Of COURSE the big Democratic donors are going to write big checks for Hillary -- just not right now. She's the only game in town, after all. If they can extract a price first, though, they'll do it. If a donor wants Hillary to commit against the Keystone XL Pipeline, for example, maybe she will (NOT) and maybe she won't (YES). The donor will grumble, the donor will press, Hillary won't commit, and the donor will write the check anyway. Whereupon Hillary will announce that she's FOR the Keystone XL Pipeline.
2
The Democrats are hardly bereft of plutocrats and Obama easily outraised the GOP.
Perhaps the smart Democrat money simply does not think that Clinton can win. The three or four dozen GOP candidates certainly do not.
Perhaps the smart Democrat money simply does not think that Clinton can win. The three or four dozen GOP candidates certainly do not.
2
There is also something obscene when an immensely wealthy person demands money for her/his own imperial ambitions. Fabulously rich "public servant" at-large. It's all a game for them, just as it is for other fabulously rich who live in a different stratosphere.
6
Three things:
1. The richest people in America are all Democrats. And the overwhelming majority of 0.001% are also Democrats.
2. What does The New York Times have against Bernie Sanders? 'Fess up, NYT.
3. In a normal situation, the Clintons would be worried about being indicted, not collecting $1BILLION for the vote-buying super PACs.
1. The richest people in America are all Democrats. And the overwhelming majority of 0.001% are also Democrats.
2. What does The New York Times have against Bernie Sanders? 'Fess up, NYT.
3. In a normal situation, the Clintons would be worried about being indicted, not collecting $1BILLION for the vote-buying super PACs.
5
Why not just let billionaire's vote if that is all that matters. If the Democrats would stop supporting trade agreements like NAFTA and TPP Fast Track their would be more support from rank and file labor and grass root activists. Democrats can't vote like Republicans and energize their base at the same time. The Democratic Party needs to return to its roots of activism and stop trying to be Republican light.
3
Ickes, Blumenthal, Podesta, Carville, Bagalla the gangs all here except for Sandy Berger caught stealing documents related to Clinton's failures from the national archives, get them all in prison cells.
2
I'm not sure this isn't a story looking for a place to roost... I'm not saying the Democrats deny the need to fund campaigns but this story makes it sound like their quest for gold was: a) a search; b) a failure... This piece seems more like a publish-or-perish problem...
OK, another commenter -- C.A. Johnson -- deserves credit for this phrase, but doesn't it pretty much nail the image Hillary is trying to convey this time around:
"...the new feel good granny of populism..."
I'm old enough that Hillary couldn't be my grandmother, but she's counting on votes from many, many young people who are young enough to be her grandchildren.
I loved my grandmothers, but I doubt I'd have voted for either one for president.
Will my kids vote for Hillary? I don't know, but I do know this: one of them was three years old when she arrived on the scene in 1991; one was about to be born; the third wasn't born until 6 years later.
Seriously, aren't we trying to sell some "past the expiration date" merchandise to young people here?
"...the new feel good granny of populism..."
I'm old enough that Hillary couldn't be my grandmother, but she's counting on votes from many, many young people who are young enough to be her grandchildren.
I loved my grandmothers, but I doubt I'd have voted for either one for president.
Will my kids vote for Hillary? I don't know, but I do know this: one of them was three years old when she arrived on the scene in 1991; one was about to be born; the third wasn't born until 6 years later.
Seriously, aren't we trying to sell some "past the expiration date" merchandise to young people here?
1
Marco Rubio is young, but I would vote for someone Hilary's age before him. I don't think age should be a deciding factor. People of all ages can be very active.
1
"...perhaps there could be a national boycott of TV stations that play attack ads..."
Sure, and maybe Keystone XL pipeline opponents will start boycotting gas stations that sell gasoline refined by companies who've committed to buy tar-sands oil.
And maybe pigs will fly.
Sure, and maybe Keystone XL pipeline opponents will start boycotting gas stations that sell gasoline refined by companies who've committed to buy tar-sands oil.
And maybe pigs will fly.
2
Are these the only choices?
"Do you think election campaigns should be controlled by only the richest 1%, or do you think the campaigns should be publicly financed,"
In case you haven't figured this out yet, "publicly financed" means taxpayer dollars -- my dollars -- will be spent to support some candidate that I might detest. Why in the world would I want my taxpayer dollars spent on that?
Can we just stop whining about Citizens United and all that? Check the stats -- they're all on-line. The biggest donors in the last election (2014) supported Democrats, not Republicans. The biggest of all "invested" $74 million, nearly 10 times as much as the Koch brothers combined. His "investment" return wasn't all that great -- either his candidates lost, or they won but would have won just as easily without a dime from him.
Enough of this complaining about campaign finance. Obama complained about it too, but then he took it. Hillary complains about it too, but she takes it. One might say that is hypocrisy, mightn't one?
"Do you think election campaigns should be controlled by only the richest 1%, or do you think the campaigns should be publicly financed,"
In case you haven't figured this out yet, "publicly financed" means taxpayer dollars -- my dollars -- will be spent to support some candidate that I might detest. Why in the world would I want my taxpayer dollars spent on that?
Can we just stop whining about Citizens United and all that? Check the stats -- they're all on-line. The biggest donors in the last election (2014) supported Democrats, not Republicans. The biggest of all "invested" $74 million, nearly 10 times as much as the Koch brothers combined. His "investment" return wasn't all that great -- either his candidates lost, or they won but would have won just as easily without a dime from him.
Enough of this complaining about campaign finance. Obama complained about it too, but then he took it. Hillary complains about it too, but she takes it. One might say that is hypocrisy, mightn't one?
6
It only took 20 paragraphs but they did acknowledge George Soros.
3
So what? In 2012 President Obama's re-election effort raised $1,072 million, $80 million more than Romney did. That includes PAC money:
http://elections.nytimes.com/2012/campaign-finance
Hillary Clinton and whoever her opponent is will have more than enough money to get their messages out and make us thoroughly sick of those messages by November 8, 2016.
If it didn't bother you that candidate Obama turned down matching funds in 2008 and raised more than twice as much as his opponent, then why are you bothered now?
http://elections.nytimes.com/2012/campaign-finance
Hillary Clinton and whoever her opponent is will have more than enough money to get their messages out and make us thoroughly sick of those messages by November 8, 2016.
If it didn't bother you that candidate Obama turned down matching funds in 2008 and raised more than twice as much as his opponent, then why are you bothered now?
5
If we can't get these insane amounts of money out of the process, perhaps there could be a national boycott of TV stations that play attack ads, and thereby nullify the effects of the money. Just thinking of the sleazy gossip and endless focus on the horse race that is soon to come makes me tired and cranky
Exactly right about Citizens United:
"Why did Cantor lose when he outspent his opponent 10 or 20 to 1? What lesson might that tell us about Citizens' United perhaps limited reach?"
Please -- enough about Citizens United! Hillary Clinton raised hundreds of millions of dollars in 2008 -- hundreds of millions. So did Obama -- far more than John McCain. The biggest donor in the last election supported Democrats exclusively, and he donated nearly 10 times what the Koch brothers donated, collectively.
Can we please stop this whining about Citizens United? Both parties have big donors. The major candidates in both parties end up with all the money they need, and then some.
"Why did Cantor lose when he outspent his opponent 10 or 20 to 1? What lesson might that tell us about Citizens' United perhaps limited reach?"
Please -- enough about Citizens United! Hillary Clinton raised hundreds of millions of dollars in 2008 -- hundreds of millions. So did Obama -- far more than John McCain. The biggest donor in the last election supported Democrats exclusively, and he donated nearly 10 times what the Koch brothers donated, collectively.
Can we please stop this whining about Citizens United? Both parties have big donors. The major candidates in both parties end up with all the money they need, and then some.
4
Actually it need to be way more than repealing citizens United. What we really bed is the public funding of all political campaigns. This is the only way to ensure that special interests can't buy any single candidate. The polis is about the citizens and the whole of society in general. It is not about what a few handful of people want our policies as a nation should be.
Oh, come on. The Clinton Global Slush fund has plenty if money for a little campaign, no?
6
This whole idea of candidates on both sides buying our so called democratic elections in our so call democracy or is it plutocracy makes me sick to my stomach. "A pox on All their houses " Go Bernie Go !!!!!!!!!
1
I have been a modest "bundler" for Democrats for forty years--when a million meant something. In this crazy world (yes, it saddens me too), the core problem is that people who give "big" money are too smart to expect a quid pro quo; but they would like to think they would at least have some little access and influence on issues important to them. On many issues she is not clear; on others she seems too moderate/corporate; Bill's betrayals (as characterized by many) still rankle; and the issue of a life time of friends and supporters in front of them tell many donors that regardless they will have no voice. They have no confidence in her commitments at the end of the day she will always do the smart thing, but not necessarily the principled thing. Nevertheless, they will vote for her, but getting big money out of them for her is proving very tough. Thanks Citizens United.
1
"Would you like to meet Senator Shmooz tomorrow or would you rather take a little turn on my yacht, dear?" It's not only self serving quid pro quo for the tax lowering party (and for a media conglomerate to cry wolf), it's 14 Republican horses with one or two donors, attack ads to the left and to the right, from above and below in the primaries. I'd be less concerned about SuperPac money as long as it isn't spent in primaries against other Democrats. The Kochs won't back a Neo Con (Bush) and thus the money will evaporate quickly in the primaries. Technologically, it's going to be the ascent of AdBlocker manipulation.
I think this is an excellent article and deserves the front page. We all need to know where the money is going and where it's coming from. If the New York Times can offer greater insight into how this process works, all the better. At least those writers on NYT staff and others realize that the corruption of politics was mightily exacerbated by the Citizens United decision and since money has taken over the electoral process, they must feel we should know what's going on. The way some comments are written here it seems you think this article is an opinion piece. NYT is stating facts of how absurdly awful the situation regarding how we elect people to national office has become.
If the Democrat's premium donor base don't step up to the plate and let the Republicans drown Hillary in a deluge of cash, they will be complicit in empowering a gilded age plutocracy that will expedite redistribution from the 90% to the 10% to the point where revolution becomes inevitable.
1
If only our representatives had the gumption and integrity to make the current buying of elections impossible. All parties would be able to focus on running the country for the benefit of the people, rather than spending so much time acquiring secretively and ill-gotten funds from unknown parties to get re-elected only to do it all again.
2
Each candidate should get the same amount of money to run their campaign.
If true and objective reporting were to address all the lies and misinformation being posted here, it would probably run to a 1000 pages. The country has had 6 years of Liberal policies. Are you, we, better off now?
6
You call Obamas policies liberal???? You don't know what liberal is then.
Anybody who thinks the GOP congress is going to let HRC pass any legislations is delusional.
A waste of 4 years....
A waste of 4 years....
1
The Democrats have a stable of billionaire donors and a Hollywood following every bit the financial match for the Republican high-dollar supporters, give-or-take a couple billion, amounts beyond the comprehension of the vanishing middle class which they're supposedly courting.
The Democrat big money investors are likely holding back, not yet ready to place their bets on a third Clinton term. It's as if JEB were the only Republican candidate. Those high donors would be holding back, also hoping for a better choice. They Democrat money will be there when it's needed to save the election. So much for our "by the people" democracy.
The Democrat big money investors are likely holding back, not yet ready to place their bets on a third Clinton term. It's as if JEB were the only Republican candidate. Those high donors would be holding back, also hoping for a better choice. They Democrat money will be there when it's needed to save the election. So much for our "by the people" democracy.
5
During the Ford and Carter administrations the plutocracy showed us what little control we had over our own well being and our ability to plan for the future. It was not easy buying a car or a home when interest rates and petroleum prices went up and down like an elevator on steroids. We were more than content to trade in the Carter solutions for an independent economy for the stability of plutocracy.
Restoring democracy will be very difficult and neither Bernie Sanders nor Rand Paul have a snowball's chance in Hell of competing with Clinton nor any other GOP candidate for cash. It was after all the same Buckley family that turned Fascism into conservatism that gave us Citizens United and it was the same Buckley family that considered Libertarianism worse than Communism.
The battle that must first be fought is between totalitarianism and democracy and right now the plutocrats have a 35 year old head start and a war chest that exceeds that of the 99.99%. The Democrats are a much lesser evil in that a much smaller percentage of its membership in antidemocratic but the only way we can win is by finding common cause with the elements of the GOP that still believe in democracy.
Restoring democracy will be very difficult and neither Bernie Sanders nor Rand Paul have a snowball's chance in Hell of competing with Clinton nor any other GOP candidate for cash. It was after all the same Buckley family that turned Fascism into conservatism that gave us Citizens United and it was the same Buckley family that considered Libertarianism worse than Communism.
The battle that must first be fought is between totalitarianism and democracy and right now the plutocrats have a 35 year old head start and a war chest that exceeds that of the 99.99%. The Democrats are a much lesser evil in that a much smaller percentage of its membership in antidemocratic but the only way we can win is by finding common cause with the elements of the GOP that still believe in democracy.
2
Ask your illegals im sure their tax free money they can donate.
5
Hillary and Bill Clinton have spent the last 3 yrs selling access to a future president through their foundation. A future Hillary administration would see old-time Clinton fixers like Ickes and Sid Blumenthal shaking down anything that moved. The Clintons have set a new standard for seediness in American politics.
9
She's already received over $1 billion. She'll be fine. R's are still looking for funding. HIll's way out there. She's pushing toward $2 billion. Dems think they cannot win unless they severely outspend. And if she needs more, magic will happen from the Foundation.
The article purports the R's are full of billionaires giving freely. Well no, HIll's got more money than she can spend right now. She's been working on it ( with Bill) for the past several years. If I was the GOP, I'd be worried.
The article purports the R's are full of billionaires giving freely. Well no, HIll's got more money than she can spend right now. She's been working on it ( with Bill) for the past several years. If I was the GOP, I'd be worried.
4
How anyone with any ethics would vote for her is beyond me. This woman has sold her soul and her country for a few $$. And don't say there's no smoking gun. There can't be one when you've destroyed all the evidence and are not being here accountable. But that's today's politics. Money, power, party above country. Find a candidate who hasn't sold out. Bet you will not find one on the demo side.
9
One: Bernie Sanders.
3
Are you saying you will find a candidate who hasn't sold out on the republican side? It sounds like it.
1
Sanders is wonderful.
But, without a Progressive Congress, he would be ineffective.
But, without a Progressive Congress, he would be ineffective.
Most people would probably cheer if an Oliver Cromwell came along and drained the swamp. Every necessary change to our rotten system either won't happen or will take decades after the USA becomes an oligarchy and the low information voter finally realizes what they let happen.
1
Harold Ickes is like your local butcher. You need his services but his product smells. You buy it anyway. You have to know his history. He's 75 now and a Virgo. A bad combination if you know Virgos. He tried his best to put Hillary over the top against Obie but she weighed too much with all the baggage. Today her baggage is even worse. (You must have heard the one about Billie in 2008 saying about Obie that a few years back Obie would have been toting their bags. Wonder if obie has forgotten that slight? Ickes is pushing the contributors for Hillary. Just how much as he learned over the years? Obviously not much. But then again, he's a lawyer by trade.
1
If someone is willing to put up $5, $10 million to back Hillary you gotta ask what he wants in return. More corruptions, more military industrial complex.
3
If only she could be more transparent, with a doze of integrity, money is the least of her problems. If a 73 year old Sanders can amass money from individuals, there is no reason why she can't. She has chosen the wrong path and she will pay dearly.
6
What this article should really be saying is that, due to the questionable activities of their Foundation. the Clinton Crime Family has lost its ability to put the squeeze on people that it used to pressure or promise favors to. Instead, the article quotes the likes of political hack Harold Ickes, and his ridiculous claim that Democratic donors like to give big money for "hospital wings." What a load of propaganda.
8
Not to worry! The Clinton foundation can always funnel hundreds of millions of dollars to the campaign. There will never be an investigation so why should they worry? Go for it Hil!
6
You think the Dems must match GOP? The GOP has not produced a single electable candidate!
Always OPM (Other People's Money) with the $Clintons$, Let her pay her own way for once if she wants it so bad. They are worth $100's of millions.
9
"...For those still nervous, Priorities USA is also considering resurrecting an affiliated nonprofit group that could accept secret donations. Such fund-raising has been roundly denounced by watchdog groups — and, recently, by Mrs. Clinton herself..."
___
Given the recent questions about donations to the Clinton Foundation it would be foolish for Mrs. Clinton not to denounce the secret donations.
___
Given the recent questions about donations to the Clinton Foundation it would be foolish for Mrs. Clinton not to denounce the secret donations.
Why doesn't Hillary use some of her influence-peddling money acquired through her Clinton Crime Family slushfund? That's why this sham of a scam exists, isn't it?
6
"you can't make an omelette without breaking eggs"
As a Progressive I welcome a Republican victory in 2016.
Perhaps after 4 - 8 years of another Republican administration, perhaps then the wealth and income inequality will be so terrible that it really hurts.
Perhaps the Republicans will fail so miserably that there will be a massive pendulum shift to the left that will provide a Progressive leaning president to tools to make real changes.
As a Progressive I welcome a Republican victory in 2016.
Perhaps after 4 - 8 years of another Republican administration, perhaps then the wealth and income inequality will be so terrible that it really hurts.
Perhaps the Republicans will fail so miserably that there will be a massive pendulum shift to the left that will provide a Progressive leaning president to tools to make real changes.
The pendulum already swung hard Left; any harder and it would've flipped.
If the free-market is allowed to work, the economy will self-correct and wages will go up; everybody wins.
If the free-market is allowed to work, the economy will self-correct and wages will go up; everybody wins.
3
The free market can't work when there is a permanent over supply of labor.
Technology, population growth and globalization will aggravate the over supply.
There is no choice but for governments to become job creators.
Technology, population growth and globalization will aggravate the over supply.
There is no choice but for governments to become job creators.
1
The over supply of labor is due to the broken immigration system.
The Fed Gov't CAN fix that without burdening the taxpayer with unnecessary tax increases to pay salaries, benefits and future pensions for individuals who did not emigrate to the country legally in the first place.
The Fed Gov't CAN fix that without burdening the taxpayer with unnecessary tax increases to pay salaries, benefits and future pensions for individuals who did not emigrate to the country legally in the first place.
4
"...'No one has stepped forward as the savior,' said Matt Bennett, a longtime Democratic consultant in Washington..."
___
Of course not, the Republicans are holding the collection plate.
___
Of course not, the Republicans are holding the collection plate.
2
Just maybe no billionaire has stepped up as a Hillary megadonor because of all the scandal and taint associated with her.
11
Hillary is too old and she's TAINTED with scandal after scandal.....enough
8
Missing from this article is any mention of the first dime that any Clinton has contributed to their own campaigns, despite wealth totaling in the hundreds of millions. Many other candidates--from Kennedy to Romney--have chipped in big bucks to their efforts, but Bill, it has repeatedly been reported, seeks free airplane rides while Hillary had Sidney Blumenthal act a personal aide and researcher with his 12.000/month salary coming from the "charitable foundation." The stench of entitlement and corruption is overwhelming.
13
Perhaps it is true that more billionaires are giving money to the republicans, but that is only part of the picture. I suspect that when corporate contributions are counted (if only they could be) the funding picture looks pretty evenly balanced between the two.
The NYT would do the electorate a service by focusing on what it is that these large donors get for their money, as evidenced by, say, the past two presidencies: Unlimited war, no true financial system reform, increasing income disparity, backsliding on equality before the law, neglected infrastructure, neglected environment, loss of privacy; and so on. The claims by both that there is no quid pro quo is indeed laughable.
My suggestion is that we continue to let the wealthy buy whichever democrat or republican candidates they choose, and that we, the electorate, vote for and give money to neither. The parties have demonstrated over and over again that they are not interested in getting the money out of politics, so anyone who would suggest donating to either party is either satisfied with the status quo or a fool.
The NYT would do the electorate a service by focusing on what it is that these large donors get for their money, as evidenced by, say, the past two presidencies: Unlimited war, no true financial system reform, increasing income disparity, backsliding on equality before the law, neglected infrastructure, neglected environment, loss of privacy; and so on. The claims by both that there is no quid pro quo is indeed laughable.
My suggestion is that we continue to let the wealthy buy whichever democrat or republican candidates they choose, and that we, the electorate, vote for and give money to neither. The parties have demonstrated over and over again that they are not interested in getting the money out of politics, so anyone who would suggest donating to either party is either satisfied with the status quo or a fool.
2
Where is all this money going to come from hardly seems the most important question. I ask - where is all this money going to go? No one will be buying my vote, regardless how much he/she spends.
2
TV ads, Buses, Gas, Campaign Staff, Hotels, Restaurants, Airlines, Construction, Professional Event Staff, and TV ads and more TV ads
1
Aided and abetted by The Supreme court, democracy is truly in its death knell. Your vote and mine counting anymore is a mere illusion. The only thing that really counts anymore is money and the people with large sums of it to shape the narrative and direction of this country. I am seeing myself doing something that in the past I thought I would never, ever consider, and that is to not vote. When I see the supreme court stating that corporations are people, I realized that it is just about over for REAL people having a true voice in the body politic. Sadly its just about the money and not the citizens anymore(if it ever was).
2
I guess you let your vote be influenced by the money and advertising spots. That's up to you. Other people are voting for whom they want.
1
I thought you were going to say you would emigrate somewhere else. Mass emigration would be a pretty depressing wakeup call for whoever wants to stay.
Like the Clinton foundation, investing in Hillary show a very fractional return.
3
I'm surprised the author doesn't point out there are real doubts about Hillary and her scandals, especially her email and foundation issues. Maybe folks are waiting to see if Bernie or Elizabeth makes progress.
6
I think that we can change some word order and improve the accuracy of the sentence thereby. Instead of writing
"While Republican presidential candidates can count on a stable of billionaires .."
to
"While a stable of Republican billionaires can count on several GOP presidential candidates ..."
"While Republican presidential candidates can count on a stable of billionaires .."
to
"While a stable of Republican billionaires can count on several GOP presidential candidates ..."
3
Does age matter?
"I hate to seem catty, but Hillary looks old.."
Ironically, I think Hillary (lately, at least) LOOKS pretty young. What should be a greater concern is that Hillary IS old. If elected, she wouldn't be the oldest president (Reagan still would hold that title), but she'd be a strong second.
Hillary collapsed at home just before Christmas in 2012. Her spokesmen soon said she'd recovered completely -- "exhaustion," as I recall. Might that happen again if she's elected? Even before she's elected? A 69-year old president doesn't strike me as too old. But a 69-year old president that's not in good health, that collapsed from exhaustion more than four years before becoming president? That might be quite another matter.
"I hate to seem catty, but Hillary looks old.."
Ironically, I think Hillary (lately, at least) LOOKS pretty young. What should be a greater concern is that Hillary IS old. If elected, she wouldn't be the oldest president (Reagan still would hold that title), but she'd be a strong second.
Hillary collapsed at home just before Christmas in 2012. Her spokesmen soon said she'd recovered completely -- "exhaustion," as I recall. Might that happen again if she's elected? Even before she's elected? A 69-year old president doesn't strike me as too old. But a 69-year old president that's not in good health, that collapsed from exhaustion more than four years before becoming president? That might be quite another matter.
2
Depends who is her Vice President. This gives me hope.
Her VP will be Sanders and he's in better health than she is, I think.
This commenter wants to hear about the issues:
"I want Hillary to talk about the issues that matters to voters like me. Income inequality, illegal immigration, the controversial fast tracking TPP, gun control, Wall Street crimes, health care and the ECONOMY, "stupid"."
Give her credit: Hillary has taken a clear position on immigration. She's announced she'd do at least as much as Obama is doing, and possibly more. Whether you like that or not (your use of the phrase "illegal immigrants," rather than, say, "undocumented workers" suggests you do not like it), at least Hillary has been clear about that. Not about much else, perhaps, but she's been clear on immigration.
"I want Hillary to talk about the issues that matters to voters like me. Income inequality, illegal immigration, the controversial fast tracking TPP, gun control, Wall Street crimes, health care and the ECONOMY, "stupid"."
Give her credit: Hillary has taken a clear position on immigration. She's announced she'd do at least as much as Obama is doing, and possibly more. Whether you like that or not (your use of the phrase "illegal immigrants," rather than, say, "undocumented workers" suggests you do not like it), at least Hillary has been clear about that. Not about much else, perhaps, but she's been clear on immigration.
What a monumentally tedious non-change of events. One finds it difficult to control their fascination.
Are people really confused about Hillary's position on the TPP?
"Since she won't even state a position on the TPP it's pretty clear she is still just another corporate shill."
Pinning down Hillary is like trying to nail Jello to the wall. But I'd make an exception for the TPP. If she were president now, she'd be pushing that through faster than Obama is trying to, harder than Bill pushed NAFTA. For better or worse, that seems clear to me. If she felt otherwise about the TPP, she'd have said so by now.
"Since she won't even state a position on the TPP it's pretty clear she is still just another corporate shill."
Pinning down Hillary is like trying to nail Jello to the wall. But I'd make an exception for the TPP. If she were president now, she'd be pushing that through faster than Obama is trying to, harder than Bill pushed NAFTA. For better or worse, that seems clear to me. If she felt otherwise about the TPP, she'd have said so by now.
3
I weep for Hillary Clinton and the sad state of her finances.
Or not.
Or not.
6
Since Bill is taking $500K a pop to take "man of the year" awards at other charities, how much is he charging the Hillary campaign per speech and appearance?
Hillary's raising $2 B for her Presidential campaign. Bill's got to pay the bills folks. How about a volume discount, and the Hillary Campaign only pay $400K per speech to the Clinton LLC/Clinton Foundation?
Hillary's raising $2 B for her Presidential campaign. Bill's got to pay the bills folks. How about a volume discount, and the Hillary Campaign only pay $400K per speech to the Clinton LLC/Clinton Foundation?
2
There are probably a myriad of reasons why major donors of previous Democratic candidates haven't lined up behind Hillary Clinton as the party's presumptive 2016 presidential nominee. The paucity of potential Democratic presidential candidates is indicative of weak national party leadership and political will. The Clinton political brand has been polarizing across a broad spectrum of American politics on one hand and conflicted on another.
Macropolitical considerations alone are not at the root of the differences between Republican and Democratic presidential fund raising. In the end, it is the candidate and her or his message galvanizing and driving campaign finance and popular electoral support. It is still relatively early in the 2016 election cycle so commentaries on causes or future outcomes are speculative.
But given Ms.Clinton's name recognition and extensive public career, it is inexplicable she has failed to garner comparable major donor support. The backdrop is Ms. Clinton's insurmountable challenges attempting to be a servant of two masters; heroine to "ordinary Americans" and hostess to the international billionaire class responsible for her family's meteoric rise from virtual penury at the end of Bill Clinton's presidency to card carrying membership of the 1% today. Ms. Clinton's transparent evasion of the press on substantive issues, particularly the TPP is hobbling an admittedly conflicted Democratic base.
