All candidates need money and it really does matter where they get it

[leftofcool]

No candidate can survive alone with just individual donors all the way to the convention, not with 20 people in the race. So PACS are fine, lobbyists are fine but let's not pretend that all PACS are good or all lobbyists are good. Taking money from the banking/credit card industry who has been fucking over the people for years, not good. Taking money from large telecom companies who don't believe in net neutrality, not good. Money from the NRA, not good. Taking money from the Nurses Union, good, money from organized labor unions, good, money from former politicians and celebrities who hold fundraisers, all good. For me, there is a difference and it matters.

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

1. What matters is that it's legal and completely accounted for.

Otherwise I don't think any Dem candidate should hamper him/herself by rejecting contributions from insufficiently pure donors. The GOP always has a huge financial advantage, and one of the worst things that can happen to a campaign is not having enough money to counter the GOP's and its PACs' advertising onslaughts. I say, take their money and use it to defeat Trump, which is the only thing that really matters in the end.

[leftofcool]

3. Would you be willing to define "insufficiently pure"

No PAC or lobbyist in totally pure but there are some I don't want my preferred candidate to take money from.

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

8. "Insufficiently pure" would be defined by the candidate.

A Democrat probably wouldn't take NRA money, but the NRA probably wouldn't be offering any so I doubt that decision would ever have to be made. You have already defined money from banks and credit card companies as "bad," and therefore insufficiently pure. There are a lot of personal or ideological reasons why a candidate might not want to take contributions from a particular person or entity. Maybe a candidate who was a devout vegan might reject contributions from people associated with the beef industry, for example. It's up to them. Personally, I don't want to see any candidate ending up financially hamstrung as the result of rejecting legal donations, and I wouldn't even hold it against Bernie Sanders if he took money from millionaires and billionaires.

[leftofcool]

13. I wouldn't hold that against him either

I consider that good money just as long as said billionaire has not done things to screw over Americans

[WeekiWater]

2. I don't see where you mention dark money.

What are your thoughts on it? Good or bad?

Take the money. We can’t have meaningful campaign finance reform without numbers. At some point we need to get over ourselves and stop putting restrictions in place that make the playing field even more unequal.

[leftofcool]

4. I guess it depends on what you mean by dark money

I don't see donated money as either dark or light. I see it more as coming from a good place or a bad place.

[Eko]

5. Can a Corporation Donate in a Presidential Election?

"According to the Federal Election Commission, corporations and labor unions are prohibited from contributing to political candidates. This restriction applies to both for profit or nonprofit corporations."
https://smallbusiness.chron.com/can-corporation-donate-presidential-election-36819.html

[leftofcool]

6. According to the rules, no

But you and I both know it happens all the time.

[Eko]

7. Are you accusing

a Democratic candidate of taking illegal money from corporations?

[leftofcool]

9. Nope

[Eko]

10. Then what is the point of the post.

[Eko]

11. Here, let me suggest this.

No candidate can survive alone with just individual donors all the way to the convention, not with 20 people in the race. So PACS are fine, lobbyists are fine but let's not pretend that all PACS are good or all lobbyists are good. Money from the NRA, not good. Taking money from the Nurses Union, good, money from organized labor unions, good, money from former politicians and celebrities who hold fundraisers, all good. For me, there is a difference and it matters.

Better?

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

16. The NRA is not likely to contribute a dime to a Democratic candidate,

so that's not much of an example. Candidates obviously have the option of accepting or rejecting any contribution.

[Eko]

18. Yeah,

bout as likely as a corporation giving money to a candidate since its illegal.

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

12. I think there's a lot of confusion about who can make political contributions.

Corporations can't do it. Employees of corporations can, but those employees can include bookkeepers and janitors as well as executives. A $25 contribution from a secretary who works for Citibank is not a "corporate" contribution. For that matter, neither is the maximum of $2700 from a bank vice president. However, contributions to PACs are not regulated in the same way.

[Eko]

14. Yup.

The company I work for is the largest of its type in the world. I'm middle management. When I give to a candidate it is from my money that I made and not from the company I work for.

[leftofcool]

15. It does get very confusing

[highplainsdem]

17. Did you disapprove of President Obama's fundraising, too? And if so, would you rather have had him

lose elections than take money from, say, Goldman Sachs employees?

[leftofcool]

19. I never had a problem with Goldman Sachs employees

In the same way I didn't have a problem with Hillary giving a speech to Goldman Sachs employees. Employees are not the problem. It is the CEO's of large corporations that screw over the American people who are the problem.

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

20. CEOs of large corporations have the same donation limits as everyone else.

[leftofcool]

21. I wasn't talkiing about their limits. It's their influence

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

22. What influence is that? They can't make their employees donate to a candidate.

The FEC prohibits employers from coercing workers when it comes to monetary donations or fundraising.

[leftofcool]

23. it is the influence CEO's have over our candidates

Comcast lobbied against net neutrality. My preferred candidate is all for net neutrality and has stated so, therefore, if he allows a fund raiser given by the CEO of Comcast, I would think that Comcast has an ulterior motive for giving the fund raiser and my candidate is negating what he says he stands for.

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

24. That same Comcast exec also held a fund-raiser for Obama.

https://www.democraticunderground.com/128793687 Nevertheless, Obama was in favor of net neutrality, https://obamawhitehouse.archives.gov/net-neutrality - so you can't make that sort of assumption just because somebody held or attended a fund-raiser.

[leftofcool]

25. All the same, I respect my preferred candidate for sticking to his principles

Obama did what Obama wanted to do and I loved him for it. Now, I love this new candidate for what he does because he aligns with my own beliefs and morals.