Sanders campaign attacks Clinton for hosting fundraiser with Clooney

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

I guess back in 2008 when Geffen, Katzenberg and Spielberg held these kind of fundraisers for Obama, jfern was equally vehement in denouncing them as immoral.
Wasn't he?

Did they ever raise $335k a ticket? I don't think so.

Somewhat less. But still tens of thousands per plate - this is the norm. Obama once had 6 fundraisers in a single day. The cheapest one was $2,500 per plate, the most expensive - $50,000, and there were also events at $5,000, $35,800 and $40,000 per plate (cannot seem to find the numbers for the 6th). All in one day's work. $30,000  to $50,000 per plate seems to be pretty common for him. You never seemed to have bothered before.

These are just a few of the first links coming up on google. Enjoy.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/clareoconnor/2012/05/10/as-george-clooney-throws-obama-a-40000-a-plate-party-meet-the-billionaires-opening-their-wallets/#5ddce03c4630

http://thehill.com/homenews/administration/219582-reporters-kept-out-as-obama-attends-50k-per-plate-fundraiser

http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2012/06/president-obama-hosts-6-fundraisers-friday-on-minneapolis-chicago-visit/

http://newyork.cbslocal.com/2012/08/03/obama-set-for-35000-per-person-dinner-at-movie-mogul-weinsteins-conn-home/

http://thepricehike.com/post/6830596298/why-obamas-36000-dinner-is-cheap

http://losangeles.cbslocal.com/2015/03/11/some-republicans-charge-obamas-california-fundraising-is-over-the-top/

Of course nothing was above $75k before the 2014 SCOTUS ruling. You can give $36k to a candidate and the DNC.

Well, that is the law of the land now - so people operate under the laws in force. You cannot unilaterally disarm, unless all you want is to lose. In terms of actual "corruption" there is exactly zero difference between 75 grand and 1 mln. And you perfectly well know it, but choose to deliberately slander an honest person for the explicit purpose of electing Donald Trump.

Are any Republican candidates (not SuperPACS) having fundraisers of greater than >= $75k a ticket? Because if not, then this is Hillary unilaterally arming.

[Adam Griffin]

So raising money for the national and state parties is now somehow corruption?

Would a Sanders supporter who is outraged about this explain just how these entities should otherwise reinforce down-ballot races and field candidates for offices besides President? It certainly won't happen via most of the angsty, pissy factions of the Left that can't organize themselves out of a paper bag and have such a pathetically-narrow focus on and obsession over one race.

They gave the money to the DNC, it was just a way to get around direct contribution limits. This wasn't helping down ticket races.

Care to explain where you believe all the rest of the $353k that doesn't end up in the DNC's coffers is going?

http://bangordailynews.com/2016/01/07/politics/clinton-donors-use-maine-democrats-to-skirt-campaign-cash-limits/

OK, fair enough: you actually made your point.

Nevertheless, the money (as best I can tell) is not being transferred into Clinton's campaign coffers. Likely, the money is being diverted into swing state parties.

[ag]

I guess back in 2008 when Geffen, Katzenberg and Spielberg held these kind of fundraisers for Obama, jfern was equally vehement in denouncing them as immoral.
Wasn't he?

Well, they did not have Donald Trump back then: the Republican they, actually, like.

Where did I say I like Trump? This has nothing to do with him.

Except for doing anything in your power to have him elected.

[ag]

Of course Hillary was involved in the Hillary coup.
http://www.democracynow.org/2016/3/11/before_her_assassination_berta_caceres_singled

A tragic death does not make every statement by the victim truth.

Anyway, from now on I shall always claim that you are a Chinese prison guard, personally involved in torturing dissidents. And I have more reasons to claim that then you have to blame Hillary Clinton for the Honduran coup: I merely invented my accusation based on no evidence about you whatsoever, whereas you are continuing to peddle a shameless lie despite ample public evidence - perfectly familiar to you - that it is a lie.

Huh? It's the truth that Hillary sided with the coup.

You're an idiot.
End of discussion.

Stop projecting.

He is wrong. You are not an idiot. You are a shameless slanderer in voluntary service of Donald Trump.

I'm not a Trump supporter.

Why would I believe you? You have not recently been known for telling truth around here.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

I guess back in 2008 when Geffen, Katzenberg and Spielberg held these kind of fundraisers for Obama, jfern was equally vehement in denouncing them as immoral.
Wasn't he?

