When I see people arguing that we have to accept....

[daleanime]

the current 'political funding' practices in our system and that we can change it after the elections....


I see junkies saying that they need a hit today and they will quit tomorrow.


Tomorrow never comes.

[Kalidurga]

1. Oh I can think of so many times I have made bad compromises

Not on this issue, but that comment is so true and it does hit close to home.

[daleanime]

5. We can all relate to that....

but especially on this issue the time is now.

[arcane1]

2. "We need the most billionaire-friendly candidate, with ideas repubs will vote "yes" on"

And somehow that's considered "winning". I don't get it

[daleanime]

6. Makes two of us....

[TheKentuckian]

63. This line of thinking makes me feel like my brain is in a blender. Totally Crazytown.

Just win baby is for sports anout any other time just winning doesn't mean shit when you lose who you are, abandon what you started striving for, and lose the plot so throughly that achieving the oppositions objectives becomes fine and dandy as long as you get to mark a W. A "W" that one must devalue to get is really a loss being rationalized for.

[Jefferson23]

3. The longer you accept it the longer it will continue.

Who is best placed to mobilize Americans, whether they be Democrats, Independents,
Republicans and all those in between to fight against big money in politics?

Answer that question and you'll know what to do this primary season.

[daleanime]

7. Yeahup, got that right....

[Enthusiast]

52. Precisely.

[aspirant]

4. How does a Capitalist

quit worshiping capital. Like drugs, it takes mental and physical rehabilitation

[upaloopa]

8. You are going to write law outside of congress?

When I see people say change comes just from wanting it I laugh.

[aspirant]

9. Do you laugh at

wanting "Hope and Change" ?

[arcane1]

10. "Change comes just from wanting it" sounds like that "law of attraction" horseshit

I'm glad I'm not seeing it on DU!

[daleanime]

11. Glad to be of service.....

be here all week, try the veal.

[DanTex]

12. Of course, because losing the election is totally the way to bring about reform.

[daleanime]

13. And that's where we disagree.....

don't see it as a losing issue at all. I think it's an issue where we can very easy have the upper hand.

[arcane1]

14. It's an issue the MAJORITY supports!

I'm not letting the FUD merchants get me down!

[daleanime]

19. Amen.....

[Enthusiast]

53. Me too.

[DanTex]

16. Not raising money is a losing strategy.

[daleanime]

18. And we raising money....

$40 at a time.


Is that bad?

[DanTex]

21. It's bad if we get out-raised 10-1 by the Republicans. Which is what would happen.

You play by the rules. Then you win the election, and change the rules. Handicapping yourself and losing the election will accomplish nothing.

[aspirant]

25. When Bernie beats

a $2 billion capitalist candidate in the primaries, any Repub capitalist will experience the true power of the people.

[DanTex]

29. It's hard to imagine him even winning the primary, much less the GE.

[aspirant]

30. Nothing hard about it

[daleanime]

27. But that the thing....

no one who thinks they owe their victory to money is ever going to change this.

And I repeat, I don't see it as a handicap. I see it as an advantage we can easy claim.

[DanTex]

28. Being outspent 10-1 is definitely a huge handicap.

Also, working within a flawed system in order to change it is not some far-out concept. It's actually how a democracy works.

[daleanime]

31. But it kind of hard to say we shouldn't be doing something....

while we are doing it. Didn't work for my parents, how it go for yours?

[DanTex]

33. That's a poor analogy. It's like the RW argument that if liberals think taxes should be

higher then they should just voluntarily write checks to the IRS.

As a matter of policy, I, and Dems generally, think campaign laws should be changed. But as long as they aren't changed, I'm not in favor of gratuitously giving the GOP advantages in elections.

[daleanime]

40. Maybe, but it remains true. It hard to argue against a law....

that you're taking advantage of.

[DanTex]

42. It's not a matter of arguing against it, it's a matter of changing it. That requires

winning elections.

[daleanime]

45. Kind of hard to change something....

you're not arguing against.

Comes down to this, I say start now. You say let's do it sometime in the future.

Which call is more likely to have results?

[DanTex]

54. The only way to change it is to win elections and nominate SC justices. Saying "start now"

certainly won't accomplish anything. Neither will handing elections to the GOP by allowing ourselves to be outspent 10-1. In fact, that will accomplish much less than nothing.

[daleanime]

55. And some one who owes their victory to $$$$....

is really going to do that?

