Support NeoGAF

[EmpressInYellow]

Having skimmed the article, I'm not entirely clear on why people are bringing up Citizens United. Do we know what percentage of that money raised is going to Clinton's campaign, what percentage is going to the overall DNC warchest, and what percentage is going into pro-Clinton SuperPACs?

CU dealt specifically with the ability of corporations et al to pour basically unlimited amounts of money into their own electioneering efforts - running ads, creating propaganda (such as the original anti-Clinton documentary that the case centered around), etc. It does not touch on campaign contributions.

I mean, Citizens United is awful, but I'm not really seeing offhand what it has to do with the story being reported (except insofar as "Citizens United" has become a generic stand-in for "that thing in election spending what I don't like none").

 

[atr0cious]

I'm not going to prove the existence of money influencing politics to you, Kyzer. The fact that you're rebutting this is ridiculous and is the only thing I called out when I engaged you.



If you don't think that this is something that happens in the world we live in (or is so infrequent and rare to the point of being negligible), that's your perogative. I simply don't think that Hilary is a lone, renagade exception to

We have literal proof of other politicians corruption. Like we can see their bills and positions and where they stand and where they are going. HIllary has almost none of this, hell even Bernie has dirt on him with having the NRA help get him elected to his voting against the Brady Bill. All we have is Hillary getting paid for speeches, and I think she voted on some corporate bill and made her reservations known. Obama had literal Wall Street employees in his administration but still went after them. So to think that Hillary is gonna be like, "yo everything I've done for the past 30 years was just a long con to give over to the powers that be," is a bit of a stretch.

Rupaul says it best though:

What do you think about Hillary Clinton and the Democrats?
[Laughs.] I fucking love them. I have always loved them. And let me just say this: If you're a politician — not just in Washington but in business and industry, you have to be a politician — there are a lot of things that you have to do that you're not proud of. There are a lot of compromises you have to make because it means that you can get this other thing over here. And if you think that you can go to fucking Washington and be rainbows and butterflies the whole time, you're living in a fucking fantasy world. So now, having said that, think about what a female has to do with that: All of those compromises, all of that shit, double it by ten. And you get to understand who this woman is and how powerful, persuasive, brilliant, and resilient she is. Any female executive, anybody who has been put to the side — women, blacks, gays — for them to succeed in a white-male-dominated culture is an act of brilliance. Of resilience, of grit, of everything you can imagine. So, what do I think of Hillary? I think she's fucking awesome. Is she in bed with Wall Street? Goddammit, I should hope so! You've got to dance with the devil. So which of the horrible people do you want? That's more of the question. Do you want a pompous braggart who doesn't know anything about diplomacy? Or do you want a badass bitch who knows how to get shit done? That's really the question.

 

[TheLaughingStock]

Obama had literal Wall Street employees in his administration but still went after them. So to think that Hillary is gonna be like, "yo everything I've done for the past 30 years was just a long con to give over to the powers that be," is a bit of a stretch.

I may have a foggy memory but Obama went after virtually no one even with whistblower testimony available? He's very corrupt.

 

[xxracerxx]

Rupaul says it best though:

"So which of the horrible people do you want? That's more of the question. Do you want a pompous braggart who doesn't know anything about diplomacy? Or do you want a badass bitch who knows how to get shit done? That's really the question."

This is just the fucking best.

 

[WhateverItTakes]

We have literal proof of other politicians corruption. Like we can see their bills and positions and where they stand and where they are going. HIllary has almost none of this, hell even Bernie has dirt on him with having the NRA help get him elected to his voting against the Brady Bill. All we have is Hillary getting paid for speeches, and I think she voted on some corporate bill and made her reservations known. Obama had literal Wall Street employees in his administration but still went after them. So to think that Hillary is gonna be like, "yo everything I've done for the past 30 years was just a long con to give over to the powers that be," is a bit of a stretch.

