If You Can’t Win the Election, Then Buy It
February 16th, 2008 at 01:30am Mark Noonan
How typical of the Democratic party:
Many of the superdelegates who could well decide the Democratic presidential nominee have already been plied with campaign contributions by Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton, a new study shows.
“While it would be unseemly for the candidates to hand out thousands of dollars to primary voters, or to the delegates pledged to represent the will of those voters, elected officials serving as superdelegates have received about $890,000 from Obama and Clinton in the form of campaign contributions over the last three years,” the nonpartisan Center for Responsive Politics reported today.
About half the 800 superdelegates — elected officials, party leaders, and others — have committed to either Clinton or Obama, though they can change their minds until the convention.
Obama’s political action committee has doled out more than $694,000 to superdelegates since 2005, the study found, and of the 81 who had announced their support for Obama, 34 had received donations totaling $228,000.
Clinton’s political action committee has distributed about $195,000 to superdelegates, and only 13 of the 109 who had announced for her have received money, totaling about $95,000.
Come on, Hill! You’re being out-bidded! Since when has a Clinton ever let the other guy bribe more people! You should be ashamed of yourself! Get out there and bribe!
I’d like to say that I’m shocked about this - but as the co-author of the book on Democratic corruption, I can only utter a weary sigh when I see things like this. Naturally there would be a money angle in anything which might decide a race which includes a Democrat - its just the way they operate. Passing ’round the cash is like breathing for Democratic politicians. Or did you think Rep. William “Cold Cash” Jefferson (D-LA) was one of a kind?
You want ‘em, you got ‘em - these are your Democrats, brothers and sisters; those who presume to be President. One word of advice - this sort of thing will not stop if one of them gets into the White House.
Entry Filed under: Campaign 2008, Corruption, Democrats
9 Comments
1. liberalT | February 16th, 2008 at 1:52 am
Deleted - off topic.
2. kjstrouble | February 16th, 2008 at 5:46 am
Why would anyone be surprised by a dem trying to buy an election? Or a lib poster going off topic because of that?
3. TiredofLibBullSh** | February 16th, 2008 at 6:40 am
Delegates receiving “campaign donations”?
How do I become a delegate? What a racket!
I guess the “will of the people” is represented not by their votes but by their cash.
Now wonder Hillary’s campaign is on a “shoestring budget” - according to Bill. And, Obama receiving all those “donations” as well from the Moron.org crowd.
4. Ricorun | February 16th, 2008 at 9:00 am
It seems odd to me that those who complain most bitterly about CFR tend to be the same ones most “shocked” by news like this. After all, if you advocate against restrictions in the free accumulation and distribution of campaign contributions you can’t really complain too much when those contributions are freely distributed.
If you have a problem with this news then you have a problem with the whole concept of a PAC. After all, one of their primary purposes is to donate money to preferred candidates who need it to run more effective campaigns. And since most of the “super delegates” are elected officials of one sort or another (representatives, senators, governors, etc.), it stands to reason that some of them need the money. So if you have a problem with that then it seems to me you should be in favor of MORE CFR, not less.
One thing that surprises me about this news is that Obama had that much money in his PAC in the first place. In 2005 he had only been in the Senate for a year. And that’s another thing — I doubt he was thinking about running for President back in 2005. I’m sure Clinton was though. And perhaps that explains why, even though she’s sitting in a very safe seat, and has been widely reported to be sitting on a pile of contributions for a long time, she’s been stingy about spreading it around.
Anyway, the Dems really shot themselves in the foot when they adopted their “superdelegate” category and gave them so much influence (40% of all delegates are in that category). That’s looking pretty stupid in retrospect. It’s caused all kinds of controversy. Too bad, so sad.
5. Ken | February 16th, 2008 at 9:03 am
The “campaign donations” are clean because a liberal is giving the money out in a share the wealth spirit. Think of it as seed money if The Clintons become President. A token payment of the future Millions that will come from the tax payers to reward their friends…
(True, I am making a wild guess here but I have a feeling that it is real close to the truth)
6. plainjane | February 16th, 2008 at 9:50 am
I agree it is a terrible system. The issue listed is a Democratic problem but in the larger picture, why can’t Republicans get on board with campaign finance reform? Why does wingnut radio Hannity and Limbaugh close the door and call out McCain for trying to clean this mess up? Could it be corporations are giving Hannity and Limbaugh money to keep the present system going so lobbiest don’t lose influence?
7. McLame2008!!! | February 16th, 2008 at 10:27 am
Why does wingnut radio Hannity and Limbaugh close the door and call out McCain for trying to clean this mess up? Could it be corporations are giving Hannity and Limbaugh money to keep the present system going so lobbiest don’t lose influence?
If you paid attention, cow, and you don’t, you’d realize that we “wingnuts” are against the restrictions CFR places on free speech. However, the only info you get from Limbaugh and Hannity comes from front groups such as MMFA, a group founded by Hitlery and funded by Soros-types.
“Lobbiest?” Did you mean “lobbyists,” cow?
Ahhhhh, superdelegates. With superdelegates, who needs special-interest groups?
8. phnx | February 16th, 2008 at 11:05 pm
These super delegates lay bare the corrupt soul of the Democrat party. They were created by party elites to control the process and ultimately the nominee. All Dem voters are equal…but some are more equal than others.
The Dem party is a real-life validation of George Orwell’s satirical portrayal of the communism in which high-minded ideals turned into the opposite of what they promise. In “Animal Farm,” Orwell’s allegory of the Soviet revolution, the pigs proclaim that “All animals are equal.” Once they seize power, the pigs revise the principle: “But some animals are more equal than others.”
9. phnx | February 17th, 2008 at 4:04 pm
Anyone notice the dearth of leftist posts on this topic. They all must be so proud of their party and its democratic process that they are just speechless.
Mark, you should give us daily updates in the super delegate debacle. Its hillariously entertaining for those of us on the conservative side and excrutiatingly embarassing for the leftists.