Earlier today, someone on this site accused Barack Obama of trying to buy the votes of superdelegates.
He called this bribery.
I was the first person to hide that comment since no evidence was presented to back up the accusation.
While I still disagree with what the poster said, I now feel that my decision to hide the comment was a bit premature since I have come across information that I believe could easily be construed by some as evidence of "bribery" on the part of both Obama and Clinton.
According to the Center for Responsive Politics, campaign committees controlled Obama and Clinton have donated at least $890,000 to the campaigns of superdelegates ($694,000 from Obama and $195,500 from Clinton).
According to the report, since 2005, Obama's committees have given $228,000 to superdelegates who have endorsed him, $363,900 to uncommitted superdelegates, and $102,400 to superdelegates who had Clinton. Meanwhile, Clinton's committee's gave $95,000 to superdelegates who have endorsed her, $88,000 to undecided superdelegates, and $12,500 to superdelegates who had endorsed Obama.
While I don't think this in any way proves bribery in a legal sense, I do think that this practice is just as unseemly and potentially corrupting as contributions from Corporate PACs.
In every case the Center [for Responsive Politics] found in which superdelegates received money from one candidate but not the other, the superdelegate is backing the candidate who gave them money.
In my view, superdelegates should only be able to exercise their vote in situations like the following:
- Convention delegates selected by a vote of the people are unable to reach a consensus about who the nominee should be.
- Concrete evidence of criminal activity or massive scandal would threaten the electoral chances of the probable nominee.
- Death or severe health issues prevent the likely nominee from continuing to run for office.
Additionally, direct contributions from Presidential candidates or their organizations to superdelegates should be prohibited or severly restricted.
If anyone here still thinks that having superdelegates as they are presently utilized is a good thing, let me leave you with this quote from the article:
Though it might seem undemocratic to allow elected officials who have received money from the candidates to have such power in picking their party's nominee, the process was not meant to be democratic, Arizona State's Herrera said. "If anything, it was meant to take it out of the democratic process, In 1982 [the party] said they needed to have some professionals making decisions here to blunt the potential effects of what they perceived as amateur delegates making decisions—those who vote with their heart and not their head.".