Clinton is raising millions for Democrats:
Both candidates for the Democratic presidential nomination opened accounts to raise money for the party. Here’s the tally so far: Hillary Clinton, $46 million;Bernie Sanders, $0.
Clinton, a former senator and secretary of state, has headlined a half-dozen fundraisers – one at movie star George Clooney’s home, another at a Radio City Music Hall concert with pop star Katy Perry – to raise money for national and state parties.
Sanders, an independent senator, has not organized any fundraisers for the party, nor has he raised any money through emails or ads. He has accused the Democratic Party of favoring Clinton in the contest and, in recent days, has accused her of spending money she raises for the party to help herself.
“It’s unfortunate that Hillary Clinton has benefited from tens of millions of dollars in cash transfers and advertising to campaign against us in the primary,” said Jeff Weaver, Sanders’ campaign manager.
The Clinton campaign pushed back on that accusation. “They’re questioning our joint fundraising agreement with the DNC, which allows us to support Democrats running up and down the ticket – the same fundraising structure used by President Obama in 2008 and 2012,” Clinton campaign manager Robby Mook wrote to supporters.
Democratic National Committee officials say the money is spent to compile lists of voters, recruit volunteers, register voters and pay for digital ads, training, research and communications.
Looks like those local Democrats she’s helping so much only get 1 percent of the funds. It’s essentially a money-laundering operation so she can get around individual donation limits. One percent. How fitting. http://www.politico.com/story/2016/04/clinton-fundraising-leaves-little-for-state-parties-222670
Hillary has always talked a good game while delivering very little.
1% in this case as Jay pointed out.
The fundraising agreement with the DNC sure does smell like a money laundering scheme.
Which is probably why Bernie backed away from it.
It’s too bad that ethics in politics has become an oxymoron.
Jay, you know what Lincoln (?) said. It is better to remain silent and be thought a fool than to speak and remove all doubt.
Clinton needs to win *primaries*. The downticket money is mainly to help whichever Democrat wins the local primaries *in the general election*. If you know how to manage money, you spend it where it’ll do the most good for your long term goals. Clinton is doing a rather good job of conserving funds for the general. She’s also *not* receiving questions from the FEC.
On the other hand, the candidate throwing those accusations at Clinton, that kindly old man Bernie, just spent $2 million in a state to gain two (count ’em: 2!) delegates, and has 141 pages (95 plus 46) of inquiries from the FEC about campaign funds irregularities. Which he can’t be bothered to answer. It was when the first of those letters came that he started talking about how dreadfully Clinton was laundering campaign funds. It’s called blowing smoke. Quit falling for it.
They get 1% directly NOW. The rest goes to the DNC, which will disburse the funds to close races for November. They don’t give the money out now because they don’t even know who the candidates are yet.
Many of the complaints filed against Bernie’s campaign came from two pro-Hillary PAC’s, The American Democracy Legal Fund and Correct the Record, and from Hillary supporter David Brock.
You too can file a bogus complaint against Bernie’s campaign simply by contacting the FEC.
The fact that the state parties are getting 1% and the DNC is getting the rest is not clearly communicated in the statement that the money is being raised “for national and state parties.” While the DNC may be the most efficient way to distribute money to the most contested downballot races in the fall, it seems likely that many state parties are only ever going to see the 1%, and the rest will go to the selected candidates. Again, not necessarily a bad thing, but claiming that you’re raising money for state parties is misleading.
Sanders may yet share funds raised with other candidates. But given past actions by the DNC that seem to favor Clinton, I can understand Sanders’s reluctance to raise lots of money for the DNC at this time.
It’s all a struggle for future control of the Party now. Hillary has the nomination locked. But inundating the process with more foul dollars to perpetuate control over the apparatus of endorsement is not something we should applaud.
That isn’t what I said. As I understand it, state parties get 1% now; Hillary gets a big chunk, and the rest goes to the DNC to be disbursed closer to election day.
I think rebuilding the party is something we should applaud. No point to having an agenda if you can’t get enough supporters in Congress.
How the DNC decides to “rebuild” the party will be interesting to watch. Will they pursue a 50-state strategy and work to build party apparatus in states where they “can’t” win today, or will the DNC take the “pragmatic” approach and only spend money in close races that they think they can win today?
If they take the pragmatic approach, how many state parties will be left out for additional funding?