who support his platform more than Clinton's. The two platforms are not in ideological conflict, they vary primarily by extent or method, not intent or goal. Those voters' ideals will not be ignored, though as a minority, they may not have much, or perhaps any, say on the extent or methods.
Which is correct. The minority should not get to dictate the platform, otherwise what was the point of the primary in the first place?
Another thing I'm tired of is this idea that Sanders voters will not be represented under Clinton. It's bullshit. No, they don't get to dictate specifics, they lost, but both candidates are running on similar goals and ideals. Democracy is about representation and compromise, no individual will ever get their full platform enacted verbatim, because that's not Democracy, that's a Dictatorship.
I don't think it's about dictating policy, or hijacking the platform across the board - it's about demonstrating that a significant portion of your own voters want certain things and that it might be a good idea to take those things into consideration or incorporate some of their ideas to appeal to them. It's the job of the nominee to represent the whole party as best they are able, and the more of them that vote in primaries, the better they can understand what those voters want. It's been happening already and I am sure it will continue to happen. It's a good thing.
Yes but hardly anyone would turn up to vote for him if he concedes, that's just how elections work. As long as there's still a chance for him to win and he remains in the race, his voters will remain energised. He knows this. There's an element of expectation management going on
Here is where this runs into a significant problem.
There is absolutely zero realistic chance that Bernie Sanders will be the nominee for the Democratic Party. Any scenario where he might hypothetically secure the nomination involves such a convoluted and unlikely series of events that it's not even worth taking seriously.
And yet his voters keep voting just in case they can make that happen... which again returns to my point.
But they can't make it happen. It's not possible
You are not understanding me. Bernie knows he won't win, he's not an idiot, but he wants his voters to have their say. They will only vote if there is a mathematical chance he can still win. You know and I know and a whole lot of people know he's not gonna win but there is value in his voters taking part regardless.
I voted for him in the pennsylvania primary. I knew it was likely he wouldn't even win my state, let alone the nomination. And you know what, fuck did it feel good to vote for him in the off chance he could have won. Dropping out after it was mathmatically unlikely would mean before my state voted. So yeah, I would still have voted for local elections, and I might have voted for bernie at that point, but why doesn't it matter how I felt voting during the primary?
That said, there's one bit of stupid in the piece that needs to be called out:
Republicans, of course, could compromise with Democrats by abolishing the Senate, or by eliminating malapportionment of seats within Congress’ upper house — a measure that would require two separate constitutional amendments (one to neuter a provision in the Constitution that protects such malapportionment and then another to reallocate seats or eliminate the body),
No, it would only take one Amendment, thanks to the doctrine of implicit repeal.
I don't think so? The constitution says you can't make an amendment stopping equal representation in the Senate. So you can't pass the amendment until that bit is gone, and you can't use implicit repeal to get rid of that bit until the amendment is passed.
Otherwise there would be no point to that clause at all.
Constitution says you can't make a law. But like congress cannot bind congress the constitution cannot bind the constitution. Whatever is written last is law. You can as such modify the constitution "implicitly" in the same way that you can modify law implicitly.
You're just repeating what Hedgie said before and the argument is no more compelling now then it was last time.
You're suggesting that an amendment would be passed that implicitly removes the ban on passing that very same amendment. But since the amendment is currently banned, that amendment can't be passed. It just doesn't make any sense.
And you're also assuming that limitations on constitutional amendments, almost half of article 5, were just thrown in for no reason and don't actually mean anything.
Posts
Can't bash her on doing anything illegal (though Sanders seems to be trying anyway), can't really hit her on her policies.
Fine, hit her by calling her a liar.
I'd like him to clean up his campaign a bit, sure. But honestly, Hilary isn't worried about him. And I think that, more than anything else during this primary season, is what lured me to her side. When the surrogates begged to be let off the chain to attack Bernie, she refused. That spoke directly to me, as a long time Bernie advocate, that she put value in my vote. It allowed me to switch sides without any animosity because she never took swings at "my guy." She is way more confident and composed than many of her hand wringing supporters. There may very well be a large portion of his base that are Bernie or Bust. It may even be a majority, I neither know nor care. I do know that she's going to need every vote, she threaded the needle between her rabid base and his to scoop me up, and it would be wise for us to follow her lead in the manner in which we deal with Bernie and his holdouts. I guarantee there are more like me on the edges of his base that can be swayed and our candidate's method, in my view, is way more effective than throwing shade at Bernie.
