Home | About | Donate

'Deeply Disturbing': Bombshell Piece Exposes 'Unethical' Clinton-DNC Fundraising Deal

No, the overall argument that she was making was correct, without any question. There was an agreement between the state parties, the DNC and the Clinton campaign. A Clinton surrogate, one of the most important people in her campaign, was put in charge of that and did not disperse much money to the state parties. Not only did they not get a lot of money, but a lot of the money that was given to them was immediately sent back to the DNC. The intent of the damn fund was to get around campaign finance laws, and it is obvious. It is also a bit different than situations in the past in the sense that this agreement was signed in 2015, a few months after she announced that she was running, and not after she won the nomination. It was a situation in which one candidate running in a primary was going to be financially relied upon, a year before the damn primary was over. You claimed that the money was to be dispersed until after the primary, well, deals like this aren’t formed until about that time either. This one was formed a year before the primaries were over, while she was supposed to be competing with other candidates for her party’s nomination in a free and open election, not a corrupt and rigged mess like what happened. This type of stuff is what we see in banana republics, and you are here defending it. I know that you have a long standing relationship with the party, are you too a consultant?

The fund was created as a means of getting Clinton larger donations than her campaign could receive, it was a means of laundering money and the agreement gave her even more power within the Democratic Party. She also had a say on the operations of the DNC that no other candidate had, in fact I would guess that no non-incumbent candidate has had in a long time, if ever, long before she actually secured her party’s nomination.

The point is that this was another instance in which the primaries were not on the up and up, and were not fair. And if you want to argue otherwise, would you be okay if Republicans did this to the Democrats in the general election from here on out? Would that be okay with you? If a Republican candidate did this exact thing to a Democratic candidate, if the entirety of what we know happened in regards to a Republican, would you be fine with it? Rhetorical question, don’t bother answering. If you defend this, don’t bothering trying to convince people to trust your party. Stuff like this is why the Democrats have collapsed and likely won’t recover, and that will lead to an even worse party having far more power than it deserves.


They also disenfranchise a large number of people—the numbers are absolutely clear on that. I think in smaller states they may be useful, but my preference is semi-open primaries generally.

Amongst the three options of

  1. trying to defend this stuff
  2. working to eliminate this stuff
  3. throwing our hands up and declaring everything rigged

I vote for #2


I agree that a direct vote with as high a turnout as possible is generally better. The key is to strike an appropriate balance and timing of these things. If I created the rues I would hold some caucuses early and have a fund available that is distributed to campaigns proportional to their results in those early caucuses and then have primaries after that until the end.

People do not get the governments they deserve.

This is a liberal nation on every score.
If that were true, we’d have a liberal government.

I don’t blame you, but if you did pay attention at the time, it would have been obvious. Now, there are some people (some people maybe even posting here in this thread) that financially depend on not noticing these things, and even provide cover for it. I would bet, if we ever can see the books at the DNC, that these “consultants” are getting a hell of a lot of money, and for what?

Party caucuses are an entirely appropriate method for the members of a political party to determine which member of the party to put forward as the party candidate in an election.

There should be no state-sponsored party primaries.

There should be a single election run by the state, in which all qualified candidates - including any party candidates who are qualified candidates - compete.

And there should be a voting system - like Rank Choice Voting, or Approval Voting, or Score Voting - that completes the election in a single round, and allows voters to weigh in on ALL candidates (not reduce their input to a single vote that must go to a single candidate), eliminating the manufactured problems of “lesser evil voting” and “wasted votes.”

1 Like

Pray tell, who in the Swamp is not?

Really? There’s been no analysis of this? If a tree falls in a forest but you don’t hear it, did it fall?

“It’s like the coach of the losing football team blaming the refs for the loss rather than looking at game film to see what happened.”

No, more like a basketball coach that keeps screaming to the refs that there are seven players on the court for the other team, and the refs responding by calling the coach a “whiner”. Then, when the cheating team wins, the winning coach pretends the cheating and the bias from the ref had nothing to do with it. That’d be more accurate.


Don’t you feel that the inability for some people to be able to participate in caucuses (such as working people who cannot spend the whole day at a caucus) is a problem? I like the highly engaged nature of a caucus and I definitely prefer voting systems like the ones you mention - but we’d need to make them more accessible to people - just like elections in general I suppose. Perhaps some of the online participatory democracy ideas that @natureboy often posts about would be a good system.

1 Like

I can almost make a case for caucuses for primaries.

Theory of the case as follows - Caucuses reward organization, dedication to the party and (generally) awareness of the issues. At least in theory, this should lead to a candidate who best, ideologically, fits the profile of the party.

The general election then allows those competing ideologies to vie for votes among the population at large. In effect, each party puts the person who best represents the views of the party stalwarts forward and the public selects it vision.

At least it wouldn’t have left us with the two candidates we had last year…

Caucuses and primaries have different attributes for sure - hence the idea of having a mixture is reasonable to allow for the benefits of each to appear and the problems with each to not dominate the nominating process. The eligibility issue is also a fundamental part of the presidential nomination process in the U.S. (same day registration for independents being the key controversy - something I support but party loyalists do not). Your argument for caucuses implies some sort of party loyalty that doesn’t really square with reality.

In a post above I tried to address the issue of having a situation that allows a party to “find a diamond in the rough” by recommending more caucuses early on in the process and a party fund to help-kick start promising campaigns. Taking a play from @natureboy I think it would be more accessible if we also looked at virtual caucuses as a component of the nominating process.

Testing innovative nominating processes is something that third parties should really take a stab at - but they rarely have the logistical skills to pull off more than the minimum process required by law. That’s a shame - providing a model for a transparent process with a truly neutral referee might really help such groups make a name for themselves.


