Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Obama Bribes Superdelegates

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Obama Bribes Superdelegates

    Looks like Obama's leading by nearly four to one. A half-billion in earmarks in 2007 alone, now this. How much John McCain has paid in bribes to Republican delegates? The same amount he's received in earmarks in his Senate career, a big fat ZERO.

    McCain will get a HUGE amount of mileage out of this.

    If anybody minds telling me how this isn't BRIBERY, I'm ALL EARS.

    Keep doling out that money, Barack. Can't wait till you pass the million-dollar mark.
    Bribery, which is synonymous with corruption, is an act implying money or gift given that alters the behavior of the person in ways not consistent with the duties of that person. Bribery constitutes a crime and is defined by Black's Law Dictionary as the offering, giving, receiving, or soliciting of any item of value to influence the actions of an official or other person in discharge of a public or legal duty. The bribe is the gift bestowed to influence the receiver's conduct. It may be any money, good, right in action, property, preferment, privilege, emolument, object of value, advantage, or any promise or undertaking to induce or influence the action, vote, or influence of a person in an official or public capacity.

    Bribery - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
    Superdelegates get campaign cash

    Many of the superdelegates who could well decide the Democratic presidential nominee have already been plied with campaign contributions by Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton, a new study shows.

    "While it would be unseemly for the candidates to hand out thousands of dollars to primary voters, or to the delegates pledged to represent the will of those voters, elected officials serving as superdelegates have received about $890,000 from Obama and Clinton in the form of campaign contributions over the last three years," the nonpartisan Center for Responsive Politics reported today.

    About half the 800 superdelegates -- elected officials, party leaders, and others -- have committed to either Clinton or Obama, though they can change their minds until the convention.

    Obama's political action committee has doled out more than $694,000 to superdelegates since 2005, the study found, and of the 81 who had announced their support for Obama, 34 had received donations totaling $228,000.

    Clinton's political action committee has distributed about $195,000 to superdelegates, and only 13 of the 109 who had announced for her have received money, totaling about $95,000.
    Superdelegates get campaign cash - 2008 Presidential Campaign Blog - Political Intelligence - Boston.com

    From the Buckeyestate Blog:
    Only 12% of Clinton's currently committed superdelegates have received any campaign donations from Clinton since 2005; to Obama's 43%.

    Between the two candidates, Obama is resposible for making nearly $700k of the $900k donations to super delegates.

    So, the next time anyone says that Hillary is trying to "steal" the election by winning it through the superdelegates, remember this. Obama has been spending three times the amount Clinton has in winning over the superdelegates which are going to be necessary for either candidate to secure the nomination.
    Obama is spending the $$$ to get the superdelegates | Buckeye State Blog
    "Every man has his weakness. Mine was always just cigarettes."

  • #2
    Seeking Superdelegates

    As the Democratic Party's superdelegates decide whether to support Clinton or Obama, will they take into account the $904,200 they've received from the candidates?

    By Lindsay Renick Mayer

    February 14, 2008 | At this summer's Democratic National Convention, nearly 800 members of Congress, state governors and Democratic Party leaders could be the tiebreakers in the intense contest between Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama. If neither candidate can earn the support of at least 2,025 delegates in the primary voting process, the decision of who will represent the Democrats in November's presidential election will fall not to the will of the people but to these "superdelegates"—the candidates' friends, colleagues and even financial beneficiaries. Both contenders will be calling in favors.

    And while it would be unseemly for the candidates to hand out thousands of dollars to primary voters, or to the delegates pledged to represent the will of those voters, elected officials who are superdelegates have received at least $904,200 from Obama and Clinton in the form of campaign contributions over the last three years, according to the nonpartisan Center for Responsive Politics.

    Obama, who narrowly leads in the count of pledged, "non-super" delegates, has doled out more than $698,200 to superdelegates from his political action committee, Hope Fund, or campaign committee since 2005. Of the 82 elected officials who had announced as of Feb. 12 that their superdelegate votes would go to the Illinois senator, 35, or 43 percent of this group, have received campaign contributions from him in the 2006 or 2008 election cycles, totaling $232,200. In addition, Obama has been endorsed by 52 superdelegates who haven't held elected office recently and, therefore, didn't receive campaign contributions from him.

    Clinton does not appear to have been as openhanded. Her PAC, HILLPAC, and campaign committee appear to have distributed $205,500 to superdelegates. Only 12 percent of her elected superdelegates, or 13 of 109 who have said they will back her, have received campaign contributions, totaling about $95,000 since 2005. An additional 128 unelected superdelegates support Clinton, according to a blog tracking superdelegates and their endorsements, 2008 Democratic Convention Watch.