Rupaul says it best though:

RuPaul has the best summary as to why I think Hillary will make a great President. Can't say I saw it coming but I approve!

 

[Kyzer]

Having skimmed the article, I'm not entirely clear on why people are bringing up Citizens United. Do we know what percentage of that money raised is going to Clinton's campaign, what percentage is going to the overall DNC warchest, and what percentage is going into pro-Clinton SuperPACs?

CU dealt specifically with the ability of corporations et al to pour basically unlimited amounts of money into their own electioneering efforts - running ads, creating propaganda (such as the original anti-Clinton documentary that the case centered around), etc. It does not touch on campaign contributions.

I mean, Citizens United is awful, but I'm not really seeing offhand what it has to do with the story being reported (except insofar as "Citizens United" has become a generic stand-in for "that thing in election spending what I don't like none").

people are literally conflating corporations being people with rich people being people. its actually worrisome

 

[Aaronology]

Rupaul says it best though:

That... is an amazing quote and a great summary of my own feelings on Clinton.

 

[2MF]

So, what do I think of Hillary? I think she's fucking awesome. Is she in bed with Wall Street? Goddammit, I should hope so! You've got to dance with the devil.

Fiddling while rome burns.

 

[Sirpopopop]

+1

The naiveté displayed here when it comes to Hillary Clinton is sometimes astounding. Superwoman Hillary Clinton will outsmart everyone and suddenly rich people will stop getting what they want from politicians. Hah...

We get it, she's infinitely better than Trump. Doesn't mean constant hypocrisy is needed every time something even mildly negative comes out about her.

The problem is you anti-Hillary folks like to connect to this a, "It's really a major reason why Hillary is the worst," while continuing to support many other politicians (See: Barack Obama & Joe Biden) who were willing to do the same.

That's the major issue. If anyone is being naive, it's you.

 

[2MF]

The problem is you anti-Hillary folks like to connect to this a, "It's really a major reason why Hillary is the worst," while continuing to support many other politicians (See: Barack Obama & Joe Biden) who were willing to do the same.

That's the major issue. If anyone is being naive, it's you.

How do you know I support them? Pff....

 

[jstripes]

The DNC is a private organization and primaries are not intended to be, and have historically not been, purely democratic in nature. That said, super delegates have always deferred their votes to the winner of the pledged delegate count. They exists as a "break in case of emergency" feature of the Democratic Party's primary process in the event of a Trump like candidate emerging. Complaining about their mostly benign existence as if it taints the DNC while ignoring much more grievous aspects of primaries like caucuses makes me believe you aren't earnestly interested in "the average person" or how the system operates.

In Canada we don't even have primaries. The parties pick their leader at their conventions, and that's that.

I'm pretty sure that's how most countries operate.

The primary system is part of what makes US elections so long and drawn-out.

 

[Aaronology]

How do you know I support them? Pff....

Fair enough. List some politicians that you believe exemplify the qualities you're arguing Hillary Clinton lacks.

 

[Steel]

Ok? So she's raising money from people that can afford to give money to local, state, and national money, and she's spending more time doing that than being on the campaign trail because Trump is a laughably bad opponent. What's the problem here? This is how our campaign finance system works even without cit united, the only way for this not to be the way a president finances themselves is to have public financing of political campaigns.

And if Bernie were elected someone would be doing this in his place from the DNC anyway.

 

[2MF]

Fair enough. List some politicians that you believe exemplify the qualities you're arguing Hillary Clinton lacks.

IMO: there are likely very few unfortunately. Politics is systematically broken in most countries. In the US more so than most western countries, but it's a problem in most places.

The few that are not corrupt have a harder time climbing the ladder, as it requires money. This is how the problem becomes systematic and entrenched.

 

[xxracerxx]

IMO: there are likely very few unfortunately. Politics is systematically broken in most countries. In the US more so than most western countries, but it's a problem in most places.

The few that are not corrupt have a harder time climbing the ladder, as it requires money. This is how the problem becomes systematic and entrenched.