Macropolitical considerations alone are not at the root of the differences between Republican and Democratic presidential fund raising. In the end, it is the candidate and her or his message galvanizing and driving campaign finance and popular electoral support. It is still relatively early in the 2016 election cycle so commentaries on causes or future outcomes are speculative.
But given Ms.Clinton's name recognition and extensive public career, it is inexplicable she has failed to garner comparable major donor support. The backdrop is Ms. Clinton's insurmountable challenges attempting to be a servant of two masters; heroine to "ordinary Americans" and hostess to the international billionaire class responsible for her family's meteoric rise from virtual penury at the end of Bill Clinton's presidency to card carrying membership of the 1% today. Ms. Clinton's transparent evasion of the press on substantive issues, particularly the TPP is hobbling an admittedly conflicted Democratic base.
2
"I'm aware that Clinton still hasn't finished tailoring her "message" while still figuring out which way the wind is blowing..."
I too am frustrated, and, frankly, amazed that Hillary is so hard to pin down -- even though she's been around nearly 25 years now.
On the other hand, someone who chooses her positions based on poll results will at least have a better chance of doing what the public wants. It just leaves me unsure whether we need an actual human being in that event -- maybe a polling organization could run for president.
I too am frustrated, and, frankly, amazed that Hillary is so hard to pin down -- even though she's been around nearly 25 years now.
On the other hand, someone who chooses her positions based on poll results will at least have a better chance of doing what the public wants. It just leaves me unsure whether we need an actual human being in that event -- maybe a polling organization could run for president.
Or a computer endowed with advanced artificial intelligence.
Well, there's a novel rationalization I haven't heard before. More proof, if any was needed, that "progressive" and "hallucinatory" are fast becoming synonymous.
"Doesn't Hillary or any in her staff listen to THE PEOPLE?"
She does -- if they make a donation.
She does -- if they make a donation.
3
I want Hillary to talk about the issues that matters to voters like me. Income inequality, illegal immigration, the controversial fast tracking TPP, gun control, Wall Street crimes, health care and the ECONOMY, "stupid". So far, she is avoiding telling voters which issues she would really work on when elected President. So far, it's all about big bucks from big corporations that she is focused on. It's a sure way of losing my vote.
2
Lifetime Democrat but tired of a Clinton. Why get out and vote you say? Well....let me count the ways.
Fifty-one. 51 state Governorships, all Republican, should convince any un-involved, 'I'm just not interested" thoughtless Democrat to become a good citizen and VOTE!
Fifty-one. 51 state Governorships, all Republican, should convince any un-involved, 'I'm just not interested" thoughtless Democrat to become a good citizen and VOTE!
1
I've screened people's income tax paperwork before was given to trained AARP tax preparers. Nine times out of ten, the average citizen screamed "no" when asked if he/she wanted federal funds used for the Presidential Election Campaign.
Foolish me gave to John Edwards (we know how that turned out). I also gave to Obama (and we see how that's turning out!). I the person do not have any more money to waste on politics; unfortunately, corporate "persons" do.
Foolish me gave to John Edwards (we know how that turned out). I also gave to Obama (and we see how that's turning out!). I the person do not have any more money to waste on politics; unfortunately, corporate "persons" do.
1
If you ask people, "Do you think election campaigns should be controlled by only the richest 1%, or do you think the campaigns should be publicly financed," you will get a different answer than a scream of "No!"
H. L. Mencken understood the "No!" "You can never underestimate the intelligence. . . ."
H. L. Mencken understood the "No!" "You can never underestimate the intelligence. . . ."
1
The money doesn't amount to much compared to the free advertising the Times gives Democrats.
2
Fox News has far more reach than this newspaper. It is the propaganda wing of the Republican Party. This newspaper preaches to its own choir.
1
Hillary! Wants a billion!!?!?? Don't talk to me about the Koch brothers until you address Hilaary's! largesse. What a disgrace liberals have become.
4
This article is the daily reminder that our government is for sale, that our system has become whatever government money can buy. Of course 99% of us are not part of this marketplace.
6
The whole idea of "level playing fields" is a pipe dream in a country that turns everything into a war.
3
Ha! Nice try New York Times in a pitiful attempt to defend Hillary. "No one has stepped forward yet.." to fund her on the scale of Republican candidates, except for the billion dollar Clinton Foundation endowment. Your story should be the other way around.
7
George Soros is worth 24 billion dollars. Hollywood leftists are racing each other to see who can spend over 50 million dollars on a new house. So, no tears. However, since they continually play the marxist class struggle card that worked out so well in the Soviet Union and is currently supercharging the economies of Cuba and Venezuela, it would seem hypocritical of them, since they are the ones who spend so much time castigating the mythical "1%" to seek so much as one single dime from billionaires, don't you think?
3
Maybe go the other way this election cycle. Not having those droning ads on TV 24/7 or receiving robocall may be a big plus for the democrats. How does annoying people make you appealing?
4
What the Democrats need is a richer mix of candidates, not just an aging seeker of her just entitlement. If the Dems can't do any better than Madame Rodham-Clinton, no amount of rich donors will keep them in the White House.
3
The Dems do not need more donors - what they really need is a better candidate
8
A picture is worth a thousand words. One look at the headshots on this page and no one could believe it's America, circa 2015. One woman. One. And for her, we have Dowd's column and apparently too little funding.
People need to work for campaign finance reform rather than read columns like this and wring their hands about it.
People need to work for campaign finance reform rather than read columns like this and wring their hands about it.
1
Well, of course, if the democrats were able to achieve part or all of the donations from the rich benefactors they are pursuing, I would expect the same response from them that is always espoused by the GOP. Of course, these rich people and corporations have absolutely no influence whatsoever on our platform and policies.
None of this hand-wringing about big money would be unnecessary if the lazy and the childish among us - especially our young voters and liberal whiners - would choose to get informed, get involved and actually get out and vote.
Also, one other important thing these childish and idealistic naysayers should take to heart - the world is never a perfect place and flaws are part of the human experience, especially in politics.
Also, one other important thing these childish and idealistic naysayers should take to heart - the world is never a perfect place and flaws are part of the human experience, especially in politics.
4
This system goes to incredible lengths to make voting not matter to voters.
1
I totally agree. After the 2014 debacle, I wasn't mad at the GOP. I wasn't even mad at the Democratic candidates who ran horrible campaigns. I'm truly disgusted with the lower-class and working-class voters who sat on their, ahem, *votes* last November.
4
I'm sure plenty of foreign governments and individuals will step up to support her. She's just like them.Plus she has the unearned backing of the US media, What's that worth?
3
I lived through Eugene McCarthy's lukewarm support in 1968 of Hubert Humphrey, who would have ended the Vietnam War much sooner (think Obama) and done none of the Nixon corruption and racial polarizing.
In 1980, Ted Kennedy and John Anderson helped give us Ronald Reagan.
In 2000, Ralph Nader's efforts led to all the harm inflicted during the Bush 43 administration.
Spare me another round of the good-hearted and faint-hearted naive, who won't push back against the Republicans because 1) it's hard work, and 2) Repubican propaganda has already convinced them that their most electable candidate -- never indicted or convicted of anything -- isn't pure enough. She's best qualified, most in line with the needs of the average American, and (shouldn't have to say this, but it's 2015 and the clown car is opening its doors) most sane.
In 1980, Ted Kennedy and John Anderson helped give us Ronald Reagan.
In 2000, Ralph Nader's efforts led to all the harm inflicted during the Bush 43 administration.
Spare me another round of the good-hearted and faint-hearted naive, who won't push back against the Republicans because 1) it's hard work, and 2) Repubican propaganda has already convinced them that their most electable candidate -- never indicted or convicted of anything -- isn't pure enough. She's best qualified, most in line with the needs of the average American, and (shouldn't have to say this, but it's 2015 and the clown car is opening its doors) most sane.
2
What a farce to learn that Nixon's "secret plan" to end the Vietnam War was to carpet-bomb Vietnam.
Your's is at least the second commenter to mention Nixon and Vietnam. This is amusing since, from day one, Obama has laid the blame for everything on his predecessor. The war in Vietnam was started by JFK and brought to its fullest involvement by LBJ and yet you castigate the man who actually did end the war, Richard Nixon. Hey, some of us were there, some of us remember.
Laugh away, 57nomad. The Vietnam War was a 50's Cold War creation (Joe McCarthy, John Foster Dulles), sustained by people who didn't want to be slimed as "soft on communism." It was started when President Eisenhower told the South Vietnamese they didn't have to go through with the July 1956 elections to unify North and South. JFK and LBJ went along with the attempt to create a viable South Vietnam. Then for 4 1/2 years Richard Nixon kept us there (6 1/4 if you go all the way to the fall of Saigon). It was a mess, but President Humphrey would have done better. Lesson (not learned by Bush 43 and the Republicans who want to attack Syria and Iran): be very, very careful about getting into somebody else's civil war.
Until there is an amendment that will deep six Citizens United and other terrible political fundraising laws, Hillary must play by the current rules to be competitive. She is far and away the most qualified this nation has ever had and the most exciting candidate on the horizon. My feeling is that once she becomes the Democratic Nominee the money will pour in; at least that's my hope.
It's also important to remember that Bill and Hillary Clinton do not spring from dynasties like the Kennedys and Bushes; they come from poverty and the Middle Class, respectively, and have accomplished great feats and are self-made millionnaires. They tipify the American Dream and understand the challenges that face the Middle Class and under class. With Hillary's background, experience and accomplilshments, and her grasp of both domestic and foreign policies she is poised to be the best choice for President for our times, man or woman.
It's also important to remember that Bill and Hillary Clinton do not spring from dynasties like the Kennedys and Bushes; they come from poverty and the Middle Class, respectively, and have accomplished great feats and are self-made millionnaires. They tipify the American Dream and understand the challenges that face the Middle Class and under class. With Hillary's background, experience and accomplilshments, and her grasp of both domestic and foreign policies she is poised to be the best choice for President for our times, man or woman.
2
Everything will hinge on the success of electing Democrats down-ticket. Without that, nothing will change.
Unfortunately, the media and the NYT plays right into this propaganda mixing facts with fiction. For example, every GOP candidate appeared on a front page of the NYT when they announced. Bernie Sanders' announcement story was buried on page 26. It is obvious the NYT editor is playing politics, violating journalistic ethics
2
Here's a campaign strategy for Clinton: She could take the billion or so she plans to raise and hand it over to her less fortunate supporters. Say, take a million homeless people to the polls and give them a thousand dollars or so each to vote, old-school Democratic machine style.
If the billionaire donors are buying our votes anyway, our main Democratic candidate may as well give their money to people who actually need it, instead of giving it to advertisers and cable companies to produce and air more political ads. It's not like she needs the ads to boost name recognition. And she would certainly get a lot of media attention for her unusual approach to her donors' money.
She could keep a minimal amount to spend traveling and talking to voters about issues -- maybe she could keep the same amount, adjusted for inflation, that Harry Truman spent on his successful 1948 whistle stop campaign. Anything she raises over that amount gets redistributed to poor people.
Pretty soon, the 0.01% and their Citizen United-spawned super PACs will be competing to buy votes directly from the people. Maybe it will eventually supplant some of the income redistribution that our progressive tax code and social safety net used to provide.
If the billionaire donors are buying our votes anyway, our main Democratic candidate may as well give their money to people who actually need it, instead of giving it to advertisers and cable companies to produce and air more political ads. It's not like she needs the ads to boost name recognition. And she would certainly get a lot of media attention for her unusual approach to her donors' money.
She could keep a minimal amount to spend traveling and talking to voters about issues -- maybe she could keep the same amount, adjusted for inflation, that Harry Truman spent on his successful 1948 whistle stop campaign. Anything she raises over that amount gets redistributed to poor people.
Pretty soon, the 0.01% and their Citizen United-spawned super PACs will be competing to buy votes directly from the people. Maybe it will eventually supplant some of the income redistribution that our progressive tax code and social safety net used to provide.
1
"Our side isn’t used to being asked for that kind of money,” Mr. Ickes said. “If you asked them to put up $100 million for a hospital wing, they’d be the first in line.”
I doubt this statement. If you have proof, show me.
I doubt this statement. If you have proof, show me.
2
As long as he's in the race this is one reason I'm supporting Bernie Sanders who's seeking lots of smaller individual donors.
8
The world is run by the people who do their homework ,show up and pony up. The people who watch reality tv, don't vote in primaries, and don't support the political process forfeit the right to complain-silence implies consent.
3
The era of American Democracy is literally over. It really ended with the enactment of Citizens United and I hope that Justice John Roberts in particular goes down in history as the man who ended the democratic system our nation was founded upon. It doesn't matter which party the person is with, if they are aggressively courting wealthy donors to support their campaigns then there's no way that person, be it Marco Rubio, Jeb Bush or Hillary Clinton can be anything other than a proxy for the investor(s) that subsidized their election. And it is to their bidding that they will work, and not for the American people. In a system like this, there is simply no other way. Oh, and the media are very complicit in this. The whole need for super-pacs is the fact that media access is so expensive and the media will only show interest in those who have the money to pony up to buy the exposure. And NY Times you're not exempt here either. So what to do? Obviously theres no easy answers and the obvious answer, publicly funded campaigns won't fly with half the populace so here we are.
3
Well, the fact is that Ms. Clinton has many negatives that go back for years. I am a Democrat and never would vote for a Republican for president, but if she is our candidate (and she will be, barring some catastrophic blunder---of which she is certainly capable) for the first time in my life (I'm 74) I will not vote in the presidential election. Time and space stop me from going into the massive details that make me so disgusted with this woman. But as the campaign progresses, they'll become more obvious.
6
Better Hillary Clinton than any of the GOP candidates, whether announced or not.
If she is the nominee, I will vote for her.
If she is the nominee, I will vote for her.
2
I live in Maryland, which hasn't gone for a Republican presidential candidate since 1988, so I can easily leave the presidential portion of my 2016 ballot blank if Clinton is the nominee.
Please consider showing up a do a write in. Then you will be proud of your vote.
2
Rather than put out the call for more heavy-hitting donors, Hillary would do well to put her faith in the rest of us. Maximize whatever free publicity can be leveraged nation-wide, together with us small donors, and she can make considerable hay - and further distinguish the Democrats from the Republicans - out of making the lack of a 'plutocratic stable' a campaign issue. She must not forget that there is a huge, bipartisan, appetite for an anti-money campaign, post Citizens United.
Every dollar she gets from billionaires along with their hidden agendas diminishes the power of the Clinton/Sanders/O'Malley message, and that translates into less votes. Plutocratic money, for Democrats, is an issue of diminishing returns...in every sense of the word.
Every dollar she gets from billionaires along with their hidden agendas diminishes the power of the Clinton/Sanders/O'Malley message, and that translates into less votes. Plutocratic money, for Democrats, is an issue of diminishing returns...in every sense of the word.
2
So our election process has become so jaded that everything begins and ends with money... perhaps it's time to put forth laws restricting superPAC funding?
1
Why did Cantor lose when he outspent his opponent 10 or 20 to 1? What lesson might that tell us about Citizens' United perhaps limited reach?
"Brat, who has identified with maverick GOP lawmakers like Representative Justin Amash of Michigan, spent much of the campaign slamming both parties for being in the pocket of “Wall Street crooks” and D.C. insiders. The folks who caused the financial crisis, Brat says, “went onto Obama’s rolodex, the Republican leadership, Eric’s rolodex.”
"Brat, who has identified with maverick GOP lawmakers like Representative Justin Amash of Michigan, spent much of the campaign slamming both parties for being in the pocket of “Wall Street crooks” and D.C. insiders. The folks who caused the financial crisis, Brat says, “went onto Obama’s rolodex, the Republican leadership, Eric’s rolodex.”
2
I wonder if the article's authors, Eric and Nicholas are truly in touch with mainstream America. We have had enough of money in politics. We are disgusted that our elections have been turned into auctions. We no longer trust our politicians to be representatives for we the people. We do NOT look favorably on politicians that receive massive amounts of money from transnational corporations who have no loyalty to our country. They off shore our jobs, hide their money in off shore tax havens and refuse to pay their share of taxes all the while buying lobbyists in Congress with campaign contributions. Yes, that's right, Americans see our government electeds as lobbyists for the transnational corporations, not we the people.
I will NEVER vote for Hillary as President, she is one of the worst offenders of receiving bribe money along with the GOP. My vote is with Senator Bernie Sanders. This is a man with a track record of NOT taking money from money masters. Bernie is the president we need.
Bernie sanders gets it that over 82% of Democrats and 83% of Republicans feel it is time to reduce the corruption brought into politics because of campaign funding by mega donors.
You all can pay to play, mainstream America will put boots on the ground, and give Bernie Sanders a good old fashion grassroots campaign, because we know Bernie stands for change, and that ain't change in the pocket it is campaign reform change! Go Bernie Go! #GetMoneyOut #Bernie2016
I will NEVER vote for Hillary as President, she is one of the worst offenders of receiving bribe money along with the GOP. My vote is with Senator Bernie Sanders. This is a man with a track record of NOT taking money from money masters. Bernie is the president we need.
Bernie sanders gets it that over 82% of Democrats and 83% of Republicans feel it is time to reduce the corruption brought into politics because of campaign funding by mega donors.
You all can pay to play, mainstream America will put boots on the ground, and give Bernie Sanders a good old fashion grassroots campaign, because we know Bernie stands for change, and that ain't change in the pocket it is campaign reform change! Go Bernie Go! #GetMoneyOut #Bernie2016
12
This is so great. Soliciting billionaires to support the, uh, abolition of billionaires; and the continuing institutionalization of a people's republic run by cadres of dogmatic leftists. Baltimore for the Baltimoreans!
Oh wait, Obama's third term is legally impossible.
However, Hillary is perfectly able to pretend she will continue the leftward slouch of the Executive, even as we have to come to understand she, and Bill, are already bought, and paid for, by all kinds of monied interests, worldwide.
Wink. Wink.
Keep drilling in the Arctic, guys, no news here.
Oh wait, Obama's third term is legally impossible.
However, Hillary is perfectly able to pretend she will continue the leftward slouch of the Executive, even as we have to come to understand she, and Bill, are already bought, and paid for, by all kinds of monied interests, worldwide.
Wink. Wink.
Keep drilling in the Arctic, guys, no news here.
4
The $billions raised by the Clintons from foreign enemy governments has the liberals hiding their purses. They are very reticent about being tied to Hilary. She is one twisted dame and the Democrats are handcuffed to her, to their frustration! The liberal agenda can only hide in the shadows for so long, and she is dragging them into the light, where bad things await!
4
She's a corporatist, not a liberal. Bernie Sanders is a liberal.
Instead of stepping up their efforts at pandering to the rich, maybe the Dems should adopt a strategy more in line with democratic principles?
In the middle of the last century we had a Democratic party that would often advocate and fight for policies to help middle class and poor Americans. Now we have a Democratic front runner whose populist rhetoric sounds phony and the party itself now has more in common with Reagan than FDR.
It is no longer the mid 1900s when what was good for the wealthy was also good for the rest of us. What is good for the wealthy now is pretty much all Washington's policy planners - both parties - are concerned with, and the results of this have been devastating to a large portion of the public.
So, you'll excuse us if we couldn't care less about the Democrats quandary. They are the ones who acquiesced to the insanity of Citizens United and failed, before that, to enact sensible, meaningful campaign financing laws - i.e., publicly financed elections.
If the Democrats had, over the last 25 years, fought for and enacted the policies to which Hillary will be paying lip service - policies that support jobs rather than shipping them overseas, paid family leave, regulation of Wall Street, devoting our tax dollars to domestic issues rather than bombing the middle east - they wouldn't have to pander to the rich.
An energized base could easily ignore all the paid political advertising the Republicans throw at them. We need democracy - not oligarchy.
In the middle of the last century we had a Democratic party that would often advocate and fight for policies to help middle class and poor Americans. Now we have a Democratic front runner whose populist rhetoric sounds phony and the party itself now has more in common with Reagan than FDR.
It is no longer the mid 1900s when what was good for the wealthy was also good for the rest of us. What is good for the wealthy now is pretty much all Washington's policy planners - both parties - are concerned with, and the results of this have been devastating to a large portion of the public.
So, you'll excuse us if we couldn't care less about the Democrats quandary. They are the ones who acquiesced to the insanity of Citizens United and failed, before that, to enact sensible, meaningful campaign financing laws - i.e., publicly financed elections.
If the Democrats had, over the last 25 years, fought for and enacted the policies to which Hillary will be paying lip service - policies that support jobs rather than shipping them overseas, paid family leave, regulation of Wall Street, devoting our tax dollars to domestic issues rather than bombing the middle east - they wouldn't have to pander to the rich.
An energized base could easily ignore all the paid political advertising the Republicans throw at them. We need democracy - not oligarchy.
5
Interesting article, given that Hillary has already said that undoing Citizens United would be a 'litmus test' for any Supreme Court judges she appointed.
Secondly the complaints from so many here about what she has said or not are often misguided and based largely on the fact that so far Hillary is campaigning in close quarters with ordinary people, not seeking headlines via the news media.
Secondly the complaints from so many here about what she has said or not are often misguided and based largely on the fact that so far Hillary is campaigning in close quarters with ordinary people, not seeking headlines via the news media.
1
The two most expensive presidential campaigns of all times were both by Obama.
Perhaps if he hadn't reneged on his acceptance on using public funds and the limitations that came with it, we wouldn't be having this conversation.
Perhaps if he hadn't reneged on his acceptance on using public funds and the limitations that came with it, we wouldn't be having this conversation.
2
Far out! That was his first lie. Forewarned in forearmed. I was fooled twice.
1
Compared to the Koch brothers, Hillary is an angel. Whatever her past sins – and they are vastly exaggerated here – we cannot wallow in recriminations about the past as an excuse for inaction now. We must do what is necessary to save our tattered republic from the Koch juggernaut.
Why are the Kochs pulling out all stops to win this election? They know that the demographics are changing, and the country is becoming more liberal. This election may be their last chance to impose permanent, right-wing, neofascist control.
This is not paranoid fantasy. Just look at the history of the last few decades: unions brought to their knees, the middle class eviscerated, congressional districts gerrymandered, and the Supreme Court stuffed with right-wing shills. All this did not come about by accident; it took long, stealthy, strategic planning, as documented in numerous books and articles.
We simply don't have the luxury for the pedantic, puerile, sterile whining that has come to characterize the Times' Comments section. It has become a "rage page," where everyone vents outrage, usually about something or someone close to home who is not deemed virtuous enough: venomous attacks against the Clintons instead of against the Kochs; a BDS campaign against Israel instead of against the vast, Koch industrial empire.
The world is what it is; our choices are rarely ideal. But choose we must; indeed, we have a moral obligation to do so. To fall back on self-pity is nothing but moral cowardice.
Why are the Kochs pulling out all stops to win this election? They know that the demographics are changing, and the country is becoming more liberal. This election may be their last chance to impose permanent, right-wing, neofascist control.
This is not paranoid fantasy. Just look at the history of the last few decades: unions brought to their knees, the middle class eviscerated, congressional districts gerrymandered, and the Supreme Court stuffed with right-wing shills. All this did not come about by accident; it took long, stealthy, strategic planning, as documented in numerous books and articles.
We simply don't have the luxury for the pedantic, puerile, sterile whining that has come to characterize the Times' Comments section. It has become a "rage page," where everyone vents outrage, usually about something or someone close to home who is not deemed virtuous enough: venomous attacks against the Clintons instead of against the Kochs; a BDS campaign against Israel instead of against the vast, Koch industrial empire.
The world is what it is; our choices are rarely ideal. But choose we must; indeed, we have a moral obligation to do so. To fall back on self-pity is nothing but moral cowardice.
4
So venemous attacks are OK when you agree with them? Speaking of pedantic and puerile....
Thanks very much for this article. About 3-4 times a week my husband and I get solicitations in the mail either from the DNC or another Democratic electoral organization seeking funds. After reading this article about how the Dems are seeking multimillionaire donors, I can simply recycle all of those solicitations. The party has made it clear that they don't need the money or time from small fry guys like me. Since I live in Maryland and Maryland's electoral votes haven't gone to Republican since 1988, I can leave the Presidential portion of my 2016 ballot blank should Hillary Clinton be the nominee of the Democratic moneyed class. Thanks New York Times! You saved me both money and time for the 2016 presidential election. I greatly appreciate this.
14
The Democratic Party needs multimillionaire donors (to keep right behind, if not up with, the Koch Brothers) or its voice will be drowned out. But it also needs the rest of us. If you want Supreme Court replacements like Antonin Scalia, Clarence Thomas, John Roberts, and Sam Alito -- who will further cripple voting rights, increase inequality, and burden women -- by all means sit on the sidelines for 2016. But there are elections to be won outside Maryland, and it takes someone's money and time to help win them.
2
I'll never sit on the sidelines in any election, as local elections for county council and school board are crucial to my community here in Montgomery County, Maryland. I gave the maximum amount allowable to Barack Obama in 2008, but Hillary Clinton is not Barack Obama. Maryland hasn't voted for a Republican presidential candidate since 1988, when Maryland's 10 electoral votes went to George HW Bush. The main reason for that anomaly? Willie Horton committed his carjacking and rape in Oxon Hill, Maryland.
Santa Clara County v. Southern Pacific Railroad Company, 118 US (1886)
"The decision famously implied that equal protection laws provided by the Fourteenth Amendment applied to corporations." ( the opinion did not explicitly state this.)
ANY attempt to divorce money from politics, must start with OVERTURNING this odious and contrived.. ABSTRACTION. It grants 2 votes to every; owner, agent and employee of corporations, which negates the 1 man 1 vote principle and allows corporations legal access to our representatives.
This SCOTUS decision is the lodge pin, upon which, lobbyists and politicians become immune from prosecution for graft and corruption.
"The decision famously implied that equal protection laws provided by the Fourteenth Amendment applied to corporations." ( the opinion did not explicitly state this.)
ANY attempt to divorce money from politics, must start with OVERTURNING this odious and contrived.. ABSTRACTION. It grants 2 votes to every; owner, agent and employee of corporations, which negates the 1 man 1 vote principle and allows corporations legal access to our representatives.
This SCOTUS decision is the lodge pin, upon which, lobbyists and politicians become immune from prosecution for graft and corruption.
1
I'm making my second donation to Bernie Sanders after reading this article.
10
Bill and Hillary have the money to give/loan the campaign a million or two a month, or to kick off with a 10-20mil lump sum. The fact that they don't seem to be putting their money where their mouth is makes all the other rich Democrats wonder how committed they are to the race.
I'm not a rich donor, but I am also unconvinced that Hillary is committed to this race, and that doubt may be her demise.
I'm not a rich donor, but I am also unconvinced that Hillary is committed to this race, and that doubt may be her demise.
I'm wondering if big donors who haven't committed yet are, like myself (a smaller donor), are waiting to see if perhaps Mrs. Clinton will not be the candidate.
Plagued by financial controversy and past warmongering tactics has left a bad taste in the mouths of many liberals.