Not trying to be rude, but I just don't see it happening.

[DanTex]

57. Well, every SC justice nominated by a Dem voted against CU.

And Hillary Clinton is in favor of campaign finance reform. So the answer as far as HRC goes is, obviously, yes.

What you don't realize is that participating in the system is not incompatible with wanting to change the system.

[TheKentuckian]

75. Citizens United is far from the beginning or the core of the campaign finance swamp

this has been a complete festering mess for years, CU just striped away the last vestiges of pretense and made it even more difficult to drain a nasty and fetid swamp but the problems by far predate the latest shot in the gut.

[DanTex]

77. Sure, but without fixing CU, and without electing a Dem to the presidency

it will stay the same or get worse.

[TheKentuckian]

101. That "fix" requires a constitutional amendment so with that kind of effort and odds we better

fix the whole mess or it won't make a decisive difference.

Some will argue that shifting the Supreme Court will do the trick but I'm not confident that does more than dial back to before the present CU state which was also a fucking mess and an uphill, corrupt mess that can be reasonably stated as not so different in a rubber Mets road way than now.

I'm for it, don't get me wrong but I'm not for the new idea that it is the actual fix. The memory hole is a dangerous thing.

[zeemike]

56. So money votes then.

As long as you accept that things will never change because people with a lot of money will chose the president and congress.

It seems you have bought into the narrative that Democracy is dead...long live oligarchy.

[DanTex]

58. Right now, thanks to the GOP and Citizens United, money has too much power.

Whether you accept it or not, that's the reality.

If you want to change that reality, the solution is to elect Democrats to congress and the presidency, so that we can pass campaign finance laws and appoint liberal supreme court justices.

Conceding elections by allowing the GOP to outspend us 10-1 is the worst thing we can do.

[zeemike]

64. It has power because we give it power

And what you are suggesting is we give it power one more time and this time it will be different.

What you are suggesting is that we go with the one who can raise the most money from the ones who have corrupted the system...and presented no evidence that she will do a damn thing about it...just the lame Scotus appointment thing...and there is no evidence she will appoint anyone who will make a difference...and even if she did, it would not be enough and we would have to wait until Roberts died before anything would happen.

And by then it will be too late...the crony system will be codified.
If this corrupt system is to change we will need a president that will fight just as hard to change it as Obama is fighting for the TPP...a populist who can rally the American people to force congress to do election reform. And SCOTUS has no part in it.

SCOTUS will not overturn Citizens United in your lifetime.

[DanTex]

66. No, it has power because it can buy advertising, GOTV, etc.

If raising money wasn't important in winning campaigns, then politicians wouldn't bother spending so much time doing it.

Also, pretty much every sentence in your post is wrong.

--Hillary isn't raising money from "the ones who have corrupted the system" (those would be Republicans)
--The SC appointments aren't "lame", they are crucial. The last two weeks should have made that crystal clear.
--There is plenty of evidence she would appoint people who would make a difference. In fact, all Dem nominees have been on the right side of all the recent close decisions.
--We don't have to wait until Roberts dies or retires. There are likely to be three retirements in the next 4-8 years, including Scalia and Kennedy. A lot rides on who replaces them.
--The crony system is already codified, in the form of Citizens United
--A president who "fights hard" is not going to make any difference as long as there are Republican majorities in congress and the supreme court. Remember, it was the supreme court, not the president or congress, who decided Citizens United.

Most importantly, losing the White House in 2016 destroys any hope of progress on campaign finance for a generation. On this particular issue (and many others), the difference between Hillary and Bernie is tiny compared to the difference between either one and the GOP. So kneecapping ourselves by getting outspent 10-1 by Republicans is the worst possible strategy.

[zeemike]

68. There are bullies and enablers.

And there are Democrats who enable the GOP...we have seen it time and again.
And until we understand the enabling part the bullies will continue to win.

And there is nothing stopping congress from reforming campaign laws...except they don't want to because they like things the way they are. SCOTUS is not all powerful...there is remedy's in the constitution for it. All it takes is the will to do it.

But what makes you think Hillary will appoint better people than Sanders?...well I would trust him more because he is not bound to Wall Street by ties to big money.

But I suppose your argument is that Hillary can win and Sanders cannot...because big money will say so...which is right back to money choosing our president not people.
This election will be about hope and change again...if they believe they will come out and vote, if not they will stay home, and given a choice between another Bush or Clinton I suspect they will stay home because you are not offering them anything new to pin their hopes on...and the GOP will once again win and control the congress.