So I take it you just do not vote, correct?

 

[2MF]

So I take it you just do not vote, correct?

I do vote, but usually end up disappointed.

 

[Aaronology]

IMO: there are likely very few unfortunately. Politics is systematically broken in most countries. In the US more so than most western countries, but it's a problem in most places.

The few that are not corrupt have a harder time climbing the ladder, as it requires money. This is how the problem becomes systematic and entrenched.

You haven't given me any examples. I wanted to see what type of politician has earned your respect and trust but it seems your stance is generally "everything and everyone is bad."

Is this inaccurate?

 

[royalan]

Ok? So she's raising money from people that can afford to give money to local, state, and national money, and she's spending more time doing that than being on the campaign trail because Trump is a laughably bad opponent. What's the problem here? This is how our campaign finance system works even without cit united, the only way for this not to be the way a president finances themselves is to have public financing of political campaigns.

And if Bernie were elected someone would be doing this in his place from the DNC anyway.

Also worth pointing out that the only reason this is an issue is because Donald Trump is so incompetent and unconventional.

A Republican nominee worth his/her salt would have likely been spending a slow August doing the exact same thing: aggressively fundraising and laying the groundwork for the post Labor Day campaign.

But instead Republicans have Trump, who likes to spend his time stepping in different types of mud to change the flavor of his foot. He's doing barely any fundraising, and he's been so normalized in our media that it in turn makes Hillary's actions seem unusual, and the media emphasizes this.

The problem is, the media should be a lot more responsible than that.

 

[atr0cious]

I may have a foggy memory but Obama went after virtually no one even with whistblower testimony available? He's very corrupt.

So what you're saying is the economy magically got better.

 

[xxracerxx]

I may have a foggy memory but Obama went after virtually no one even with whistblower testimony available? He's very corrupt.

Hello, Donald.

 

[2MF]

You haven't given me any examples. I wanted to see what type of politician has earned your respect and trust but it seems your stance is generally "everything and everyone is bad."

Is this inaccurate?

I think I have explained my stance. The political system is largely controlled by money, especially so in the US. Doesn't mean all politicians are corrupt, just means that success in politics has a large correlation with being influenced by money.

If you want to see everything in black and white... sure feel free to interpret it that way. Your words, not mine.

 

[Spoiled Milk]

The Laughing Stock's memory is correct.

The Atlantic: How Wall Street Bankers Stayed Out of Jail

I don't think Wall Street actually did anything illegal, though.

 

[Tabris]

I'm not posting any of my opinions here, just wanted to throw in a different perspective.

The level of money in politics in the US may not be the normal in the world. Please have a read on how it's done in other countries and how those campaigns are restricted on how they can be funded:

Canada - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_political_financing_in_Canada

Germany - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Party_finance_in_Germany

Japan - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_funding_in_Japan

All 3 example countries have public funding options (ex: taxpayers fund campaigns with set budgets each election) and restrictions on amount of money that can be contributed (ex: $5000 to $10000 per person without the ability for anyone else to promote you), and how that money can be used (ex: no pamphlets or posters, debates on national tv programs, etc).

IMO: there are likely very few unfortunately. Politics is systematically broken in most countries. In the US more so than most western countries, but it's a problem in most places.

I wouldn't argue that politics is broken in many places, but it's not really money that is the cause in a lot of western countries.

 

[Monocle]

We have literal proof of other politicians corruption. Like we can see their bills and positions and where they stand and where they are going. HIllary has almost none of this, hell even Bernie has dirt on him with having the NRA help get him elected to his voting against the Brady Bill. All we have is Hillary getting paid for speeches, and I think she voted on some corporate bill and made her reservations known. Obama had literal Wall Street employees in his administration but still went after them. So to think that Hillary is gonna be like, "yo everything I've done for the past 30 years was just a long con to give over to the powers that be," is a bit of a stretch.

