Home | About | Donate

Recognizing Populist Demand, Gillibrand and Booker Swear Off Corporate Cash


#1

Recognizing Populist Demand, Gillibrand and Booker Swear Off Corporate Cash

Jake Johnson, staff writer

In moves celebrated by progressives as further evidence that grassroots pressure on the Democratic Party to ditch corporate cash is having an impact, two senators—Kirsten Gillibrand (D-N.Y.) and Cory Booker (D-N.J.)—pledged on Tuesday to no longer accept corporate PAC donations.

"Our movement has shown that you can't expect to be a leader of the Democratic Party if you're going to keep taking money from Wall Street banks and large corporations."
—Justice Democrats


#2

! THIS IS WHAT DEMOCRACY LOOKS LIKE !

SNOWBALL TIME!!!
$2 to each and every representative who refuses corporate money!!
$2 each month going down the list alphabetically

And boy oh boy will the microscopes be brightly lit!

Get cranking on voting machine corruption
UNDERSTAND THIS VERY CLEARLY

I’d like to hear Trump try to say something derogatory about these women !


#3

It’s a nice gesture and makes a valid publiity point, but for most politician what makes the corporate cash necesary is the high cost of media advertising, Get the media companies, especially TV to donate the time and the production companies to produce the ads cheap, and bring back the Equal Time Rule, then we would have gone a long way toward a more level playing field.


#4

oh no. Democrats have figured out a scam on funding.

cory booker swearing off corporate cash? bullsh*t. not now, not ever.
gotta read the fine print.


#5

Good luck with that! This is, after all, The Corporate States of America, where GREED IS GAWD!!!


#6

i just don’t know. i believed obama back in 2008 when he campaigned to get big $$$ out of politics. i sent $50 to help his campaign. well . . .in 2012 i received a request for more from michelle with a nice obama family portrait enclosed. i used the postage-paid return envelope to send a note:

Thanks for the beautiful photo, but I cannot compete with Goldman Sachs!

#7

oh! and let’s not forget “single payer is off the table!”


#8

Nothing like another Tales From The Tooth Fairy and other works of fiction. Come on. Your blind loyalty to the corrupt Democratic Party is showing.


#9

Unfortunately, I am not naive enough to believe that Booker, the one senator that received the most contributions from big pharmaceutical companies would give that up. I fear that with this list of candidates the democratic party will assure a trump second term. The only winning combination that would defeat trump would be Bernie and Warren ticket, I don’t see any others.


#10

I am reminded of a Canadian Logging Company , in response to public pressures over logging practices , announcing a green initiative wherein moving forwards they would practice “ecological logging”. The problem was this was done as a REACTION to public pressure. The executives running the show saw it as a profit making opportunity and they were never really sincere about wanting to protect the environment. At the end of the day, theirs was still the profit motive and the initiative lasted only as long as the Public pressure did . They were never going to be stewards of the environment. They just wanted to make money off it.

A simple observation. If these Politicians were sincere on this matter , they would never have accepted those monies in the first place nor would they be part of a political party that courts the Corporate dollar. They see this as a way to getting votes. It is sort of a “reverse advertising” if you would wherein they use “No Corporate dollars to get votes” very much like they used to use “Corporate dollars to buy votes”.

Yes this is cynicism and yes I understand this Public pressure might be the only way to get Corporate dollars out of Politics in the USA , but keep in mind up here in Canada there much stricter rules against Corporations funding Political campaigns yet those Corporations still drive Public Policy , this because at the end of the day they still work on behalf of the Corporate State .


#11

Maria Cantwell, “my” Senator and one of those signing the pledge, is a neoliberal corporate sell-out.

Her pledge to stop accepting corporate PAC money is not motivated by opposition to the neoliberal corporate agenda.


#12

I assume they will still accept corporate money for campaigns since the other side is so heavily funded especially by the Koch brothers. The candidates don’t directly control the PACs they only have control over their campaigns. But this is a step in the right direction. Typically candidates move left for the Democratic primary and then toward center in the general election, although Hillary Clinton actually did the reverse to get the support of Bernie Sanders.


#13

Obama promised single payer for 7 years.


#14

I applaud Gillibrand and Booker for swearing off corporate cash. Too bad I don’t trust either as far as I could throw them. They are the chosen of the Democratic Party and the neo-liberals. They will be the corporate trojan horses in 2020.


#15

I’m also wondering if we could get an apology from Sen. Gillibrand for helping to hound Al Franken (one of our best senators) out of office based on allegations that were increasingly suspect, especially when we found out that the woman involved was a plant from Rethug asshole Roger Stone.
Looks like the answer to my question is no. I just read an item on another website that says Gillibrand is only sorry that she didn’t call for his resignation sooner! I’m still waiting to hear if right-wing whackjob Michelle Bachmann has heard from Gawd telling her to run for Franken’s seat or not.
As to eschewing donations from corporate cash, I can’t see many politicians doing this. The cost of campaigning is ridiculously high and this idiot country refuses to change over to public financing. One glaring example is the Congressional seat that was voted for in Georgia. The Demos really wanted to unseat some right-wing Rethug and they spent $30 million and still lost!! We can see Senate campaigns that routinely cost that much and the Koch Demons are taking advantage of this reality to push their corporate/regressive agenda with their promise to offer up $400 million for the midterms. American democracy is in trouble.


#16

You really have no clue. “get the media companies to donate time”…and your high if you think the media companies are going to donate air time to anybody. Seriously freaking high…


#17

The devil is always in the details.


#18

She is my senator as well and I have been generally disappointed with her and Patty Murray. They were both in favor of the TPP (“NAFTA on steroids”) and supported Fast Track as well.
The neoliberalism that was introduced by the Clintons and the DLC/DNC has infected this party and I no longer automatically vote for a politician just because they have a “D” after their name.


#19

You’re right Dan, they will never donate time, but they could dam well be forced to give equal time to ALL candidates. That could also open the playing field for third party candidates as well.


#20

Yeah, and people now realize this for what it is, a lie and a show. It’s exactly why there is so much cynicism in regards to these types of moves, the “centrist” (center of what?) Democrats have a history of talking progressive and governing well to the right not only of their own party, but where the entire country now wants policies to be, and that is because they are (to a person) corrupt. I also don’t know what it means to “move towards the center” since the center of popular opinion IS on the left when it comes to the issues in 2018. I realize that people like Booker would like to pretend that it is 1992 forever, but it isn’t, and that “pivot towards the center” stuff is death to your party. It shows those people to be dishonest, empty, and it moves them away from policies that have broad popular support. The parasites known as consultants won’t change anything as the party is their piggy bank and they’d rather continue to enrich themselves off of the party than democratize the party and allow people to take it over from their large donors.

Can you answer me a question? People like you use the word like “center” and “centrist” all the time. What is the center to you? Cause if you ask the public what they want, on every major issue they agree with Sanders. If popular opinion determines what is or isn’t centrist, then Sanders is centrist, not the “far left” that you often call him. If we live in a democracy or a representative republic, we should expect there to be little to no gap between public opinion and government policy. Not the case though, since the center of popular opinion is now well to the left of government policy and well to the left of those running the relatively “progressive” Democratic Party. So, again, what does the “center” mean to you? What is it in the center of? Can you show that the people YOU call centrist are in the center of popular opinion on the issues? For example, over 60% of the public now wants single payer. How do the people you define as “centrist” align with that?