Like it or not that is how it is.

[DanTex]

73. The thing stopping congress from reforming campaign laws is the GOP.

The thing that thwarted the last campaign law was also the GOP, via Supreme Court justices.
The thing preventing a constitutional amendment is also the GOP.

There is one reason and one reason only that "corporations are people" became the law of the land: GOP supreme court justices. Had Gore won in 2000, we would not have had Citizens United.

Will Hillary appoint better justices than Sanders? Probably not. Their nominees will be similar. But both will appoint far better justices than any Republican. That's the important thing. The left likes to complain about Clinton and Obama, but remember, the justices they appointed have been on the right side of every important Supreme Court decision.

And yes, Hillary can win and Sanders cannot. Fundraising is one reason. Another is that Sanders is just too liberal for the current electorate. You can complain about this, but it doesn't change the reality.

[zeemike]

74. You make it simple...good/bad.

When it is not as simple as that at all.
Like I said, you have perps and enablers and they both work together. It is the basis of triangulation.

And I disagree that Sanders is unelectable because he is too liberal...he is populist and that means he addresses the issues that appeal to the populist, and represents change where Clinton represents the same old same old.
And you seem to imply that the Democratic party will abandon him if he is the nominee and if that is true then the party needs to change.

[DanTex]

76. It is pretty simple when it comes to the GE. Dems good, Reps bad.

I don't know how it could possibly be any clearer. For example, Bush brought as Iraq, tax cuts, economic ruin. Obama brought us ACA, economic recovery, financial regulation, saving the auto industry, etc. And all the SC justices appointed by Dems have been on the right side of all of the major recent decisions.

Bernie will appeal to the Democratic base, that's true. But he won't appeal very much to independents and moderates, who are needed to win the presidency. Some liberals make the mistake of thinking that because they really like Bernie, then everyone else will also. And then there's the fact that he won't be able to compete financially. Pretending that doesn't matter is wishful (and dangerous) thinking.

[zeemike]

81. We are not talking about the GE now are we?

And the GOP boogie men has no bearing on the primaries do they?...except to scare people into choosing the one with the most money...because money trumps principles I guess.

But I point out to you that the SC justices are approved by congress and none can be appointed without the approval of congress...now who controlled congress when they were appointed?
So to say the Dems had nothing to do with it is not the case.
And you can bet if the next appointment is not approved by the GOP they will be rejected no matter what party is in the WH...but Dems have not had the balls to do it for some time now.

But you are dead wrong about Sanders not having support from independents and moderats...quite the opposite is true...that is his main support.
The reason they are independents is because they don't see ether party answering their concerns...And Bernie is doing that.

So then tell me...if Sanders wins the nomination does that mean the Dems donors will quit supporting the party?...because that is what you seem to say when you say he won't be able to compete financially.
That would be an admission that big money wants to decide who is the one to run and will not accept the will of the people in the party.

[DanTex]

82. I'm talking about the GE. If we nominate someone who can't win the GE, that's bad.

That's why Republicans are so happy about Bernie. They hope that he will damage Clinton to make her easier to beat. And, of course, the far left is happy to oblige by constantly bashing her.

You're right that congress approves SC nominations, but of course the president nominates them which is more important. But it is also important to elect Dems to congress, for a lot of reasons.

As far as independents and moderates supporting Sanders, I have no idea where you get that idea. Certainly not any polls. Seems like wishful thinking to me.

Finally, if Sanders doesn't win the nomination, no, I don't think he'll be able to raise as much money as Clinton. He'll raise some, but he doesn't have the same network as Clinton. And not accepting any PAC money will also hurt him, if he decides to keep to that.

[HooptieWagon]

91. If Bernie beats Hillary...

...the GE will not be a problem.

[zeemike]

96. Well you got that backward.

The GOP's best chance of winning is with Clinton...for the reasons I stated earlier. The fewer the voter the better they do.
But I see what you are doing...seting up the excuse for when Hillary loses to Jeb...it will be Sanders supporters fault because they "bashed" Clinton. Not having a message that appeals to voters can never be the cause...nor can having so much baggage to carry.

But yes she can get the money, because the same people who support the GOP support her...they always go for the win win. No mater who wins things will remain the same.