Rupaul says it best though:

Rupaul nailed it. The full interview is gold. Pragmatism with attitude.

 

[Wilsongt]

Are you a newt or something?

Nah... I'm 100% team Abuela.

 

[AxelFoley]

I do vote, but usually end up disappointed.

Have you ever not been disappointed by any candidate?

Serious question.

 

[2MF]

Have you ever not been disappointed by any candidate?

Serious question.

Only by single-issue parties like the Pirate Party in Sweden. Big parties that can win national elections tend to disappoint me, like when I voted for José Sócrates for Portuguese PM.

At least he ended up being arrested...

 

[benjipwns]

All 3 example countries have public funding options (ex: taxpayers fund campaigns with set budgets each election) and restrictions on amount of money that can be contributed (ex: $5000 to $10000 per person without the ability for anyone else to promote you), and how that money can be used (ex: no pamphlets or posters, debates on national tv programs, etc).

All of that is true for the United States as well.

Big parties that can win national elections tend to disappoint me, like when I voted for José Sócrates for Portuguese PM.

At least he ended up being arrested...

finally, a heartwarming tale

 

[Tabris]

All of that is true for the United States as well.

The government funds election campaigns in the US? If so why are they fundraising so much?

You are restricted to only government-funded public TV for debates in the US? I'm pretty sure I watched debates on Fox, CNN, etc.

Other groups aren't allowed to campaign for you? I'm pretty sure I see a bunch of Super PACs advertising for both candidates.

Can you clarify how the US campaign finance system is the same as these other counties?

 

[Amir0x]

We absolutely need to vastly reduce the influence of money on politics, but the way the laws are now that's not possible. And we need to ensure politicians favorable to the idea of reducing influence are put in office in order for it to happen. Which means the unique politician willing to take the money of the ultrarich while being serious about wanting to change that very thing. A rare mix. And certainly not something unique for clinton, especially when the man she is running against is trump.

 

[Stinkles]

The Laughing Stock's memory is correct.

The Atlantic: How Wall Street Bankers Stayed Out of Jail

I don't think Wall Street actually did anything illegal, though.

Nobody who writes laws does anything illegal.

 

[benjipwns]

The government funds election campaigns in the US? If so why are they fundraising so much?

Because all the presidential candidates since Obama and Hillary in 2008 have opted out of public funding so they can raise more money than the limits.

State races depend on state laws.

You are restricted to only government-funded public TV for debates in the US? I'm pretty sure I watched debates on Fox, CNN, etc.

Those were for the primaries which are not real elections, the general election debates are on all the networks (ABC/CBS/FOX/NBC/MSNBC/CNBC/CNN/FOX News/FOX Business/etc.) and PBS and C-SPAN and sometimes other channels.

In 2000, a PBS moderator moderated all three debates. Someone from PBS has moderated a debate every year since until this year.

The debates are run by corporation jointly owned by the Republican and Democratic Parties, not the government anyway.

Having the debates is not a legal requirement. There were no debates in 1964-1972 and Carter basically refused to debate Reagan in 1980 until the day before the election. That was when the debates were hosted by the League of Women Voters rather than the parties.

Other groups aren't allowed to campaign for you? I'm pretty sure I see a bunch of Super PACs advertising for both candidates.

Yes, of course they are, restricting that would be unconstitutional.

But part of what you said was:

restrictions on amount of money that can be contributed (ex: $5000 to $10000 per person

And the United States limits contributions to $5400 per person per candidate. $2700 each for the primary and general.

There's some theoretical limit on donations to parties.

 

[TestOfTide]

We absolutely need to vastly reduce the influence of money on politics, but the way the laws are now that's not possible. And we need to ensure politicians favorable to the idea of reducing influence are put in office in order for it to happen. Which means the unique politician willing to take the money of the ultrarich while being serious about wanting to change that very thing. A rare mix. And certainly not something unique for clinton, especially when the man she is running against is trump.

