The legal, albeit icky underbelly of DNC, candidate money & deals | #MoneyInPolitics on Blog#42

In August of 2015, Hillary Clinton’s campaign cut a deal with the DNC whereby joint fundraising will be done by the DNC, both for its own needs and the Clinton campaign’s. Proceeds, under that agreement, wouldn’t be available to Clinton, unless and until she secures the party’s nomination as the presidential candidate.

The Daily Caller reported on January 4th, that:

Hillary Clinton and the Democratic National Committee have an unusual and apparently unprecedented agreement in which an entity she controls has paid nearly $20 million to the political panel, even as its leadership plays a supposedly impartial role in fostering competition between the former secretary of state and her rivals for the party’s 2016 presidential nomination.

Clinton created a “joint fundraising committee” Sept. 10 that funneled big-money donations in excess of the per-campaign limit to the DNC. In the next 20 days, she raised and gave $600,000 to the DNC, and the figure ballooned to $18 million in the fourth quarter, according to newly released figures — a third of her total haul. Normally the party would only team up with a candidate that way if the candidate was the nominee.

In true Daily Caller fashion, there is no mention of the fact that this is a legal agreement between Clinton and the DNC. What is unprecedented, is that the cooperation begins before Clinton is crowned queen of the ball. Then again, this is consistent with Clinton’s natural tendency to be presumptuous. That said, however, it remains true that neither of the other two the other Democratic candidates have has not chosen to enter into such an agreement. Barack Obama entered into a similar agreement with the DNC and 18 states, but only after he became the party nominee.

With all of the, um, impartiality Bernie Sanders has granted by Debbie Wasserman-Schultz’ DNC, it is unsurprising that he has not chosen to follow in Clinton’s footsteps. Which makes me wonder… What if he does win? Is the DNC prepared to replace Wasserman-Schultz with someone who is better qualified more ethical? At that point, it won’t be so much the DNC data breach that will be an impediment, as much as it will be Wasserman-Schultz’ failure to run a Southern Strategy in 2012, 2014, and in 2015.

Getting out the vote and changing over at least one house of Congress, in 2016, will be as important as electing a Democrat to the White House. Ensuring as many democratic-leaning voters show up at the polls as possible is essential and Rep. Keith Ellison’s proposal would do just that.  Support by way of funds and logistics from the DNC would go a very long way in ensuring this strategy succeeds equally well in Minneapolis as in the suburbs of Atlanta, Dallas, Tallahassee and everywhere else in the US.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *