I ran across this news item from the Washington Post last week:
After some months of negotiations, Hillary Rodham Clinton's campaign reached agreement with the Democratic National Committee on Thursday on a joint fundraising agreement that will allow Clinton to help raise funds for the national party for use in the general election.
The DNC is able to leverage a candidate with a strong fundraising operation for the good of getting more Democrats elected. This is a good thing, right?
Apparently the other Democratic candidates' campaigns aren't too happy about how the DNC is going about its business.
The DNC has come under criticism from the campaigns of former Maryland governor Martin O'Malley and Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) for taking steps they believe favor Clinton, especially in scheduling sanctioned debates.
Debates aside, why do I think this joint fundraising agreement amounts to 'fixing' and why am I implying that there is something underhanded going on?
For starters, it supports the already-out-there charges of favoritism on the part of the DNC:
In an apparent violation of party rules requiring Democratic National Committee officers to remain neutral in presidential primaries, the DNC’s finance chairman has been raising money for Hillary Clinton’s campaign. [...]
DNC rules, designed to ensure all candidates get a fair shake in presidential primaries, state: “The Chairperson shall be responsible for ensuring that the national officers and staff of the Democratic National Committee maintain impartiality and even-handedness during the Democratic Party Presidential nominating process.”
Similar agreements are not in place for the other Democratic candidates' campaigns.
1
The chairman in question is DNC finance chairman Henry R. Muñoz, but DNC chairwoman Debbie Wasserman-Schultz has not been shy about showing her support for Clinton. This may in no small part due to the chairwoman's need for support from someone important within the Democratic establishment. Wasserman-Schultz has apparently rubbed a lot of people the wrong way, from Democratic donors to party insiders, possibly including Clinton herself.2 Sufficient motive is there to support an accusation of disparate treatment of the Democratic candidates.
But that's not the only reason that I think the fix is in.
(continued below)
It's about what such a joint fundraising agreement means and the timing of when the agreement was made.
Democratic candidates contributing to campaign committees is not unheard of prior to Obama's decision. It's the standard for Republican campaigns as well. These fundraising agreements are seen as a way of consolidating support under a frontrunner and, less favorably, controlling where these donated funds go and to whom. Clinton's campaign is reportedly no different:
The campaign has insisted that any money raised through joint fundraising activities be put in what’s essentially a lockbox until the general election campaign. The DNC wanted access to all the funds immediately. Baker, who’s been negotiating with DNC CEO Amy Dacey, said no. [...]
The Clinton campaign points as a model to Al Gore’s 2000 campaign: well ahead as a front-runner himself long before he was the nominee, Gore also demanded restrictions on DNC spending out of his joint fundraising agreement until his campaign took full control.
“Just like candidates have done in past cycles, we’re happy to be working with the DNC staff to prepare for success in the primary,” said Clinton spokesman Jesse Ferguson. “But that planning isn’t the focus of our campaign — earning every vote in the primary is.”
Building a ground game at the state and national level during the primaries allows the Democratic Party to carry over that structure into the general elections, benefiting candidates at all levels, so that stance seems short-sighted. Or maybe it's not that important, considering Clinton's
recent boasting about its own ground game.
The ground game detailed at that link has one item that has me concerned:
In addition to releasing the memos on Thursday, Clinton spoke to a group of more than 100 pledged delegates in downtown Minneapolis. Her campaign has sent a form to some DNC members at the meeting, asking them to commit now to supporting her at next summer's convention.
Clinton is trying to insulate herself now against an insurgent campaign (read: Bernie Sanders), a drop in polling, or some self-inflicted wound.
Understandable, but it's too soon. Clinton's consolidating control over the Democratic primaries before the primaries have even started. Romney in 2012 and McCain in 2008 waited to do this until much later in the GOP primaries, after victory was fairly well assured.
The RNC launched similar arrangements for Sen. John McCain in early March 2008, just weeks before he sealed the GOP nomination. What makes this move unusual is that Mr. Romney may not amass all the delegates he needs until mid-June.
Romney's announcement of a joint fundraising effort was in April, well after the start of the primaries, and well after
Romney had a clear lead in delegates coming off of several wins in March. For the GOP, the writing was on the wall; Romney was going to be the nominee despite efforts of Santorum, Gingrich, and Paul supporters to keep hope alive.
For Clinton, this move at this time shows no confidence in her inevitability as a nominee or that her support from the Democratic establishment is guaranteed.
Worse than that, a candidate that know they have the nomination locked down will be less likely to be responsive to the concerns of those outside of the mushy middle. Why bother addressing an interest group's needs when their vote is pretty much assured?3
_________
1'Smaller' campaigns usually choose to not split funding with the DNC when they are not flush with cash.
2Rumor has it that in the latter day's of Clinton's 2008 presidential run, Clinton campaign co-chair Wasserman-Schultz began reaching out to the Obama campaign to pledge support...to which Clinton apparently didn't take too kindly. Guessing that might also contribute to one's career insecurity.
3I'm hoping this diary is seen as legitimate criticism of how Clinton is running her campaign and not as another 'I dislike Hillary' post. Whoever the Dem nominee is, they'll get my vote because the alternatives in the general election are greatly undesirable.