    Because superdelegates will make up around 20 percent of 4,000 delegates to the Democratic convention in August--Republicans don't have superdelegates—Clinton and Obama are aggressively wooing the more than 400 superdelegates who haven't yet made up their minds. Since 2005 Obama has given 52 of the undecided superdelegates a total of at least $363,900, while Clinton has given a total of $88,000 to 15 of them. Anticipating that their intense competition for votes in state primaries and caucuses will result in a near-tie going into the nominating convention, the two candidates are making personal calls to superdelegates now, or are recruiting other big names to do so on their behalf. With no specific rules about what can and can't be done to court these delegates, just about anything goes.

    "Only the limits of human creativity could restrict the ways in which Obama and Clinton will try to be helpful to superdelegates," said Larry Sabato, a political scientist at the University of Virginia. "My guess is that if the nomination actually depends on superdelegates, the unwritten rule may be, 'ask and ye shall receive.' "

    Superdelegates will make their decisions based on a number of factors, said Richard Herrera, a political scientist at Arizona State University. Some have long-time political and personal ties to Clinton or Obama, some will support the candidate they think is more likely to beat the Republican nominee and others will commit to the candidate who won their state's support. Deciding whom to support based entirely on contributions from the candidates would be a political liability, Herrera said.

    "I think Democrats, both regular delegates and superdelegates, see this year as an opportunity to really take back the White House," he said, "and I don't think there's that short-term political concern that money will play that kind of role. It's a much bigger picture at this point."

    The superdelegates themselves say the same thing—that any money flowing from the presidential candidates to the delegates' own campaigns hasn't had any sort of influence on their decisions. Pennsylvania Gov. Ed Rendell received $5,000 from Clinton in the 2006 election cycle and has endorsed her, while he hasn't received anything from Obama, campaign finance records indicate. Policy and a personal relationship with the Clintons, not money, swung his vote into her camp, according to spokesman Chuck Ardo. "The governor has known Mrs. Clinton for 15 years and has certainly had a close relationship with President Clinton as well," Ardo said. "I think those are the factors that are really more relevant, especially given the small fraction of his fundraising that Clinton's contributions made. It'd be ludicrous to tie that contribution to his support."

    Yet the Center for Responsive Politics has found that campaign contributions have been a generally reliable predictor of whose side a superdelegate will take. In cases where superdelegates had received contributions from both Clinton and Obama, seven out of eight elected officials who received more money from Clinton have committed to her. The one exception: Sen. Ted Kennedy of Massachusetts, whose endorsement of Obama was highly publicized, received more from Clinton than from the Illinois senator--$10,000 compared to $4,200. Thirty-four of the 43 superdelegates who received more money from Obama, or 79 percent, are backing him. In every case the Center found in which superdelegates received money from one candidate but not the other, the superdelegate is backing the candidate who gave them money. Four superdelegates who have already pledged received the same amount of contributions from both Clinton and Obama—and all committed to Clinton.

    In addition to Gov. Rendell of Pennsylvania, at least two other governors who have endorsed Clinton have also received contributions from her in the past. Ohio's Gov. Ted Strickland received $10,000 and Oregon's Gov. Ted Kulongoski received $5,000. New Mexico Gov. Bill Richardson, who dropped out of the presidential race in January, has not endorsed a candidate but received $5,000 from Clinton in the 2006 election cycle.

    The money that Clinton and Obama have contributed to the superdelegates who may now determine their fate has come from three sources: the candidates' campaign accounts for president and, before that, Senate, and from their leadership PACs. These PACs exist precisely to support other politicians in their elections—and, thus, to make friends and collect chits. Leadership PACs are supposed to go dormant after a presidential candidate officially enters the race.

    Contributions to candidates for federal office are relatively easy to track, but money given to state and local officials is harder to spot. Campaign finance reports from Senate candidate committees are still filed on paper, making it difficult to know who is receiving money from them. For that reason it's possible that Obama and Clinton have given superdelegates even more than the $904,200 the Center for Responsive Politics has identified. While Obama has received the support of numerous state governors, state legislators and local officials, it does not appear that his leadership PAC or presidential candidate committee has contributed to any of them. His PAC did make one interesting contribution in 2006: for her Senate re-election, Hillary Clinton received a $4,200 contribution from Obama.