Plus, the hope that Elizabeth Warren, or another, fresher candidate would finally step up may be deterring willingness to commit to only Clinton.
Go Warren! Go Team Bernie!
Plagued by financial controversy and past warmongering tactics has left a bad taste in the mouths of many liberals.
Plus, the hope that Elizabeth Warren, or another, fresher candidate would finally step up may be deterring willingness to commit to only Clinton.
Go Warren! Go Team Bernie!
4
One has to keep up with the Joneses ( in this case, the Republicans and their money-bags - Kochs and Adelsons ). How much heavy-lifting can Soros undertake? When there are more rotten apples how can a good apple stay good? As they say," When you can't beat them, join them. " The system stinks.
PERIOD.
PERIOD.
1
Republicans drawing from a "stable of billionaires"? The top donor by far was Steyer, the liberal environmentalist funding Dem causes. Of the top 20 wealthiest political contributors, 13 were Democrat. 8 out of 10 of the rishest counties in the US are overwhelmingly Democrat. The Democrats have outspent the Republicans in the last 2 Presidential races. Who is David and who is Golliath? These are easy facts to look up. Shouldn't the NYT be checking these facts before they allow people to keep running a false narrative? The Democrats have become the part of the super rich and the dependent poor. Take away the super rich and the chronically dependent and this is a Republican country.
Also, it costs much more to get the conservative message out there because the entertainment and news media is strongly partisan and liberal.
Also, it costs much more to get the conservative message out there because the entertainment and news media is strongly partisan and liberal.
2
As long as democrats remain unconcerned about Obama's use of the IRS to silence conservative opposition during the 2012 election, I will remain unconcerned about conservative opposition's tactics.
1
The most destructive Supreme Court majority in modern times , the Roberts majority, has played a massive role in the perversion of the electoral process to to an auction driven by anonymous corporate bidders. Roberts, Alito, and Scalia should all be impeached for selling this country out.
3
I think blowing the Supreme Court's credibility to judge the constitutionality of legislation is their real objective.
This should not be about how much money you have, haven't we learn that yet....it's about people, it's about doing right by people. I don't think Elizabeth Warren had as much money as Scott, when she ran against him. What she had was the people and a message. A message that the people believed in. So to Priorities USA, go develop a message that gives the people hope and she will do just fine.
2
The issue of gender may be downplayed by the media but it is indeed the elephant in the room. Hillary the moderate will run this campaign right down the middle and no self-respecting woman or supporter of women's rights will be able to give up this chance to have a woman as president. Not after watching that chance slip away eight years ago. The only way the republicans could have altered the course of history would have been to field an electable woman. You can say that Hillary was just as well positioned this time eight years ago, which may be true. But, she was sidetracked by the ONLY "first" more important than the first woman president. If Clinton stays healthy (no stroke, no signs of dementia) this race is over. The only reason the money hasn't flowed yet is that it doesn't look like she will need much to call this a win.
1
I'm in the barely lukewarm Hillary camp but really prefer Bernie. But the odds are against his getting elected. So when push comes to shove, I'll vote for Hillary if I have to, because I will not accept the idea that I should stay home and let the GOP candidate win, as a lesson to others in why voting is necessary. Too many people felt that way in the Gore-Bush election and look what happened. How bad can it get? Are you prepared for what the rightwingers want to impose on our country? I am not.
2
This article might well be entitled: "Democrats Seek to Become Republicans." Of course they need money to beat the Red entitlement system for oligarchs. But by borrowing from the oligarchy? I don't think it works that way. Larry Summers, in this paper, was quoted as pointing out that each party had a "money wing" and a "voting wing." One of them is already well represented. Don't the Democrats have a good enough story to solicit the famous $5 donation from the masses and make up the shortfall with correct-thinking oligarchs?
Probably not with Hillary, she's she represents the Money Wing.
Probably not with Hillary, she's she represents the Money Wing.
6
YEAH TED, between the fat cat lobbyists , the fat cat politicals, PR firms , rapacious lawyers and all the other "puking dogs" mixed up into the politica matrix; it's now a forgone conclusion what is happening to us as a nation.
Ted, Unfortunately, I am doubtful our system will survive before my 7 month old grandson is an adult. I've pretty much been an optimist all my life but, this on going cycle of frequent political money grabbing has ruined this dear and GREAT country. Perhaps, as my Canadian wife laments: " why don't you guys down south have more political parties? Up here, once an election is called?.... it's ABOOT 6 weeks before the actual election"... Geez Ted, I always thought the Canucks had more COMMON SENSE!
Ted, Unfortunately, I am doubtful our system will survive before my 7 month old grandson is an adult. I've pretty much been an optimist all my life but, this on going cycle of frequent political money grabbing has ruined this dear and GREAT country. Perhaps, as my Canadian wife laments: " why don't you guys down south have more political parties? Up here, once an election is called?.... it's ABOOT 6 weeks before the actual election"... Geez Ted, I always thought the Canucks had more COMMON SENSE!
Intentionally or not, this article concisely summarizes what is seriously wrong with the American political system.
9
I have been a lifetime democrat, but now have to ask why I should support, or vote for anyone. What have the Democrats done for the middle class, except healthcare? Where are the middle class jobs? Why have the Democrats thrown in with the Republicans on turning this country into a police state with the Patriot act, and FISA legislation. Why are the Democrats more concerned with rewarding illegal aliens than helping the people the illegal aliens are taking jobs from? Since when is it permissible for a party to adopt a platform advocating non-enforcement of existing immigration laws? The only thing I can see that the Democrats have going for them is that at least they're not Republicans. As one of the other posters quoted, "A pox on both their houses". I won't be voting or supporting either party.
5
"I have been a lifetime democrat, but now have to ask why I should support, or vote for anyone..."
No offense, Laura, but this should have occurred to you a long, long (long) time ago.
No offense, Laura, but this should have occurred to you a long, long (long) time ago.
1
Laura, WE THE PEOPLE, have a real candidate in Bernie Sanders. Join the people's movement to elect Bernie Sanders in 2016. He is only running as a Democrat so he can actually win. He knows he will not be allowed in the Presidential Debates, nor receive media coverage if he runs as an Independent. I am an Independent. I will change my registration to Democrat so I can vote for Bernie in the primary and then the general election. Once Bernie secures the Oval Office, I will register once again as an Independent. Like you I see both sides of the aisle as the two headed beast under the control of the money masters. #Bernie2016 #ThePresidentWeNeed
1
Why is it the government's responsibility to create middle class jobs? Should it not be the responsibility of the middle class individuals to take the necessary steps to prepare themselves for the changing requirements of today's jobs?
Billionaire support for Hillary may be lacking because enthusiasm for her campaign may be lacking. It is for me. I hate to seem catty, but Hillary looks old, and her baggage is not just under her eyes. (I wish our electorate was more concerned about the contents than the box. But unfortunately, that's reality.). Hillary looks tired and part of the establishment vis-a-vis hope and change. Compare to Elizabeth Warren, who inspires. Fair or not, Hillary will always be attached to Bill, who though charismatic, still gave us NAFTA, accelerating the average American's economic decline in a global economy. And frankly Hillary has the warmth of a Wellesley College alumnus. Is she the most competitive candidate Democrats can put out there?
3
How disgusting has this become. Raising zillions to get elected. When will the common, sensible folks rise up and tell there congress people, "We need campaign financing reform and we need it now" This country may be one of the richest in the world but the wealth is concentrated in few who have made their money off the backs of the common man/women. We are waring all over the world while people are homeless and homes here in Berkeley are in the million dollar range. There is something wrong with this picture that no politician seems to want to address. Shameful.
..."if you work for the rich; you will sleep with the poor. If the poor work for you; you will sleep with the rich"...
The Democratic candidates want to address the biggest flaw in the picture. Both Senators Clinton and Sanders have pledge to appoint Supreme Court Justices who disagree with the Citizens United decision.
1
Thank you for reminding me to donate to Bernie Sanders today.
14
As our Democracy goes to the highest bidder, the unruly masses are left in the dust.
I’ll take the richest most experienced candidate who believes that government is good and knows how our system works and uses that knowledge and those connections to refocus the balance of power on opportunitiy and education for us poor uncultured slobs. Don’t forget. We vote.
I’ll take the richest most experienced candidate who believes that government is good and knows how our system works and uses that knowledge and those connections to refocus the balance of power on opportunitiy and education for us poor uncultured slobs. Don’t forget. We vote.
2
The Clinton Foundation has plenty of money for Hillary's campaign. She doesn't need much more.
6
Billion dollar political campaigns? Chicken feed. Let's have trillion dollar campaigns! Funnel all that money into TV commercials on corporate networks. Wall to wall attacks ads. The vast media profits will then trickle down to us all. We'll all be rich as Croesus!
2
And you wonder why so many elections for high office have long been a sick joke in this country? They've become nothing but Punch-and-Judy shows, with the same bunch of billionaires pulling the strings. And more and more voters getting disgusted enough to just not bother showing up. As in that "All In The Family" episode when Archie Bunker (Carroll O'Conner) so memorably told his "Meathead" son-in-law, Michael Stivic (Rob Reiner) why he hadn't voted for years: "Why bother? All you get is a cherce [sic] between Tweedledum and Tweedledumber."
Is there a way out, especially in this age of Citizens (dis)United? Well, I've been pitching a little idea: Just send all your incumbents and challengers a little e-mail telling them that you'll vote AGAINST the candidate who raises the largest campaign fund. Would it scare the heck out of a lot of them? Perhaps. And could you be sure of no retribution, especially if you're at school or working, or applying for either or both? I wish I could say 'Yes', but in a country whose respect for privacy (online and otherwise) is about the same as your chance of finding real gold coins in your pocket change, I'd be lying through my teeth.
And you wonder why our friends across the pond so fondly (urp...) describe our elections process as 'a dog's breakfast'?
Is there a way out, especially in this age of Citizens (dis)United? Well, I've been pitching a little idea: Just send all your incumbents and challengers a little e-mail telling them that you'll vote AGAINST the candidate who raises the largest campaign fund. Would it scare the heck out of a lot of them? Perhaps. And could you be sure of no retribution, especially if you're at school or working, or applying for either or both? I wish I could say 'Yes', but in a country whose respect for privacy (online and otherwise) is about the same as your chance of finding real gold coins in your pocket change, I'd be lying through my teeth.
And you wonder why our friends across the pond so fondly (urp...) describe our elections process as 'a dog's breakfast'?
1
Doesn't Hillary or any in her staff listen to THE PEOPLE?
We are tired of politicians churning on the election money spiral instead of doing what they are elected to do - work for this country.
We need a candidate with the courage to refuse money with strings, to run on spending less, to stop the mudslinging and talk about their work.
And we need media (NYT are you listening?) to notice and publicize those candidates.
We are tired of politicians churning on the election money spiral instead of doing what they are elected to do - work for this country.
We need a candidate with the courage to refuse money with strings, to run on spending less, to stop the mudslinging and talk about their work.
And we need media (NYT are you listening?) to notice and publicize those candidates.
5
Legalized money laundering is all it is. And no one even tries to be discreet about it. It's right there on the front page of the NYT. I guess corruption is now considered a virtue, something to strive for and reap the benefits.
4
Can it be any more obvious that we need public financing of campaigns and total elimination of private funding? This is what corrupts our system. You can see it right down to the local level even in the one mile square town of Carmel by the Sea. Money going to Mayor Jason Burnett's campaigns and clearly quid pro quo favors and obstruction in return.
3
If we want to live in a Republic as a Democracy we must insist, demand that all elections for public office will only be financed by public money from the US Treasury. Candidates will receive equal amounts of campaign funds and campaigns will last for four months.
If we do not swiftly make this intelligent change, with haste, we will soon be existing in an Oligarchy very similar to a Dictatorship. Government of the people, by the people and for ALL the people will no longer exist in the
U S A.
I pray that we the people take action without delay and restore Democracy!
If we do not swiftly make this intelligent change, with haste, we will soon be existing in an Oligarchy very similar to a Dictatorship. Government of the people, by the people and for ALL the people will no longer exist in the
U S A.
I pray that we the people take action without delay and restore Democracy!
2
Nothing is worse for this nation than a government that runs on private money. Shocking as it may be to Justice Roberts, voters are confounded by that reality. But there is a clear choice. The Democratic money-raiser is more likely than the Republican money-raiser to nominate a Supreme Court justice who will restore the supremacy of the voter over that of the donor. Money is speech, indeed!
6
Despite several high-integrity candidates (Jim Webb, Bernie Sanders and now Martin O'Malley), Democrats have decided that they want a candidate through coronation, not a hard-scrabbled fight among equals. Any pretense of competition will be no more than kabuki theater. The Republicans will hold that primary fight, but it will occur among candidates stuck in 19th century thinking, each looking more ridiculous than the last as they emerge from the clown car.
Both parties, however, share a slavish devotion to big money and elitist interests. The only remaining choice for 'we the people' is deciding which corporate interests more closely align with our own. Some choice.
Both parties, however, share a slavish devotion to big money and elitist interests. The only remaining choice for 'we the people' is deciding which corporate interests more closely align with our own. Some choice.
3
""No one has stepped forward as the savior,” said Matt Bennett, a longtime Democratic consultant in Washington."
That statement from a "consultant" sums up the two fatal flaws that make American politics the total joke that it is rather than the good governance it could and should be and occasionally has been.
Money and religion, all rolled up together. Billionaires treated like Saviors and worshipped by wi9lling politicians and CHINOS (Christians In Name Only) too dumb to see they are being used but "patriotic" enough to religiously vote.
It also doesn't say anything good about the rest of us who don't seem to find time to either think or vote or just don't care because we think it is pointless because the sale has been made.by voting day.
2016 is going to be more an auction than an election. The only questions is who will be the highest bidder and who will be the puppet on the end of his strings (notice I don't say she for the winning puppeteer). The bidding has already opened to give time to drive the bidding beyond the reach of the average Joe who might actually care.
It makes me want to step outside and throw up. Maybe I will. There are other more honest democracies around, some more "American" in both spirit and practice than we are. Maybe even a third world country or two.
That statement from a "consultant" sums up the two fatal flaws that make American politics the total joke that it is rather than the good governance it could and should be and occasionally has been.
Money and religion, all rolled up together. Billionaires treated like Saviors and worshipped by wi9lling politicians and CHINOS (Christians In Name Only) too dumb to see they are being used but "patriotic" enough to religiously vote.
It also doesn't say anything good about the rest of us who don't seem to find time to either think or vote or just don't care because we think it is pointless because the sale has been made.by voting day.
2016 is going to be more an auction than an election. The only questions is who will be the highest bidder and who will be the puppet on the end of his strings (notice I don't say she for the winning puppeteer). The bidding has already opened to give time to drive the bidding beyond the reach of the average Joe who might actually care.
It makes me want to step outside and throw up. Maybe I will. There are other more honest democracies around, some more "American" in both spirit and practice than we are. Maybe even a third world country or two.
4
And yet in the MSM, including this newspaper, all we hear is about how much Hillary is making with her speeches and books and how she's skimming 90% of donations to the Clinton foundation.
At least she makes her money the old fashioned way: she earns it.
Unlike, say,Marco Rubio who is wholly bought by a local billionaire.
At least she makes her money the old fashioned way: she earns it.
Unlike, say,Marco Rubio who is wholly bought by a local billionaire.
3
I'll bet Republican candidate Carly Fiorina made more running Hewlett-Packard into the ground and shilling for Fox News than Hillary Clinton did with the honest work of speeches and book-writing.
And does anyone fact-check the claim of "skimming 90% of donations to the Clinton Foundation"? What nonsense is this?
And does anyone fact-check the claim of "skimming 90% of donations to the Clinton Foundation"? What nonsense is this?
1
If they can't get this money spent to elect the supporter they need down the line of lower offices, it is just wasted on narcissism.
I believe the Clinton Foundation has found the way - peddle US taxpayer dollars off to foreign entities in exchange for "contributions." Who knows, you might pull in $2.3 BILLION in four short years!!
3
No longer the World's Greatest Democracy, the US has become an oligarchy.
3
There's an unseen gorilla in the room. Doesn't anybody who's writing in, or who is reading this article, recognize that here we are again with an opportunity to put a woman into the Presidency? Does anybody think that that would take a lot of campaign money? Does anybody think it would be meaningful to have a woman President after hundreds of years of democratic history? Women, especially younger women, where are you?
Hillary may not be the ideal candidate when view against the almost sacred deferential reverence given to Pres. Obama when he was a candidate, but she is stronger by far than any of her critics. Mrs. Clinton is a resilient survivor of the media wars fueled by conservative coffers, under the weight of which all others would have crumbled.
While there are many who would prefer a new face as the first female President, it speaks volumes that no one is even mentioning the issue as a rallying point. Gender EQUALITY in our political and economic system is GONE as an issue among younger women. To get them together behind Hillary the last time was like trying to herd cats. Now, they aren't even speaking about the subject. Nor is the press. Pitiful.
Hillary may not be the ideal candidate when view against the almost sacred deferential reverence given to Pres. Obama when he was a candidate, but she is stronger by far than any of her critics. Mrs. Clinton is a resilient survivor of the media wars fueled by conservative coffers, under the weight of which all others would have crumbled.
While there are many who would prefer a new face as the first female President, it speaks volumes that no one is even mentioning the issue as a rallying point. Gender EQUALITY in our political and economic system is GONE as an issue among younger women. To get them together behind Hillary the last time was like trying to herd cats. Now, they aren't even speaking about the subject. Nor is the press. Pitiful.
4
I think most people have wised up when it comes to electing someone based on their demographic. After the Barack Obama fiasco, people want substance, not appearance.
8
Actually, it benefits Hillary that she is a woman because more women will vote for her than there are men who will refuse to vote for a woman.
And sorry, but the first woman president should be someone who did it on her own (Thatcher, Meir, Merkel, etc.), not someone who got in because of the coattails of her husband.
And sorry, but the first woman president should be someone who did it on her own (Thatcher, Meir, Merkel, etc.), not someone who got in because of the coattails of her husband.
1
You see NO WOMEN PRESIDENT EVER as a demographic issue? I rest my case.
1
The Dems are in deep trouble and Hillary in particular has major credibility issues with just about every media group including - surprisingly- the Huffington Post!
Obama has done a good job of ruining just about every other Dem by throwing them under the bus in furtherance of his senseless and disastrous domestic and foreign policy-less agenda.
Good riddance to them all.
Obama has done a good job of ruining just about every other Dem by throwing them under the bus in furtherance of his senseless and disastrous domestic and foreign policy-less agenda.
Good riddance to them all.
5
And please, describe in detail "...his senseless and disastrous domestic and foreign policy-less agenda." Take as much space as you need.
The wonder is - and always shall be - the willingness of the American political system - and. it would seem, the media - to swallow the notion that electoral success built upon the quid pro quo of wealthy donors will actually serve the needs of the nation. The stupidity is towering. I can just see all those uber-rich folks lining up to endorse higher taxes so the country can fund some infrastructure or clamouring to find a way to fight poverty, the lousy education system, and some solutions for the job dilemma.
2
Hopefully the Democrats will find a sane candidate who understands that:
1. The working classes are not stand-alone entities. They do well when commerce does well. Do not make them out to be something that can be helped in isolation. Focus on what makes America work and understand how the results follow.
2. Presidents have come and gone. Wall Street and the banks have endured and will continue. Fighting the financial system is fighting windmills. Vilifying the commercial base is counterproductive.
3. "Income inequality" is not something that can be resolved with taxes or by forcing sectors of the economy to behave in certain ways. It happens because there is a balance between economic growth and workforce capabilities in a global market.
4. Promising major change over a single term is a pipe dream. "Yes we can" only divided Washington worse that before. Be realistic and don't promise things that cannot be delivered because they are going to come up against immovable objects.
The Republicans and Democrats have habitually over-promised to win the hearts of mythical segments of their voting bases and have been derailed after sacrificing their common sense for messages that supposedly appeal to these voters. Put together a plan that works economically and understand the pieces that need to be managed to make it work. Forget pontificating on improving the lives of one group or producing world peace. Neither party has that candidate yet.
1. The working classes are not stand-alone entities. They do well when commerce does well. Do not make them out to be something that can be helped in isolation. Focus on what makes America work and understand how the results follow.
2. Presidents have come and gone. Wall Street and the banks have endured and will continue. Fighting the financial system is fighting windmills. Vilifying the commercial base is counterproductive.
3. "Income inequality" is not something that can be resolved with taxes or by forcing sectors of the economy to behave in certain ways. It happens because there is a balance between economic growth and workforce capabilities in a global market.
4. Promising major change over a single term is a pipe dream. "Yes we can" only divided Washington worse that before. Be realistic and don't promise things that cannot be delivered because they are going to come up against immovable objects.
The Republicans and Democrats have habitually over-promised to win the hearts of mythical segments of their voting bases and have been derailed after sacrificing their common sense for messages that supposedly appeal to these voters. Put together a plan that works economically and understand the pieces that need to be managed to make it work. Forget pontificating on improving the lives of one group or producing world peace. Neither party has that candidate yet.
2
There are several reasons why such candidates are not available.
1. Such a candidate would never get elected.
2. the majority of voters have already lost faith in the political process.
3. Jimmy Carter demonstrated that such a candidate is not effective if elected.
4. Lyndon Johnson had none of these traits but was effective.
5. We treat our politicians badly, judge them on their hair , personal lives, just about everythign but their ability to do the job
1. Such a candidate would never get elected.
2. the majority of voters have already lost faith in the political process.
3. Jimmy Carter demonstrated that such a candidate is not effective if elected.
4. Lyndon Johnson had none of these traits but was effective.
5. We treat our politicians badly, judge them on their hair , personal lives, just about everythign but their ability to do the job
I HOPE THE WANNABE CANDIDATES READ EACH OF THESE POSTINGS... POWERFUL!
This is the wrong way to go and will eventually undermine and destroy the modern day Democratic Party. What is needed is legislation that makes it clear that we are a democracy that will honor votes only from actual human beings (not corporations) that we will not permit donations from corporations or unions (if that matters), and that there is a relatively small donation permissible (maybe a few hundred dollars) per individual voter. Finally, there *must* be a reinstatement of the equal time provision, which should apply to film on the internet. The assertion that democracy can't be done in the 21st century is just nonsense.
3
Just another example of "political gossip" coverage (ref. Bernie Sanders: “But this is what I worry about: In terms of campaign coverage, there is more coverage about the political gossip of a campaign, about raising money, about polling, about somebody saying something dumb.”). Now if this were an article with some substance, about who stands for what, then it would probably be consigned to page 17; that's where Senator Sanders winds up, if at all. But if Hillary sneezes, it's front page news. Sad.
8
Picture Hillary Clinton without the scandals of the Clinton Foundation, without the e-mail scandal, without the net worth going from not much to over $100 million in six years, and without all the other ethical baggage. The Democratic billionaires would be writing big checks.
But perhaps because of a combination of their ethical standards, combined with their feeling that Hillary will implode during the campaign, they'd rather hold onto their money rather than squander it?
But perhaps because of a combination of their ethical standards, combined with their feeling that Hillary will implode during the campaign, they'd rather hold onto their money rather than squander it?
3
Complain all you want about the "greedy Clintons" and promise to not vote. I will not only vote but I will seek out non-voters and take as many as I can to the polls. The only reason our political system is in danger is because cynical, lazy and ignorant people don't vote. It's not so much that our system has become the "best government money can buy", more to the point, it's that the electorate believes they are powerless.
5
I vote based on policy. No ad sways me. I am fully informed, and that's that. I can't name one donor who ponied up Obama's billion dollars and I don't think we'd have 100 Wall St guys in jail if he'd paid for the campaign out of his own pocket.
People love to find a tidbit to be outraged over, be it rich people making donation or an intelligence security agency collating phone numbers. The Outrage Hobbyists rule the comment forums. "Politicians are corrupt! We live in an oligarchy!" Well gee-whiz, welcome to the 19th century, thanks for the wake up call.
All around are real day-to-day problems and few seem outraged. Every smart youngster who does not do as well in school as they could with better support services is an outrage. Every jingoist backing useless war is an outrage. Pie-in-the-sky weapons systems are an outrage. The Middle Class never seeing a Cold War peace benefit is an outrage. Religious fundamentalism intruding on Civil Rights in America is an outrage.
The machinations of the political process are well known to be akin to the making of sausage, something better not observed if you have a weak stomach, or in this case are too easily outraged.
People love to find a tidbit to be outraged over, be it rich people making donation or an intelligence security agency collating phone numbers. The Outrage Hobbyists rule the comment forums. "Politicians are corrupt! We live in an oligarchy!" Well gee-whiz, welcome to the 19th century, thanks for the wake up call.
All around are real day-to-day problems and few seem outraged. Every smart youngster who does not do as well in school as they could with better support services is an outrage. Every jingoist backing useless war is an outrage. Pie-in-the-sky weapons systems are an outrage. The Middle Class never seeing a Cold War peace benefit is an outrage. Religious fundamentalism intruding on Civil Rights in America is an outrage.
The machinations of the political process are well known to be akin to the making of sausage, something better not observed if you have a weak stomach, or in this case are too easily outraged.
1
All of those fools who argue about not opening up trade with Cuba miss one very simple point: Jose Marti, who inspired people all over South America to seek freedom, knew it in 1880! While living in NYC, he wrote:
"I know the monster, because I have lived in its lair, and my sling is that of David." Marti correctly predicted that the US, like a beast whose belly he had lived in, would attempt to gobble up the people of the western hemisphere, for it's own greed.
What Marti missed, or perhaps was kind enough not to point out to his hosts, is that this behavior leads to a country willing to gobble up its own people.
The sins of our fathers are coming home to roost.
"I know the monster, because I have lived in its lair, and my sling is that of David." Marti correctly predicted that the US, like a beast whose belly he had lived in, would attempt to gobble up the people of the western hemisphere, for it's own greed.
What Marti missed, or perhaps was kind enough not to point out to his hosts, is that this behavior leads to a country willing to gobble up its own people.
The sins of our fathers are coming home to roost.
At first I thought you were referring to a roster of candidates, not donors!
3
We have the best government in the world for the 0.01 percent, but one of the worst ones among advanced nations for the 99.99 percent of the rest of us. We have inferior schools, railways, airlines, and infrastructure. Our health care is sub-par but costs us twice as much as it does countries like Canada, UK, France, etc. But we have a great war machine, which enriches a great number of millionaires and billionaires. And we have welfare for Big Oil, Big Ag, and Big Pharma.
But practically no one on the political scene cares about the little guy. They're too busy raising those big bucks from the plutocrats who effectively buy their services, in our government of, by, and for the rich and the powerful special interests. And they're making tacit commitments to look out for the needs of billionaires in their unseemly scramble for money. (There are exceptions, like Bernie Sanders, who really has the little guy's interests at heart.) Until we get strict and thoroughgoing campaign finance reform, we will continue to see candidates auction themselves off to the highest bidder.
