The New York Times is reporting this morning that DNC donors are demanding their money back because of their dissatisfaction with the Florida primary situation. Link
Christopher Korge, a Florida real estate developer who is another top fund-raiser for Mrs. Clinton, held an event last year in his home that brought in about $140,000 for the national party, which was set aside in a special account for the general election battle in Florida. But he told committee officials this week that if Florida’s delegate conundrum was not settled satisfactorily he would be asking for the money back.
"If we do not resolve this issue," Mr. Korge said, "I think it’s safe to say there will be a request for a return of $140,000."
Furthermore, the Times article reveals that the DNC is actually giving in to such demands and returning donations.
Pushing to seat the Florida delegates, at least one top Clinton fund-raiser, Paul Cejas, a Miami businessman who has given the Democratic National Committee $63,500 since 2003, has demanded Democratic officials return his 2007 contribution of $28,500, which they have agreed to do.
It would be bad enough if the DNC allows itself to be intimidated by threats to withhold future donations because of the Florida situation.
To actually return donations on the basis of a demand for a particular act on the part of the DNC proves that the donors are entitled to quid pro quos on matters of donor interest in DNC policies and practices.
In this case of how Florida might determine the outcome of the Democratic nomination process, it seems to suggest that a large enough check can directly purchase DNC actions that could result in the donor's preferred nominee.
Donations must be considered to have no strings attached. Otherwise, the DNC will be dancing (even more directly) to the strings of large donors.