How is it illegal? Didn't Obama basically do the same thing during his election? And didn't the Supreme Court address the concept of these victory funds specifically?
I'm just not a fan of the rhetoric and tactics he is currently being associated with, even if he didn't employ them directly, because I fear the risks of the eventual victory becoming Pyrrhic regardless of who wins.
No, they are in point of fact, funding the General Election Campaign for the Democratic Party Nominee. Not Hillary Clinton for America or whatever. If Bernie somehow becomes the nominee it's his money that she raised.
This is the part that pisses me off the most.
If Bernie were to become the nominee he'd get a bunch of that money thrown at his campaign. Hillary is essentially doing work that benefits a ton of people in the democratic party up to and possibly including Bernie Sanders (if he were able to nab the nomination, and he still had a plausible capability of that while Hillary was doing these fund raisers).
I sure hope he didn't, because it was a felony up until the McCutcheon v. FEC case in 2014.
Hard Agree.
No one here is saying it's completely ethical, only that it's allowed, and while it's allowed, it's a necessary evil because to not use the technique would be placing multiple races across the county at a disadvantage. You play the game as dictated by the rules; would you play chess and refuse to use your rooks while your opponent is under no such restriction?
You sure?
Well you see the problem is Hillary's Victory Fund donating to state parties
For some completely incomprehensible reason. Obama's fund also donated directly to the DNC but that's cool because he's not Hillary?
QEDMF xbl: PantsB G+
On concept level, i like Bernies ideas, but once we get to details, it seems to have no clue what he is doing, and seems to expect things to just happen once he is elected.
That said, there's one bit of stupid in the piece that needs to be called out:
No, it would only take one Amendment, thanks to the doctrine of implicit repeal.
I don't think so? The constitution says you can't make an amendment stopping equal representation in the Senate. So you can't pass the amendment until that bit is gone, and you can't use implicit repeal to get rid of that bit until the amendment is passed.
Otherwise there would be no point to that clause at all.
So an amendment like
Wouldn't work?
Entrenched clauses like that are confusing, like the one proposed to permanently remove the ability for the constitution to abolish slavery.
I wouldn't think so, because the amendment is still one monolithic block.
In the early days of chess, a popular exhibition was for great masters to play a game in which their victory only counted if mate was delivered via a specific piece, otherwise it was a loss. A bishop or knight was a handicap, but a specific pawn would be especially difficult and impressive.
This is utterly irrelevant, I just love chess history.
It also still supports my point. It's an additional handicap voluntarily taken on, and sure, victory is all the sweeter when you win a stacked game, but the stakes are a bit higher here than in chess. ;-)
Hey, I play stealth games by trying to kill as few enemies as possible. I also try not to commit wanton slaughter in GTA games.
What I'm trying to say is that I do it for fun. The outcome of my games won't change the face of the planet.
1. Go to your Amazon Smile settings.
2. Set VoteRiders as your charity.
3. Use smile.amazon.com to make purchases.
Constitution says you can't make a law. But like congress cannot bind congress the constitution cannot bind the constitution. Whatever is written last is law. You can as such modify the constitution "implicitly" in the same way that you can modify law implicitly.
The innovation of the HVF is not that it is donating any money to the DNC, or having any joint fundraising, but rather, the innovation of the HVF is that it is donating money to State parties who then immediately re-donate that money to the DNC and thereby end up passing more total money to the DNC than campaign finance law would allow to be directly transferred. This is the behavior that was illegal until 2014. Now, sure, everyone is free to not give a shit about them doing this, but "it's just what Obama did" is simply false. It's not what Obama did and it was indeed illegal at the time he ran. Those facts are not under reasonable dispute.
So it's effectively the same thing even though on a technical level it's procedurally different.
The HVF is using a loophole that is now legal. I still don't see the problem.
You've misunderstood, again.
You're just a goose.
I've never said that no one here understand how this works.
I've never blamed Clinton or associated her with any other this other than just having her name in the title of the entity moving the money. I'm not attacking her in any way or trying to say she's at all responsible for this. These are just baseless goose shit assumptions.