But practically no one on the political scene cares about the little guy. They're too busy raising those big bucks from the plutocrats who effectively buy their services, in our government of, by, and for the rich and the powerful special interests. And they're making tacit commitments to look out for the needs of billionaires in their unseemly scramble for money. (There are exceptions, like Bernie Sanders, who really has the little guy's interests at heart.) Until we get strict and thoroughgoing campaign finance reform, we will continue to see candidates auction themselves off to the highest bidder.
80
So, Let us help elect Hillary Clinton who will appoint Supreme Court Justices who will vote to overturn Citizens United.
The Democrat Party should not settle for Hillary. Two DAYS after she was sworn in as Secretary of State Bill unfurled the WJC LLC and her began accepting a myriad of money from foreign governments. Her eye was on the WH then. She has way to many favors to return to these countries once she holds the reigns as President. That's only one example of the complex web of control other countries have over us should she become President. Look it up! We, as Americans, are pawn in a very expensive game and it is frightening to one who once believed those who run are altruistic and patriotic.
7
Could it be that some Democrats are not quite yet really to have Hillary pick out drapes for the Oval Office?
Could we have a primary season first? Could we have something approaching a choice?
Could we have a primary season first? Could we have something approaching a choice?
5
This conversation makes me feel Icke! I am so disgusted. Why try and solve problems and govern when a politician can just suck out the money from donors who want influence. One person, one vote is a joke. Just like they always say, just give them Bread and Circuses and they won't notice that they don't have democracy. The USA has plenty of freedoms but Democracy, not so much! Thankyou conservative Justices for Citizens Entitdled decision, effectively ending democracy in Amerrica (wait there's always Canada).
1
Of course they do. Poorer people are a big disappointment in so many ways, especially all those made even more so as Dems let banks get bigger by demolishing Glass-Steagall, let NAFTA ship jobs to the 3rd World, and helped the Repubs crush the union movement.
2
It's sad to see so many readers despairing for the death of democracy; and it's especially sad that they're right.
5
I'm not surprised that Hillary Clinton is having trouble getting contributions. The attitude of most Democrats that I've spoken to - rich, middle class, or poor - could be summarized as: "who knows how much she has picked up, and where it is stashed?".
Hillary has become the logical equivalent of a Mafia "Don" - admired for her nerve and drive, but more feared than trusted. Her real strength has been in scaring away other candidates, not in getting people to like her; she is no Bill Clinton - that is the problem.
Hillary has become the logical equivalent of a Mafia "Don" - admired for her nerve and drive, but more feared than trusted. Her real strength has been in scaring away other candidates, not in getting people to like her; she is no Bill Clinton - that is the problem.
5
"Foremost, we must send cash to Hillary. That way, she owes the collective "us" and not one, or two, plutocratic few". Kalidan
That is exactly the reason I put a huge amount of money (in ratio to our household income) into our present leader's first election.
Yet, in reality, this country is still on the wrong course and there is nothing in HRC's agenda, so far, that shows we would see any change in direction.
"A rising tide lifts all vessels" BHO 2009
"Grand Bargain", BHO 2010 (back when his budget proposal raised military spending while cutting back on Medicare.
It is not the Republicans forcing the President to:
save the Patriot Act, open ANWR TO Shell (and deep sea extraction), allow unlimited fracking, allow farmers to plow up (RoundUp) all available land, outperform Dubya on global arms sales and our military expansion, outperform Dubya on deportations, continue the obscene War on Drugs, engage in trade deals that don't incorporate concrete steps against climate change. (I'm certain it does nothing against the absconding of peasant's plots by our multinationals)
Just as wealth disparity spiked under WJC, it is still growing at a steady clip.
As I said before, there is nothing in our ex-Goldwater Girl that would suggest any difference. Saving SCOTUS aside, she shall continue the Corporatization of our atrophied democracy.
That is exactly the reason I put a huge amount of money (in ratio to our household income) into our present leader's first election.
Yet, in reality, this country is still on the wrong course and there is nothing in HRC's agenda, so far, that shows we would see any change in direction.
"A rising tide lifts all vessels" BHO 2009
"Grand Bargain", BHO 2010 (back when his budget proposal raised military spending while cutting back on Medicare.
It is not the Republicans forcing the President to:
save the Patriot Act, open ANWR TO Shell (and deep sea extraction), allow unlimited fracking, allow farmers to plow up (RoundUp) all available land, outperform Dubya on global arms sales and our military expansion, outperform Dubya on deportations, continue the obscene War on Drugs, engage in trade deals that don't incorporate concrete steps against climate change. (I'm certain it does nothing against the absconding of peasant's plots by our multinationals)
Just as wealth disparity spiked under WJC, it is still growing at a steady clip.
As I said before, there is nothing in our ex-Goldwater Girl that would suggest any difference. Saving SCOTUS aside, she shall continue the Corporatization of our atrophied democracy.
5
The Times could help democracy by declaring it will run no political advertising from PACs, and challenge other papers and the TV networks to do the same. Otherwise reporting like this, which puts more pressure on the ultra-wealthy to fund PACs to in large part buy advertising, is as self-serving as much of the Times NY real estate coverage - coverage I much enjoy reading despite that, but with dire consequence only in driving up NY real estate prices, not the price of buying Washington.
3
A couple of things come to mind when I hear the Dems complain about the lack of money; 1. It's other people's money they lack, 2. It's as though they, in this case it's the Clinton's, want ALL the money in circulation today 3. As in the shrine erected to honor the late Ted Kennedy, the Kennedy, possessing more money than God, wanted the tax payer to cover the up keep and utilities.
3
Bernie Sanders will prove that all is not lost!
You watch, he will continue to raise large sums of money from ordinary Americans, run circles around Hillary in the debates and, with is passion, sincerity and moral clarity, start wining primaries.
You watch, he will continue to raise large sums of money from ordinary Americans, run circles around Hillary in the debates and, with is passion, sincerity and moral clarity, start wining primaries.
16
Let's hope so
1
God willing!!
1
And Barbaro will win the Triple Crown.
2
This story is baloney. If Republicans are "ahead" in lining up big donors, it's entirely because the donors are picking favorites in a donneybrook primary fight, while Hillary has no opponent for a year. No one in the history of American politics raised and spent more money on campaigns than Barack Obama, and you can bet that Hillary will surpass him. This is the Times laying the basis for a claim that Hillary raised more than a billion dollars from richies because she needed to catch up.
And Harold Ickes' wisecrack about Democratic billionsires being more wiling to give $100 million for a hospital wing is hilarious, given that the supposedly evil Koch brothers actually did donate $100 million for a new wing at Columbia Presbyterian -- right here in NYC.
And Harold Ickes' wisecrack about Democratic billionsires being more wiling to give $100 million for a hospital wing is hilarious, given that the supposedly evil Koch brothers actually did donate $100 million for a new wing at Columbia Presbyterian -- right here in NYC.
6
Exactly this, somehow democrats associate republicans with big money while giving their own party a pass even though Obama outspent his republican oponents and since the last election (his last of consequence) has been actively trying to sell out the majority of americans with immigration, trade, and privacy proposals that benefit rich americans almost exclusively.
In my dream, politics, including the process of campaigning and electing officials, would be boring. Endless droning about policy details and financial trivia would repel most voters. Only the truly dedicated would stay engaged and eventually participate, either as candidates or voters.
Coming back to "reality", I see the necessary conflation of huge money and obnoxiously loud media campaigns that have now given us an endless stream that distorts the true issues but provides enough stimulation to keep enough voters engaged.
Maybe promoting more participation is a big mistake. Unless we gave them something more like national homecoming king and queen to vote for, in an election held one week before the presidential election.
Coming back to "reality", I see the necessary conflation of huge money and obnoxiously loud media campaigns that have now given us an endless stream that distorts the true issues but provides enough stimulation to keep enough voters engaged.
Maybe promoting more participation is a big mistake. Unless we gave them something more like national homecoming king and queen to vote for, in an election held one week before the presidential election.
The most important thing for Democrats to keep in mind is that they absolutely MUST nominate a candidate who can win the election. The object is not to lose with a saint, it is to win. Period.
Hillary Clinton may not be a saint, but she can certainly win the election. She pledges to work to overturn Citizen's Union. She has experience in foreign affairs (please no jokes). She will provide continuity in our dealings with the rest of the world. She is experienced with the legislative process and dealing with the media. She has a huge block of supportive voters and politicians behind her.
Bernie Sanders may be a fine and admirable man, but he is an untested quantity at the national and international level. Most importantly, it is not clear that he can win the election against a well-financed, ruthless and just plain dishonest opposition.
As "expat from LA" points out, we cannot let the (potentially) perfect be the enemy of the good, Hillary will be a far better president than any Republican.
If the Republicans gain the Presidency, to go along with their control of both houses of the legislature and the Supreme Court, as well as a majority of the state governments, there will be nothing, NOTHING, to stop the completion of their silent coup d'etat. It has been in progress since 1980, and they are so close they can smell it.
And we can smell it too. And it ain't fragrant.
Choose an electable Democrat, and then elect him or her. Winning is the only thing that matters.
Hillary Clinton may not be a saint, but she can certainly win the election. She pledges to work to overturn Citizen's Union. She has experience in foreign affairs (please no jokes). She will provide continuity in our dealings with the rest of the world. She is experienced with the legislative process and dealing with the media. She has a huge block of supportive voters and politicians behind her.
Bernie Sanders may be a fine and admirable man, but he is an untested quantity at the national and international level. Most importantly, it is not clear that he can win the election against a well-financed, ruthless and just plain dishonest opposition.
As "expat from LA" points out, we cannot let the (potentially) perfect be the enemy of the good, Hillary will be a far better president than any Republican.
If the Republicans gain the Presidency, to go along with their control of both houses of the legislature and the Supreme Court, as well as a majority of the state governments, there will be nothing, NOTHING, to stop the completion of their silent coup d'etat. It has been in progress since 1980, and they are so close they can smell it.
And we can smell it too. And it ain't fragrant.
Choose an electable Democrat, and then elect him or her. Winning is the only thing that matters.
27
While I certainly agree that we all need to vote for a Democrat in the general, Hillary is doing a poor job of taking it to the Koch's and their bought politicians. These people have been largely responsible for the supply siders dragging us down since the 1980s. Sanders is going right at the problem and raising awareness even as a candidate.
4
Absolutely agree. Bernie Sanders is the George McGovern of the Democratic party. And I don't mean that as a complement to Sanders!
2
Very, very well put, Richard. It's so sad and ironic to me. Yes, as citizens we all have the right to and should speak our minds, so off many liberals go criticizing Hillary and Obama. Yet, if Jeb Bush gets in and appoints more Scalias and Thomases to the Supreme Court and puts boots on the ground to fight ISIS, etc., the crying from these same liberals will be deafening. At some point, some people should realize that life is not just about complaining and criticizing, but instead working for the better good in a practical sense, otherwise, they will always, repeat always, be unhappy.
1
No, what is going on right now is that Democrats are not as enamored with HRC as the media.
Give it time. The wallets are there. They have not yet spoken.
Give it time. The wallets are there. They have not yet spoken.
10
Not sure you've been seeing the same media coverage I have. Enamored is about the last word that comes to mind. The phrase "out to get her", however...
@ A. Pritchard
We are all victims of convenience. The wallets are silent because the wallets see a devious individual.
We are all victims of convenience. The wallets are silent because the wallets see a devious individual.
This is getting out of control. A single candidate spending over $1 BILLION. Assuming the opposing front runner is spending a similar amount, and the trailing candidates spending in the hundreds of millions for the presidential election alone, there will be over $2.5 BILLION spent on attack ads and muck racking research. What a waste! You can blame and criticize the democrats or republicans but the real party to blame is all of us. We as voters are swayed by such ads, vote for candidates like an advertised product and have no problem with this excessive system of spending that obligates government leaders to wealthy private parties that is at the heart of corruption.
7
Whether it is in India or the USA, the political parties in both democracies will reach out the "have" for donation on the eve of election with a promising slogan to help "have not" on the stage. Indeed, the world prefers Mrs.Hilary Clinton since she is a well known personality to the world and reachable for candid ideas.
The idea of using power to subdue any part of the world by the predecessors of Mr. Obama hasn't yielded any positive result either to the USA and its allies or to the defeated nations. We hope that the Mrs.Hilary Clinton would be a 'solution provider' to the crisis created by the era of both Bush.
Historians, Journalists and Political analysts could make volume of comparative study on " Two Bush versus Two Clintons". In 2016 election Mrs.Clinton has a bright chance to win but to make it for second term in 2020,indeed she has to prove herself better than her predecessors as the first woman president of the USA .
The idea of using power to subdue any part of the world by the predecessors of Mr. Obama hasn't yielded any positive result either to the USA and its allies or to the defeated nations. We hope that the Mrs.Hilary Clinton would be a 'solution provider' to the crisis created by the era of both Bush.
Historians, Journalists and Political analysts could make volume of comparative study on " Two Bush versus Two Clintons". In 2016 election Mrs.Clinton has a bright chance to win but to make it for second term in 2020,indeed she has to prove herself better than her predecessors as the first woman president of the USA .
2
To all the self-righteous dreamers who insist that the Democratic candidate be untainted by money: Do you really want to have the US elect an anti-choice, anti-science, Ayn-Rand loving candidate by default?
7
How much money will be required for a liberal candidate (who despises the ''rich'') to buy the presidency?
Hillary knows the amount and she wants every dime.
Hillary knows the amount and she wants every dime.
4
Perhaps the same amount of money as required by the conservatives (like Santorum claiming to want to get the money out of DC, as he stood with his billionaire as he announced) to buy the presidency? Politics these days is driven by cash. If you want to play, YOU use all the tools available
Aren't we missing the obvious? Hillary and Bill can self-fund through their magical ability to siphon and launder money from heads of state and plutocrats around the world. Oops. Except they are so greedy they would never part with any of "their money." Here's an investigative reporting assignment for the Times: How much money have the Clinton's personally given to other charities or other political candidates over the past decade? (You don't have to go back to when they were "dead broke.")
15
Clintons have less than Romney, did he self fund? Also, it is illegal to use foreign money for political runs. Nobody has claimed the Clintons have used funds from the Foundation. If they have, anybody can take that to the Federal Election Commission. You have any proof?
Nimrod, Yes the Clinton;s are wealthy, but no where near the Koch's or Adelson's, who are billionaires.
as for what they have done ...the Clinton Foundation has done good work around the world (Haiti,etc.) What good work have the Republican billionaires done?
as for what they have done ...the Clinton Foundation has done good work around the world (Haiti,etc.) What good work have the Republican billionaires done?
This article puts me in mind of HRC's remark about being flat broke when she and Bill left the White House. No doubt it was that desperation that forced them to help themselves to the furnishings.
Frankly, as a voter, I would prefer a few quality Democrat candidates over the spectacle of the Republican clown bus. What an embarrassment! They are simply demonstrating that it takes 13 or 14 unqualified Republicans to equal one very qualified Democrat. Are they really that afraid of Mrs. Clinton?
I value the message and a solid plan for the country over how much money is spent on horrible ads and billboards in never-ending campaigns.
Democrats must focus on getting people to come out and vote and on making sure voters haven't been unfairly disqualified by gerrymandering Republicans from exercising their right to register and to cast ballots.
I value the message and a solid plan for the country over how much money is spent on horrible ads and billboards in never-ending campaigns.
Democrats must focus on getting people to come out and vote and on making sure voters haven't been unfairly disqualified by gerrymandering Republicans from exercising their right to register and to cast ballots.
5
Why is so much money needed? Whatever happened to just having good ideas and policy? I'm aware that Clinton still hasn't finished tailoring her "message" while still figuring out which way the wind is blowing, but I think we pretty much all know what she's about by now. I mean isn't that why she's already been predermined by the media as the default candidate?
If she needs to raise a lot of money, then it seems a handful of $250,000 "speeches" ought to do that.
I'm voting for Senator Sanders in the general election even if I have to do it as a write-in. Why? Because I'd finally like to vote for someone with integrity, true concern for the country and its citizens, no self-interest or profiteering from office, no scandals, and not bought / backed by wealthy individuals who are only concerned with access to power.
If she needs to raise a lot of money, then it seems a handful of $250,000 "speeches" ought to do that.
I'm voting for Senator Sanders in the general election even if I have to do it as a write-in. Why? Because I'd finally like to vote for someone with integrity, true concern for the country and its citizens, no self-interest or profiteering from office, no scandals, and not bought / backed by wealthy individuals who are only concerned with access to power.
20
Please reconsider. By all means, please vote for Sen Sanders in the primaries, and support him any way you can. But it is not his intention to be a spoiler. Writing him in in the election will only help the Repubs gain the White House. Think about who gets to name the next Supreme Court justice(s).
4
A wasted vote. So don't complain about who ever does win.
Yes, go ahead and waste your vote. Don't complain when one of the Republican contenders does things that you don't like. And they will.
We need publicaly financed campaigns, period. And a shorter campaign cycle. And limits on how long a potential candidate can "explore" his/her prospects for election. We voters must make our disgust evident and insist that the corruptive influence of money be removed from this process. Our government is slipping away from us.
10
You give what YOU want. Don't force others through public financing who may not wish to give. yes campaigns are long. That is called Free Speech. Since "exploring" is personal choices as to length, do we need government limiting choice?
This article reads like an advertisement for plutocracy, complete with the underlying narrative being whether Democrats can catch up to and beat Republicans in an exciting race to the bottom. Go team!
What is ignored is the elephant in the room, which is that it is impossible for Democrats to raise huge sums of cash while holding onto their values and proposing policies consistent with principles traditionally associated with the Democratic Party. In large part, that is because the most financially successful capitalists achieve that success by abandoning those values and principles. There is no money to be made by abandoning environmental exploitation, or paying higher taxes, or increasing regulations on your own industry to protect workers, or making banking boring, or stopping unnecessary wars in oil rich countries, or raising the minimum wage or supporting the prosecution of felonious corporate executives.
Republicans raise huge sums because they stand for the principles of their biggest donors. Democrats stand for nothing. They claim to be populists, while hypocritically trying to be just as corrupt and captured as their unapologetically corrupt opponents on the right, and then whine about being victims of a system they refuse to fight to change. Look at where the money given to Clinton and Obama comes from and then examine the contradictions between what they say and what they have done. This is a losing battle for the Democratic party as well as for the nation.
What is ignored is the elephant in the room, which is that it is impossible for Democrats to raise huge sums of cash while holding onto their values and proposing policies consistent with principles traditionally associated with the Democratic Party. In large part, that is because the most financially successful capitalists achieve that success by abandoning those values and principles. There is no money to be made by abandoning environmental exploitation, or paying higher taxes, or increasing regulations on your own industry to protect workers, or making banking boring, or stopping unnecessary wars in oil rich countries, or raising the minimum wage or supporting the prosecution of felonious corporate executives.
Republicans raise huge sums because they stand for the principles of their biggest donors. Democrats stand for nothing. They claim to be populists, while hypocritically trying to be just as corrupt and captured as their unapologetically corrupt opponents on the right, and then whine about being victims of a system they refuse to fight to change. Look at where the money given to Clinton and Obama comes from and then examine the contradictions between what they say and what they have done. This is a losing battle for the Democratic party as well as for the nation.
11
It is difficult to take a lack of money being a problem for the Clinton Campaign. After all, the Clinton family has made a science out of extracting money from both individuals, corporations and yes foreign countries.
No, she will have plenty of dough and be deeply beholding to the rich and powerful regardless of her attempt to sell a populist message.
As it has been under Obama, the real wealthy will grow even more wealthy under a Clinton administration as she is one of them-not us.
The danger of a continuation of an Obama economic policy, by Clinton, that greatly favors the wealthy portends for an AMERICAN
ARISTOCRACY that will thrive.
The truth is that if Clinton were indeed a populist she would promulgating and putting at the head of her economic program federal estate tax reform.
Why, should anyone individual other than a spouse inherit more than $5 million dollars?
Let the Press put that question to Hillary. Let us see whether she answers as one of us, or a member of the Park Ave elite that will be pouring hundreds of millions of dollars into her campaign.
No, she will have plenty of dough and be deeply beholding to the rich and powerful regardless of her attempt to sell a populist message.
As it has been under Obama, the real wealthy will grow even more wealthy under a Clinton administration as she is one of them-not us.
The danger of a continuation of an Obama economic policy, by Clinton, that greatly favors the wealthy portends for an AMERICAN
ARISTOCRACY that will thrive.
The truth is that if Clinton were indeed a populist she would promulgating and putting at the head of her economic program federal estate tax reform.
Why, should anyone individual other than a spouse inherit more than $5 million dollars?
Let the Press put that question to Hillary. Let us see whether she answers as one of us, or a member of the Park Ave elite that will be pouring hundreds of millions of dollars into her campaign.
5
Why should anyone inherit more than 5 million? How about because those who make money have a right to give how much and to whom they wish? Buffett and Gates made it, should it be taken from them? I think both earned the right to do with their money what they wish. Most of YOUR supposed "one of us" if they made the big time would think and do the same. All polls show Americans want the "death" or inheritance tax ended for all. In thos epolls are mostly the supposed "one of us" since they dominate the population by a wide margin. You want to give as much of YOUR money to the government YOU can. Leave mine alone, its not yours to give, in case I ever do hit the big time.
1
My heart is with Bernie Sanders whose Democratic message is being consciously ignored by the media. But my brain tells me that were I to vote for him I would assure the election of one of the mini-fascists parading as Republicans. I don't have to be in love with the Democratic candidate, I just have to know that she isn't going to sell everyone but the "corporate person" and the super rich down history's dead end to salaried slavery or robotic unemployment.
3
Let's complain as bitterly as possible about the billionaires supporting "them" while we vacuum up as much money as possible from the billionaires supporting "us."
Hypocrites. Just hypocrites.
Hypocrites. Just hypocrites.
7
Nothing hypocritical about it. Do you see anyone endorsing this process in their comments? We all find it reprehensible. What is your proposal? Let the other side continue to buy the country while we stand idly by, spouting platitude and principle? You confuse an unwillingness to be bent over with hypocrisy.
I get it.
I hate it and find it reprehensible when those other guys get their money (please give me your money).
You're right, once you whisper it instead, it is no longer hypocrisy. The money is somehow cleaner if our message is pure.
I hate it and find it reprehensible when those other guys get their money (please give me your money).
You're right, once you whisper it instead, it is no longer hypocrisy. The money is somehow cleaner if our message is pure.
You're trying way too hard to sound enigmatic and end up merely inscrutable. No one is whispering anything, nor is anyone claiming to have purity of purpose. If you don't see a difference in the direction, values and attitudes of the right and the left, you're obviously not attuned to the left. I may be misreading you, but you sound like an apologist for the right by asserting we're all to be tarred with the same brush. You can certainly speak for your self, but you don't speak for me.
Win or lose this money will be Clinton money, which is what these two grifters are all about.
10
Mrs. Clinton can sell more favors overseas for $300 million--piece of CAKE!
7
America and the world need change Believe Mrs Hillary Clinton brings a new change of peace and stability for the twenty first century Hillary Clinton for President 2016
2
"[Democratic Party] appeals also threaten to undercut her [Hillary Clinton's] message on the corrupting influence of unchecked money in politics." This is America's political game today, as it ever was but now, thanks partly to Citizens United, pervading the entire landscape to the point of obscenity.
So often we hear the lament of low voter turn-out in this country. Is it any wonder? When our only two viable political parties depend critically on the munificence of a tiny population of mega-rich oligarchs, 90%-plus of the voting public becomes literally voiceless. When we add-in extreme gerrymandering and voter suppression, what's the point of participatory pretense?
In the current news cycle, we've been wringing our hands about Sepp Blatter's orchestrated corruption at FIFA. FIFA is simply a small-scale metaphor for our own national political stage. Government for sale is not democracy. We're either fools or charlatans to pretend otherwise.
So often we hear the lament of low voter turn-out in this country. Is it any wonder? When our only two viable political parties depend critically on the munificence of a tiny population of mega-rich oligarchs, 90%-plus of the voting public becomes literally voiceless. When we add-in extreme gerrymandering and voter suppression, what's the point of participatory pretense?
In the current news cycle, we've been wringing our hands about Sepp Blatter's orchestrated corruption at FIFA. FIFA is simply a small-scale metaphor for our own national political stage. Government for sale is not democracy. We're either fools or charlatans to pretend otherwise.
7
I am really wondering why there is so much reporting on the inner thoughts of HRC and her team. Why is this so public? It's pathetic--all about how to sell her, position her, package her. Then, there are articles telling us this is a new and different--a down with the people, listening Hillary--she's learned the lessons of the last primary and is going to be better this time.
All the while, we read that she is our only choice of Democratic nominee. Seriously? Who says? If she has to be managed, packaged and sold, the resounding silence is indication that we are not buying it.
All the while, we read that she is our only choice of Democratic nominee. Seriously? Who says? If she has to be managed, packaged and sold, the resounding silence is indication that we are not buying it.
15
Yes, but I thought the Clintons were awash in money, according to your paper. Or is it just a deliberate distraction to turn the focus away from where the real money is, on the Republican side?
6
" Mr. Steyer, a retired California hedge fund founder, invested $74 million in 2014 to pressure candidates to back policies to combat climate change, becoming the Democratic Party’s leading donor. "
The system is so corrupt, reporters absorb the mindset unconsciously. Look at the key word in the above sentence: "invested". The woman who sends $50 to the Sanders campaign is a donor. Billionaires "invest", and investors expect profits from their "investments".
The system is so corrupt, reporters absorb the mindset unconsciously. Look at the key word in the above sentence: "invested". The woman who sends $50 to the Sanders campaign is a donor. Billionaires "invest", and investors expect profits from their "investments".
9
Good catch!
Although we'd like it to be different, it's a political reality: you need money to run a national campaign. And as much as we'd like "our" candidate to choose the high road and focus on the issues and blah blah blah, at the end of the day, having a Republican in the White House would be, again!, a disaster for the country. We can't do that again. We've barely recovered from the last one!
So I'm all for Hillary raising as much money as she needs to fight the best fight she can. The Republicans and the Media will continue to bury her with an avalanche of lies and innuendo and if cutting through the bull so people can hear her and, with her, FOCUS on the issues takes a ton of cash, so be it.
Let's work with the world as it is right now, people, and not hamper the Democrats by punishing them for not following some fantasy world you wish existed where money doesn't drive things. It does. Deal with it, accept the candidates (yes, even your beloved Bernie) have to deal with it, and then focus on the issues.
So I'm all for Hillary raising as much money as she needs to fight the best fight she can. The Republicans and the Media will continue to bury her with an avalanche of lies and innuendo and if cutting through the bull so people can hear her and, with her, FOCUS on the issues takes a ton of cash, so be it.
Let's work with the world as it is right now, people, and not hamper the Democrats by punishing them for not following some fantasy world you wish existed where money doesn't drive things. It does. Deal with it, accept the candidates (yes, even your beloved Bernie) have to deal with it, and then focus on the issues.