And I get that idea from the real world..most people I know in the real world are independents. And the concerns they have are being addressed by Sanders not Clinton. Thus the narrative being expressed that he cannot win because Hillary has too much money. That will discourage them, because the reason they have rejected both parties is they feel big money rules.
But the big danger to TPTB is Sanders actually getting the nomination and releasing the power of numbers.

[DanTex]

97. The GOP would love nothing more than to run against Sanders.

This is not a secret, they talk about it openly. Of course, Sanders doesn't have much chance of winning the primary, so what they are really hoping for is that Sanders will weaken Hillary enough during the primary that they can win the GE.

Sanders, to his credit, is not obliging them. He is running a positive campaign rather than attacking Hillary. But some fringe leftists can't help themselves and bash Hillary at every opportunity, thereby doing exactly what the GOP wants.

As far as your ideas coming from the "real world", sorry but your group of friends is not a sample of the electorate. There are polls for that, and the polls are pretty clear. Poll trutherism: another thing the GOP has in common with the far left.

[zeemike]

100. The exact opposite of that is true.

Jeb needs Hillary as an opponent badly...for the reason of dynasty. And that is why big money supports her.
They have no need to weaken Hillary, they have all her baggage to unpack and they will do it once she has the nomination.

The polls are made up from likely voters...that excludes some 60% of the population...and polls can be manipulated in favor of moneyed interests.
And if enough of those 60% decide to vote because they believe that change is possible change will happen. That is the danger to big money because they want to control who gets the nomination. They want us to vote for one of two they select.

[NCTraveler]

15. I think the best way to go about it would be if all of our candidates.....

used only a few of the tools available to them and let the pukes walk right in. They will get right on CU for you.

[daleanime]

17. Totally disagree...

don't see it as 'limiting' or hand tying. I see it as quite liberating.


But what's my Credit Union have to do with it?

[NCTraveler]

22. Not sure what your credit union has to do with it.

Ideas become championed on the campaign trail, then enacted by winners. Lets see, 500 million or one plus billion. I don't find republicans writing and signing legislation to be liberating.

Riddle me this. C U was five years ago. Who has even come close to passing new legislation. Even the SC said the same effect could become reality if certain sections of the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act were reworded. So, where has the success been over the last five years?

[aspirant]

23. Past 5 years, ask Obama

Bernie is the new way

[RichVRichV]

50. No kidding.

It's kind of hard to accomplish something when you won't even try for it.

[aspirant]

20. Sell our souls to the devil

because the Almighty Repukes are coming

[arcane1]

24. In other words, always play by THEIR rules.

It's served so well

[onecaliberal]

26. That's the excuse we used for why it was okay for POTUS to use a super PAC.

That he wouldn't be able to compete against Mittens.

No more excuses for me.

[99Forever]

32. Exactly.

If a candidate can't do it without a fix, I don't trust them, period.

No compromise.

[George II]

36. Wait until spring 2016, you'll see Sanders can't.

[daleanime]

38. And this is what you're hoping for?

[George II]

43. Well, that's an odd way to put it - I'm hoping for a Clinton victory so, to put it in your terms....

....I guess I'm hoping that Sanders won't win.

I see the sky partly sunny, you most likely see it partly cloudy.

[daleanime]

47. I thought we were discussing campaign finances?

Whether the sky is sunny or cloudy, I see a lot of work to be done.

[RichVRichV]

48. I find it ironic

that the person who says 'a candidate who won't play by rigged rules can't win' is the one who claims to be the optimist here.

[George II]

49. I didn't say that, and raising campaign funds isn't playing by "rigged rules".

[99Forever]

65. Quite clearly, you know jack shit about Bernie.

But feel free to keep making really fucking stupid statements and excuses for the corrupt, business as usual, Republican Lite, bought and paid for corporate shills.

[George II]

67. Thanks for the gratuitous insults. "Stupid statements", etc?

The fact is that Sanders has no chance in most (if not all) Democratic primaries and even less in the general election.

[George II]

69. So apparently any statement not lauding your candidate is considered by you to be....

....a "fucking stupid statement" and Sanders' major opponent (who, by the way, is kicking his ass!) is a "corrupt....Republican lite bought and paid for by corporate shills"?

What a sweet person you are!

[George II]

71. It wasn't stupid and Clinton isn't a corrupt "republican lite" or bought and paid for by anyone.

And when I disagree with someone I don't resort to insults.

