Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News Editorials & Other Articles General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search
 

Human101948

(3,457 posts)
Tue May 3, 2016, 07:52 AM May 2016

BUSTED: Hypocrite Hillary Caught Hoarding 99 Percent of Funds Raised for State Parties

Who here doesn’t recall the months of bitter ridicule that Bernie Sanders endured at the hands of the Clinton campaign for not having spent enough time or effort to raise funds for down-ballot Democrats and/or state party committees? Hillary and crew proudly held themselves up as a role model for how to do it, boasting about having raised many millions of dollars for state Democratic Party committees and candidates, in addition to funds for the Clinton campaign itself.

Now it turns out those claims were all part of a big hoax.

https://www.dailykos.com/stories/2016/5/2/1522450/-BUSTED-Hypocrite-Hillary-Caught-Hoarding-99-Percent-of-Funds-Raised-for-State-Parties
21 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
BUSTED: Hypocrite Hillary Caught Hoarding 99 Percent of Funds Raised for State Parties (Original Post) Human101948 May 2016 OP
Lying Hillary. Why can't she tell the truth! MsFlorida May 2016 #1
what progressive would attack a democratic leader with adjectives to her name MariaThinks May 2016 #2
Lies about raising big money for down ticket Democrats were used to beat on Bernie supporters daily Human101948 May 2016 #6
at least we don't refer to bernie as MariaThinks May 2016 #14
1% takes 99%. That is her policy. You are warned. kgnu_fan May 2016 #3
Lol, this has bee debunked many times over already Tarc May 2016 #4
Isn't Blue Nation Review a David Brock outlet? Human101948 May 2016 #7
argumentum ad hominem? Tarc May 2016 #8
Not at all...the motivations of sources are noted and challenged frequently on DU... Human101948 May 2016 #11
But it hasn't been debunked. beedle May 2016 #19
Disgusting! This RW garbage is being flung out to depress democratic donations. Firebrand Gary May 2016 #5
Are the figures incorrect? Human101948 May 2016 #9
Yes. The GE is most important for using that money. nt Jitter65 May 2016 #16
For Hillary? Human101948 May 2016 #17
Untrue, Demsrule86 May 2016 #10
UNREC brooklynite May 2016 #12
If it's in POLITICO, it's gotta be true. Right? Octafish May 2016 #13
You are welcome... Human101948 May 2016 #18
"Not at all...the motivations of sources are noted and challenged frequently on DU..." IamMab May 2016 #20
So what are the facts? Human101948 May 2016 #21
K&R EndElectoral May 2016 #15

MariaThinks

(2,495 posts)
2. what progressive would attack a democratic leader with adjectives to her name
Tue May 3, 2016, 08:16 AM
May 2016

like hypocrite or lying?

also, is see some Bernie supporters now openly discussing Bernie being trump's vp? Bernie's progressive message is obviously lost on these Bernie supporters.

 

Human101948

(3,457 posts)
6. Lies about raising big money for down ticket Democrats were used to beat on Bernie supporters daily
Tue May 3, 2016, 09:06 AM
May 2016

Now you're bringing up some nutjobs saying things about joining Trump and tar all Bernie supporters with it.

You just can't help yourselves can you?

MariaThinks

(2,495 posts)
14. at least we don't refer to bernie as
Tue May 3, 2016, 11:23 AM
May 2016

nutty Bernie,
socialist Bernie

or other crappy adjectives.

unfortunately I think Bernie supporters are practicing transference. their hate for Hillary (no idea why) is transferred and they believe that Hillary supporters have the same disdain for Bernie. WE DON'T. We love the man, the candidate, and what he wants to do.

We are simply making a choice.

 

Human101948

(3,457 posts)
11. Not at all...the motivations of sources are noted and challenged frequently on DU...
Tue May 3, 2016, 09:15 AM
May 2016

You know that.

(I hope that implying you are intelligent is not considered an ad hominem attack.)

 

beedle

(1,235 posts)
19. But it hasn't been debunked.
Tue May 3, 2016, 12:19 PM
May 2016

the first paragraph of that response is a blatant lie.

Accusing Hillary of “money laundering” and “looting,” despite the fact that the Hillary Victory Fund has already given approximately $4.5 million to state parties and will distribute an additional $9 million “as state parties ramp up for general,” is truly a new low for the Sanders campaign.