4
To run for President in this country you are either already have wealth of your own or one has wealthy friends to call on. Liberal or Conservative, money's corrosive effect turns our democracy into a plutocracy. Issues and policies that are near and dear to the 1% gets center stage. The rest of us the middle class and below gets drowned out by the wealthy whom can manipulate the political process to their advantage.
1
Yes, the emails are troubling.
Yes, Benghazi is an albatross.
Yes, the Clinton Foundation, well you get my point. However, the alternative is Bernie Sanders, whom I like, but he is too far left of even Elizabeth Warren to be elected in a general election, or, someone from the republican camp, and I just can't vote for a republican not named Rockefeller, Bloomberg, or Powell. So I'll vote for Clinton in both the primary and general.
Yes, Benghazi is an albatross.
Yes, the Clinton Foundation, well you get my point. However, the alternative is Bernie Sanders, whom I like, but he is too far left of even Elizabeth Warren to be elected in a general election, or, someone from the republican camp, and I just can't vote for a republican not named Rockefeller, Bloomberg, or Powell. So I'll vote for Clinton in both the primary and general.
3
Oliver, Good choice.
Powell enabled the disastrous Iraq war.
Maybe the hesitancy to "donate" to Ms. Clinton indicates a problem with the product.
13
What a tragic waste of our wealth and riches. I suppose it's been said many times, but it strikes me as nothing less than tragic how our schools, health system, military, etc., etc., are not able to benefit from the resources being thrown at these candidates.
6
I think the Clintons have enough personal wealth, now that they occupy the .05% of income "earners" in the US to self-finance Ms. Clinton's campaign.
7
This shows the sad state of affairs this country finds itself: all & everything turns around money.
No difference between the parties, both adore the deplorable citizens united decision by the not-so supreme court.
In the meantime the average American believes he/she votes for the right person, while the truth is these politicians all have doubtful/questionable ethics.
The only exception would be Mr. Sanders and Ms. Warren.
It is amazing the majority of the American people do not seem to understand this.
It is a shameful four year circus, imagine what could be done to benefit the country with all this wasted donor dollars.
This should stop, unfortunately this will never happen.
No difference between the parties, both adore the deplorable citizens united decision by the not-so supreme court.
In the meantime the average American believes he/she votes for the right person, while the truth is these politicians all have doubtful/questionable ethics.
The only exception would be Mr. Sanders and Ms. Warren.
It is amazing the majority of the American people do not seem to understand this.
It is a shameful four year circus, imagine what could be done to benefit the country with all this wasted donor dollars.
This should stop, unfortunately this will never happen.
This is a fine example of why Citizens United was such a terrible decision. Unlimited money in politics allows for unlimited corruption.
In a related and recent case, Chief Justice Roberts said that the public had a reasonable expectation that their judicial candidate not have a quid pro quo with donors. The same logic applies, but more so, to elected representatives and officials: the public must have confidence that its representatives aren't compromised by donor largesse.
Adding just 1% to the income tax rate, or closing a significant tax loophole, would provide plenty of funding for public financing of candidates. Any funds candidates don't use for their campaigns would have to be returned to the government within 90 days or be assessed with the next tax return the candidates file.
In a related and recent case, Chief Justice Roberts said that the public had a reasonable expectation that their judicial candidate not have a quid pro quo with donors. The same logic applies, but more so, to elected representatives and officials: the public must have confidence that its representatives aren't compromised by donor largesse.
Adding just 1% to the income tax rate, or closing a significant tax loophole, would provide plenty of funding for public financing of candidates. Any funds candidates don't use for their campaigns would have to be returned to the government within 90 days or be assessed with the next tax return the candidates file.
3
A fie on both their houses! What hypocrisy - the Democrats hope to win the white house by showing that Republicans were equally immoral? It is obvious- elections can be bought and paid. Public education not only has failed to immunize us against modern propaganda, and subliminal persuasion, but at times is used to inculcate our children in "political correctness" . We need Socrates to rise from his grave to teach us how to think, Christ to chase the money interests from our political temple, WC Fields and Mark Twain to remind us how funny we might seem to aliens..
3
We need to make it a felony to contribute more than $100 to anyone's political campaign. Our election cycle has become a revolving auction dominated by the wealthiest 5%; it's no longer a democratic process. The wealthiest class tends to forget that nearly everyone can afford ammunition, even if they can't afford to buy a politician. So either the oligarchy somehow makes itself bullet-and-bomb-proof, or we preserve our Republic by eliminating the role of wealth in the electoral cycle.
1
This is a bit of Faustian bargain. The more money Hillary raises from her favorite rich folks, the more tarred she will be by her ties to big money and the more beholden she will be to special interests. Ergo, the more alienated "ordinary folks" will be from her claims to represent the middle class. She is in big trouble either way. Republicans will always have their "angels" (Adelson, Braman, Friess, and, of course the Koch Brothers), so it's time for a credible Democrat to provide an alternative to the money games. Perhaps Jim Webb is that person. He called the Iraq folly before Hillary and others did, has strong experience in government, and could connect with many disaffected voters
2
This article is more about the need to end the corrupting influence of unchecked money in politics than just about Mrs. Clinton. It's another example of our ship of state being a ship of fools, Plato's allegory of a vessel populated by human inhabitants who are deranged, frivolous, or oblivious, and seemingly ignorant of their course. Our ship of state is piloted by shrewd, venal men (or more accurately, their shills) taking advantage of a foolish, gullible electorate.
Having said that, I still think, for the culture of our congress, polluted by money, Hillary is the best candidate. At least she's not as dangerous as the incipient fascists the GOP is offering. Our country is in great danger if the GOP continues its course to put us under its "Iron Heel (read the novel by Jack London, written in 1908, to be horrified by his very prescient view of the direction we are going as a country)."
Ignorance and denial are the enemy, not Mrs. Clinton and her amassing of money.
Having said that, I still think, for the culture of our congress, polluted by money, Hillary is the best candidate. At least she's not as dangerous as the incipient fascists the GOP is offering. Our country is in great danger if the GOP continues its course to put us under its "Iron Heel (read the novel by Jack London, written in 1908, to be horrified by his very prescient view of the direction we are going as a country)."
Ignorance and denial are the enemy, not Mrs. Clinton and her amassing of money.
1
I'm a life long democrat. I am not nearly rich. I am a part of the lower middle class, and a retiree. I am very, very fed up with the money floating around political campaigns these past few years, and the turning of my elected officials into lottery winners. None of them seem to represent me or my interests in funding good public schools, a strong military, and on-going infrastructure projects that will move our country ahead.
For that reason, I support Bernie Sanders for President. As far as I know, Mr. Sanders is running for the people. He's not funded by corporations or big money. He has my interests at heart and will fight for them.
I think Mr. Sanders will get beaten by the money, but I am sick of seeing money walk away with my freedom and my country. If enough of us see it that way, maybe things can change. It's better than not trying.
For that reason, I support Bernie Sanders for President. As far as I know, Mr. Sanders is running for the people. He's not funded by corporations or big money. He has my interests at heart and will fight for them.
I think Mr. Sanders will get beaten by the money, but I am sick of seeing money walk away with my freedom and my country. If enough of us see it that way, maybe things can change. It's better than not trying.
7
It seems that this article's thesis is that the candidate able to raise the most money is more likely to win the election. If that's true, then how, really? Do you mean to tell me that the saturation of negative political ads paid for with the money from billionaire donors, funneled through super PACs, is all it takes to win a presidential election? Now I understand why all the critics of the Citizens United decision felt if would change the world. They were right; the office of the presidency is for sale to the highest bidder. Maybe it's been this way since before Citizens United, but at least the candidates tried to hide it. Now it's in broad daylight. How shameless.
2
Oliver. Most Americans have been deluded, offered insanity, and utmost denial pills to stave off the day when some of them might get it. What is the it?
History! Not the mellow swellow fellow type that bores the students as they travail through K-12. The Truth of America not taught, distorted and errors of omission and commission coupled with lies.
Columbus did not discover America. He landed on an island already inhabited by People who saved him, helped him and were well, more civilized.
Slavery was justified by lines like the Bible says it is OK and well, Africans have slaves too. One is a mythical source and the other self-serving. People in Africa had thriving cities, culture and more civilization than the intruders, invaders and colonialists who came to rape that Continent (as they did in the Americas).
American presidents were always selected in secret. Many readers might recall the expression, "smoke filled rooms'. washington won by acclaimation of white, rich slave and large land owners. Women (50% of the population), slaves (another sizable %), Native Americans (another substantial %) and even, yes even most white men without land or slaves, owned a business or had an education were not able to vote under state laws.
America likes war not peace. Wars against Native Americans continued until 1890. Ane there were Revoluntionary, 1812, Mexican, Civil, Spanish-American, WW I and II, cold and secret, Korean (Conflict), Vietnam, Iraq I and II, and Afghanistan wars.
History! Not the mellow swellow fellow type that bores the students as they travail through K-12. The Truth of America not taught, distorted and errors of omission and commission coupled with lies.
Columbus did not discover America. He landed on an island already inhabited by People who saved him, helped him and were well, more civilized.
Slavery was justified by lines like the Bible says it is OK and well, Africans have slaves too. One is a mythical source and the other self-serving. People in Africa had thriving cities, culture and more civilization than the intruders, invaders and colonialists who came to rape that Continent (as they did in the Americas).
American presidents were always selected in secret. Many readers might recall the expression, "smoke filled rooms'. washington won by acclaimation of white, rich slave and large land owners. Women (50% of the population), slaves (another sizable %), Native Americans (another substantial %) and even, yes even most white men without land or slaves, owned a business or had an education were not able to vote under state laws.
America likes war not peace. Wars against Native Americans continued until 1890. Ane there were Revoluntionary, 1812, Mexican, Civil, Spanish-American, WW I and II, cold and secret, Korean (Conflict), Vietnam, Iraq I and II, and Afghanistan wars.
1
If I remember correctly, Romney raised more money than Obama for '12 election. So, no, more $$$ is no guarantee of a win. Ask Rove.
...and then there's Senator Sanders:
Columbia Journalism Review:
On the eve of the 1948 presidential election, Newsweek asked the 50 reporters on President Truman’s campaign train to forecast the winner. To a man they went the way the Chicago Tribune infamously would on election night: “Dewey defeats Truman.” Lay historians will recall that not only did Truman defeat Dewey; he clobbered him. Sorting out how the media got it so wrong, The New York Times’ James Reston concluded that he and his brethren had been a lot like the aloof Governor Dewey himself, who was said to be the only man who could strut sitting down. Dewey played well with plutocrats and publishers. “[J]ust as he was too isolated with other politicians,” Reston wrote, “so we were too isolated with other reporters; and we, too, were far too impressed by the tidy statistics of the polls.”
This was true, but it fell to A. J. Liebling, the nonpareil of The New Yorker, to pick out the crucial vice that Reston and similarly minded colleagues overlooked. “A great wave of contrition hit the Washington newspaper world in the days immediately following the joyous catastrophe,” Liebling wrote, “and men swore that they would go out and dig for the real truths of politics as they never had dug before.
As Hendricks points out, Liebling’s most memorable bon mot is also his most eternal — “Freedom of the press is guaranteed only to those who own one.”
Columbia Journalism Review:
On the eve of the 1948 presidential election, Newsweek asked the 50 reporters on President Truman’s campaign train to forecast the winner. To a man they went the way the Chicago Tribune infamously would on election night: “Dewey defeats Truman.” Lay historians will recall that not only did Truman defeat Dewey; he clobbered him. Sorting out how the media got it so wrong, The New York Times’ James Reston concluded that he and his brethren had been a lot like the aloof Governor Dewey himself, who was said to be the only man who could strut sitting down. Dewey played well with plutocrats and publishers. “[J]ust as he was too isolated with other politicians,” Reston wrote, “so we were too isolated with other reporters; and we, too, were far too impressed by the tidy statistics of the polls.”
This was true, but it fell to A. J. Liebling, the nonpareil of The New Yorker, to pick out the crucial vice that Reston and similarly minded colleagues overlooked. “A great wave of contrition hit the Washington newspaper world in the days immediately following the joyous catastrophe,” Liebling wrote, “and men swore that they would go out and dig for the real truths of politics as they never had dug before.
As Hendricks points out, Liebling’s most memorable bon mot is also his most eternal — “Freedom of the press is guaranteed only to those who own one.”
3
I don't see the point of the Democratic Party If the Democratic Party can raise the same amount of money from the oligarchs as the Republican Party.
2
The point is, assuming what both parties are doing to raise money is now legal, the difference is in the Dem v Repub platforms: one party wants to expand war in the ME, gut SS and other services, eliminate ACA, give more tax breaks to themselves, and the other party wants shrink the gap between the very wealthiest and those of us in the bottom 90%, create jobs, fund education, etc. Perhaps even work toward overturning the Citizens United 'Corporations are people, my friend' ruling.
One Saturday afternoon in the Hamptons is all Hilary needs to fund her campaign.
6
Great article for those who have no interest in actually looking at the whole landscape. Redefine the focus to one subset of donors to meet the agenda. Why not look at the whole picture including the high millionaires, unions and soft money?
1
I think the left has plenty of billionaires in their stable. Soros is one that comes to mind very left wing and very active in politics.
2
I agree. The difference is the more centrists and lefties want to kick the tires and take a test drive through Primaryland before they commit their money on what will clearly turn out to be a total loser. Maybe and I admit I don't know so it is just supposition, but just maybe more of them actually earned their hard earned bucks rather than inheriting them, even though the amount they earned and/or how they earned it may be obscene.
Every election cycle we have these breathless articles about how the Democrats are just babes in the woods concerning campaign funding, and are just going to have to *force* themselves & their rich donors to get down & dirty to save us from the GOP funding juggernaut. In the end, though, the Democrats invariably raise as much money, often more. And often in less than demure ways.
And the reality is that these billionaires have had very little effect on the final results in elections they have sponsored. The Rove & Koch spending has elected approximately zero of the candidates they backed. Bloomberg spent millions to save a couple of Colorado gun control advocates & lost.
At best, the money has kept marginal candidates in the races. And that should not be seen as a bad thing. I prefer to have a Ron Paul or a Bernie Sanders in these races to make the mainstream candidate confront thorny problems. Rather than the bland pablum and vague policy pronouncements of those who are trying just to win (or not lose, as in Clintons case).
In the end, the American voter is not as malleable as these articles imply. The excess ads are often counterproductive to their stated cause, and voters usually vote for who they want, not just the ones with the largest campaign chests.
And the reality is that these billionaires have had very little effect on the final results in elections they have sponsored. The Rove & Koch spending has elected approximately zero of the candidates they backed. Bloomberg spent millions to save a couple of Colorado gun control advocates & lost.
At best, the money has kept marginal candidates in the races. And that should not be seen as a bad thing. I prefer to have a Ron Paul or a Bernie Sanders in these races to make the mainstream candidate confront thorny problems. Rather than the bland pablum and vague policy pronouncements of those who are trying just to win (or not lose, as in Clintons case).
In the end, the American voter is not as malleable as these articles imply. The excess ads are often counterproductive to their stated cause, and voters usually vote for who they want, not just the ones with the largest campaign chests.
3
This is just awful ! Our elections are all about mega bucks .. Buying the elections. Not about us poor folks voting. I have lost all hope for our political system and regardless of party ..this sucks .
2
We got to this place through Citizens United and ceasing to require radio and television stations to allow equal time for opposing points of view. As a consequence we now have an electorate thoroughly propagandized by well-funded hate media and candidates purchased by billionaires.
6
Do you think one reason why people aren't giving to Hillary yet is that she already amassed a fortune to campaign - and lose - in 2008? All that money thrown away and she couldn't even win the primary.
She's been on campaign since then. The campaign just never stops with her.
She and her live-apart "husband" Bill have proven themselves more than capable of earning more than enough to run a campaign but they want "the rich" to give them money instead of earning it themselves. The hypocrisy just knows no bounds.
I actually believe there are enough people who don't have a real grasp of the intricacies of economics, but who are fed up enough with trying to make a living in our broken system, that Bernie could win the primary with just a few million bucks.
She's been on campaign since then. The campaign just never stops with her.
She and her live-apart "husband" Bill have proven themselves more than capable of earning more than enough to run a campaign but they want "the rich" to give them money instead of earning it themselves. The hypocrisy just knows no bounds.
I actually believe there are enough people who don't have a real grasp of the intricacies of economics, but who are fed up enough with trying to make a living in our broken system, that Bernie could win the primary with just a few million bucks.
7
We have lost our attention to the true issues, based on reporting of the outrageous sums that must be raised to be a viable presidential candidate. I have become a one-issue voter: is the candidate going make it a priority to work for ending Citizens vs. United with a congressional amendment? Supreme Court reversal through naming of new judges will take too long. The country is falling apart and needs resuscitating now!
1
Both political parties eternally search for money to insure their mutual power and influence.
Cue "For the Love of Money" by the O'Jays and "Money" by Barrett Strong.
See Matthew 5-7 for the Sermon on the Mount blessing the poor, meek and peacemakers. Or Matthew 19:24 on it being easier for a camel to go through the eye of needle than for a rich man to enter the heavenly kingdom. Matthew 25:31-46 where the blessings of Christ are focused on the sick, imprisoned, homeless, hungry and poor.
Either corporate plutocrat money insures corrosive political inordinate influence and corruption in American politics no matter the source or politics of the money. Or not?
I am not a corporation nor a plutocrat. I have only one vote.
Cue "For the Love of Money" by the O'Jays and "Money" by Barrett Strong.
See Matthew 5-7 for the Sermon on the Mount blessing the poor, meek and peacemakers. Or Matthew 19:24 on it being easier for a camel to go through the eye of needle than for a rich man to enter the heavenly kingdom. Matthew 25:31-46 where the blessings of Christ are focused on the sick, imprisoned, homeless, hungry and poor.
Either corporate plutocrat money insures corrosive political inordinate influence and corruption in American politics no matter the source or politics of the money. Or not?
I am not a corporation nor a plutocrat. I have only one vote.
1
A party that has an excellent candidate, with intellect, experience and a history of care for our country, will naturally support her. A party with only weak candidates naturally attracts more candidates who think they are at least better than those guys. That's the situation we have. Now, on top of that comes the fact that the Republican part has greater access to cash, which the Supreme Court has made the royal road to election.
The "megadonors" have already bought and paid for her in their contributions to their "charity" and speech making. You can only tap the well so many times before it runs dry, even when talking about billionaires.
4
Mrs. Clinton will have no trouble raising funds. Billionaires from Saudi Arabia and other foreign countries will be happy to launder their political contributions to her via "donations" to the Clinton Foundation.
Maybe she can get a few hundred million from Vlad Putin -- that's what the reset was really all about.
Maybe she can get a few hundred million from Vlad Putin -- that's what the reset was really all about.
7
"Democrats Seek a Richer Roster to Match G.O.P."
Oh no, no, no. According to many conservatives the Democratic party is the party of rich, aloof know-it-alls who want to control your life while Republicans are hard working blue collar folks just trying to get by. You must be wrong NYTimes.
One detail that is rarely brought up is the background of these rich donors. Republicans have to keep up the narrative of the rags to riches billionaire to keep their ignorant voter base happy. What most don't know is that most of these billionaires come from rich or upper middle class families.
Oh no, no, no. According to many conservatives the Democratic party is the party of rich, aloof know-it-alls who want to control your life while Republicans are hard working blue collar folks just trying to get by. You must be wrong NYTimes.
One detail that is rarely brought up is the background of these rich donors. Republicans have to keep up the narrative of the rags to riches billionaire to keep their ignorant voter base happy. What most don't know is that most of these billionaires come from rich or upper middle class families.
1
It's over people. We no longer have a government for the people. This article makes clear (as if there had been any doubt for a long time) that we live in a plutocracy. Our government and nearly all of its representatives bought and paid for. It doesn't matter what they say about getting money out of politics, or economic justice or unemployment or any of a host of issues that citizens care deeply about. Their loyalty goes to the highest bidder. Whether it's the nefarious Koch brothers or Hillary's dear friend Alice Walton, it is basically all the same. It's lovely how it's all out in the open though. No effort is made to hide the explicit bribery anymore. Just the rancid corruption that runs our government all front and center for the entire world to behold. Military contractors, hedge fund types, environment destroyers, wage-slave employers...the highest pinnacles of the 1% in all their shameless, immoral glory. And the presidential candidates (with the exception of Bernie Sanders) will repeat the phrases the public wants to hear while taking millions (billions) of dollars from their real constituencies.
16
Ah, that's nonsense. You are practicing an "outrage hobby." It pleases you to be outraged. Campaigns cost money. Do you expect volunteers to make TV ads? Do you think this money goes to the politician? You really need to investigate what bribery & corruption mean. But as I say, it pleases you to be outraged, so I figure you will stand pat.
Yes, but remember it's only the Democrats who rail against the 1% while grabbing their dough on Park Avenue, in Hollywood, and in the Hamptons. So while each party has its big money donors, the word "hypocrisy" in this respect applies only to that party.
And, this doesn't get in the way of your representation in Washington I assume. So, this whole arrangement is to your satisfaction? Nothing to see here...just move along and let's continue to pay for those expensive television ads. This is the way it's done after all. Don't be outraged, stay nice and smug and contained...it's all just business as usual. Good for you.
Mrs. Clinton and her "Slick Willy" sidekick are epic thieves and influence peddlers. They've been bought, sold, sold and re-bought. When the dust settles the money will be found for a Presidency that will be as corrupt as that of Grant or Harding.
10
Or as corrupt as GW Bush, let's hope not.
Bravo Ronald. You clearly know Mr and Mrs Slick Willy as well as I do. In Arkansas the saying was:
"The good thing about the Clintons is that they can be bought. The bad thing about the Clintons is that they don't stay bought."
"The good thing about the Clintons is that they can be bought. The bad thing about the Clintons is that they don't stay bought."
Stick a fork in this "democracy", it's done. Just as Russia proved that Communism is a fatally flawed system that will not work, the US is doing the same for uncontrolled capitalism. We need a more humane model!
37
Uncontrolled capitalism? Please read the federal register! The country's done because of the uncontrolled government
Bingo. You nailed the truth with that simple comment. Ever since the coup d-etat in November of 1963, when those who "really" run this country organized the murder and cover-up of our duly elected President, this country has been headed in this sad direction.
Which is one reason I just got my citizenship papers for a country that still cares about its people: Canada.
Which is one reason I just got my citizenship papers for a country that still cares about its people: Canada.
1
More in the line of an increasingly fascist big government that tries to tax and regulate all facets of life. The USA is a long way from an uncontrolled capitalism as any person in private sector business will tell you. When people ask the governments to do do any thing or control some behavior there are consequences. Liberal Progressives have been in control of the US federal government for most of the last 85years. So what are you talking about uncontroled capitalism?
"Fearful of violating the rules, Mrs. Clinton plans to limit her direct appeals to donors". Really? Is there anyone who read this that actually thinks that the Clintons are fearful of violating any rules?
13
why don't we just auction the office of President on EBAY?
27
Best comment yet.
All political contributions should be taxed !00% and the proceeds
used for public funding of qualified candidates for political office
during a campaign period legally restricted to no more than 90 days.
used for public funding of qualified candidates for political office
during a campaign period legally restricted to no more than 90 days.
6
Will,
And who determines who is "qualified"? Would freshman Senator Barack Obama (with virtually zero track record) have been considered qualified in 2008? Be careful what you wish for.
And who determines who is "qualified"? Would freshman Senator Barack Obama (with virtually zero track record) have been considered qualified in 2008? Be careful what you wish for.
It will be a dark decade for the average American if the Republicans control the presidency, the house and the Senate. But, as a previous commenter mentioned, if the average American gets their influence from the advertising campaigns, then they deserve what's coming to them. Only sad that I and others, as well as my family, none are millionaires, my grandchildren will suffer from these brainwashed, uninformed individuals. I don't watch the ads, nor Fox News for that matter. Nor reality TV.
14
Agree. My concern is for my grandchildren as well. In another era I might have wondered what schools would be best for their education. Now I ask to which country to emigrate.
1
Why is "courting donors" an "enduring controversy" for the Clintons when it clearly isn't for republicans? George W Bush hosted more donors than the Clintons during his White House tenure, but you'd never know it from this paper. It is a continuing annoyance that the Clinton Rules still apply.
3
This paper still defends its Whitewater coverage as accurate. Don't expect it to change.
Well Gee there is basically only one Dem - Hillary, there are at least 20 Republicans. Seems like Hillary won't be short of money since she has almost no competition and plenty of wealthy progressives funding the robbing of the American taxpayer and citizen of both money and our unique culture. Simple!!!
4
You have to admire reporters who have a good sense of humor: "Fearful of violating the rules, Mrs. Clinton plans to ..."l
14
Stop and think for a moment about why the candidates feel they need to raise stratospheric amounts of campaign dollars. Partly, it's keeping up with the Koch brothers. Partly, it's to cover the cost of the campaign organization. Some goes to advertising, although Super Pacs have this area largely covered.
The major requirement of any Presidential campaign is to spend whatever it takes on get out the vote efforts. Think about that, fellow citizens. We are at the point in our elected representative government that candidates must pay to persuade would-be voters to actually vote. This is especially true on the Democratic side, but both parties have to mount extensive GOTV campaigns just to get their dependables to go to the polls. Increasingly, these piles of cash are expended on trying to attract independent voters, who are the ones who are becoming the most difficult to persuade, as well as the most estranged politically.
The process wouldn't need so much money if we had candidates people really liked and respected. Candidates you'd want to cast your vote for.
The major requirement of any Presidential campaign is to spend whatever it takes on get out the vote efforts. Think about that, fellow citizens. We are at the point in our elected representative government that candidates must pay to persuade would-be voters to actually vote. This is especially true on the Democratic side, but both parties have to mount extensive GOTV campaigns just to get their dependables to go to the polls. Increasingly, these piles of cash are expended on trying to attract independent voters, who are the ones who are becoming the most difficult to persuade, as well as the most estranged politically.
The process wouldn't need so much money if we had candidates people really liked and respected. Candidates you'd want to cast your vote for.
37
how about candidates that once elected actually do what they say and improve rather than destroy the country
I had a visceral feeling of the life draining from our democracy as I read this article. Many words about the intricacies of raising money from the very wealthy while virtually nothing about the policy choices that could make our country better.
I get it, ''no unilateral disarmament,'' Citizens United, etc. But really.
It is not an original thought, but we should really require candidates to wear sponsorship patches while seeking our votes, like Indy-car drivers.
''Sponsored by the Koch Brothers.'' ''Sponsored by Jeffrey Katzenberg.'' ''Sponsored by Sheldon Adelson.''
We know, after the election, that these are the people whose phone calls will be answered. We should know in advance who the paying sponsors are and what they want from the government we used to believe in as of, by and for the people.
I get it, ''no unilateral disarmament,'' Citizens United, etc. But really.
It is not an original thought, but we should really require candidates to wear sponsorship patches while seeking our votes, like Indy-car drivers.
''Sponsored by the Koch Brothers.'' ''Sponsored by Jeffrey Katzenberg.'' ''Sponsored by Sheldon Adelson.''
