In an official letter to Debbie Wasserman Schultz, chair of the Democratic National Committee (DNC), Sanders’ campaign attorney Brad C. Deutsch accused the Hillary Clinton campaign of using a joint fundraising committee to skirt campaign finance regulations. As Politico reported this weekend, the Hillary Victory Fund (HVF), which was designed to be a joint fundraising effort between the Clinton campaign and the DNC to help Democrats win down-ticket races, is unloading unusually large amounts of cash to Hillary for America (HFA) — Hillary Clinton’s official campaign account.*****************
You know how all these superdelegates are illogically voting for Hillary in states that had landslide results for Bernie Sanders and the talk about Hillary being the only candidate donating to the DNC? Below is a description of the main cause of both. The best thing for Bernie to do is stay out of their corruption which he seems to be doing quite well. This is truly disgusting.
Here is an article about the first fundraiser Hillary Clinton had for the Hillary Victory Fund from NPR,
"Soft money" was the term for unregulated contributions to the party committees in the 1980s and '90s. The soft money system led to corruption cases in both major parties, and Congress barred party committees from raising it in 2002.
But eight years later, the Supreme Court gave unregulated money a new path with Citizens United and other court decisions.
In a 2014 ruling in the case McCutcheon v. FEC, the Supreme Court elevated the importance of joint fundraising committees between campaigns and parties, such as the Hillary Victory Fund.
There is some detail about the process in this article. By maxing out each of these limits, a single donor can effectively contribute $732,200 per election cycle — that’s 135 times the individual candidate limit.
Kappel questions that conclusion. "If you walk in with a $600,000 check, obviously the candidate's going to remember your name," he said.
The Clinton campaign and the DNC say money raised by the Hillary Victory Fund is financing the Democrats' state party program, building up infrastructure and research operations around the country.
But it's the Clinton campaign that controls the flow of cash. A memo from the campaign to participating state parties says big donors will be "allocated" to states for reporting purposes. Campaign finance records show the money moves quickly from donor to state party to the DNC, which targets the money for greatest effect.
Josh Schwerin of the Clinton campaign said, "This is an agreement between our campaign, the DNC and state parties across the country, and the resources are allocated in a way that helps strengthen Democrats up and down the ballot and helps us win next November."
In January on the Daily Kos, LoneStarMike wrote an article about this subject and proposed the logical reason Bernie Sanders is not sending money to the DNC, because they are funneling it to the Hillary Clinton campaign.
From Margot Kidder for CounterPunch April 1st:
Alaska is one of the 33 states that participated in Hillary Clinton's and the DNC's joint money laundering scheme. Remember during the last election for Governor when Alaska Democrats decided to disregard the votes of the members of their party after the primary and take a Republican turned Independent, Bill Walker and put their candidate for governor Byron Mallott in the
lieutenant governor slot? They threw Hollis French their candidate for lieutenant governor under the bus when they replaced him with Byron Mallott.
Amand Coyne wrote about this back in 2014:
"Party rules dictate that the change of the ticket be voted on by the Democratic State Central Committee, which has about 140 members. On Monday night, 92 votes were counted, some of them by proxy. The count was 89-2 in support of the new ticket."
The Democratic State Central Committee voted to over ride the primary votes of the members of their party. When I called other state offices of the Democratic party they said things to me like, "That sounds like something the Republicans would do." What I want to know is whose idea this was to begin with, did it come from some DNC committee or from the Clintons? My goal was to get rid of evil Governor Parnell too, but this felt like the Democrats sold their souls to do it. They then put a positive spin on a steaming pile of manipulated poop.
"One of the “no” votes came from Juneau Democrat Kim Metcalfe. When reached after the vote, she said that she was a “yellow dog Democrat” and that she couldn’t vote for a Republican. More than 40,000 people voted in the August primary for Mallott and for Democratic lieutenant governor Hollis French. Many of them will likely feel like Metcalfe."
Just before the election I wrote about how I was not happy they did this, but they had given people no alternate choice but to vote for their manipulation of the ticket.
"When the Democrats decided to back a Republican for governor I felt it was a slap in the face of those who had voted in the primary. It really pissed me off. Besides, Alaska has more than it's share of Republican politicians. There is however no way in hell I am voting for Sean Parnell and have to swallow a bitter pill to vote for Walker/Mallott, but I will. The people in control have given us no other choice. "
Then this unbelievable hypocrisy on the part of the Walker administration and Lt Gov Mallot happened in February of this year. I didn't know if I should laugh or throw up.
Cenk Uygur“…let me just break it down for clarity for you guys, normally you can only give $10,000 bucks. But hey wait what if I gave $10,000 bucks to each of the different state parties. Well I can do that and what if those state parties then took the money and just gave it back to Hillary Clinton? Hey, turns out that’s legal, let’s ahead and do that. So instead of having a $10,000 cap when I include my spouse I have over a $1.3 million cap, as long as you’re willing to launder the money. And it turns out these states and these Democratic parties and especially the DNC were more than happy to launder the money for Hillary Clinton even before a single vote was cast in the primaries."
Jon Schwarz for the Intercept, writing about some revealing things a million dollar donor to the Jeb Bush campaign said:
Here’s how Hoffman puts it: “Large donors … often serve as an executive board of sorts, challenging campaigns to act worthy of their investment.”
And by, “…challenging campaigns to act worthy of their investment” he means the large donors are able to have access to influence the candidate, you know access to forward their own agenda after the election.