I've never said this process was illegal. In fact, I have specifically stated that as far as I know, transferring money like this is perfectly legal.
I'm perfectly fine with this in the cases of state committees that are all in and on board with it. Its their money, they can give it to the DNC if they want.
I have a problem with it just being automatically moved by the HVF from the state committees. It just looks shady for them to be doing it their selves instead of the state committees giving it directly to the DNC on their own, and I think if a state wants to keep all or any of it for any reason, then they should be entitled to without reprisal by the DNC, because it is their money.
Thank you for laying that out Mr. Mister, I've been trying to figure out the controversy about the victory fund for a bit, but couldn't spend the time to google up a good source to explain it.
So my only question from here on out is, "So everyone agrees it is legal as of now right? So why are they upset Clinton is doing it?" Because yeah, unless you've made a pledge to your supporters to not engage in such practices (similar to Bernie's no Super Pac stance) I don't see the issue.
You call it money laundering dude.
The whole time you've tried to paint Clinton's organization as some kind of criminal element in this process doing something morally bankrupt. Even trying to insist they are taking the money against the wishes of the state committees
And they don't, the state committees have agreements with the DNC, about who's money the DNC can have, and they give that money to them freely.
More importantly that's how the Sanders campaign has tried to frame it.
Even more importantly they do this to try to dodge the fact that they have offered no help to the party infrastructure at all.
Well if you're going to just continually ignore the fact that reps have stated anonymously that they actually do, and say so anonymously out of intimidation by the DNC for not falling in line there's really nothing more I can say to you. If you want to say that the author of that article or his sources are just flat out lying then say so.
Can you
A: Name the reps who do not want them to?
B: Explain why these particular reps should get to override whatever decisions state party has made with DNC?
It is not the same thing, because the entire point is that it allows much larger sums to be passed through. Individual donations to the DNC are capped at ~30,000. But when you bundle in the $10,000 that individuals are allowed to donate to each State, that pushes the theoretical individual limit nearly twenty times higher. Now, the highest they've actually gotten for single donations is in the ~340,000 range because not all States have agreed to participate. That's still more than ten times the previous legal limit. And multiplying donations by ten is absolutely a functional difference in campaign finance land, where the entire point of the laws is that the numbers matter.
As I said, you are free to not give a shit. But it is just false to say that this is what Obama did. The point of controversy with the HFV is precisely its point of departure from what Obama did.
You find me one office in America where every single employee working there thinks the company's plan moving forward is a good idea and doesn't at all feel cajoled into a plan they don't agree with.
As far as I can tell, they are upset at the use of a fundraising scheme that enables such large individual donations because they believe that individual donations that large exert an undue influence on the political process (a belief apparently shared by the legislature, given that it made donations that large illegal up until they were overruled by a 5-4 conservative majority of the Court in 2014).
Doc: That's right, twenty five years into the future. I've always dreamed on seeing the future, looking beyond my years, seeing the progress of mankind. I'll also be able to see who wins the next twenty-five world series.
But they were still functionally the same thing. They were a way to collectively raise funds and pool resources with the DNC so they could have more money available for competitive races.
It seems like the only thing that has changed is that now their is an added wrinkle of the state parties that allow them to raise even more money (which seems to be a good thing) but it's still being pooled and would be distributed the same way.
You're right, I couldn't possibly give a shit less about this. Because it seems exactly the same in spirit and I would be willing to bet the only reason Obama didn't do the exact same thing when he was running is because he couldn't.
I voted for him in the pennsylvania primary. I knew it was likely he wouldn't even win my state, let alone the nomination. And you know what, fuck did it feel good to vote for him in the off chance he could have won. Dropping out after it was mathmatically unlikely would mean before my state voted. So yeah, I would still have voted for local elections, and I might have voted for bernie at that point, but why doesn't it matter how I felt voting during the primary?
You're just repeating what Hedgie said before and the argument is no more compelling now then it was last time.
You're suggesting that an amendment would be passed that implicitly removes the ban on passing that very same amendment. But since the amendment is currently banned, that amendment can't be passed. It just doesn't make any sense.
And you're also assuming that limitations on constitutional amendments, almost half of article 5, were just thrown in for no reason and don't actually mean anything.