@Lash,
Quote:Are you aware that Hillary Clinton was able to take over the DNC precisely because they were floundering financially and she infused them with her own money—and took the reins?
I'm a tad surprised to find you forwarding Brazille as a voice of truth and accuracy. Would you support everything else she says here? You know, Russian hacking and all?
The only relevant comment she makes in the piece you reference is:
Quote:And the decision by the Clinton campaign to help bail out the DNC gave them control over three important departments.
A more thorough voicing of Brazille's charges can be found
Here
Quote:...I discussed the fundraising agreement that each of the candidates had signed. Bernie was familiar with it, but he and his staff ignored it. They had their own way of raising money through small donations. I described how Hillary’s campaign had taken it another step.
I told Bernie I had found Hillary’s Joint Fundraising Agreement. I explained that the cancer was that she had exerted this control of the party long before she became its nominee. Had I known this, I never would have accepted the interim chair position, but here we were with only weeks before the election.
Bernie took this stoically. He did not yell or express outrage. Instead he asked me what I thought Hillary’s chances were...
I'm not terribly familiar with this whole story but the Politico piece fleshes it out. That is, it fleshes out Brazille's take. I have no reason to doubt it but I also would want to hear contesting accounts from others.
Both the DNC and RNC burn through a lot of money particularly as elections approach. Given that the DNC was $2 million in the hole, some remedy had to be found. It seems the Clinton move to fill that hole would in itself be fine. The complain from Brazille was that the Clinton people then leveraged some level of control over operations and personnel
prior to the nomination being finalized. Again, if accurate, that looks to me (as poorly educated on these operations and how either party has done things in the past) as an ethical failing. But as this account reflects, this was not just a campaign to thwart Sanders but a broad effort to reorganize DNC operations broadly and down to the state level (what monies should go where? Who best to fill various positions to forward Dem electoral goals up and down? etc).
Quote:I don’t know which Dark Lord is running them now in a similar deal, but where they get their money is widely known to be very sketchy and attached to big strings.
That's a completely silly take on these matters. Elections, not to mention daily on-going operations of the DNC and RNC, are hugely expensive. Money has to keep coming from somewhere and both get it where they can. That's fine (not really, electoral finance reform is critical, of course) so long as there's no specific quid pro quo involved. And obviously, the RNC, being utterly beholden to big corporations and all the entities folded under the umbrella of the Koch network, are more than happy to play the quid pro quo game with gusto. The DNC cannot realistically disarm themselves and refuse funding from big money sources because then they would not stand a chance electorally. Sanders, if he becomes the nominee, will benefit from - will NEED - the resources that the DNC has and is gathering to be competitive.
If you wish to forward ideas or policies that address the fundamental problems in all this, then turn to how conservatives and the GOP are corrupting democracy in the US and to robust reforms in electoral financing. The DNC is the least of your worries.