It’s core policy platform, page 48 of their official manifesto and it’s been publicly stated by pretty much every DNC to reverse Citizens United. They’re also the only party to try to pass any antibribery and anticorruption laws in the last couple of decades, such was the case with HR 1 For the People Act.
Small Dollar donations mean individuals, like when a granny gives $15 to Bernie Sanders. Since that explicitly says matching with public financing that means said matching would have an upper limit allotted to every candidate.
It says businesses and corporations won’t be allowed to donate to campaigns or collaborate with campaigns. That leaves a loophole where they can still endorse a candidate publicly, but taking that away would be a violation of freedom of speech.
PACs will still exist in the sense that political advocates and lobbies exist, but they would be severely gutted by not being able to fund campaigns, which is their sole purpose since the Citizens United decision was first handed down.
The fact that you can see that graph and not realize the impact Citizens United court decision has, that the DNC consistently campaigned on reversing, is astonishing. It’s like seeing somebody with every piece of the puzzle fail to put it together.
What makes you think they want to remove money from politics? The Dems made $1.5bn last election.
It’s core policy platform, page 48 of their official manifesto and it’s been publicly stated by pretty much every DNC to reverse Citizens United. They’re also the only party to try to pass any antibribery and anticorruption laws in the last couple of decades, such was the case with HR 1 For the People Act.
No no. Politicans still want all that lovely money.
The dems put forward the proposal on page 48 to say that they want transparency, because that fucks over the Republicans more than them.
No it doesn’t, it explicitly says they “will ban all private financing from federal elections.”
LINK
In addition to private contributions, they want tax money too. Additional lovey money.
Hang on. What about the dollar matching. You can’t have both. Also, private financing is free to supply lovely money at all other times.
“Crack down” is not defined. Foreign donations to foundations like the Clinton’s are unlikely to be affected.
But they will still exist to funnel all that lovely money.
“Light” lovely money will still be accepted.
But corporate PACs will still be able to give the DNC lovey money.
The DNC is not trying to reduce the money they are receiving.
Captain, the goalpost is running away!
Small Dollar donations mean individuals, like when a granny gives $15 to Bernie Sanders. Since that explicitly says matching with public financing that means said matching would have an upper limit allotted to every candidate.
It says businesses and corporations won’t be allowed to donate to campaigns or collaborate with campaigns. That leaves a loophole where they can still endorse a candidate publicly, but taking that away would be a violation of freedom of speech.
PACs will still exist in the sense that political advocates and lobbies exist, but they would be severely gutted by not being able to fund campaigns, which is their sole purpose since the Citizens United decision was first handed down.
I’m consistently defending the statement that the Democrats (and the Republicans) DO NOT want to remove money from politics.
They may be arguing for more transparency, but they definitely are not asking for less lovely money.
The fact that you can see that graph and not realize the impact Citizens United court decision has, that the DNC consistently campaigned on reversing, is astonishing. It’s like seeing somebody with every piece of the puzzle fail to put it together.
Again. The DNC are campaigning for transparency. Not less money.