In further relation to the aftermath of the Sen. Sanders nationwide scandal, an insider coup against Keith Ellison, Tom Perez, and the continuing M.O. of the DNC:

Tom Perez, the current chair of the DNC, has the right to appoint 75 superdelegates – so they’re not even elected officials." See recent piece by Cory Doctorow: “The DNC picked a bunch of sleazy lobbyists as superdelegates, can’t figure out why no one is donating.

The 2018 “superdelegates” to the Democratic National Convention will include lobbyists for Rupert Murdoch’s Newscorp, CITGO petroleum, Citigroup, and other large corporations.

Superdelegates are unelected party favorites who get to vote for the party leader in primaries. The DNC was sued for dirty tricks in the 2016 primaries, and in its defense, DNC leaders insisted the party could “pick candidates in smoke-filled back-rooms” and ignore the votes of party members.

1 Like

Where and when did the Clinton campaign do this? From reporting at the time, the six sanctioned debates were in line with precedent. I’ve answered the debate issue above and I think there is nothing to it, except the sanctioned thing, which I agree was stupid. Factually though, it was Clinton and O’Malley that agreed to non-sanctioned debates first, not Sanders. Sanders came in later. Here’s a good explainer from May 2015 before it was even an issue:

As for the other charges, here’s the just released MOU on the Victory Fund:

Myself, I think it shows the Clinton campaign was legitimately concerned about the DNC’s mismanagement. I’d sure like to see Bernie’s MOU now so we can compare apples to apples. But my preference and hope for the future is that Victory Funds aren’t needed. On that score, I think we both agree.

And yet the link you posted said there were 24 Democrat primary debates in 2004 and 27 debates in 2008 (Wikipedia also shows approximately those same numbers). That’s because of the debates not sponsored by the DNC as you said …

That is not the “except” part - the is the fundamental point. Having the exclusivity rules in place gave the Clinton campaign a veto over having more debates. So that is precisely what limited it from the mid twenties to the small number we had in 2016.

1 Like

Except the sanctioned debates were the exact same sanctioned amount as 2004 and 2008. 538 has a great piece on the history of party-sanctioned debates, I’ll provide the link if you want. The other debates were forums, town halls, debates, whatnot sponsored by other entities, and the 2015 debate rules didn’t bar forums either. As the article from the time before it ever became an issue notes, the exclusivity rule came from Howard Dean because he believed the debates were out of control when he ran. The DNC adopted the sanction rule from Republicans to try and get a handle on the number of debates. Notably, and maybe most key, the six were agreed to in cooperation with television networks. However, as O’Malley’s campaign was quick to point out, the exclusivity rule itself was unenforceable. It was illegal for the DNC to dictate the structure of formats and invitees sponsored by 501© or media organizations.

To me though, the issue I have most is that in Spring of 2015, Biden was a likely candidate for president and other big-name Democrats were still considering. It wasn’t even a Hillary versus Bernie thing at the time the number of debates were decided and the exclusivity rule adopted (a rule that Bernie used, not Clinton or O’Malley, who agreed to non-sanctioned debates). Moreover, DWS wasn’t a favorite of Clinton, despite what people claim. Clinton wanted her replaced as party chair by Obama in 2012, unhappy with her after 2008. In fact, rather than Clinton, DWS favored Biden. Here’s a sense of the intra party tension from late 2014:

A lot of people within the party did not like DWS. I think Clinton is taking some phony hits here—fed by primary opponents—for decisions it’s not clear to me she made, fed by the typical Clinton-is-Nixon press innuendo. And I don’t think I need to say Clinton wasn’t going to criticize DWS publicly for her party mismanagement, as that would’ve been hitting Obama too.

Was Democratic Primary Rigged Against Sanders? Warren Says Definitively ‘Yes’

Of course, and millions upon millions of us already knew thatlast year.

Will there be any (true) Change with Tom Perez at the helm? Has there been?
Hopefully, you already know the answer.
But, just in case, read the quotes above the relating video.
Maybe, watch the video (closely) as well?

In December or January of 2015-16, with Bernie already having been running for president for over six months, as an elected Democratic Party leader I and countless others received a letter from the Democratic National Committee. This VERY unethical letter informed us that in order to “validate” our membership in the D.N.C., we were required to send a certain sum of money … I think about $50. In this grossly-illegal manner, essentially by false representation and extortion, the DNC raised a great deal of money which was used to benefit Clinton and not Sanders.

1 Like

Socratizer, since the most politically conscious group in the U.S, is the black community, and since the NYT is apparently not offering any ‘reader comments’ (as CD does) on any reporting or editorials dealing with Donna Brazile’s truth-telling about the deceit of the neoliberal ‘D’ Vichy Party or its former ‘Empress-in-waiting’, I thought it would be fun to consider what it might have looked like if her telephone call with Bernie Sanders occurred face to face and in the form of a movie scene like that in “Bulworth” — where Warren Beatty, in the back-seat of his limo, is more interested in other things, but Halle Berry shocks him with her knowledge of the real deceit and brutality of political/economics based on an Empire that a powerful white man might not easily understand:


Obviously, I’m not implying that any romantic intentions exist between Bernie and Donna, but she certainly opened his eyes to a dirty reality of power that neither had fully perceived nor dealt with in polite political company, eh? And in film noir style this fictional conversation might be titled “Donna and Bernie’s Moment”

1 Like

Wow, how many repliers actually read the memorandum of agreement between Mook and DNC? If they did, they would seriously question this so called bombshell and whether it was as Brazile led us to believe. After reading it, I conclude she’s a phony progressive who is trying to peddle a new book. Shame on Brazile!