I hope they ask in the debate: why would a 'progressive' candidate accept mostly corporate funding?

[Rosa Luxemburg]

We know but maybe voters don't know that most candidates are sponsored by 'big money' from corporations. A questions should be asked - if you are a progressive candidate (wannabe) and a champion of the people why do you take so much money from corporate donors?

(of course we know there is a real champion of the people who does not take 'big money' - 'corporate funding nor from PACS).

[restorefreedom]

1. it will be the standard answer

which basically says "i need all this money to win in a corrupt system so i can change the corrupt system."

[rhett o rick]

8. You hit it right on. nm

[Populist_Prole]

16. All too true: Throwing away good intentions after bad

We've seen it before too many times: "We just gotta win first....then we can do good things", but it just never happens.

I've also seen the same thing countless times throughout my work life:

New supervisor/foreman/manager says he'll change things from the repressive hidebound ways...but we just have to follow upper management's inflexible and mindless directives for now and up UP UP! productivity in the face of it, lest said supervisor/foreman/manager gets the axe: then they can do good things. 'Peter Principle' moves heretofore "progressive" supervisor/foreman/manager to upper management, who now becomes an ardent defender, nay, generator of the status quo. Rinse and repeat...............

I'm done with the status quo.

[Maedhros]

17. "Give us subpoena power!"

[bobbobbins01]

2. Eh, I already know her response to that...its been parroted here for months...

If the other team is going to have that kind of money, the only possible way she can compete is to go after the same money.

The real question shouldn't be why she is taking their money, but why they consider giving it to her a good investment in the first place. Clearly if she was a progressive, they'd stay away from her like the plague, yet they keep giving it, and she keeps taking it.

If she's making promises to the relatively powerless American people as well as to the big money donors and it comes time to show some results, any fool can figure out which side she's going to come up on.

[davidpdx]

20. Yep

And they are stupid and naive enough to think that once she gets in office she'll suddenly give up the corporate money that she takes. It will be the same excuse. The other side has it so we have to do it too. If she were to get elected the first thing she would do is start to line her treasure chest with money for reelection.

[liberal_at_heart]

3. If Bernie wins, they will no longer be able to use the excuse "You can't win without

super PACs and corporate money." Yet another reason to vote for Bernie.

[99th_Monkey]

7. and yet another reason to donate to Bernie Sanders as well.

i love that feeling I get, every time I do.

It's like hoisting my middle-finger at Citizens United's arrogant and
over-reaching attempt at subversion of US Democracy.

[Cheese Sandwich]

4. You're right they should ask that but it's so easy to answer.

I need all these billionaires and corporations because I wish the system was different but this is the only way to win.

[AgingAmerican]

5. It is a bribery system

So is lobbying.

[JaneyVee]

6. Mostly corporate funding?

[rhett o rick]

9. HRC is beholden to those billionaires that give her money. They don't care about

the 16,000,000 American children living in poverty. Why would anyone think that HRC, after using their money to win, would do anything that wouldn't make them happy? It's called quid pro quo.

[SoapBox]

10. Super ditto!

[uponit7771]

18. Like the poutrage about registration thread they're left to just making shit up now

[Gman]

11. Wondering if you have a better idea

That doesn't carry a huge risk of electing a Republican?

[uponit7771]

19. Some of this seems like the republicans inability to see the changes in American culture, Sanders...

... isn't see the effects of Citizens United and GOP Gerrymandering in the house.

[MattSh]

12. Oh no, they can't do that...

That might cause people to start thinking, and a thinking person is a dangerous person. To the 1%.

[cstanleytech]

13. Small point, this is not a debate for the Progressive party nor is this the Progressive Underground.

This is going to be a debate for the Democratic party candidates and this is the Democratic Underground.
So yes some of the Democratic candidates are going to be willing take money corporate sponsors and thats ok but I want caps on the amount as well requiring full disclosure over the amount they donate plus cutoff times like say a month for them to donate before voting takes place so as not to have undue influence also anonymous PACs need to go byebye.

[Eric J in MN]

14. All the candidates can say

"My campaign committee received NO money from corporations."

It's illegal for a corporation to donate to a campaign committee.

Their campaign committees can get money from corporate executives, corporate lobbyists, and corporate PACs.

Their Super PACs can get money from corporations themselves. Super PACs are theoretically independent. In practice, Super PACs aren't independent.

[nilram]

15. Surely someone on stage will bring up the corporate funding issue.