First, the $4.5 million was sent to the state parties, where the Hillary people in charge of the funds sent the $4.5 million right back to the DNC ( and used for Hillary's campaign,) usually the same or next day.

The $9 million is questionable, and some of the state parties are already getting pissed off because the money they were forced to send to the Hillary campaign counts against the money that donors are allowed to donate to the state party ... so anyone that donated $10K to the state party, with the expectation that it would be apportioned properly between Hillary, the DNC and state Democratic parties is seeing all of it go to Hillary, and now they have donated the limit to the state party so they can't donate any more to the state parties.

So 33% of the money that was suppose to go to the state party has been redirected back to Hillary, and the state parties are suppose to trust that for the other 66% Hillary will just 'hold it for them' and not just spend on herself?

I remember as a child of about 6, some big kid came up to me on my way to the store and offered to "count my money" ... well, you can imagine how at 6 years old I was easily fooled by the blatant 'Hillary' ploy.

Firebrand Gary

(5,044 posts)
5. Disgusting! This RW garbage is being flung out to depress democratic donations.
Tue May 3, 2016, 08:42 AM
May 2016

Typical, dirty ass politics. What a disappointment to see it on DU.

 

Human101948

(3,457 posts)
9. Are the figures incorrect?
Tue May 3, 2016, 09:13 AM
May 2016

“This is the type of mega, mega joint fundraising committee that we all feared would come into existence if McCutcheon were ruled the wrong way, which it was,” said Craig Holman with Public Citizen. “It makes maximum use of the loose rules governing joint fundraising. They’re using big checks to set up a small donor fundraising campaign and turning over the small donors to the Hillary campaign while keeping the large ones for the party. It is permissible, but it’s offensive, and it should be illegal.”

Both Holman and Larry Noble with the Campaign Legal Center emphasized that it’s extremely unusual and possibly unprecedented for a party to raise so much money for a candidate before the general election.
“It shows the DNC has clearly taken sides before they even have a nominee,” said Holman. “There’s an obvious bias.”

Noble agreed. “They really are throwing their weight behind a particular candidate,” he said. “Their argument is usually that it helps the party generally, but the practical and legal reality is that it benefits Hillary Clinton. You just don’t expect this kind of thing to happen in the primaries.”
http://thinkprogress.org/politics/2016/04/19/3770542/bernie-hillary-dnc-fundraising/

Emphasis added

Demsrule86

(69,578 posts)
10. Untrue,
Tue May 3, 2016, 09:14 AM
May 2016

I posted a link that showed what she had given...victory fund...as it were...she has given generously to down ballot races.

 

brooklynite

(96,641 posts)
12. UNREC
Tue May 3, 2016, 09:21 AM
May 2016

This OP completely misinterprets the date presented.

First: A Joint Fundraising Agreement comes with an agreed upon formula: the first $2700 (FEC legal limit) goes to Clinton. The next $33,400 (also an FEC legal limit) goes to the DNC; any additional contribution goes to the State Parties. And while dinner with George Clooney gets the publicity, most contributors don't give that much, so there will always be a preponderance of funds going to Clinton. THe key is that the donor know this, and wouldn't have given less to Clinton or more to the DNC or State Parties if the JFA didn't exist. This is simply a convenience factor of writing only one check.

Second: The OP criticizes Clinton because the State Parties are giving funds to the DNC which "will use them to support Clinton". The DNC will certainly use funds to support the nominee, which will BE Clinton, but there's no evidence showing that they're spending money on her behalf now. And, the DNC will be spending money on behalf of Senate and House races, Governorhips and State Legislative Races, as well as allocating funds back to State Parties WHERE IT'S NEEDED.

 

Human101948

(3,457 posts)
18. You are welcome...
Tue May 3, 2016, 12:01 PM
May 2016

I would just like to know what the facts are...there seems to be so much spin on this subject.

 

IamMab

(1,359 posts)
20. "Not at all...the motivations of sources are noted and challenged frequently on DU..."
Tue May 3, 2016, 12:26 PM
May 2016

Your words, remember?

Latest Discussions»Retired Forums»2016 Postmortem»BUSTED: Hypocrite Hillary...