Well, they did not have Donald Trump back then: the Republican they, actually, like.

Where did I say I like Trump? This has nothing to do with him.

Except for doing anything in your power to have him elected.

By supporting a candidate who beats Trump by 24 points in one poll?

[ag]

Huh? It's the truth that Hillary sided with the coup.

It is a shameless lie you keep repeating, despite every evidence to the contrary (which is public, and which I have previously discussed). The US government never recognized the government that came to power as a result of the coup, and used the threat of non-recognition of the successor government to insist on elections being conducted in time and in accordance with some minimal standards. There is no evidence that Hillary Clinton or anybody else in the US administration supported the coup, and ample public evidence to the contrary. No matter how many times you repeat that white is black, it is not going to become black.  You are a deliberate, shameless slanderer.

[ag]

I guess back in 2008 when Geffen, Katzenberg and Spielberg held these kind of fundraisers for Obama, jfern was equally vehement in denouncing them as immoral.
Wasn't he?

Well, they did not have Donald Trump back then: the Republican they, actually, like.

Where did I say I like Trump? This has nothing to do with him.

Except for doing anything in your power to have him elected.

By supporting a candidate who beats Trump by 24 points in one poll?

By using blatant lies to attack the eventual Dem nominee.

[Ebsy]

So raising money for the national and state parties is now somehow corruption?

Would a Sanders supporter who is outraged about this explain just how these entities should otherwise reinforce down-ballot races and field candidates for offices besides President? It certainly won't happen via most of the angsty, pissy factions of the Left that can't organize themselves out of a paper bag and have such a pathetically-narrow focus on and obsession over one race.

They gave the money to the DNC, it was just a way to get around direct contribution limits. This wasn't helping down ticket races.

Care to explain where you believe all the rest of the $353k that doesn't end up in the DNC's coffers is going?

http://bangordailynews.com/2016/01/07/politics/clinton-donors-use-maine-democrats-to-skirt-campaign-cash-limits/

OK, fair enough: you actually made your point.

Nevertheless, the money (as best I can tell) is not being transferred into Clinton's campaign coffers. Likely, the money is being diverted into swing state parties.

So the money is going to the DNC, but no one has bothered to look what the DNC is spending it on?

According to the DNC FEC filings for 2015, the DNC received $9,693,775 in "transfers from affiliated committees," which sounds like what is being described above, and in turn transferred $13,927,323 out to affiliated committees, likely the state parties in the Senate and Congressional Campaign Committees.

[ag]

Of course Hillary was involved in the Hillary coup.
http://www.democracynow.org/2016/3/11/before_her_assassination_berta_caceres_singled

A tragic death does not make every statement by the victim truth.

Anyway, from now on I shall always claim that you are a Chinese prison guard, personally involved in torturing dissidents. And I have more reasons to claim that then you have to blame Hillary Clinton for the Honduran coup: I merely invented my accusation based on no evidence about you whatsoever, whereas you are continuing to peddle a shameless lie despite ample public evidence - perfectly familiar to you - that it is a lie.

Be careful for I think that jfern might take this as a compliment.

He might. I do not care about him enough to deny him this mild enjoyment.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

Huh? It's the truth that Hillary sided with the coup.

It is a shameless lie you keep repeating, despite every evidence to the contrary (which is public, and which I have previously discussed). The US government never recognized the government that came to power as a result of the coup, and used the threat of non-recognition of the successor government to insist on elections being conducted in time and in accordance with some minimal standards. There is no evidence that Hillary Clinton or anybody else in the US administration supported the coup, and ample public evidence to the contrary. No matter how many times you repeat that white is black, it is not going to become black.  You are a deliberate, shameless slanderer.

She clearly supported it.

http://www.commondreams.org/views/2015/09/24/hillary-clinton-emails-and-honduras-coup

By using blatant lies to attack the eventual Dem nominee.

There's still a primary, and what am I saying that is a lie?

[Pyro]

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!

The alternative viable strategy, as practiced in most other countries, is public financing of elections. I understand the point that you, and many Clinton supporters are saying. The system definitely rewards those campaigns which spend the highest amounts. It's not easy to do what Sanders has done and rebuke big money, but the fact that he's doing so and is still even in the race is mind blowing. If there is even a semblance of a fair playing field, where everyone's voice is heard, then perhaps the influence of monied interests could be somewhat lessened in the meantime.

