How We Do Business? Hillary, I'm Looking at YOU.

(crossposted at Steviemo, Heideho and Friends)

This is about who is funding our candidates and what they could expect in return for their support.

On Wednesday night's installment of Hardball, Mike Barnicle (subbing for Tweety), Howard Fineman and Eamon Javers were discussing the Clinton and Obama campaings and their fund raising capabilaties. This little exchange caught my attention as I was preparing dinner for me and the missus...

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/...

(more...)

BARNICLE:  ...  How much money is there for politics in this country?  

FINEMAN:  I think there‘s a certain elasticity of demand, so to speak.  I think there‘s a lot of money. But the interesting thing going on is that Hillary is sort of running the way George W. ran in 1999.  She‘s running on inevitability, on money, on family power. In this case, it‘s not the father; it‘s the husband. And she‘s telling all these big funders up in New York, not only do we want you to give to us, we‘re going to make sure that you don‘t give a penny to anybody else. So they are playing it very, very tough.

And by the way, between now and February 10th, when Barack Obama‘s supposedly going to have his big announcement, official announcement in Springfield, Illinois, Hillary is going to make it as tough as possible for him to raise money.

JAVERS:  They‘re trying to strangle the Obama candidacy in its cradle right now. And it might be working. I‘ve talked to a couple of big Democratic money men who were saying, you know, I just can‘t go with him.

I must say I find this a bit disturbing. Who are these big funders up in New York? What exactly are Hillary's people holding over their heads to prevent them from giving a penny to anyone else? What will she owe them if and when she makes it to the White House?

Is this not exactly the sort of thing we are trying to get away from?  Isn't this the kind of relationship the Republicans have had with K Street for the last twelve years? Not to bash Hillary or anything but I gotta say this is a bit of a turn off for me.

I would recommend some folks help shine a bit of light on this so as not to have it get swept under the rug.

How are these guys getting around the $2000 limit. Are they bundling? Do we have Pioneers and Rangers, now? Again, who are these big money guys and what could they expect from a Clinton White House in return for their support?

•  This is Exactly Why People Voted for Nader ...

  In 2000, his campaign slogan was "Not for Sale!"

  by steviemo on Fri Jan 26, 2007 at 05:46:02 AM PDT

•  I have been looking in to this

  Hillary has been locking up the Big NY donors. Many of them are true supporters but they also don't want to cross her because 1) She could be president 2) If she doesn't win the President she would still be a powerful NY Senator. NY is the largest generator of Democratic funds but not majority or only one. NYC money is primarily realestate, hedgefunds, legal services, and jewish interest groups.

  Obama has been getting around this by raising funds in LA, an area where Hillary can't use this type of pressure, David Geffen, Speilberg, and Matt Damon are raising money there for him. Mr. Soros is also now on tap for raising him money. Obama also has Chicago which is a large but still not nearly as often sited "money pot". The real battle will be over Miami, and K street. Hillaries muscleing also seems to be affective on K-street.

  Hillary also has a problem in that I don't see her with a large small donor base outside of Feminist (granted that isn't a small base) but Obama and Edwards have real Howard Dean small donor appeal, and should each be able to get $20 million online. This is important, can Hillary get more then $10 million this way?

  This is really an old style verses new style campaign funds raising contest. In the past locking up the big NYC donors was the end of Dems. I think online donors can make up for this. Also can Obama be the first candidate to get the Black middle class interested in large scale donating. So far Obama is doing a piss poor job. He also doesn't seem to have tapped Black celebs so far Oprah (a big backer of his) could be the key here. Not to toot my own home but I will talk about this on my Black Kos diary later today.

  by dopper0189 on Fri Jan 26, 2007 at 05:52:25 AM PDT

  •  BTW

    When i said "Jewish interest" in regards to NYC I was speaking of AIPAC, Anti-Def. League, ect I wasn't taking a shot at NYC. The "jewish interest" money is also previlent in LA although it seems to be more "progressive". I wanted to be clear about what I meant because these things can be taken out of contest, whne people start talking about favorite candidates and get emotional.

    by dopper0189 on Fri Jan 26, 2007 at 06:02:49 AM PDT

  •  It seems to me

    that insofar as by black you mean African-American--a term that carries the full weight of the history of slavery, Jim Crow, et. al., Obama, being who he is, can't use this common history to relate to the black community.  He's the son of a recent African immigrant who was raised by his white mother in Hawaii and Indonesia.  

    I don't think this makes him a bad candidate, just not necessarily one who is able to easily, quickly relate to African-Americans in terms of shared experiences.

    by Elias on Fri Jan 26, 2007 at 07:30:34 AM PDT

•  This Is A Great Way

  To force a defective product on us.  Wipe out the competition, corner the market.

  My big worry about her is just how many IOU's her big donors are collecting along the way.

  I agree with their asessment of her campaign tactics.

  Can't you just see her as President, using that veto power to reject progressive bills because they will step on the toes of the powerful people who donated to her campaign?

  I can.  Sort of a Bush in Dem clothes.

  by vetman on Fri Jan 26, 2007 at 06:32:00 AM PDT

  •  She's had a lot of money as Senator, didn't

    effect her vote then. Not sure why it would now.

    by tigercourse on Fri Jan 26, 2007 at 06:41:04 AM PDT

    •  I agree the problem with the Clinton's

      isn't there record but that they have an authoritarian streak. They don't party build, and they don't seem to like allot of outside progressive movement agitation.

      by dopper0189 on Fri Jan 26, 2007 at 10:18:30 AM PDT

•  Don't be surprised if Sharpton jumps in late...

  before the first debates....and has one task: to attack Obama.

  Why? He's a new york city guy. Hillary's got a shot at the white house and is a new yorker now too. If agrees -- after some casual conversations about help with his pet projects down the line -- to run in 2008 with one task: get Obama so Hillary won't have to.

  So if he jumps in -- watch out Obama. I think she'd cut a deal with him to bring down Obama -- get him to look bad sparring with Sharpton. She may have made a similar plea to Vilsack -- "tom, you run. run hard. Make a good impression. Muddy the waters in Iowa -- a state with no Clinton loyalty chits to cash in. You do this -- get your name out there -- protect me -- and gues who's on a VERY SHORT LIST for VP?"

  These are the Clintons. Nothing ever left to chance. Watch and learn.

  by joemcginnissjr on Fri Jan 26, 2007 at 07:45:58 AM PDT

  •  I think you may be corect but

    Sharpton has to be careful that he doesn't attack Obama to hard, he would be damaged goods if he is viewed as the guy who took down the best chance of a Black President. Also if he attacks Obama for not being Native Black the backlash in NYC would be enourmous. 40% of Black in NY are Caribean or African (to a lesser extent) and Sharpton would loose a huge part of his NYC base if he does that.

    On Vilsack I think your spot on.

    The Clintons play hardball, that is one thing they are very good at. I hope other Democrats who to often want to get acalades from the CW MSM crowd.

    by dopper0189 on Fri Jan 26, 2007 at 10:24:04 AM PDT