I have a simple idea to reduce the influence of money in politics:

How about we make voting much more accessible so that more people vote and more people vote more often?

I mean when only 39% of the population votes in midterms, of course money will have a major influence in politics. If it were more like 60-70% percent voting even in midterms, it would be a lot harder for money to have as much influence on votes.

A Supreme Court that starts striking down voter suppression would be a big step.

 

[Valhelm]

wrong: http://www.glorialariva4president.com/

I'd be a big fan of Gloria if her foreign policy wasn't so bonkers.

 

[benjipwns]

I'd be a big fan of Gloria if her foreign policy wasn't so bonkers.

Sorry, all of it is a package deal. FREE MUMIA

 

[Pryce]

oh no i guess if hillary is so corrupt i should go vote for a libertarian

One can't criticize Hillary?

 

[MIMIC]

She's in her element.

 

[Valhelm]

Sorry, all of it is a package deal. FREE MUMIA

I'm not talking about that stuff, but her insistence on abolishing the global US military presence. A revolutionary change toward socialism would make our foreign bases finally justified, and the ensuing power vaccuum would directly aid fascistic regimes across the world.

 

[JesseEwiak]

I have a simple idea to reduce the influence of money in politics:

How about we make voting much more accessible so that more people vote and more people vote more often?

I mean when only 39% of the population votes in midterms, of course money will have a major influence in politics. If it were more like 60-70% percent voting even in midterms, it would be a lot harder for money to have as much influence on votes.

A Supreme Court that starts striking down voter suppression would be a big step.

Midterm turnout has always sucked and that's true for other countries - turnout for EU elections for example was regularly only around 20-30%.

 

[Lord Frieza]

Aren't private fundraisers a primary part of any and all presidential campaigns? NYT making it seem like Hillary is only interested in dealing with the ultrarich just because Trump is flailing about on network news.

Trump won't need to pivot to be "president of the people" when the New York Times is doing it for him.

Lol, a post from someone who clearly has no idea what the Time have been posting these election cycle. They've been consistently on Trump's ass since the primaries.

 

[Pamplemousse]

I'm not talking about that stuff, but her insistence on abolishing the global US military presence. A revolutionary change toward socialism would make our foreign bases finally justified, and the ensuing power vaccuum would directly aid fascistic regimes across the world.

Eww, you support the Empire? Hillary's hawkishness is what makes her so bad.

 

[Cesare Borgia]

The problem is you anti-Hillary folks like to connect to this a, "It's really a major reason why Hillary is the worst," while continuing to support many other politicians (See: Barack Obama & Joe Biden) who were willing to do the same.

That's the major issue. If anyone is being naive, it's you.

This is a game, everyone plays it. Obama promised to reign in Wall St while being financed by Goldman Sachs. And yet Obama is roundly despised among many on Wall St for demonizing them for eight years, some of Dodd-Frank, and the anti-lobbyist executive order. There's plenty of writing on how Obama despises fundraising from major corporate donors. There's a pretty clear level of antagonism here that does not exist between Hillary Clinton and Wall St. She moved to the left to protect her flank from Sanders; everyone in DC and New York gets that.

I think it's pretty clear where things are heading, especially with Obama being pressured to shitcan the lobbyist executive order before January. I'm not saying Hillary Clinton is going to be some uber champion for Wall St, or that she is lying about [insert financial position]. But there are clear differences between the two candidates on these issues and in a year when I bump this thread, we can talk more.

I remember shaking my head when our financial team was rolled out in 09. Let's see how you guys feel through a term of Clinton cronyism and lobbying bullshit, in terms of differences between candidates.

 

[Log4Girlz]

I asked Trump, he said she was probably sleeping

 

[Valhelm]

Eww, you support the Empire? Hillary's hawkishness is what makes her so bad.

Unequal relationships between nations aren't desirable any more than unequal relationships between people.