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.

[Shadows]

Trump in the GE - "Clinton is a puppet for her masters, her big donors who own her"

[Lyin' Steve]

Trump in the GE - "Clinton is a puppet for her masters, her big donors who own her"

I'm sure you'll be just thrilled.

[Shadows]

Invoking voting rights laws and precedents commonly cited in such cases, a group of Bernie Sanders supporters who voted for Sanders in the Massachusetts Primary on March 1st are confronting what they say was illegal campaigning by Bill Clinton on behalf of Hillary Clinton.

http://hubpages.com/politics/Sanders-Voters-in-MA-to-Sue-Bill-Clinton-for-Illegal-Electioneering-During-Primary

I am not sure if this deserves a separate thread but Bill violated many laws in Mass during elections - Glad he is getting sued!

[Landslide Lyndon]

Trump in the GE - "Clinton is a puppet for her masters, her big donors who own her"

I'm sure you'll be just thrilled.

Jfern got burned and switched to his sock to continue posting shiite.

[Lexii, harbinger of chaos and sexual anarchy]

Trump in the GE - "Clinton is a puppet for her masters, her big donors who own her"

I'm sure you'll be just thrilled.

Jfern got burned and switched to his sock to continue posting shiite.

It's obvious that they are not the same person

[SillyAmerican]

A pair of tickets to sit at the head table at the Clinton fundraiser will set you back a mere $353000. Between the nice contributions and speaking fees garnered from Goldman Sachs and fun celebrities, how does Mrs. Clinton manage to maintain her focus on the concerns of the little guy? And who will be hosting this kind of fundraiser for Bernie Sanders?

[Starbucks Union Thug HokeyPuck]

More $353,000 Clinton Cabernet, sir?

Hmmm hmmm hmmmmm.... m'yes, Smithington.  And tell Ms. Clinton we'd appreciate a loosening of the labor regulations in French Indochina.

[This account no longer in use.]

Lyndon, Jfern. You're both wrong. You're both an absolute disgrace to your candidate. My advice is that you quiet yourselves so we don't have to read the filth you spew out.

[🦀🎂🦀🎂]

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).

[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.

[RaphaelDLG]

I'm very sympathetic to the intelligent arguments that people like Virginia are making that you have to help people downballot and you have to arm yourself against people like the Kochs, but the strategy of fighting fire with fire that the Democratic Party has used for the past 2-3 decades hasn't really worked, it's simply resulted in a Democratic Party that has had to by necessity move further to the right on economic issues/become much more corporate/crony capitalist in order to get "wins."

This is a "winning" strategy in the short-term/from a political standpoint, but a losing strategy in the long-term/from a policy standpoint. 

In order to revitalize the Democratic party/help American pols serve the interest of working folks rather than big donors, there needs to be 1) more political activity among regular folks 2) more knowledge of the corrupting influence of campaign finance among regular folks 3) a group of pols with the credibility to say that they are the solution to this problem.

This will take some time and courage and result in short-term losses, but in the long-term, it will be much better for America.

[Frodo]

The Democratic Party is not the reason why we can't get campaign finance reform -it is the Republican Party.  For instance, we could have had a DISCLOSE Act in 2010, but because no Republican senator wanted to support it (and overcome any filibusters), it died.      

[Landslide Lyndon]

I'm very sympathetic to the intelligent arguments that people like Virginia are making that you have to help people downballot and you have to arm yourself against people like the Kochs, but the strategy of fighting fire with fire that the Democratic Party has used for the past 2-3 decades hasn't really worked, it's simply resulted in a Democratic Party that has had to by necessity move further to the right on economic issues/become much more corporate/crony capitalist in order to get "wins."

This is a "winning" strategy in the short-term/from a political standpoint, but a losing strategy in the long-term/from a policy standpoint. 

The Democratic party moved to the right during the previous decades not because of the influence of big money but because whenever it fielded left-wing candidates it kept losing by landslide margins (McGovern, Mondale, Dukakis).
On the contrary, despite being the party who benefited most from Wall Street money until 2008 it didn't hesitate to enact Dodd-Frank which permanently alienated many of its big donors and sent them into the open arms of GOP.

[🦀🎂🦀🎂]

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.

That's the thing though: he's not and never has been a candidate looking to be elected. He's a movement candidate, and is fulfilling his use in the wider scheme of things.