    Another senator running for office in 2006, Sheldon Whitehouse of Rhode Island, collected $10,000 from both Clinton and Obama. As a superdelegate, Whitehouse is backing Clinton for the White House. "His decision was based on his relationship with the Clintons. President Clinton nominated him to be United States attorney in 1994, in Rhode Island, and he believes Sen. Clinton is the strongest candidate," said spokeswoman Alex Swartsel, adding that money wasn't a factor in Whitehouse's decision. "We were a top targeted Senate race in 2006 and we received a number of contributions, including those from Clinton and Obama."

    Though it might seem undemocratic to allow elected officials who have received money from the candidates to have such power in picking their party's nominee, the process was not meant to be democratic, Arizona State's Herrera said. "If anything, it was meant to take it out of the democratic process. In 1982 [the party] said they needed to have some professionals making decisions here to blunt the potential effects of what they perceived as amateur delegates making decisions—those who vote with their heart and not their head."
    Capital Eye - Seeking Superdelegates
    "Every man has his weakness. Mine was always just cigarettes."

    Comment


    • #3
      Ever notice something funny about these "super" delegates? The democrats, long the champions of the common man, the little guys, the masses, the "working" class (does Steve Ballmer not work?), have these "super" delegates reserved for the party's elite members. Former presidents, VP, congressmen, senators, chairman of the DNC...etc, you get the picture. These "super" delegates reserve the right to disregard voters' wishes and vote for which ever interest they see fit at the time. Appearantly they are for sale now. Wow, I sure am glad half of the Americans are represented by these self righteous elite members of the party.
      "Only Nixon can go to China." -- Old Vulcan proverb.

      Comment


      • #4
        Forbidding a superdelegate scandal that's highly possible after the primaries are over and done with, there IS going to be a scandal about superdelegate bribery, even if they select the Democratic nominee in accord with the popular vote.

        The Dems have guaranteed Florida to the Republican Party by disenfranchising it's voters, which, again, McCain can extract a HUGE amount of mileage from. They could also be possibly handing over Michigan to him as well, which Kerry won narrowly 51% to Bush's 48%. A state rich in the Reagan Democrat types.

        So right now, besides Obama's Jimmy Carter message and inexperience, we have three solid and completely valid attacks that can be used to strong effect in the general election campaigning:
        • 1) Outright, blatant bribery of superdelegates
        • 2) Complicity in the disenfranchisement of Michigan and Florida Democrats
        • 3) Hundreds of millions in earmarks in 2007, failure to disclose 2005 & 2006

        And how about $1 million for the hospital his wife, Michelle Obama, worked at to top it off?
        "Every man has his weakness. Mine was always just cigarettes."

        Comment


        • #5
          Well the Democrats arent really democratic, are they?

          Comment


          • #6
            Originally posted by Adux View Post
            Well the Democrats arent really democratic, are they?
            They are more like the old communist party in the Soviet Union or China. The party bosses have special previledges not accessible to regular party members. They enjoy perks above and beyond the normal citizen. The entire party is built on almost a feudal system.
            "Only Nixon can go to China." -- Old Vulcan proverb.

            Comment


            • #7
              Originally posted by Ironduke View Post
              The superdelegates themselves say the same thing—that any money flowing from the presidential candidates to the delegates' own campaigns hasn't had any sort of influence on their decisions. Pennsylvania Gov. Ed Rendell received $5,000 from Clinton in the 2006 election cycle and has endorsed her, while he hasn't received anything from Obama, campaign finance records indicate. Policy and a personal relationship with the Clintons, not money, swung his vote into her camp, according to spokesman Chuck Ardo. "The governor has known Mrs. Clinton for 15 years and has certainly had a close relationship with President Clinton as well," Ardo said. "I think those are the factors that are really more relevant, especially given the small fraction of his fundraising that Clinton's contributions made. It'd be ludicrous to tie that contribution to his support."

              Yet the Center for Responsive Politics has found that campaign contributions have been a generally reliable predictor of whose side a superdelegate will take. In cases where superdelegates had received contributions from both Clinton and Obama, seven out of eight elected officials who received more money from Clinton have committed to her. The one exception: Sen. Ted Kennedy of Massachusetts, whose endorsement of Obama was highly publicized, received more from Clinton than from the Illinois senator--$10,000 compared to $4,200. Thirty-four of the 43 superdelegates who received more money from Obama, or 79 percent, are backing him. In every case the Center found in which superdelegates received money from one candidate but not the other, the superdelegate is backing the candidate who gave them money. Four superdelegates who have already pledged received the same amount of contributions from both Clinton and Obama—and all committed to Clinton.

