No this is not a rehash of the story that New Historian posted on March 14 here on DailyKos about the Clinton donors in Florida requesting a refund of their donations to the DNC if the FL votes were not accepted. This time it's a letter that a group of 21 Clinton donors wrote to Speaker Nancy Pelosi expressing concern over her remarks to ABC News' Stephanopoulos, about her preference for superdelegates to vote for the candidate with the most pledged delegates and popular vote as a way to fairly resolve the Dem nomination process. The question is, are these donor threats becoming a pattern of "blackmail"?
Perhaps, we could argue that these big ticket donors are simply exercising their freedom of expression just like any other citizen/voter would seek their voices to be heard. Nothing wrong with that. The problem is the blatant and/or covert threats to twist the arm of the DNC that raises my ire.
If you remember, during the Fl situation earlier this month, the NYT reported the donor flap as follows:
"If you’re not going to count my vote, I’m not going to give you my money," said Mr. Cejas, who was the United States ambassador to Belgium from 1998 to 2001.
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."
Some Clinton backers said they were intentionally withholding their contributions to the party, arguing that Howard Dean, the D.N.C.’s chairman, has left the situation in the hands of the states and the candidates, as opposed to exercising leadership to resolve it.
"My wife and I could max out, and we won’t," said Ira Leesfield, a Miami lawyer who has given $61,500 to the committee since 1997. "We’re dissatisfied with the D.N.C. not taking the bull by the horns."
About 250 top fund-raisers for Mrs. Clinton met Wednesday in Washington. Terry McAuliffe, the Clinton campaign’s chairman and a former chairman of the Democratic National Committee, encouraged the donors to pick up the phone and call party leaders, as did Mrs. Clinton.
Today, the 21 Clinton donors, directed their displeasure at Pelosis's comments, with a not-to-be-missed reminder that:
"We have been strong supporters of the DCCC. 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.
.....
Sincerely,
Marc Aronchick
Clarence Avant
Susie Tompkins Buell
Sim Farar
Robert L. Johnson
Chris Korge
Marc and Cathy Lasry
Hassan Nemazee
Alan and Susan Patricof
JB Pritzker
Amy Rao
Lynn Forester de Rothschild
Haim Saban
Bernard Schwartz
Stanley S. Shuman
Jay and Tracy Snyder
Maureen White and Steven Rattne"
Notice the way in which they cleverly conflate super-delegates with delegates as in "independent actions of each of the delegates at the National Convention", thus lending some validity to Sen. Clinton's increasing drumbeat about all delegates being persuadable to vote independently regardless of whether they are pledged or not.
It seems that Howard Dean and the DNC are being squeezed in the vice-like grip of the money-wigs.
The fact is, this can be considered even less as a fight between the two Dem candidates as it is one more front in the primal battle for the soul of the Dem party. It is a last-ditch effort, a form of class warfare by the "coporate interests" (that stand to lose the most if the current dispensation changes) ready to enact a bloody coup-d'etat within the Democratic party, and damn the consequences.
But for the fact that there is a presidential contest to be won, which can only be won if we have the overwhelming numbers, I would daresay, let the intra-party war break out on all fronts. It would be a giant cleansing act. Then rebuild whatever is left of the party. The unholy alliances that have been struck between factions whose interests collide at the most fundamental level and may have won us the WH in the 1990s, but at what cost to principles? What do ya think?