But as a socialist, I believe that anti-capitalist movements need to be led by the first world if they are to succeed. So many socialist movements in Latin America, Asia, and Africa were crushed or strangled in the cradle by the capitalist West. In addition, socialism emerging out of a developed capitalist society with advanced state institutions and strong rule of law is much less likely to devolve into autocracy.

The US was amazingly successful at steering other countries toward their camp, much more than the USSR. And in this current absence of any serious competition, a socialist America could spread socialism basically unchallenged. A small, somewhat poor country like Cuba doesn't enjoy this privilege.

 

[MattKeil]

No. it's bribes disguised as political donation. What's depressing is all the posters here defending this reprehensible shit as "normal". The standards for a decent politician and human being or in fact for political discussion have dropped like a rock here. I weep for humanity if Clinton's disgusting involvement with the ultra-rich ruling class is considered "normal" nowadays.

If by "nowadays" you mean "for the last couple of centuries or so." This is utterly pedestrian stuff for high any first world democracy, and has been for a very, very long time. Why Hillary is suddenly being called out for doing it is fairly silly, or would be if it weren't patently obvious it's happening because a woman is on the verge of clinching the position of Most Powerful Person On Earth.

 

[BlastProcessing]

your position is that a career politician of many decades is going to suddenly take a shit on people that have helped her secure office.

I think that's ridiculous, but if you think Hilary is the chosen one that is going to rise above and break down the status quo, that's your perogative.

No, my position is that to talk about the effect of money in politics. We have to actually talk about a specific situation. You are saying "This thing is bad!" and I am saying "What thing specifically." I often see people railing against what they think politicians are doing instead of what is actually happening.

So again, what do you think happens at these fundraisers? Where does the money come from and where does it go? Be specific.

What changes would you make to the laws? Be specific.

We can either have a conversation about my actual positions on the actual situation or you can just keep railing against your assumptions.

Having skimmed the article, I'm not entirely clear on why people are bringing up Citizens United. Do we know what percentage of that money raised is going to Clinton's campaign, what percentage is going to the overall DNC warchest, and what percentage is going into pro-Clinton SuperPACs?

CU dealt specifically with the ability of corporations et al to pour basically unlimited amounts of money into their own electioneering efforts - running ads, creating propaganda (such as the original anti-Clinton documentary that the case centered around), etc. It does not touch on campaign contributions.

I mean, Citizens United is awful, but I'm not really seeing offhand what it has to do with the story being reported (except insofar as "Citizens United" has become a generic stand-in for "that thing in election spending what I don't like none").

We do know the percentages. For each person the first $2,700 goes to Clinton. After that the rest goes to the DNC for down ticket and GOTV. None of the money goes to SuperPACs because Clinton can't be involved with that.

It really has nothing to do with CU other than the tangential fact that a Democratic President and Senate will appoint Supreme Court Justices that will overturn CU.

 

[Bam Bam Baklava]

This is a game, everyone plays it. Obama promised to reign in Wall St while being financed by Goldman Sachs. And yet Obama is roundly despised among many on Wall St for demonizing them for eight years, some of Dodd-Frank, and the anti-lobbyist executive order. There's plenty of writing on how Obama despises fundraising from major corporate donors. There's a pretty clear level of antagonism here that does not exist between Hillary Clinton and Wall St. She moved to the left to protect her flank from Sanders; everyone in DC and New York gets that.

I think it's pretty clear where things are heading, especially with Obama being pressured to shitcan the lobbyist executive order before January. I'm not saying Hillary Clinton is going to be some uber champion for Wall St, or that she is lying about [insert financial position]. But there are clear differences between the two candidates on these issues and in a year when I bump this thread, we can talk more.

I remember shaking my head when our financial team was rolled out in 09. Let's see how you guys feel through a term of Clinton cronyism and lobbying bullshit, in terms of differences between candidates.

Are we really going down this road now? We're judging people we've never met and trying to read their hearts and minds? "I just know it in my heart Obama is different, I just know it"