Sanders campaign attacks Clinton for hosting fundraiser with Clooney

[Virginiá]

I'm really curious how Sanders and other people who berate Democrats for taking donors money plan on funding viable campaigns if raising money like this is bad. Seriously, how? Not every candidate can bring in small donors like this. In fact, very few can run a campaign mostly on them and downticket candidates certainly can't - Not nearly enough people care about those campaigns. I seriously doubt Sanders himself could run a competitive presidential race just on the backs of small donors.

All I see are people/Sanders bashing a necessary evil with no alternate, viable strategy. I suppose they'd be happy with Democrats chronically losing to Republicans across the board because they decided to take the high road and lose every race because they were viciously outspent. That'll sure help the liberal/progressive movement!

Until we actually get campaign finance reform, this idea of unilaterally disarming is stupid and reckless as hell.

[Virginiá]

Interestingly, they weren't actually raising money for her. The Hillary Victory fund is the group that has been raising money for downballot Democrats. Apparently, Clinton should be castigated for raising money so that state parties can rebuild after 8 years of Obama, but Sanders gets by without raising a penny for anyone other than himself?

Damn straight. Bernie hasn't done squat for the party or the downballot politicians who he needs to help enact even a sliver of his agenda. It's not enough for Bernie to just win his race, he needs to help others as well. That has been an expectation of all presidential candidates and they can't just start after they get the nomination. Hillary has been raising a lot of money for them even way before she became the presumptive nominee once again. So far, I'm not aware of Sanders bringing in anything at all. That's really, really bad strategy, if nothing else.

Though I'm sure the Sanders Cult has a million excuses or rationalizations of why this is OK. That's something they have lots of: Excuses

[Virginiá]

Good to learn from the Berniebots that George Clooney and his wife are corrupt plutocrats like the Koch brothers.

It's as if some people can't accept that some wealthy people give money just to support candidates whose agenda they want enacted. One of my friend's parents gave over a thousand dollars to Obama in 2012 and her family is far from wealthy. They didn't get any favors. They just wanted to help a man who they believed in get re-elected. So imagine what movie directors/stars whose net worth(s) are anywhere from hundreds of millions to even billions can give and think nothing of? Clooney, whose net worth is 180 million dollars, could give 300k and not lose a wink of sleep. Spielberg as well.

Don't people realize that a lot of these guys donate even more to charity? Helping to get a politician who supports things like climate change and environmental regulation elected president is just as worthy as some charities, because it furthers their philanthropic goals. Given the regulations Obama has been pushing in his tenure for the environment, donating to him is almost as effective as donating to other traditional environmental groups in terms of getting things done.

Yet all people see is "OH LOOK HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS - IT MUST BE FOR FAVORS. THEY MUST BE CORRUPT!".

I swear, the ignorance around the debate of campaign donations is mind-boggling

[Virginiá]

You don't see a difference from giving <= $2700 in a primary and giving $353k?

Oh, I see the difference. What my posts were about, if you bothered to read, was that a fundraiser in Hollywood with donations coming from actors, directors and other types is hardly a breeding ground for nefarious corruption and a lot of these people already give money for the same causes with no real expectations of special favors.

The reason I care about campaign finance reform so much is because so many wealthy people give money expecting damaging favors. If people want to contribute for inconsequential favors or nothing at all, then that's fine by me - As long as we have these absurdly high donation limits, we have to make peace with this type of stuff.


Look, jfern, I'm going to be blunt: You're one of the biggest Bernie hacks on this board. Almost every post you make has either some pro-Sanders or anti-Clinton comment embedded in it. You never pass up an opportunity to spread your bias. I'm not going to engage in any sort of back and forth with you because you have zero interest in any rational, objective conversation. I see little chance of you actually thinking about the idea of campaign financing from any perspective but the Sanders-approved idea that "all massive donations are bad, no matter what, no matter the situation"

[Virginiá]

Anyway, this is what oligarchy, at least in terms of how Sanders defines it, is all about. The wealthy "buy" these elections (in donating large sums of money to the candidates most willing to serve their interests) and drown out the voices of the bulk of the country and what their life needs are. It's not necessarily "favors", but they are certainly not donating just because they enjoy throwing money around. From political donations to fundraising charity, those benevolent philanthropists will most definitely get something back for their money: even wealthy actors. Choosing to believe anything else is absurd.

In my opinion, as long as we expect elected officials to play by the rules set by Citizens United, there will never be any real campaign finance reform.

1. But what do you think they get? I don't care if Hillary says she'll show up at one of their events or give a speech or whatever. I think it would equally as absurd to think all these people are getting favors, let alone major favors that actually impact policy. Not all favors are bad, or even worth getting flustered over.

Look at it this way - If Hillary already supports major environmental regulations and a specific set of actors have been seeking those regulations as a personal goal for years, then donating to her is the same as furthering their own goals. They don't need a personal favor really, just that she stick to the agenda she already laid out. A lot of rich people involve themselves in such political agendas.

2. I agree with you on CU and public funding of campaigns for sure. I hate the system we have now, but I do understand that Democrats have to work within that sleazy system to enact change (and they have tried to reform campaign finance rules).

Public funding doesn't really work if Citizens United still stands. If independent groups can still raise/spend unlimited money in elections, then they will continue to outspend the actual campaigns. Simply put - CU has to go for there to be meaningful reform.

I mean why would Sanders raise money for downballot Dems? They haven't even endorsed him (and the handful that have done seem to be getting the Bernie bro cash bomb).

Assuming he actually cares about getting any of his agenda passed, he needs many more liberal Democrats in Congress. If he doesn't help get them elected, then he won't get much done and will once again create an army of disillusioned Millennials who thought the president could wave a magic wand and make all their policy dreams come true.