              In addition to Gov. Rendell of Pennsylvania, at least two other governors who have endorsed Clinton have also received contributions from her in the past. Ohio's Gov. Ted Strickland received $10,000 and Oregon's Gov. Ted Kulongoski received $5,000. New Mexico Gov. Bill Richardson, who dropped out of the presidential race in January, has not endorsed a candidate but received $5,000 from Clinton in the 2006 election cycle.

              The money that Clinton and Obama have contributed to the superdelegates who may now determine their fate has come from three sources: the candidates' campaign accounts for president and, before that, Senate, and from their leadership PACs. These PACs exist precisely to support other politicians in their elections—and, thus, to make friends and collect chits. Leadership PACs are supposed to go dormant after a presidential candidate officially enters the race.
              This isn't bribery, these guys raise funds for each other all the time. Barack was the American Idol after the 2004 convention, while Hillary was and always will be a polarizer. Hillary began planning her run on the White House the moment John Kerry lost, while Barack was doing these things before he entered the race. To say "Barack bribed the delegates!" is just hyperbolic. The sad fact is that the 6 or 7 thousand a pop to each of them is a drop in the bucket.

              This is more a case of cronyism + the superdelegates' want to save face in light of Hillary's inevitable defeat. But its something that should be beneath Barack nonethelss. I despise partisan inbreeding, from anyone, D or R. Although I highly doubt McCain's never held a campaign event or solicited on behalf of any of his Republican buds. Despite its strategic benefits, its the wrong behavior to bring about the Revolution-in-the-way-Washington-works that Barack supposedly champions. Maybe he can de-gift the gift?
              Attached Files

              Comment


              • #8
                Fib, this isn't a case of a politician hosting a fundraiser for another. Comparing this issue regarding the superdelegates to McCain hosting a fundraiser is like comparing apples to oranges... McCain ain't buying superdelegates.

                What's happening is that Obama and Clinton, Obama more so, are making direct campaign contributions to superdelegates who are going to decide the Democratic nomination.

                And these superdelegates are casting their votes for the candidate who gave them the most money.
                "Every man has his weakness. Mine was always just cigarettes."

                Comment


                • #9
                  The money that Clinton and Obama have contributed to the superdelegates who may now determine their fate has come from three sources: the candidates' campaign accounts for president and, before that, Senate, and from their leadership PACs. These PACs exist precisely to support other politicians in their elections—and, thus, to make friends and collect chits. Leadership PACs are supposed to go dormant after a presidential candidate officially enters the race.
                  The word campaign keeps changing hands, its hard to keep track of whether money is coming from one or going to one.

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Originally posted by FibrillatorD View Post
                    The word campaign keeps changing hands, its hard to keep track of whether money is coming from one or going to one.
                    One thing that's fairly easy to track is the fact that superdelegates are casting their votes for the candidates who gave them money*.

                    *Except Ted Kennedy.
                    "Every man has his weakness. Mine was always just cigarettes."

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Originally posted by Ironduke View Post
                      Fib, this isn't a case of a politician hosting a fundraiser for another. Comparing this issue regarding the superdelegates to McCain hosting a fundraiser is like comparing apples to oranges... McCain ain't buying superdelegates.

                      What's happening is that Obama and Clinton, Obama more so, are making direct campaign contributions to superdelegates who are going to decide the Democratic nomination.

                      And these superdelegates are casting their votes for the candidate who gave them the most money.
                      Right on. I think McCain will bring this issue to light on the future debates among other things. I wonder how Mr. Obama or Mrs. Clinton will respond.

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Originally posted by Ironduke View Post
                        One thing that's fairly easy to track is the fact that superdelegates are casting their votes for the candidates who gave them money*.

                        *Except Ted Kennedy.
                        Obama's contributed more money to more campaigns than Hillary, and he's winning. What I want to know is how much of the outflow has come from the 1st of those 3 sources, and the breakdown of those contributions along superdelegate lines, along with the timing. Superdelegates have more to lose by backing the wrong guy for prez than in forgoing 6-7k.

                        I don't like whatever this is, but bribing still hasn't been proved here

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          I'm sure the details will emerge given time. On February 14th all the lobby groups, including Hope PAC and HILPAC, were required to disclose their most recent information, so figures should be available relatively soon.

                          Whatever this is, it isn't going to look good for the Democratic nominee, with a clear link between campaign donations and superdelegate votes. Even if it legally isn't bribery, what it morally and ethically is is more important, what the public views it as.
                          "Every man has his weakness. Mine was always just cigarettes."

                          Comment

                          Working...
                          X