Welcome to ASFN Fan Forums! We're glad to have you here. Please feel free to browse the forum. We'd like to invite you to join our community; doing so will enable you to view additional forums and post with our other members.
Registered Members don't see these ads. Register now it's free!
Superdelegates turn down $1,000,000 from Clinton Donor
Quote:
One of Sen. Hillary Clinton's top financial supporters offered $1 million to the Young Democrats of America during a phone conversation in which he also pressed for the organization's two uncommitted superdelegates to endorse the New York Democrat, a high-ranking official with YDA told The Huffington Post.
Haim Saban, the billionaire entertainment magnate and longtime Clinton supporter, denied the allegation. But four independent sources said that just before the North Carolina and Indiana primaries, Saban called YDA President David Hardt and offered what was perceived as a lucrative proposal: $1 million would be made available for the group if Hardt and the organization's other uncommitted superdelegate backed Clinton.
Contacted about the report, Saban, initially very friendly, became curt. "Not true," he said, "it's simply not true." He declined to elaborate. Did he talk to the YDA superdelegate? "I talk to many, many superdelegates. Some I don't even remember their names." Did he propose any financial transaction? "I have never offered them or anybody any money" in exchange for support or a vote, he said. The Clinton campaign did not return a request for comment.
Members of the Young Democrats agonized about the potential fallout of Saban's call; his financial offer represented one-third of the group's 2008 budget. Democratic officials and fundraisers were consulted about how to respond, and at times the discussions were "emotional," one participant said. "It is scary for them, Haim is very powerful, he has great influence over donors who give to them."
Another source said that Hardt and others were acutely aware of Saban's status within Democratic circles and were concerned that their organization would suffer long-term harm if they declined his offer or if news of the proposal became public.
"I said I thought that the appropriate response was to call Haim back and say thank you but we are not interested," said the source. "I also said that it was surely the case that this story would get out because it is too interesting not to and they should think about how to deal with it. It was a day or two [before they responded]. They felt afraid. They were like, 'Holy ****, this is Haim Saban.'"
Nevertheless, the group declined the overture. A YDA official cited moral reservations as well as the overwhelming consensus of its members to back Sen. Barack Obama.
The group had not directly solicited Saban's financial support prior to the call, the official said, and records show no money from Saban has been given since. He did donate $15,000 to the group's 2005 convention, a separate political entity, and is a natural benefactor for groups such as YDA, a 527 which describes itself as the "largest youth-led, national, partisan political organization."
Saban is the nation's largest political campaign contributor over the last decade, FEC records show, giving nearly $13 million since 1999 to dozens of candidates, PACs, and Democratic campaign committees.
This past week, Crystal Strait, a YDA superdelegate, publicly announced she was supporting Obama. Another YDA superdelegate from Puerto Rico, Francisco J. Domenech, endorsed Clinton several months ago. Hardt, the third superdelegate, remains uncommitted.
"Crystal made an independent decision for all the reasons that she stated and David has consistently stated his position of choosing who to support after the primary is done," Alexandra Acker, the executive director of YDA, said when asked about why the two individuals made their respective decisions.
Hardt also released a statement explaining his current neutrality: "With just five contests left, I will wait to declare my superdelegate vote until every young voter has made their voice heard. The Young Democrats of America will proudly unite behind our nominee." Strait did not respond to repeated requests for comment.
Saban's offer, which was hinted at last week by John Aravosis, publisher of AmericaBlog, underscores the heightened pitch of the Democratic primary.
Those familiar with campaign finance rules say that monetary promises for superdelegates are "problematic," but may not, in the end, be legally out of bounds.
"This is not an FEC issue," said Jan Baran, a Republican campaign finance attorney. "There are federal and state laws that bar 'vote buying' but I'm not sure they apply in this situation since this involves a convention delegate and not a voter in an election. In short, I don't know whether this is illegal or just hardnosed political horse-trading."
While no other accounts of direct financial offers have surfaced, both Democratic campaigns have attempted to use the power of the check to recruit the support of influential party insiders.
In March, high-ranking donors for Sen. Clinton, including Saban, sent a letter to House Speaker Nancy Pelosi chastising her for suggesting that superdelegates had a responsibility to support the candidate who finished the primary process leading in the pledged delegate count.
"We have been strong supporters of the DCCC," they wrote. "We therefore urge you to clarify your position on super-delegates and reflect in your comments a more open view to the optional independent actions of each of the delegates at the National Convention in August."
And in February, the Center for Responsive Politics reported that Sen. Obama's political action committee had given $694,000 to superdelegates in the previous three years. Of the 81 who had announced their support for Obama at the time, 34 had received donations totaling $228,000.