We know, after the election, that these are the people whose phone calls will be answered. We should know in advance who the paying sponsors are and what they want from the government we used to believe in as of, by and for the people.
12
No mention in the article of Bernie Sanders grass roots efforts as an alternative to the candidates who are puppets of billionaires trying to buy the election. The media is so much at fault and complicit with big money donors and their bought and paid for candidates receiving mention in articles like this one. Please, NY Times, at least mention Sen. Sanders in your articles as the the candidate who has no superPAC.
21
Impedimentus, you have brought up one of the characteristics about Bernie Sanders that more people would learn about if the media would do its job - his INTEGRITY. Follow him and listen to what he says and you will soon realize that he is genuine, honest, highly intelligent, thoughtful, and most of all, NOT FOR SALE. His primary focus is to revitalize the middle class, lift people out of poverty and make everyone pay their share to run the country. He believes in free college tuition, health care for everyone and breaking up banks that are "too big to fail". In fact, anyone who doesn't see that voting for Bernie Sanders is in their best interest is undoubtedly in the 1% that now own the country.
1
Well, anyone who believes in their own fables, from either party, promotes the probability of failure through ignorance: "If you asked them to put up $100 million for a hospital wing, they’d be the first in line." That quote, my friends, is a flat out fairy tale concocted from the purest grade of fiction. Few super-wealthy Democrats are charitable or philanthropists; after you quickly rattle off the few that come immediately to mind, the list is exhaustively complete.
"Democrats concede that they may simply be outgunned in the battle for wealthy donors. 'It’s really David versus Goliath.'" Again, an assertion based on nothing but pre-supposed fiction. These days there are every bit as many and probably more super wealthy Democrats than Republicans. If Democrats want to concede the money battle to Republicans, then that is a pointless and self-inflicted wound. Could we maybe get a news story that is dressed with hard data rather than supported by plausible-sounding narratives whether they be true or not?
"Democrats concede that they may simply be outgunned in the battle for wealthy donors. 'It’s really David versus Goliath.'" Again, an assertion based on nothing but pre-supposed fiction. These days there are every bit as many and probably more super wealthy Democrats than Republicans. If Democrats want to concede the money battle to Republicans, then that is a pointless and self-inflicted wound. Could we maybe get a news story that is dressed with hard data rather than supported by plausible-sounding narratives whether they be true or not?
4
"Absence of a competitive race for the Democratic nomination"?! What the heck is that? What this statement represents is the never-ending garbage that we hear about how we have no choice but to vote for Clinton because she is the "lesser of two evils". This despite the fact that there seems to be some information that comes out every other day about her being beholden to big money, big business and big names. The above quote makes me want to scream, but, since I don't want to wake up the kids, I have to pound on my couch instead. I will NOT vote for Clinton. WILL NOT. WILL NOT. WILL NOT. Period. If Bernie Sanders does not get the nomination, I'll be sitting the election out. I am sick and tired of thinking and saying the phrase "same as it ever was, same as it ever was". ENOUGH already, for God's sake. I 'm sure Clinton will find more than enough billionaires to fund her campaign and buy from her whatever they want for doing so. Guess what, Hilary? "I don't care what you say, I never believed you much anyway. Get out of my way, let me by, I got better use of my time. I don't care anymore". BERNIE, BERNIE, BERNIE, BERNIE!!!!! Only he can stop our never-ending trip down the "highway to hell!"
19
Karla - If you don't vote you are kidding yourself - not voting casts a vote for one of those in the GOP clown car!
Maybe, just maybe, many are frustrated by Hillary's always legal, but just barely, conflation of personal, business and political affairs. I know I am. I will not vote for a republican but in good conscience I could not contribute to such a shady candidate and if nominated I will not vote for the first time.
8
Jack - We MUST VOTE! Not voting is a good part of the problem! Potential voters who don't vote vastly outnumber those who do!
Hillary wants rich people to give her money. That's rich.
6
The problem is that those who strike it rich, by whatever stroke of luck and good fortune, become Republican. Why? Because they can then own their own politicians and get the legislation they want. It's called Oligarchy.
1
You apparently haven't looked at the list lately. Schultz, Schmidt, Gates...all liberals. And that side's list is <em> long. </em>
Here's a thought. HRC is not a lock for the nomination and people are keeping their powder dry. I'm disgusted by the Clinton "Foundation" and the tactics they use. Look at her polling numbers and negatives.
If the DNC kisses her crown and gives her the nomination, they are handing the next 8 years to the GOP.
If the DNC kisses her crown and gives her the nomination, they are handing the next 8 years to the GOP.
10
National democratic committee please understand that many democrats and independents are struggling morally with the prospect of voting for Clinton. There is no doubt in anyone's mind that she is far ahead financially than any current and future primary candidate and has the credentials to run. That said, many of us just can't accept the thought of giving her the Whitehouse. As an independent I have voted democrate during the past two Presedential elections but at this point if a moderate Republican were to run I would change parties. My disdain for Clinton overrides my other mindful grievances against the republican ideology. In other words Clinton is a liability to the party and the committee needs to move fast to find a candidate with experience and a charismatic personality. In my humble opinion she won't win in the end.
2
Try exploring the possibility of voting Bernie Sanders.
1
I like the analogy of David and Goliath. You know what happened there. Let the Republicans out raise, out spend. That will not help.
Maybe people are reluctant to give her money because she has lied so often and because she couldn't even obey the rules set for her by her boss regarding her job at the State Dept.
Also, the fakes accents are enough lose my interest.
Also, the fakes accents are enough lose my interest.
6
"Hey, hey, hey, step right up! Brand new, shiny presidency for sale with, get this, NO STRINGS ATTACHED! That's right, folks, for a limited time, as long as 'Moneybuck's Robert's and His Supremes' are in charge, the election's for sale and it's all, get this, LEGAL because the Supreme Court says a few million bucks really doesn't sway opinions! Folks, I may have been born 'at night' but I wasn't born 'last night' and since this opportunity may pass you by, I suggest you start sending your money in right now"!
I understand Nigeria and Syria are sending "observers" to the 2016 election just to ensure the appropriate amount of "Legalized Bribery" is administered.
And the last I heard, the Statue of Liberty was buying an aqualung for her return trip; she's not needed around here anymore.
I understand Nigeria and Syria are sending "observers" to the 2016 election just to ensure the appropriate amount of "Legalized Bribery" is administered.
And the last I heard, the Statue of Liberty was buying an aqualung for her return trip; she's not needed around here anymore.
4
There was a time when the issues were the most important. where candidates had to prove what they can do for the voter and the country. That they had detailed plans and a detailed agenda.
Now. All the candidate needs is a great deal of money. Issues have faded in the background. Once the election is over, and the candidate is seated, they new elected do what they are told by those who paid to put them in office. Even if it means going counter to what they told the voters (the Obama Administration is a classic example).
So, to read an article like only drives home the point that our nation's elections no longer are designed to put the best candidate in office, but to put a person who is a puppet of their benefactor. We have the Us Supreme Court to thank for this.
The worse part about this, by the time the 2016 election is over, probably close to $10 billion or more would have been spent on attack ads, primaries, debates, robocalls and the like. Great for the media; lousy for the voter. Apparently spending this kind of money is a small investment to increase their wealth further, and decrease the wealth of everyone else.
It is going to be a long, expensive and trying 17 months. In the end, we will end up with another pawn of the so called 1%.
Now. All the candidate needs is a great deal of money. Issues have faded in the background. Once the election is over, and the candidate is seated, they new elected do what they are told by those who paid to put them in office. Even if it means going counter to what they told the voters (the Obama Administration is a classic example).
So, to read an article like only drives home the point that our nation's elections no longer are designed to put the best candidate in office, but to put a person who is a puppet of their benefactor. We have the Us Supreme Court to thank for this.
The worse part about this, by the time the 2016 election is over, probably close to $10 billion or more would have been spent on attack ads, primaries, debates, robocalls and the like. Great for the media; lousy for the voter. Apparently spending this kind of money is a small investment to increase their wealth further, and decrease the wealth of everyone else.
It is going to be a long, expensive and trying 17 months. In the end, we will end up with another pawn of the so called 1%.
7
At the end of the day the same money will end up supporting all of the legitimate candidates. Money with a purpose doesn't bet on one side against the other.
1
If Hilary Clinton's commitment to "toppling" the 1% is an honest point of view then why would anyone who aspires to be successful or those who have achieved success underwrite that vision of the country?
If it is simply a political untruth, then she is not an honest person. Either way, hardly the ground that you want to fertilize.
If it is simply a political untruth, then she is not an honest person. Either way, hardly the ground that you want to fertilize.
7
If this article was instead about how REPUBLICANS were trying to scare up big money the commentary long knives would be out in force on this board. There would be an obligatory reference followed by an epithet to the Citizens United decision, ubiquitous references to "banksters", "the one percent" "white privilege" and so on. But nope, this is about Hillary and therefore she gets a pass on the fact that she is seeking the same dirty influence money that Republicans are. In fact, I see plenty of my favorite democrat rationalization on this issue, you know the garbage about how it would be foolish for the democrats to "unilaterally disarm" on the money issue. Hypocritical? you bet.
6
Not all Democrats support Hillary. My money goes to Bernie.
Not one farthing for Mrs. Clinton, who, with her husband, has transmogrified the Democratic party into a belligerent war machine and one at the service of multinationals. Her goal of raising $1B speaks volumes about the corrupting influence of money. I wish Ickes's father were still around, absolutely incorruptible.
If the party doesn't deserve to win on its traditional merits, going back to FDR, the CIO, and WPA, so be it. Better to go down honorably than to emulate the fascistic tendencies of the opposition. Money has become an abhorrent agency of a society that has lost its way, its promise as a democratic polity. How can America face the world when its inner corruption is so manifest.
Searching for a Democratic Adelson is like wishing the demise of a government responsive to the needs of its people and its times. I look forward to the money juggernaut of Mrs. Clinton's nomination (and possible victory) as the death knell of the Republic.
If the party doesn't deserve to win on its traditional merits, going back to FDR, the CIO, and WPA, so be it. Better to go down honorably than to emulate the fascistic tendencies of the opposition. Money has become an abhorrent agency of a society that has lost its way, its promise as a democratic polity. How can America face the world when its inner corruption is so manifest.
Searching for a Democratic Adelson is like wishing the demise of a government responsive to the needs of its people and its times. I look forward to the money juggernaut of Mrs. Clinton's nomination (and possible victory) as the death knell of the Republic.
8
The US system is a little bit better than what we see from FIFA.
43
I'm not sure about this I think our politicians are just better at covering their tracks.
Is really it money or is it a lot are looking for someone new to step forward and they saw how she she blew in 2008. My personal opinion a lot of people just don't like her I don't and it is not because I am a man. I would have supported Elizabeth Warren or Kirsten Gillibrand both are younger and progressive as I am.
5
I am going to buy a car in the fall. I have the money. The car I order will be there. Do I need to put a deposit on it so the salesman can take an early commission ? I don't think so.
If money is the bottom line in the US Presidential race, why not simply count the donations as of election day, skip the election, and give the Presidency to whoever has the biggest pile of money? If the Democrat wins, the money goes to help the poor. If the Republican wins, the money goes to the Military-Industrial-Complex.
6
If the Democrats win, they will SAY they will help the poor, but they will naturally line their own pockets. It’s their nature.
actually the MIC gets the money no matter who is elected.
Why would anyone - Democrat or Republican support Hillary Clinton? What has she done to earn your support? I am disgusted with the Clinton's money games with their "Charity foundation". If i hear one more time Bill sating that they have to charge these ridiculous fees to "pay bills I will scream. Its time for honest examination of her track record, she is NOT qualified and is of questionable character.
11
BobsOpinion: And who, pray tell, is qualified in the GOP line-up?
Oh, great, that's what we need - billionaires. Then we'll be just like the...
1
To choose the President of the United States we no longer have an election. Instead we have an auction.
10
I thought that all the big donors were locked up by Clinton, because other Dems couldn't raise money. Clinton owned the big donors. Now she's crying poverty? I'll hold my nose and vote for her in the general, but this just reeks of mendacity.
4
A sure way for Hillary/Democrats to win: DON'T GO THE BIG MONEY
ROUTE because voters are sickened by it!
Instead, maybe, ask her would-be donors to do as Ickes makes note of:
Do hospital wings, etc. A great way to actually be noble in the
crazy Citizens United era.
Hillary being Hillary, she'd garner P.R. that's more effective than attack ads anyhow.
ROUTE because voters are sickened by it!
Instead, maybe, ask her would-be donors to do as Ickes makes note of:
Do hospital wings, etc. A great way to actually be noble in the
crazy Citizens United era.
Hillary being Hillary, she'd garner P.R. that's more effective than attack ads anyhow.
Yeah, phoniness always wins. She wants to be the “champion of the middle class,” as she sells political favors and siphons off $millions in “charitable contributions.” This should make anyone sick.
so far I have heard about the Clinton's fund,,, small change if you ask me... the Koch bros and a lot of nonsense from walker huckabee and others
Is there any chace we can get to see, hear, read what Jeb Bush, the real candidate has to say ???
Is there any chace we can get to see, hear, read what Jeb Bush, the real candidate has to say ???
so if we take the Republican total and divide it by 10-12 candidates, and counting. Hillary is in the lead!
We need a third party! Both parties are sucking up, and for sale, to the super rich. Who is speaking up for the poor?
8
YangJing: Bernie Sanders is speaking up for the poor? And it is possible that Martin O'Malley will too - haven't heard enough from him to know, at this point.
Bernie Sanders, Independent, is sticking up for the poor. That's who.
Bernie Sanders
It is beginning to seem apparent that the Supreme Court's finding that political contributions are a form of "free speech" is so. Billionaires didn't become wealthy throwing money at a losing candidate with more baggage than an Amtrak train. They, like the rest of us, are fed up with the Clintons and their greedy and corrupt politics. To be sure, there are many good Democrats and they, I submit, will either stay home or vote for someone other than HRC. And, they will not waste their money on a loser.
30
Not so, when you consider the Republican alternatives. Most, if not all, are bashing women over Abortion & making life difficult in states they control. All are taking money from odious Billionaires. Jeb Bush alone has probably raised $1 Billion. Clinton does not come to the race with pristine clean hands, but she needs money to compete; TV advertising is expensive as are Field operations. Both are needed to get lower class Democrats and many Independents to vote.
1
Most reputable political pundits and wonks say that the Democrats won in 2012 because 2 million Republicans stayed home. Those two million Republicans did not cross party lines and vote for the Democrat no more than the two or more million Democrats that stay home in 2016 will cross party lines and vote for the Republican alternative. The Independents are not party loyalists and tend to go with whoever shows promise of having integrity and sound policies. They will stay away from HRC if she's the Democrat candidate.
People with mentality like this were the ones that - through making unprepared Obama the Presidential candidate in 2008 - achieved the total domination of Congress by the Republicans. Our economy, our societal cohesion, and our foreign relations would have been in much better shape had HRC become the President 7 years ago, baggage or what.
“It’s really David versus Goliath,” said Chris Lehane, a Democratic strategist and adviser to Mr. Steyer. They hosted a fund-raiser for Mrs. Clinton at Mr. Steyer’s San Francisco home this month, with donations capped at $2,700."
Well, this is lazy reportage meeting with democratic myth making. Try these folks on for size: Alan Patricoff, Marc Lasry, Daniel Loeb, Bill Ackman, Richard Perry, Lloyd Blankfein, David Einhorn, just to name a few. Already major contributors, with a combined net worth well in excess of the Koch Brothers and all democrats -- though some prefer candidates other than Hillary. The sheer wealth flowing to democrats from current and former Silicon Valley is staggering: Pierre Omidyar, Jeffrey Skoll, Eric Schmidt the majority of venture capitalists, etc. Then there are the movie people...
Take a tour of opensecrets.org and see for yourself. The rich give to both sides, except in the rare case like the Koch brothers, and that way they assure themselves of buying those in office -- that is their real power.
Well, this is lazy reportage meeting with democratic myth making. Try these folks on for size: Alan Patricoff, Marc Lasry, Daniel Loeb, Bill Ackman, Richard Perry, Lloyd Blankfein, David Einhorn, just to name a few. Already major contributors, with a combined net worth well in excess of the Koch Brothers and all democrats -- though some prefer candidates other than Hillary. The sheer wealth flowing to democrats from current and former Silicon Valley is staggering: Pierre Omidyar, Jeffrey Skoll, Eric Schmidt the majority of venture capitalists, etc. Then there are the movie people...
Take a tour of opensecrets.org and see for yourself. The rich give to both sides, except in the rare case like the Koch brothers, and that way they assure themselves of buying those in office -- that is their real power.
10
Or George Soros?
No wonder rich want more money so they can buy more
politicians. They are called job creators, sure enough
they are creating jobs for the politicians, lobbyists and
political consultants. It is not surprising that American
style democracy didn't take hold in Iraq and Afganistan
because there are not many rich people there. Next time
we invade a country to establish democracy we should
figure out the number of millionaires and billionaires in the
country.
politicians. They are called job creators, sure enough
they are creating jobs for the politicians, lobbyists and
political consultants. It is not surprising that American
style democracy didn't take hold in Iraq and Afganistan
because there are not many rich people there. Next time
we invade a country to establish democracy we should
figure out the number of millionaires and billionaires in the
country.
This is sad. There was a time when I could contribute $200.00 to a political candidate and get back $100.00 from the Federal Government on my tax returns. $300.00 was a significant contribution in those days, but it didn't get me special access to the candidate. But it made me feel like a full citizen. Now, we have turned both our economic system and our political system over to the most wealthy and powerful people in the country. Another reason I'm with Bernie.
23
Berne Sanders may have zero chance of winning the nomination but he has started a conversation which will be a non-stop nagging antagonist for Clinton throughout the campaign. He will not be the candidate of the Democratic Party but he will certainly be its conscience.
18
Don't underestimate the power of the frustrated and betrayed voters of Obama. We actually learn from our mistake. Voting for Hillary in 2016 is one huge future mistake, there is actually a real alternative but people are still swayed by party loyalties and blind support for the wrong candidate. We have Bernie Sanders who is running a campaign without super rich donors and you people are still talking about not voting. What in the heck are you looking for?
1
Regardless of the amount of money needed to win a political campaign there are two ways to raise that needed funds. You can focus on big contributions or raise the total from many smaller gifts. One problem with the Republican candidates is each has giver that provides majority of the funds they have. that makes that contributor a powerful advisor.
If Hilary Clinton needs $1 billion to run her campaign one thousand people giving $1 million reach that goal. Funds from lessor amounts can be aggregated to replace one of those givers. I see this example as a preference over really large givers and their out sized influence.
If Hilary Clinton needs $1 billion to run her campaign one thousand people giving $1 million reach that goal. Funds from lessor amounts can be aggregated to replace one of those givers. I see this example as a preference over really large givers and their out sized influence.
3
"Influence Peddlers Run Campaign To Garner More High Dollar Clients"
9
Best comment of the day!
With a Republican candidate coming forward every week and at times every other day, the democrats feel left out in the cold in regard to media attention. With uncertainty about the level of enthusiasm for the HRC campaign as the scrutiny begins and rummaging of the new baggage occurs, there is hope for those who had given up on considering a run.
2
HOGWASH
I see multiple stories daily about Hillary's lackluster campaign and her sleazy 'charity' that spends only 10% on charity.
I see multiple stories daily about Hillary's lackluster campaign and her sleazy 'charity' that spends only 10% on charity.
I wanted to add to my earlier comment that it would be a very interesting 2016 presidential race if prominent Independents like Bloomberg make a run and provide more viable choices.
I don't think Hillary has anything to worry about.
Millions of closed minded, Liberals and those that were told all their lives that they need a Democrat to take care of them will vote for her.
I feel sorry for those people and hope that some day they will do their own homework and stop listening to Hollywood or the Liberal press and make their own decision.
Millions of closed minded, Liberals and those that were told all their lives that they need a Democrat to take care of them will vote for her.
I feel sorry for those people and hope that some day they will do their own homework and stop listening to Hollywood or the Liberal press and make their own decision.
8
@Joe Paper
Fortunately, the Republican party is not afflicted by the close minded. They know that Republicans will take care of them. Empirical evidence when they do their homework all points in one direction. Look at the huge success their approach is achieving in places like Kansas and Louisiana. Then of course there was the massive benefits brought to the US by the truly inspired presidency of G. W. Bush which is going to go down in history as one of the greatest on record. Thank god there are clear thinkers like Joe around to describe reality to uncomprehending and close minded liberals.
Fortunately, the Republican party is not afflicted by the close minded. They know that Republicans will take care of them. Empirical evidence when they do their homework all points in one direction. Look at the huge success their approach is achieving in places like Kansas and Louisiana. Then of course there was the massive benefits brought to the US by the truly inspired presidency of G. W. Bush which is going to go down in history as one of the greatest on record. Thank god there are clear thinkers like Joe around to describe reality to uncomprehending and close minded liberals.
6
Hillary Clinton is sucking the air of the democratic big cheeses, by reminding them they they owe her and she owns them. She cannot do that to the ordinary voter, though.
9
I still remember the Clintons selling the Lincoln bedroom.
What will they offer to "outside" donors of ten million or more?
What will they offer to "outside" donors of ten million or more?
10
What will ANY candidate give for that kind of donation? A night in the Lincoln Bedroom seems quaint now as a reward for donations compared to what republicans require from their donors.
I wonder how much of the $190,000 in White House furniture they stole when they left is still in their possession? Maybe they sold it on ebay?
Apparently the Clintons have a nice stash coming through that "pass through". Maybe they should just fund her candidacy themselves. If you've got it, use it.
Oh that's right, they throw their own quarters around like man hole covers.
Let other suckers pay for their political compulsions!
Oh that's right, they throw their own quarters around like man hole covers.
Let other suckers pay for their political compulsions!
This article certainly shows me I'm not wrong when I claim that Republicans have most of the dough and have been the ones to benefit the most from oceans of cash set free by Citizens United.
Where do all these false figures come from? 2.5 billion for Hillary's campaign--comments resurrected in postings here to claim the Clintons are raising more money than the GOP.
Of course, why do I care? What's sickening is that the Times has this story on its front page. Not something about issues, positions, agendas, and policies. No: who's winning the funding derby. So much money. All to purchase government policies and votes to further enrich the donors. They get a splendid ROI. Just ask the Kochs as they continue to plunder the environment with their dirty industries. Less so Adelson who backed the wrong horse in 2012.
Perhaps, if Hillary is smart, and realizes she can't level the money pit, she should focus on what she originally spoke about: a constitutional amendment, or national referendum, on campaign financing. When the NYT is publishing two or three articles daily about fundraising for an election still 16 months away, something is seriously wrong.
Let's see how fed up the American people are with money in politics. Go ahead, Hillary, I dare you: make campaign finance reform the centerpiece of your campaign and see if ordinary citizens follow with their votes.
Where do all these false figures come from? 2.5 billion for Hillary's campaign--comments resurrected in postings here to claim the Clintons are raising more money than the GOP.
Of course, why do I care? What's sickening is that the Times has this story on its front page. Not something about issues, positions, agendas, and policies. No: who's winning the funding derby. So much money. All to purchase government policies and votes to further enrich the donors. They get a splendid ROI. Just ask the Kochs as they continue to plunder the environment with their dirty industries. Less so Adelson who backed the wrong horse in 2012.
Perhaps, if Hillary is smart, and realizes she can't level the money pit, she should focus on what she originally spoke about: a constitutional amendment, or national referendum, on campaign financing. When the NYT is publishing two or three articles daily about fundraising for an election still 16 months away, something is seriously wrong.
Let's see how fed up the American people are with money in politics. Go ahead, Hillary, I dare you: make campaign finance reform the centerpiece of your campaign and see if ordinary citizens follow with their votes.
92
"Go ahead, Hillary, I dare you: make campaign finance reform the centerpiece of your campaign and see if ordinary citizens follow with their votes."
Bernie Sanders is doing just that. And refusing to do this ridiculous groveling at the feet of billionaires. And he's pulled in a nice pile of small donations. And he's polling at 15% and climbing.
Oh, and not mentioned at all in this article about "Democrats", by which the editors mean "the Hillary Clinton campaign".
Bernie Sanders is doing just that. And refusing to do this ridiculous groveling at the feet of billionaires. And he's pulled in a nice pile of small donations. And he's polling at 15% and climbing.
Oh, and not mentioned at all in this article about "Democrats", by which the editors mean "the Hillary Clinton campaign".
1
Forget about campaign financing, cut the size of the federal government and then bribes won't be so alluring. Term limits for congress, and a new "common good" definition would take care of all of this. Hillary will have no shortage of money in the general election and needs little to dispatch the nonexistence competition in the primaries.
spot-on, Christine!
I hope Samuel Alito is happy, sure this would not be a consequence of Citizens United.
Our politics is for sale, and the big corporate money is conservate. These are the no tax, no regulation conservatives trying to wreck our social fabric and bring each sector to Third World status (so an investor can step in to rescue...)
We've had years of them since Reagan. Since the Bush tax cuts and wars we are resembling nothing so much as a permanent war economy living in an oligarchic, predatory capitalistic MadMax feeding frenzy.
Democrats are energized by Bernie, he tells the truth. Elizabeth Warren isn't afraid to call out the sacred bank's role in this debacle.
But we need a strongman with tons of money to get elected in this corrupted atmosphere, and Hillary knows the game, knows the pitfalls and eats scandals for breakfast. She knows all the world leaders, their countries, as well as having worked her whole life in public service. She is smart.
Contrast that with any of the Republicans on offer and we have to get behind Hillary, even w/o great excitement like we had for Obama. There's too much at stake, and the House & Senate are already even more dysfunctional under Republican control.
If Democrats can keep control of that message---take a look at the facts. Yes it's less than ideal but this is survival. We have to live the consequences.
Our politics is for sale, and the big corporate money is conservate. These are the no tax, no regulation conservatives trying to wreck our social fabric and bring each sector to Third World status (so an investor can step in to rescue...)
We've had years of them since Reagan. Since the Bush tax cuts and wars we are resembling nothing so much as a permanent war economy living in an oligarchic, predatory capitalistic MadMax feeding frenzy.
Democrats are energized by Bernie, he tells the truth. Elizabeth Warren isn't afraid to call out the sacred bank's role in this debacle.
But we need a strongman with tons of money to get elected in this corrupted atmosphere, and Hillary knows the game, knows the pitfalls and eats scandals for breakfast. She knows all the world leaders, their countries, as well as having worked her whole life in public service. She is smart.
Contrast that with any of the Republicans on offer and we have to get behind Hillary, even w/o great excitement like we had for Obama. There's too much at stake, and the House & Senate are already even more dysfunctional under Republican control.
If Democrats can keep control of that message---take a look at the facts. Yes it's less than ideal but this is survival. We have to live the consequences.