You obviously don't know how to discuss anything like an adult. If you're representative of Sanders supporters, no doubt he has little support and will fail miserably in the primaries.

Have a good evening.

[George II]

34. So what do you suggest we do here in 2015?????

[daleanime]

37. Uh, work our butts off....

to get good candidates elected?

[jtuck004]

35. Back when they were trying to kill off the IWW, some of the folks said they would

join the new org, the AF of L, (if you were white, that is) and change it from the inside.

Didn't work then either, and those who weren't killed were bought off or disappeared,

Can read that and more labor history in:

"Them and Us"
James J. Matles and James Higgins, organizers for the UE.

[valerief]

39. A perfect analogy. nt

[daleanime]

41. Thank you....

it seems to upset some folks.

[valerief]

44. The perennially outraged?

[daleanime]

46. Could be, I get the feeling....

this is going to be a very hard year for some.

[Half-Century Man]

51. wolf-pac. com

Go, volunteer

[aspirant]

59. We need PRINCIPLED candidates

whose actions match their words.

[PowerToThePeople]

60. They are junkies. Hooked on the almighty dollar. n/t

[Spitfire of ATJ]

61. People are listening to the media too much....

The media keeps hammering that raising money is all that counts.

The media are also the ones who get that money selling ads.

Money doesn't buy votes.

If it did we'd be living under President Romney.

[daleanime]

62. Agreed.

[Lil Missy]

72. Do let us know how that works out for ya. n/t

[daleanime]

78. Fairly good....

puts things in stark terms and helps me stay focused on what we need to change.

[Lil Missy]

79. Really? The election is over?

I see ...

Okie dokie!

[daleanime]

80. Oh, pardon me.....

I thought you asked how it was doing for me.

[MineralMan]

83. Hmm...there is no way to change campaign financing before

the 2016 elections. In the first place, Congress would have to do it, and the Republicans have no interest whatever in doing so. As a matter of fact, any such changes will have to come at a later time, and will require Democratic majorities in both houses of Congress and a Democratic President.

Indeed, those should be the goals of every Democratic voter going forward. Internal bickering isn't going to get anything done. That much is certain.

[daleanime]

86. If we wait for 'official' change.....

we'll never take any actions.

Of course republicans will have no interest in doing so, until they start losing elections over it. Democrats have a huge opportunity if we would just reach out and grab it.

[MineralMan]

90. Elections are "official" things.

What would you suggest?

[sabrina 1]

84. I could not agree more. Before this campaign is over, that money is going to become poison

to voters, it already is, because we have someone in the race now who has taken it OUT of his Politics and is showing that it is not needed IF you have the right message.

Money in politics is going to be one of the major issues for the first time, in a major campaign.

It is way past time as it is destroying our electoral system, buying candidates, see the Kochs, and making it possible for morons like Scott to actually get a hearing when normally, without those huge contributions, no one would have ever heard of him.

[daleanime]

88. Amen.....

[Arkana]

85. Wow, that's like the worst analogy I've ever seen.

How exactly do you propose to change the rules without the power to change the rules? A bunch of petitions on MoveOn.org isn't going to cut it.

[daleanime]

87. How does feasability....

impact an analogy?

You did notice, I put forth no plan. Simple give my opinion.

[Adrahil]

89. Well, for the moment...

We are faced with the reality of the law as it is, not as we want it. Both Hillary and Bernie want to overturn Citizens United. But one or the other needs money to get elected. Welcome to American politics.

[daleanime]

94. It's going to be dirty...

so why not enjoy the mud? If all the candidates are covered in mud, what kind of choice are we offering voters? Let's make it hard to ignore the difference.

Citizens United was a horrible decision, but it was just the last nail in the coffin and pulling that out will not relive our democracy.

[brooklynite]

92. Explain how you go "cold turkey" AND beat the Republicans.

[daleanime]

93. I would turn the question around.....

how will you change things if you continue to play the same game?

[brooklynite]

95. We changed health care coverage...

We changed gay rights...

We changed our relationship with Cuba.

[Nye Bevan]

98. I hate to be a Debbie Downer

but I think it would be tough to pass and ratify, before the next election, a constitutional amendment that removes First Amendment protections from election-related speech.

[daleanime]

99. Hard? I would say impossible...

but I would also say that until we have shown that we can over come the 'power' of money we won't be able to change the system period.

If we rely on that 'power' this election cycle, it will be around for the next. And harder to fight then.