Interesting article. I posted a piece of a Rolling Stone article in another thread and it talked about the potential for abuse and described this whole thing as the wild west as their isn't regulation.
Even the Repub quoted in this article could care less.
Registered Members don't see these ads. Register now it's free!
Superdelegate
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
This article is about superdelegates in general. For a list of 2008 superdelegates, see List of Democratic Party (United States) superdelegates, 2008.
"Superdelegate" is an informal term commonly used for some of the delegates to the Democratic National Convention, the presidential nominating convention of the United States Democratic Party.
Unlike most convention delegates, the superdelegates are not selected based on the party primaries and caucuses in each U.S. state, in which voters choose among candidates for the party's presidential nomination. Instead, most of the superdelegates are seated automatically, based solely on their status as current or former party leaders and elected officials ("PLEOs"). Others are chosen during the primary season. All the superdelegates are free to support any candidate for the nomination.
The Democratic Party rules do not use the term "superdelegate". This article follows the most common media practice in using the term "superdelegate" to refer to unpledged delegates, who fall into two categories:
* delegates seated based on other positions they hold, who are formally described (in Rule 9.A) as "unpledged party leader and elected official delegates"[1] (unpledged PLEO delegates); and
* additional unpledged delegates selected by each state party (in a fixed predetermined number), who are formally described (in Rule 9.B) as "unpledged add-on delegates" and who need not hold any party or elected position before their selection as delegates.[1]
Unpledged PLEO delegates should not be confused with pledged PLEOs. Under Rule 9.C, the pledged PLEO slots are allocated to candidates based on the results of the primaries and caucuses.[1] Another difference between pledged PLEOs and unpledged PLEOs is that there is a fixed number of pledged PLEO slots for each state, while the number of unpledged PLEOs can change during the campaign. Pledged PLEO delegates are not generally considered superdelegates.
The Republican Party also seats some party officials as delegates without regard to primary or caucus results (see Republican delegate selection), but the term "superdelegate" is most commonly applied only in the Democratic Party.
At the 2008 Democratic National Convention the superdelegates will make up approximately one-fifth of the total number of delegates. The closeness of the race between the leading contenders, Hillary Rodham Clinton and Barack Obama, has increased the chance that the superdelegates will play a decisive role in selecting the nominee, a prospect that has caused unease among some Democratic Party leaders.[2]
Lots room for persuasive solicitation by definition alone. Maybe the concept of " Super delegates" just plain sucks. Another gimmick to take away an unbiased elction process. Sort of like the Electoral College in general.
__________________
In politics, nothing happens by accident. If it happens, you can bet it was planned that way.
Franklin D. Roosevelt
"Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities." --Voltaire
Lots room for persuasive solicitation by definition alone. Maybe the concept of " Super delegates" just plain sucks. Another gimmick to take away an unbiased elction process. Sort of like the Electoral College in general.
Lots room for persuasive solicitation by definition alone. Maybe the concept of " Super delegates" just plain sucks. Another gimmick to take away an unbiased elction process. Sort of like the Electoral College in general.
Not only that, but it's a great way to keep the money flowing to the chosen ones. Great work if you can get it.
I HATE the aspect of the process. The only way one could disenfranchise the voting base more with these super delegates is to throw bribery into the contest.
Perhaps if you took off those Hillary colored glasses on occassion you would see a little more of what's around you.
...or maybe taking off-your Joe colored glasses for a second, you will realize there is more on this board than making it your mission to react to everyone of my posts... You are missing out on good conversation...bud. Whats Occassion?
__________________
If your sword's too short, add to its length by taking one step forward.
...or maybe taking off-your Joe colored glasses for a second, you will realize there is more on this board than making it your mission to react to everyone of my posts... You are missing out on good conversation...bud. Whats Occassion?
lol. I've actually been trying to not respond to your posts (the last one not withstanding) because it's usually a head-against-the-wall situation.
lol. I've actually been trying to not respond to your posts (the last one not withstanding) because it's usually a head-against-the-wall situation.
It's fitting. I can only imagine someone no smarter than a brick, who would still be fighting this hard for such a worthless person as Hillary, against all common sense.
It's fitting. I can only imagine someone no smarter than a brick, who would still be fighting this hard for such a worthless person as Hillary, against all common sense.
OK, I can take a jab C-NUT. Now answer me this MR.Smarter than a brick:
Who are you voting for and why?
Is this smart enough for you too answer?
I have a follow-up question after you answer my question...that is if you can.
__________________
If your sword's too short, add to its length by taking one step forward.
Linear Mode