9
No judge should care one whit about the consequences of their decision. Either something is constitutional or not. If we don't like the result of following the constitution simply amend it. We have that option. Many of our problems exist because the three branches won't do their jobs properly and some other branch decides that they must over step their authority to make the "right" thing happen. simple!!
It would have been so wonderful to have been able to have voted for a woman. Sadly, the woman has no depth whatsoever and is so corrupt you can see it with every statement she makes (or doesn;t make) Ask her a difficult question and she takes a breath, slows down, looks from side to side and up and down and conjures her latest lie or else avoids the question altogether by blaming the vast right wing conspiracy.
15
She needs to see a poll on what people are thinking first before answering even the simplest question.
So easy to point to the Clinton's as if anyone on the Republican side is any different. Watch them travel the country kissing the rings of billionaires. Just thinking back on the last two GOP candidates for Pres and VP. Romney/Ryan ran from the press and Romney wouldn't tell you his plans and Ryan had to abandon his as they were so abhorrent to the voters. McCain/Palin's campaign was clueless on the issues and ambitious on the red meat and sowing seeds of division and hate. We should dismiss attack ads and the candidates who resort to them and we must demand campaign finance reform. If you're against it you will not get my vote. Where are all the Bernie Sanders, who call a spade a spade and don't fear big money because they are not controlled by it? Hello, is anyone out there?
And the winner of the 2016 presidential election is...
Rich people!
Rich people!
8
The American political system is an embarrassment beyond measure. I received an email to enter to win a chance to meet Hillary. All I'd have to do is write a huge check and I could meet her whenever I'd like. Representative government? According to the Supreme Court of the United States of America, unlimited funding of the candidates to buy influence is protected as "free speech." If the citizens of this country truly believe that their voices are heard by these politicians with their hands out, then we are the fools.
13
Clintons hunting for money is a joke in light of all the recent news, Why does the New York Times risk its credibility with such blatant partisan articles like this one?
14
Taking donations for a charity or fees (no matter how exorbitant) for speaking at private conferences is completely different than taking campaign donations. Not to mention the differences in amounts taken in. Adelson giving tens of millions from gambling to support the party of religious fundamentalists is a glaring hypocrisy that conservatives have no problem ignoring.
The poor little Clintons.
Money in politics is never a good thing (except of course for the money that goes to support my party and causes).
4
>
Well let us hope the Democrats plan to fight as hard and recover as much money as possible. Disarming unilaterally would be silly.
Here is the only question that needs to be asked about this matter. If a vote was held today in the House and Senate to end this money debacle and institute public financing where would the votes for the rejection of public financing fall.
My bet would be the Dems would overwhelming vote yes and the GOP would vote no. So there is no claim that both parties are the same as to this matter.....
Well let us hope the Democrats plan to fight as hard and recover as much money as possible. Disarming unilaterally would be silly.
Here is the only question that needs to be asked about this matter. If a vote was held today in the House and Senate to end this money debacle and institute public financing where would the votes for the rejection of public financing fall.
My bet would be the Dems would overwhelming vote yes and the GOP would vote no. So there is no claim that both parties are the same as to this matter.....
2
This is the very definition of Oligarchy, being ruled by the wealthy is a terrifying thought. The wealthy did not get that way caring about what happens to other people. Party does matter, but not when it comes to billionaires.
8
Seems to me money is not the problem. There is a different problem and everyone knows it.
4
How is it possible to get through an entire political fund raising piece without ever mentioning the Democratic Alliance ?
4
Aside from the fact that most Americans have "dynasty fatigue" (many republicans don't want another Bush, while many dems don't want another Clinton), Hillary is not a good candidate, based on the mood of the electorate. She is a picture of everything that is wrong with our political system (big money; cronyism; etc.) But, then again, so are all 250 or so republican candidates now running for the office of POTUS. Bernie Sanders is even gaining traction among some conservatives (albeit few), while Rand Paul has resonated with some libertarian-leaning democratic voters. Truly a mixed bag, and - normally - one could almost believe that any of the candidates had a chance. But these are not normal times. With the influence of money, even more obscene since Citizens United, whomever this country's plutocrats get behind will get the nod to run as the republican in the race. And, in the general election, they may actually have a chance to win against Clinton (betting she will also get the nod), assuming the efforts at the local levels - to restrict voting (with all the voter suppression efforts taking place in so many states); monkey with the allocation of votes in the electoral college (also an effort taking place in many states, including my own Michigan); and instill fear and hate into their base voters through mega-funded media blitzes and a constant stream of propaganda (broadcast media) in order to get them to the polls - actually work. It may happen this time. God help us.
38
"She is a picture of everything that is wrong with our political system (big money; cronyism; etc.) But, then again, so are all 250 or so republican candidates now running for the office of POTUS."
Therefore, Clinton is the lesser of the two evils. I will hold my nose and elect the first woman president of the United States in 2016.
Therefore, Clinton is the lesser of the two evils. I will hold my nose and elect the first woman president of the United States in 2016.
I happen to believe Secretary Clinton is a good candidate. Who do you propose as a better one?
You deplore the influence of big money and the possible effects of Republican voter suppression, gerrymandering, and propaganda. What are you doing to fight back against these things? Because if Senator Clinton were to withdraw and no one fights back against the anti-democracy, we lose for sure.
You deplore the influence of big money and the possible effects of Republican voter suppression, gerrymandering, and propaganda. What are you doing to fight back against these things? Because if Senator Clinton were to withdraw and no one fights back against the anti-democracy, we lose for sure.
1
Tommy: The issue is that democracy and government by, for and of the People is dead except to the gracious few with their heads in the sand or somewhere else.
So what if she gets billions or the other party hopeless get billions! The fact is that Tweedly Dee and Tweedly Dumb are just Tweets with a fancy surname,
The right 1% has said clearly and publicly: "We are here so come get a bite on me." That bite is a full course meal paid for by tax reductions to the 1%. Their is no job creation as this job is posted every four years. The extra expense of getting selected is a candidate's honor, ethics, morality and democractic values.
But the People actually pick up the tab as they have been doing all along.
So vote early, vote often and vote for the candidate of their choice.
Or stay home and watch the results and make believe you care.
Or start to think, "What is to be done?"
So what if she gets billions or the other party hopeless get billions! The fact is that Tweedly Dee and Tweedly Dumb are just Tweets with a fancy surname,
The right 1% has said clearly and publicly: "We are here so come get a bite on me." That bite is a full course meal paid for by tax reductions to the 1%. Their is no job creation as this job is posted every four years. The extra expense of getting selected is a candidate's honor, ethics, morality and democractic values.
But the People actually pick up the tab as they have been doing all along.
So vote early, vote often and vote for the candidate of their choice.
Or stay home and watch the results and make believe you care.
Or start to think, "What is to be done?"
1
No need for alarm. Be patient. When it comes to money, the Clintons never fail to vacuum in more than enough to get by. But that still doesn't stop them from talking poor.
And if it turns out that the biggest domestic donors have indeed tired of their act, there are always the Saudis, the Qataris, the Bahrainis, the Emiratis, the Omanis and countless others, including the sultan of Brunei. The global slush fund runneth over.
And if it turns out that the biggest domestic donors have indeed tired of their act, there are always the Saudis, the Qataris, the Bahrainis, the Emiratis, the Omanis and countless others, including the sultan of Brunei. The global slush fund runneth over.
16
If anyone is dumb enough to be influenced by political theater that are the adds during an election cycle, they deserve what they get.
4
Yes, and those billionaires expect those they support to do their bidding when getting into office which is why our so called "representative democracy" is a scam.
We live in an oligarchy where only the very rich get represented and everyone is gets kicked in the derrière.
We live in an oligarchy where only the very rich get represented and everyone is gets kicked in the derrière.
12
Chris, if a Republican becomes President you will be living in a Theocratic Oligarchy, and your "derrie're" will be extremely sore.
The entire system reeks. Any fair minded person from any political persuasion would agree. Big money dominates. It is entirely despicable. But, within this despicable system, we still have to make a choice of what these 2 major parties stand for, regardless of the candidate. I can't, never have, and never will vote for a party that denies science, wants their god in as many places as they can put her, denies the existence and pervasiveness of institutional racism. denies the rights of Americans based on their sexual orientation, still believes in "trickle down" economics, wants to gut the ACA, and wants to gut social programs. There is no choice to make. HRC is a deeply flawed candidate. So what. She still espouses my views far better than any right winger ever can. Does Bernie Sanders do so even more? He sure does, but I fear he'll scare off more than he'll have join him and we'll end up with a Republican, and that would disgust me.
4
And here I was thinking that the Democrat contributions were all under $50 per person. I am shocked.
6
How funny this piece is! NYT writes about how much Bill Clinton amasses for speaking engagements and how much he charges for an honorarium when others wish to bestow an honor so that he speaks for two minutes at fancy vanity charities events. The Clintons have leveraged everyone in sight to have a net worth in property and known accounts as an upwards of 100M in a short period of time. Hollywood, foreign countries, moguls in need and the typical rich folks who like to rub shoulders with Arkansas finest first couple - why don't the Clintons who have equally as high net worth as Mitt Romney, spend just a little bit of that 100M that they already massed?
15
Romney's estimated worth is in excess of 250 million dollars.
I want to thank the 5 Justices of SCOTUS for Citizens United and the FEC for the current situation. We all knew this was going to happen but its so disgusting to read about campaign contributions.
23
Debbie, thank the naive, clueless voters that allow the GOP to continually thwart any progress we need to better the lives of the majority of Americans. They're responsible for allowing the GOP to sculpt SCOTUS in their image by allowing that venal party such power. Somehow power shifted from people and their representatives to corporations and their representatives because of a somnolent public.
Once again we will experience a presidential election based on money, not issues. Disgusting.
24
There is one great business mind who is democrat, Warren Buffett. There are two reasons he has not given money to Hillary:
1. He is very frugal, always has been
2. He is not at all sure that Benghazi-gate or other Gates will bring her down.
1. He is very frugal, always has been
2. He is not at all sure that Benghazi-gate or other Gates will bring her down.
4
Yes Buffet did donate to Hilary. He has already stated 'Hillary is going to win' and 'I don't see how you could have anybody better qualified' AND donated 25000 to "Ready for Hillary" Superpac. http://www.cnn.com/2014/12/04/politics/warren-buffet-hillary-clinton-sup...
A simple Google shows that, contrary to what you insist, Buffett is, in fact, supporting Hillary. Nice try, though.
http://www.cnn.com/2014/10/07/politics/buffett-clinton-2016/
Warren Buffett is so sure that Hillary Clinton will win the presidency in 2016, he is willing to wager some of his $58.2 billion net worth.
"Hillary is going to win, yeah," Buffett, a outspoken Clinton supporter, said at Fortune's Most Powerful Women Summit. "I will bet money on it. And I don't do that easily."
http://www.cnn.com/2014/10/07/politics/buffett-clinton-2016/
Warren Buffett is so sure that Hillary Clinton will win the presidency in 2016, he is willing to wager some of his $58.2 billion net worth.
"Hillary is going to win, yeah," Buffett, a outspoken Clinton supporter, said at Fortune's Most Powerful Women Summit. "I will bet money on it. And I don't do that easily."
With estimates of Mrs. Clinton's campaign budget ranging from $1 billion to as much as $2.5 billion, one has to ask where is all this money going to come from, and could it be put to better use?
The amounts we are spending on politics are obscene, and the results are abysmal with an almost totally dysfunctional government federal because of political squabbling and one upmanship. The situation is similar with many state and local governments as well.
Politics is not a career. It should be a period of service to one's country. We need to get back to basics.
The amounts we are spending on politics are obscene, and the results are abysmal with an almost totally dysfunctional government federal because of political squabbling and one upmanship. The situation is similar with many state and local governments as well.
Politics is not a career. It should be a period of service to one's country. We need to get back to basics.
125
SO TRUE.
What would 1-2.5 BILLION DOLLARS do for our infrastructure?
What would 1-2.5 BILLION DOLLARS do for our infrastructure?
No politics is not a career... It is a stepping stone to major wealth no matter what your affiliation in most cases. $500,000K for a speech ain't bad. I think Al Gore whose name has faded still has a very nice life.
you got that right......Term limits......
Why would anyone with money support Clinton when she has made income inequality (income redistribution) a central theme of her platform? Those with the money didn't get it by being stupid.
12
If you think like a Clinton, that's all the more reason that they should pay her off. "That's a nice little hedge fund you've got there, it would really be a shame if you had to pay 90% income tax, wouldn't it?" And the money rolls in....
What a sad commentary on the state of this country.
I am not sure we weren't better off 200 years ago when votes were bought on election day with rum and whiskey.
I am not sure we weren't better off 200 years ago when votes were bought on election day with rum and whiskey.
10
Love for Sale, Hillary puts herself on the auction block. Any Billionaire want to buy a candidate for President?
8
This article is total speculative baloney. I have little doubt Clinton will have NO problem finding the cash to finance her campaign even if there are fewer Democratic billionaires than Republican ones.
6
in fact there are quite a few 'democrat oriented' billionaires - perhaps they recognize Hillary for the fraud she is and that's why they ain't coming to the dance!
No one "contributes" to a republican candidate.
They are "making purchases."
They are "making purchases."
28
You say that with a straight face. I guess you have been sleeping for a quarter of a century and have not heard of the Clintons and their foundation. Most obvious example we have of buying a politician.
It would have been more pertinent to compare the fund raising tactics of Ms. Clinton with Bernie Sanders and now, Martin O'Malley. Bernie Sanders has raised five million dollars from contributors who squeeze $40 from their Social Security, minimum wage jobs and working class paychecks. These people are REAL Democrats. They are not the privileged elite Ms.Clinton is catering to. There is a false ring to her opposition of Citizens United while she is taking advantage of it every way she can. Many people are fed up with the present system of buying and selling our government to the highest bidders. Each donation is a gift to ad agencies and corporate media and is most likely used to disparage other candidates rather than to sell its own ideas. This is why many Democrats are turning to the curmudgeon from Vermont who has never run a negative campaign and is not about to start now. When Bernie speaks, it is relevant to the issues we face as a nation. His authenticity can not be questioned while candidates like Ms. Clinton and to a lesser degree, Mr. O'Malley seem afraid to speak up for fear of losing contributions and possible votes. We need to get money out of the election process, challenge all campaigns (Democrats and Republicans)and to address the issues. We would be a much healthier country if people voted for the candidate who spends the LEAST amount of money.
95
Gov. O'Malley has made no secret of this plans to reinstate Glass-Steagall and break the power of the Wall Street oligarchs. Hillary is obviously no threat to them and has already been bought and paid for.
2
Yeah, sure, people earning minimum wage are giving him $40. What a lovely story.
You have described me. I´m on Social Security and I will sacrifice to send money to support Bernie Sanders.
1
The Times skirts around the main issue, which is that President Obama inspired people in huge numbers, across races, ages, genders and incomes, in a way that no one else has done for decades.
Hillary Clinton, on the other hand, has been "presented" to us as the Democratic candidate for years now. The Clinton machine--funded by millions--has been running at full gear to make sure that happens.
There is no passion among many of us when it comes to Hillary. Senator Sanders, in contrast, inspires many. But we've been told to just forget him, by the major media, which appears to think it's doing us all a favor to cover him at all.
Hillary Clinton, on the other hand, has been "presented" to us as the Democratic candidate for years now. The Clinton machine--funded by millions--has been running at full gear to make sure that happens.
There is no passion among many of us when it comes to Hillary. Senator Sanders, in contrast, inspires many. But we've been told to just forget him, by the major media, which appears to think it's doing us all a favor to cover him at all.
182
@ Siobhan
Let's see. Clinton according to polls has the support of about 80% of Democrats and Bernie admirable fellow though he may be has the support of about 5% and therefore it's not the media telling you to forget him but the great majority of Democratic party voters. You may not agree with them but that's reality.
Let's see. Clinton according to polls has the support of about 80% of Democrats and Bernie admirable fellow though he may be has the support of about 5% and therefore it's not the media telling you to forget him but the great majority of Democratic party voters. You may not agree with them but that's reality.
3
And add to all that the fact that those of us who back Bernie don't have the big bucks to donate, anyway.
2
John, but the media is faithfully. Covering some of those Republican know-nothings who get very low poll ratings. The press just lokes the clowns, not the thinkers, be it Hillary or Bernie!
1
Does this money hunt include the already super rich Clinton Foundation also, sufficient to fund many elections for the Clintons?
20
Candidates are not obligated to fund themselves.
This is part of the Right's smear campaign that the Foundation is a plaything of the Clintons because they have such lax moral and ethical philosophies. But the exact opposite is true. The largest monied interests have put their weight behind policies that benefit only them and would hurt the country as a whole.
1
The Right seems determined to brand the Clinton Foundation a political organization, intent on damaging its worldwide relief efforts for partisan advantage. The Clinton family is smart enough to comprehend the blowback if they took so much as one dime from the Foundation for their personal or political use.
My wife and I gave the max in 2008 to Obama in the primaries to keep her from being POTUS only to find we had supported a stealth Black version of her. Now 15 years later she's back with a new song and dance about her being the new feel good granny of populism whose only regret is a million Iraqis died without boosting her polls after voting for what she had to have known to be a lie.
I will never forget what Bill said when he signed NAFTA, which he opposed before election, "I've kept all the campaign promises that I'm going to keep".
Since she won't even state a position on the TPP it's pretty clear she is still just another corporate shill.
If the Democratic Party supports her they deserve to see this country suffer through 16 more years of Republican corruption, war and bankrupting the economy while their children grow up prematurely breeding like rabbits as uneducated , superstitious cannon fodder for central Asia. Let the Democrats run someone who will keep people at home on election day and let the greater evil win. "A pox on both their houses." - Wm Shakespeare
I will never forget what Bill said when he signed NAFTA, which he opposed before election, "I've kept all the campaign promises that I'm going to keep".
Since she won't even state a position on the TPP it's pretty clear she is still just another corporate shill.
If the Democratic Party supports her they deserve to see this country suffer through 16 more years of Republican corruption, war and bankrupting the economy while their children grow up prematurely breeding like rabbits as uneducated , superstitious cannon fodder for central Asia. Let the Democrats run someone who will keep people at home on election day and let the greater evil win. "A pox on both their houses." - Wm Shakespeare
114
Suffer? We are far better off economically today than when Obama took office.
Wall Street Journal Jan 2, 2015
The U.S. economy enters 2015 with the strongest momentum in at least a decade and as the fittest of all the industrialized nations.
The nation added 2.7 million jobs in 2014 through November, the best year for employment growth since 1999. Economic output registered it best six month stretch since 2003. Claims for jobless benefits have been running lower than at any point since 2000.
Wall Street Journal 2 Jan 3 – 2015.
Investors snapped up dollars pushing the greenback to its highest level against major currencies since September of 2003 as they ramped up bets the US economy will pull ahead of the rest of the world, with the Federal Reserve in the driver’s Seat
These are only a few of the positive comments by that liberal rag, the WSJ
Wall Street Journal Jan 2, 2015
The U.S. economy enters 2015 with the strongest momentum in at least a decade and as the fittest of all the industrialized nations.
The nation added 2.7 million jobs in 2014 through November, the best year for employment growth since 1999. Economic output registered it best six month stretch since 2003. Claims for jobless benefits have been running lower than at any point since 2000.
Wall Street Journal 2 Jan 3 – 2015.
Investors snapped up dollars pushing the greenback to its highest level against major currencies since September of 2003 as they ramped up bets the US economy will pull ahead of the rest of the world, with the Federal Reserve in the driver’s Seat
These are only a few of the positive comments by that liberal rag, the WSJ
1
Poor choices lead to poor "leaders". "Money is the root of all evil", and of all politics.
Read my comment and you will realize the word suffer refers to another GOP administration.
Here's a likely sample of the missing e-mails:
Amb. Stevens: Things are getting desperate here Madam Secretary. We need help fast.
Hillary: Hang in there Chris. Help is on the way.
Amb. Stevens: With all due respect Madam Secretary, you've been saying that for 6 months now and we haven't received anything. When is this help coming?
Hillary: You know Washington Chris. Lots of red tape.
Amb. Stevens: Can't you cut through any of it?
Hillary: I'm working on it.
Amb. Stevens: By the way, I'm confused about this method of correspondence. Shouldn't we be communicating through official State Department channels?
Hillary: We're trying out a new system to increase efficiency.
Amb. Stevens: This seems highly unusual. Are you sure it's even legal?
Hillary: LOOK CHRIS! I'm getting tired of your innuendos and criticisms. Shape up or ship out!!
Amb. Stevens: I'm just begging you for help here. We're running out of time.
Amb. Stevens: Things are getting desperate here Madam Secretary. We need help fast.
Hillary: Hang in there Chris. Help is on the way.
Amb. Stevens: With all due respect Madam Secretary, you've been saying that for 6 months now and we haven't received anything. When is this help coming?
Hillary: You know Washington Chris. Lots of red tape.
Amb. Stevens: Can't you cut through any of it?
Hillary: I'm working on it.
Amb. Stevens: By the way, I'm confused about this method of correspondence. Shouldn't we be communicating through official State Department channels?
Hillary: We're trying out a new system to increase efficiency.
Amb. Stevens: This seems highly unusual. Are you sure it's even legal?
Hillary: LOOK CHRIS! I'm getting tired of your innuendos and criticisms. Shape up or ship out!!
Amb. Stevens: I'm just begging you for help here. We're running out of time.
29
Here is a sample of Issa to the RNC:
We will distort the facts as needed.
We will distort the facts as needed.
Yes, Vince, this sounds like Hillary. She speaks out of both corners of her mouth.
Every word from her trap is just like her breath---full of hot air.
Hillary is, by any measure, the Queen of Duplicity.
I think many of the liberals posting have finally caught on to her. Just her shenanigans during Watergate should be enough to give pause. The thought of her in the White House for 8 years gives me the creeps.
BTW, a registered Republican am I and rest assured I have never been more embarrassed by the GOP selection of candidates.
Never thought I would live long enough to admit that I am ready to pull the lever for Bernie.
Every word from her trap is just like her breath---full of hot air.
Hillary is, by any measure, the Queen of Duplicity.
I think many of the liberals posting have finally caught on to her. Just her shenanigans during Watergate should be enough to give pause. The thought of her in the White House for 8 years gives me the creeps.
BTW, a registered Republican am I and rest assured I have never been more embarrassed by the GOP selection of candidates.
Never thought I would live long enough to admit that I am ready to pull the lever for Bernie.
If Ambassador Stevens had donated to the Clinton Foundation, he would have had his increased security in Benghazi.
I was not aware that a coronation of Queen Hillary had occurred yet.
Why does the article compare fund-raising of "Republican contenders" (plural)
with "supporting Mrs. Clinton" (singular)?
Why does the article compare fund-raising of "Republican contenders" (plural)
with "supporting Mrs. Clinton" (singular)?
117
Because she is the anointed one of the MSM much as Obama was/is.
It is getting to the point of malpractice tbe way the media ignores the candidacy of Bernie Sanders. On the front page of this article are photos of people who have not even declared or who are practically unknown, but Bernie Sanders is not pictured. Maybe the NYT and other rags will wake up when it comes time for the debates.
373
There's a billion dollars coming the media's way if Hillary is the candidate. Why would the press cover a candidate who vows not to take corporate money and will spend tens of millions less on advertising?
1
Now you know how Republicans feel. They have been ignored by the media for years.
2
The elites, which includes the media ignore Bernie Sanders because he will raise issues in the campaign that they do not want to be discussed or see the light of day. Bernie Sanders will tell us how broken our political system and economy are. For the elite of both major parties this is a nightmare for someone to raise these issues for public discussion because our broken system works just fine for them.
5
The Sunday morning headlines: Who is buying the next United States presidential election?
Comforting. Pass the doughnut plate, please.
Comforting. Pass the doughnut plate, please.
55
Uber, fringe, leftist/feminist super PACs like ABC, NBC, CBS, PBS, CNN, NPR, ESPN, Univision, Galavision, Telemundo, HBO, Showtime, the Food Network, et al., will be spending billions and billions and billions of unregulated and unlimited dollars attempting to elect the Democrat party's nominee in 2016.
22
Someone has to match the ferocious spending of C.& D. Koch, Foster Friess, Sheldon Adelson, Norman Braman and the GOP's own highly popular network, Fox.
Fringe that.
Fringe that.
4
Don't forget all the foreign donors, George Soros, and Carlos Slim (the NYT sugardaddy).
6
You will be too Tom, your taxes fund NPR.
1
Hillary isnt appealing (to me) BECAUSE she is so Republicanly RICH.She has ZERO idea of what it's like to NOT be rich! She has no thought of those of us who arent.And her complete ignoring of the huge problem of climate change, and MONSANTO(of whom she accepted a seat on the board )is killing off the honey bees.She doesnt campaign against it.She neither knows nor cares.Why? Because people like her can always leave, go to a different home, have food(which wont grow w/out being pollinated)flown in from Europe, where they're not allowing these horrors to take place.Totally disaffected, she'll be horselaughing away.
No, we dont need richer candidates.We need Bernie Sanders!
No, we dont need richer candidates.We need Bernie Sanders!
105
"Republicanly?" Really? If you took researched it I think you would find far more "Democratly" wealthy citizens.
1
If you think only Republicans exhibit that kind of "rich" behaviour then you have been paying attention. If you think the same people wouldn't support Bernie Sanders if they thought he had a chance you are mistaken.
There are hypocrites and arrogant posers in both parties.
For example, I really can't see how President Obama can be taken seriously on climate change when he flew two huge jets to California on the same day just so that his wife could fly on a different schedule. To me that was the height of hypocrisy.
There are hypocrites and arrogant posers in both parties.
For example, I really can't see how President Obama can be taken seriously on climate change when he flew two huge jets to California on the same day just so that his wife could fly on a different schedule. To me that was the height of hypocrisy.
errr... any proof Monsanto is killing off the honeybees? Why, but why is it necessary to throw a kitchen sink into a reasonable discussion?
I dont see the problem for Hillary funding her run for President. George Soros has plenty of money to give away. Bill Clinton has his WJC LLC to funnel his fortunes in. They have the Clinton foundation which only gives out to the needy 15 percent of the cash in it. The rest of the cash goes to the needy whom run it. How much money do the Clintons need?
29
This is a lie. The Clinton foundation does not give out 85 percent of its cash to those who run it. Furthermore, like every endowed foundation committed to long-term giving, its yearly contributions to various charitable projects come out of revenues generated by its investments as well as a percentage of its yearly contributions.
43
Do we know how much of the Clinton Foundation is used to pay "consultants"? Why are reporters not asking what percentage of the donations is actually used for charity work?
9
Surely, you jest.
3
The real problem is that Democrats do not have exciting and appealing candidates. Mrs Clinton has been in too many scandals to name and made a bad Secretary of State (think of Lybia, and that is after a lesson in Iraq). While it's not too late, Democratic party has to encourage younger positive talents to join the race to generate interest among public and donors.
26
Democrats can hope only that the citizens will believe in their empty promises once again. Another option is that a citizens that obsessed with the idea of equality will vote for Hillary just because she is a woman.
5
Like who? Can you name a prominent Democrat governor or senator who is under 50? Even Martin O'Malley comes from the tail-end of the baby boom.
Lets be honest and get it out in the open. No one wants to donate to Hillary because she is toxic to what the party stands for. First off she is not for women's rights. She takes money from countries that have terrible women's rights. Her foundation is in shambles and anyone who gives to it right now would be under scrutiny. Even without evidence they look like crooks. It wouldn't shock me if the FBI was doing a thorough investigation on the foundation.
67
It's clear that Hillary Clinton has discredited herself. She didn't win the presidential race because no one wants to have a connection with corruption. Everyone is following on the investigation of her E-mail.
15
If that happens, Clinton is doomed. A thorough investigation of the Clinton Foundation would send all the Clintons and their cronies to jail. They are counting on using political influence to keep investigators out.
That's a bit of a shocker, since she has always championed women's rights. She is herself, of course, not "taking money from countries that have terrible women's rights"--no foreign donations are allowed, you know. If you mean the Clinton Foundation, that is something else altogether.
1
Oh, boo hoo. It's David vs Goliath. Please be serious. Soros funded multimillions into the last several campaigns. Unions take money from all, give it almost exclusively to Democrats. When Citizens United was decided by the Supreme Court, it somewhat leveled the playing field vs the unions. Democrats have been whining ever since.
And Democrats might tell us why Obama in 2008 refused to give the sources of over $300 million in donations. Or what he plans to do with the millions he is raising by riding into LA, etc., on our Air Force One.
Democrats attack the open Koch bothers, and hide Soros.
Why is Hillary the only Democratic candidate? Why should anyone want to give to someone whose past includes being kicked off of a Congressional investigative committee for conduct so low that it could not even meet lawyer standards; who is tainted by phony commodity futures trading and Whitewater; who lied about Benghazi; who has sent and received emails not protected by the State Dept, and is thought to be hiding selective ones..etc. Perhaps if other, reasonable Democrats enter the race, those multimillions will come out of the woodwork. Why should anyone commit to her so early in this cycle?
And,of course, there are the billion(s?) collected by the Clinton Foundation, which she may rely on, despite the likely quid pro quo thought to have been used in obtaining much of those dollars.
And Democrats might tell us why Obama in 2008 refused to give the sources of over $300 million in donations. Or what he plans to do with the millions he is raising by riding into LA, etc., on our Air Force One.
Democrats attack the open Koch bothers, and hide Soros.
Why is Hillary the only Democratic candidate? Why should anyone want to give to someone whose past includes being kicked off of a Congressional investigative committee for conduct so low that it could not even meet lawyer standards; who is tainted by phony commodity futures trading and Whitewater; who lied about Benghazi; who has sent and received emails not protected by the State Dept, and is thought to be hiding selective ones..etc. Perhaps if other, reasonable Democrats enter the race, those multimillions will come out of the woodwork. Why should anyone commit to her so early in this cycle?
And,of course, there are the billion(s?) collected by the Clinton Foundation, which she may rely on, despite the likely quid pro quo thought to have been used in obtaining much of those dollars.
43
When it' come to Presidential elections there is a natural order to things - the democrats get two terms, then the Republicans get two terms, and so on. This is why we had a huge number of Democrat candidates in 2008 - whomever was the Democrat was virtually guaranteed to win the Oval Office.
In order for Hillary to win a third term for the Democrats she would need to break the pendulum-like momentum of electing the Republican candidate - something that hasn't been done since FDR was in office.
Oh, and she should, in my humble opinion, have started her campaign with some clear-cut positions and priorities... This is her SECOND Presidential campaign and she STILL insisted on starting her campaign with a 'listening tour' the slightly more politically-acceptable form of wetting your finger and seeing which way the wind is blowing. When her campaign started, her only real position was "don't you, at some point, want a woman President?" Then when Ms. Florins entered the race, her lady parts weren't so unique, so she started 'listening'.
In order for Hillary to win a third term for the Democrats she would need to break the pendulum-like momentum of electing the Republican candidate - something that hasn't been done since FDR was in office.
Oh, and she should, in my humble opinion, have started her campaign with some clear-cut positions and priorities... This is her SECOND Presidential campaign and she STILL insisted on starting her campaign with a 'listening tour' the slightly more politically-acceptable form of wetting your finger and seeing which way the wind is blowing. When her campaign started, her only real position was "don't you, at some point, want a woman President?" Then when Ms. Florins entered the race, her lady parts weren't so unique, so she started 'listening'.
18
This is total garbage. The Clinton campaign has been touting that they will create a war chest of up to $2.5 Bn, PLUS they have NO primary expenses to speak of -- almost all money can go directly to the general election, as opposed to any Rep opponent, who will have to spend a lot just to get the nomination. But the Dems, through their mouthpieces, are trying hard to make it look like they are "out-gunned" money-wise? Doesn't pass the smell test - get outta here!
26
The Democrats will never win this game nor should they want to. The argument that underlies Lawrence Lessig's MayDay Pac is that we need candidates to pledge for campaign finance reform. Concrete plans should be front and center of the debates and a top priority for this election. I also take exception to the statement that "Mrs. Clinton can expect little if any opposition in the Democratic primaries." The Guardian, Reuters, WSJ, The Atlantic, The Economist all had front page coverage of Mr. O'Malley's announcement today, but unless I missed it, it was not on the NYT in the usual form: announcement, issues, what he needs to win. (I was impressed by the interview correspondent James Fallows had with Martin O'Malley.) Cover objectively on the issues with equal time for each candidate and leave to voters the decision about who is inevitable.
11
Unmentioned in the likely effect of the Democratic, and specifically Mrs. Clinton's, position on Middle East issues affecting Israel. This is clearly important to some of the financial heavy hitters. The Republicans have been unashamed to prostrate themselves before Sheldon Adelson and assure him of their loyalty (to Israel) and their dislike of the president's policy on Iran. Poor Gov. Christie had to do even more to obtain forgiveness for voicing the words "occupied territory." But so far it's unclear where the Democratic candidates will stand. We are in the sad situation where a Democratic candidate who stands for common sense policies on Iran and American values of equal rights for all applied to Israelis and Palestinians could find the spigot turned off at the traditional sources of funds.
8
Clintons=Corruption. Bush=political dynasty. No-one family is entitled to the rule like a king in the USA, and no family one should. Though the country has had members from the same political families in the presidency before, there was far less power in the presidency then. As so many have said before, we can do better.
13
Don't leave corruption out of the Bush equation, man.
3
They are both so unpopular with the voters, that once the actual voting starts they are highly unlikely to be the candidates. Money means nothing when voters are paying attention.
1
And this is all why I will be in all likelihood voting for real change in the primaries by voting for Bernie Sanders.
That said, I do understand the practical dilemma here. For Democrats to unilaterally disarm now is probably unwise. Still, though, I doubt that once in office Mrs. Clinton will be doing much to unravel the campaign finance mess, which is why I'm motivated to cast a protest vote in the primaries and a very real vote against the status quo and the anointing of yet another corporatist Democrat.
That said, I do understand the practical dilemma here. For Democrats to unilaterally disarm now is probably unwise. Still, though, I doubt that once in office Mrs. Clinton will be doing much to unravel the campaign finance mess, which is why I'm motivated to cast a protest vote in the primaries and a very real vote against the status quo and the anointing of yet another corporatist Democrat.
21
And after Sanders loses you'll be throwing your vote to Queen Hillary. They are counting on you.
5
The last thing the liberals need is a loopy Socialist to the left of Obama.
1
And, like those who voted for the "perfect" Nader...elected George W Bush.
1
I've voted since 1968 and am old enough to remember the many times Democrats have allowed the perfect to be the enemy of the good.
Humphrey wasn't a perfect enough candidate for some Democrats, so Nixon won; four extra years in Vietnam and Nixon appointed Rehnquist to the Supreme Court.
Carter wasn't perfect enough as President, so in 1980 Democrats handed over the narrative to his opponent and many voted for Anderson instead; so Reagan won and went on to: sell arms to Iran to secretly fund right-wing terror in Nicaragua, elevate Rehnquist to Chief Justice plus appoint Scalia, Day-O'Oconnor and Kennedy to the Supreme Court.
Gore wasn't perfect enough compared to Ralph Nader so we got George W Bush instead; he tricked us into the Iraq war and added John Roberts and Samuel Alito to the Supreme Court.
Now some Democrats are complaining about Hillary. They, not the Republicans, will be the ones to thank themselves when Jeb Bush repeals Obamacare, guts Social Security, and turns the Supreme Court into a very hostile place for Justices Sotomayor, Kagan and (if he lives long enough) Breyer who will consistently find themselves in a minority of three.
Humphrey wasn't a perfect enough candidate for some Democrats, so Nixon won; four extra years in Vietnam and Nixon appointed Rehnquist to the Supreme Court.
Carter wasn't perfect enough as President, so in 1980 Democrats handed over the narrative to his opponent and many voted for Anderson instead; so Reagan won and went on to: sell arms to Iran to secretly fund right-wing terror in Nicaragua, elevate Rehnquist to Chief Justice plus appoint Scalia, Day-O'Oconnor and Kennedy to the Supreme Court.
Gore wasn't perfect enough compared to Ralph Nader so we got George W Bush instead; he tricked us into the Iraq war and added John Roberts and Samuel Alito to the Supreme Court.
Now some Democrats are complaining about Hillary. They, not the Republicans, will be the ones to thank themselves when Jeb Bush repeals Obamacare, guts Social Security, and turns the Supreme Court into a very hostile place for Justices Sotomayor, Kagan and (if he lives long enough) Breyer who will consistently find themselves in a minority of three.
137
The problem is that Hillary is not "the good". Hillary is a loser.
13
Saying Hillary is not perfect may be the greatest understatement of all time.
23
And Roberts has worked out quite well for the left. He gift wrapped Obamacare and foisted it upon us as well as Obama.
Union would be a fool the back Hillary Clinton, After Bill Clinton Fast Track Trade Deal NAFTA..
13
After a few phony promises to "fix things", all will be forgiven and the unions will back Hillary with everything they have.
6
Republicans signed the McCain Feingold campaign reform bill in good faith, Democrats signed on with duplicitous intent and had wealthy international investor Soros waiting in the wings with 10's of Millions of unregulated cash, now Republicans have found their own Soros'es Demos want to change the rules again, at every turn they drag this nation into the gutter.
10
The Republicans wrote the rules of the game when they brought the Citizens United lawsuit to the Supreme Court with Bush appointees.
At this point, all Democrats can do is to compete under their rules.
At this point, all Democrats can do is to compete under their rules.
16
Democrats? Play by the rules? Surely, you not only jest but are lauging yourself wet!
11
And with that comment you should be receiving a job offer from the "Ready for Hillary" campaign any day now.
3
When I saw the title of this article I leaped to the conclusion that "richer roster" meant more real and viable choices for the electorate of the Democratic persuasion to choose from. The first paragraph sucked all the wind out of my sails.
So now I sit, dead in the water, waiting for a puff of fresh air stronger than a Bernie Sanders breeze to buoy my spirits. Today's forecast held out the possibility of an O'Mallley squall, but the truly big ships, capable of surviving hurricane-force assaults, remain anchored in harbor.
And I don't know why.
And I cry for my country.
So now I sit, dead in the water, waiting for a puff of fresh air stronger than a Bernie Sanders breeze to buoy my spirits. Today's forecast held out the possibility of an O'Mallley squall, but the truly big ships, capable of surviving hurricane-force assaults, remain anchored in harbor.
And I don't know why.
And I cry for my country.
176
Anyone who thinks Bernie Sanders is no more than a breeze has not been paying any attention at all. Take a minute to find out what Bernie stands for and then take cover from the hurricane.
12
Why? Because the powers that be in your party say that it's Hillary's turn.
7
Take a minute to research his very disturbing views in 1970's publications.
1
Is it safe to assume that everyone who's now complaining about Hillary's quest for campaign cash voted for Ralph Nader in 2000? The fact remains that I would still sooner vote for a candidate who's playing by the rules that the Republican appointees to the Supreme Court created but whose agenda includes income inequality, civil rights and international diplomacy than I would the folks in that other party who play by those same rules and whose plans for the presidency include none of the above.
202
Exactly Stu. Working within the system to change it is the American Way. Just as Ronald Reagan. If you don't play by the rules, both offesive and defensive, you're not even in the game, and as a result, can not win it. Once you win, you can try to change the rules (ie. appoint Supreme Court Justices with your mindset, in addition to passing laws (if you can) and setting regulations). As Steve Forbert said, "You cannot win, if you do not play."
4
Meanwhile, most of Hillary's handlers are MALES who earn MORE than the women working for her. Are you aware of that?
7
Sure Brainfelt. Hillary plays by the rules with her quid pro quo "fees" for giving boring speeches that hardly ANYBODY listens to or reads afterward. And charging HUNDREDS of thousands of dollars per speech. Those are SOME rules. Can I play?
9
Gosh, when Jeb Bush had a meeting with some of his brother's former advisers, especially Paul Wolfowitz and Dick Cheney, the Democrats were exultant, saying it proved that nothing would change from George W. to Jeb, the old guard was still in charge, etc. Especially Maureen Dowd: her white whale is Wolfowitz.
And look at this, Hillary calling forth the old Polonius from the years of contentiousness, an eminence grise to offset the influence of hotspur Sidney Blumenthal and John Podesta, her Buckingham. Hillary is no different than her GOP opponents with a need for faux gravitas.
And look at this, Hillary calling forth the old Polonius from the years of contentiousness, an eminence grise to offset the influence of hotspur Sidney Blumenthal and John Podesta, her Buckingham. Hillary is no different than her GOP opponents with a need for faux gravitas.
15
But the democrat excuse merchants, and many commenters here, tell us that "she's just playing by the rules". In other words, shut up and fall in line.
3
Hillary's problem is that donors might actually have enough of a moral compass that she sickens them.
87
In what moral universe do these donors not get sick thinking about Jeb Bush, Marco Rubio or Rick Santorum?
120
It's not a zero sum game.
1
In mine, Alex, in mine.
3
So the office of President of the United States is for sale to the highest bidder? Once we had statesmen who were patriots first, politicians second. Over a hundred years ago, Teddy Roosevelt said:
"Political parties exist to secure responsible government and to execute the will of the people. From these great tasks both of the old parties have turned aside. Instead of instruments to promote the general welfare they have become the tools of corrupt interests, which use them impartially to serve their selfish purposes. Behind the ostensible government sits enthroned an invisible government owing no allegiance and acknowledging no responsibility to the people. To destroy this invisible government, to dissolve the unholy alliance between corrupt business and corrupt politics, is the first task of the statesmanship of the day.”
I'd vote for Teddy's corpse over Hillary or whatever slavering fool the GOP serves up.
"Political parties exist to secure responsible government and to execute the will of the people. From these great tasks both of the old parties have turned aside. Instead of instruments to promote the general welfare they have become the tools of corrupt interests, which use them impartially to serve their selfish purposes. Behind the ostensible government sits enthroned an invisible government owing no allegiance and acknowledging no responsibility to the people. To destroy this invisible government, to dissolve the unholy alliance between corrupt business and corrupt politics, is the first task of the statesmanship of the day.”
I'd vote for Teddy's corpse over Hillary or whatever slavering fool the GOP serves up.
188
Complain all you want here, but when push comes to shove Hillary knows you'll vote for her.
So typical of you liberals to demean GOP candidates as "slavering fools." No argument, just ad hominems. At least they have an open process, and plenty of qualified candidates.
2
Really, Bob? Name just one qualified candidate.
2
Both parties have carefully scripted the campaign. O'Malley will be Hillary's Biden. Both O'Malley and Biden are Catholics from neighboring states and will add the same demographic. O'Malley will participate in the race enough to get his name circulated and to have the media vett him. He's 52 which is significantly younger than Hillary (15 years) which will also help her. By the way, after mentioning Biden, I noted that his son died. My condolences.
4
David vs Goliath? Really? The obscene spending by both parties has been pretty equal. And Soros, Tom Steyer, Haim Saban, Peter Lewis can all be counted on to pony up just like the Kochs. NYT, Harold Ickes is pulling your chain.
HRC and her team cannot seriously claim they are out of practice hitting people up for money. See, for example, the unfolding scandal about the Clinton foundation, including how the Clintons" leveraged $130 million in personal speaking fees out of their charity.
HRC and her team cannot seriously claim they are out of practice hitting people up for money. See, for example, the unfolding scandal about the Clinton foundation, including how the Clintons" leveraged $130 million in personal speaking fees out of their charity.
41
Pretty sure BHO outspent both McCain and Romney in the last two elections...Did you forget that inconvenient truth?
5
The Clintons have a mysterious power of inflicting amnesia her their followers.
3
Then again liberals could always put their votes where their mouths are instead of just their money - you could bypass the big money altogether and vote for Bernie Sanders. You know, the guy who actually will work to overturn CU. You won't of course, but never forget that you had the opportunity to do so the next time that you catch yourselves whining about big money in politics.
186
I would love to vote for Bernie Sanders.
But I expect he would lose to a Republican.
He is just too honest and that is seen as not serious by independents and conservatives.
Similar for Elizabeth Warren.
But I expect he would lose to a Republican.
He is just too honest and that is seen as not serious by independents and conservatives.
Similar for Elizabeth Warren.
3
What does it mean that the quality of honesty is not taken seriously by independents and conservatives? So if the man who would bring honesty to the White House is not taken seriously by conservatives, we should write him off? Heaven forbid some honesty might creep in to our political process. No, better to duck and run. What pathetic cowardice.
8
Well, Ted Cruz is honest too. He says what he believes, and is not in politics for money.
So perhaps factors other than honesty are also important?
So perhaps factors other than honesty are also important?
Perhaps the billionaires are not writing checks to Hillary because they know she has no chance at winning. They did not become billionaires by being stupid. Hillary is so flawed it makes me laugh. How can she honestly run a campaign based on getting money out of politics? Does she really think the average person is that naïve? She is too old and too compromised.
58
As opposed to the pillars of integrity running in that other party?
30
I disagree, I don't think Hillary Clinton will sell out the seniors and try to privatize social security or Medicare. I think she will support efforts to raise the minimum wage and to put taxes on those who are pulling the most out of our economy. I think that is why there is so much money to put behind the GOP candidates. Could you imagine if they had been successful privatizing Social Security before the last economic train wreck the Republicans put together. We would all be working til we die, well not quite all of us.
12
JoeB - Republican's wanted to give workers the CHOICE to have control and ownership of their Social a Security, just like millions of Americans do with their 401K retirement accounts... SS is going to go bust in 20 some years, what's your plan then? Start paying 100% of retirement benefits from the general funds?
With all this largess floating about, how ironic that the person actually responsible for who gets elected, the person who pulls the lever with a sigh, doesn't get a cent, while an army of Armani-clad parasites gorges at the trough for two years. I'm tired of feeling like a sap; I want my cut!
7
The right wing is well funded by those that want a casino next to every rest stop, a rifle and gun in every belt, gated communities and segregated slums. By those who want deregulation, dioxins in the air, mercury and PCB in the water, predatory banks, unregulated pharma, GMOs on every kitchen table, and the destruction of the department of labor and education (wait, I forget the third one).
The left? No takers.
Why would we? We have no moral certitude; we think chortling at the right and holding weak-kneed candlelight vigils are political strategy. Can you hear the right wingers laughing at us? I do.
We vote democrat, live like republicans. We are pro choice, and pro gay marriage, but we never come out to demonstrate, or put money where our mouth is. We laugh alone, late at night, watching TV hosts skewer the right wing, and then quite literally, call it a night.
What ought to happen? Real anger, real loud proclamation that the Bible and flag are not the sole possessions of the right, real voter registration, and scrupulous voting (if everyone votes in Wisconsin, Ohio, and FL, they would not be swing states).
Foremost, we must send cash to Hillary. That way, she owes the collective "us" and not one, or two, plutocratic few.
If we don't do that, we are tacitly supporting a plutocracy, the triumph of belief over reason, and for allotting permanent status to the current slice of economic winners with no hope for the current losers.
Kalidan
The left? No takers.
Why would we? We have no moral certitude; we think chortling at the right and holding weak-kneed candlelight vigils are political strategy. Can you hear the right wingers laughing at us? I do.
We vote democrat, live like republicans. We are pro choice, and pro gay marriage, but we never come out to demonstrate, or put money where our mouth is. We laugh alone, late at night, watching TV hosts skewer the right wing, and then quite literally, call it a night.
What ought to happen? Real anger, real loud proclamation that the Bible and flag are not the sole possessions of the right, real voter registration, and scrupulous voting (if everyone votes in Wisconsin, Ohio, and FL, they would not be swing states).
Foremost, we must send cash to Hillary. That way, she owes the collective "us" and not one, or two, plutocratic few.
If we don't do that, we are tacitly supporting a plutocracy, the triumph of belief over reason, and for allotting permanent status to the current slice of economic winners with no hope for the current losers.
Kalidan
171
Kalidan says "The right wing is well funded by those that want a casino next to every rest stop, a rifle and gun in every belt, gated communities and segregated slums. By those who want deregulation, dioxins in the air, mercury and PCB in the water, predatory banks, unregulated pharma, GMOs on every kitchen table, and the destruction of the department of labor and education (wait, I forget the third one). "
Hillary lives in a gated community. Senator Bernie Saunders represents a State with the least gun control. Obama is a son of Goldman Sachs and pharma is his brother. Why are you anti-science vis. a. vis. GMO. It could save your life. And yes the bureaucracies at labor and education should go.
Hillary lives in a gated community. Senator Bernie Saunders represents a State with the least gun control. Obama is a son of Goldman Sachs and pharma is his brother. Why are you anti-science vis. a. vis. GMO. It could save your life. And yes the bureaucracies at labor and education should go.
8
Written like a TRUE Ultra Progressive. I'm curious if you would agree to have a vote; similar to Ireland; on gay marriage in the United States. Interestingly I think it would fail.
5
Very impressive!
1
So it has all come to this. Sad.
5
I am very old, and very sad. Sad about something which should make every American citizen sad also: being elected to ANY political office, especially the Presidency, does not concern solving the problems we face, but concerns only who can raise the most money, and sell their souls to those who have the most money: today the amounts under discussion can go as high as ONE BILLION DOLLARS! Pogo Was Right! We have met the enemy and he is us! Only WE can put a stop to the "selling of our government!" There MUST be a way..........
264
There will be a way. But the power of money can buy a lot of image. It will happen in my lifetime where the image will rot. And that rot will infect so many who are invested in the lie. And so those who speak loud and true about the corruption which destroys us will find others and will by their voices encourage others to know this enemy of corruption and what it means to us as it destroys our nation. Invest in ammo.
1
Aren't there more than two candidtaes on the ballot?
From one saddened elder to another: One wonders what way remains, when no spending limits can be placed on PACs that purport to support ( via contrived emotional bias) platform issues rather than candidates per se -- PACs not part of the "officially approved" campaign funding of announced candidates. Ha, ha! How does one curb such cunningly manipulative, self-serving propaganda? A more discerning public could help, but how does one create that?
1
Big business finances Hillary. She has good chances to win because she has significant support, even if there are more and more incriminating facts. It means that her policy will be oriented on giving benefits and making profit for big business.
7
If it were just businesses financing HRC, it might not be so bad. The the money might trickle down to workers. But it's not "business" that's troubling--it's Wall Street. The people there are wicking billions from American companies into their own pockets. A candidate bankrolled by them can't credibly run as a champion of the middle class.
3
What the democrats are doing now still looks more like political theater than a real primary contest. Where are the full throated attacks on Hillary's? Where are moderate? Aren't there any qualified Hispanics to challenge Hillary?
11
The cowed Democrats have not forgotten the Clintons' wrath and the Liberals' wrath vented against apostates like Gov. Bob Casey of PA, Sen. Joe Lieberman of CT, and Gov. Bill Richardson of NM, the Clinton's ambassador to the UN and early Obama supporter, for promulgating dissident viewpoints.
2
While having the backing and assistance of a pile of money is important, Democrats are not Republicans and should be making better use of their own strengths by courting the votes of active union members, their families, and their neighbors. If you can get a person to pick up a phone and place a call for you, that is so much more valuable than having a person answer a phone or watch a commercial.
The danger a candidate like Hillary R. Clinton faces is that she will get the support of union leaders, but might not get the enthusiasm she needs from the members. For example, the teachers unions my feel obligated to Ms. Clinton but if the members think she is going to continue the Race for the Top attitude toward education they will prefer to work congressional and local elections instead of for her. She needs those feet on the ground, mouths on the phone, volunteers if she is going to beat the Republican Advertising Tsunami that will rise up against her.
The danger a candidate like Hillary R. Clinton faces is that she will get the support of union leaders, but might not get the enthusiasm she needs from the members. For example, the teachers unions my feel obligated to Ms. Clinton but if the members think she is going to continue the Race for the Top attitude toward education they will prefer to work congressional and local elections instead of for her. She needs those feet on the ground, mouths on the phone, volunteers if she is going to beat the Republican Advertising Tsunami that will rise up against her.
12
I don't think anyone likes the campaign finance system but unless a Democrat can get elected to overturn citizens United with legislation, we can't have a "political revolution" like Bernie sanders says. Republicans aren't going to stop using Koch money and their corporate money. They will run billions of dollars worth of negative ads during campaign season and we have to be able to fight back. Hillary Clinton can only change the system if she gets elected, and to get elected you need the money to match up with the GOP. I respect Sanders and Warren and the rest but too much is in play for this "revolution". The Supreme Court, major senate seats in North Carolina, Wisconsin, Nevada, Arizona, Florida, Penn, MD.
46
Citizens United case destroyed the liberal control of the political narrative. Before the case, only news media corporations could spend unlimited dollars on their favorite politicians and policies by running as many articles and editorials as they please.
Since over 90% of all editors and reporters in news rooms donate mostly to Democrats, naturally the liberal media (minus fox) had total control of the narrative.
Citizens United made it possible to compete with the liberals in the media, and they hate it.
Too bad.
Since over 90% of all editors and reporters in news rooms donate mostly to Democrats, naturally the liberal media (minus fox) had total control of the narrative.
Citizens United made it possible to compete with the liberals in the media, and they hate it.
Too bad.
21
Richard, that is a ridiculous whine. Liberals control a few op- editors, at best.
7
Never mind Soros, Bloomberg, Steyer, Hollywood, Blah, ... Always the Koch Brothers with you hypocrites. Maybe you can get some access to the Clinton Foundation "pay to play" funds. Po' po' Democrats... So old. So untrue. Maybe you would have more money to campaign if the candidates like Hillary didn't spend it on themselves or their foreign cronies.
Yeah, Democrats will save us from corruption... Sigh. Pray to Sharpton's cash god or maybe sue NYC for a sprained ankle.
Yeah, Democrats will save us from corruption... Sigh. Pray to Sharpton's cash god or maybe sue NYC for a sprained ankle.
10