It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

EXCLUSIVE: Hillary Clinton Campaign Funding the DNC

page: 2
14
<< 1   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 19 2015 @ 04:52 PM
link   
a reply to: IAMTAT

My understanding is:

People fund both the DNC and the RNC, and their parties

They both in turn fund their candidates, and other mechanisms like PACS, and conventions.

It would make sense it's a two way street.

Not much much as illegal , but not morally ethical.




posted on Dec, 19 2015 @ 04:54 PM
link   

originally posted by: IAMTAT

originally posted by: whyamIhere
That's right, like it or not, you get Hillary.

No matter how ridiculous his platform. The man should get a fair process.

Both Political Parties in our Nation should be phased out.

Trump is single handedly taking down the GOP.

Bernie could do the same thing. I do not know a single person voting for Hillary.

Stand up DEMS, Please take your Party back or ignore their rigged process.

Bern v Trump...Epic


Trump/Sanders vs. Clinton/Bush...Major Epic.


CLinton/Sanders versus Trump/Bush.

Screwed,lewed, and tattooed we would be.



posted on Dec, 19 2015 @ 05:02 PM
link   
Apparently, the DNC is really strapped for cash now...and Hillary is wanting a push for the southern states, the DNC can't afford to finance now.
Hillary to the rescue$$$..so the DNC can afford to pay for the southern state outreach effort by the DNC, that Hillary's campaign strategists feel she needs.

edit on 19-12-2015 by IAMTAT because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 19 2015 @ 05:11 PM
link   
HERE we go...
HILLARY'S joint fundraising DEAL with the DNC.

Hillary Clinton Reaches Deal With Democratic Party on Fund-Raising


Hillary Rodham Clinton and the Democratic National Committee have finalized a joint fund-raising agreement after months of negotiations, opening the door for the party to gain a significant head start on Republicans at roping in big checks from Democratic donors.

The agreement will allow Mrs. Clinton to participate in events that raise money simultaneously for her campaign and for the Democratic National Committee, allowing the party to capitalize on her celebrity and popularity with donors to fill the rooms at party events.

While party committees can accept far larger contributions than candidates — $33,400 a year versus the $2,700 Mrs. Clinton can accept for the primary — donors are sometimes more inclined to write those checks if a popular candidate or elected official is attending the event.

Party officials and a Clinton spokeswoman said the party organizations would face no restrictions on spending the money aside from those already mandated by law and that the cash and would be available no matter who the Democratic nominee was.

“Hillary Clinton has always been a believer in party-building and is thrilled to be able to partner with the D.N.C. in order to leverage her fund-raising efforts on behalf of the national and state parties’ work to elect a Democrat to the White House in 2016,” Robby Mook, Mrs. Clinton’s campaign manager, said in a statement.

The decision follows commitments by four state Democratic parties this week to jointly raise funds with Mrs. Clinton’s campaign. The finalization of the agreement was announced at a D.N.C. meeting in Minneapolis on Thursday and was reported by The Washington Post. For any jointly-raised contribution, Mrs. Clinton will get the first $2,700 and the D.N.C. the next $33,400. Participating state parties would split any cash that remained.

The decision has even more import thanks to new rules passed by Congress that permit parties to raise large checks for new accounts reserved for legal fees, real estate costs and the quadrennial national conventions. Unlike in past years, party officials will be able to solicit commitments of up to a million dollars for each election cycle from their most generous donors.

Whether Mrs. Clinton and her party can capitalize on the agreement quickly remains to be seen. The party contribution limits apply annually, meaning that checks for the 2015 calendar year cannot be raised retroactively after Dec. 31. August and December are traditionally slow fund-raising months, effectively giving the Democrats September, October, and November to maximize the opportunity.


www.nytimes.com...
edit on 19-12-2015 by IAMTAT because: highlighting



posted on Dec, 19 2015 @ 05:14 PM
link   
The fact that they're open about this corruption leads me to think that there is going to be no repercussion for this.

Why continue the farce of primaries and even elections?



posted on Dec, 19 2015 @ 05:16 PM
link   

originally posted by: IAMTAT
Apparently, the DNC is really strapped for cash now...and Hillary is wanting a push for the southern states, the DNC can't afford to finance now.
Hillary to the rescue$$$..so the DNC can afford to pay for the southern state outreach effort by the DNC, that Hillary's campaign strategists feel she needs.


But isn't that unfair to the Sanders campaign?



posted on Dec, 19 2015 @ 05:17 PM
link   

originally posted by: DBCowboy

originally posted by: IAMTAT
Apparently, the DNC is really strapped for cash now...and Hillary is wanting a push for the southern states, the DNC can't afford to finance now.
Hillary to the rescue$$$..so the DNC can afford to pay for the southern state outreach effort by the DNC, that Hillary's campaign strategists feel she needs.


But isn't that unfair to the Sanders campaign?

"What difference, at this point, does it make?"



posted on Dec, 19 2015 @ 05:27 PM
link   
So Hillary has made an exclusive joint fundraising deal with the DNC (see post above).
Essentially, if she attends DNC fundraisers...they can jointly raise funds by drawing more donors and larger donations for the DNC...and her campaign.

These payments represent the DNC's 'cut' of their take from joint fundraising efforts.

Yup. Hillary is the DNC's 'Money Tree...although, 'Cash Cow' seems more fitting.



The agreement will allow Mrs. Clinton to participate in events that raise money simultaneously for her campaign and for the Democratic National Committee, allowing the party to capitalize on her celebrity and popularity with donors to fill the rooms at party events.

While party committees can accept far larger contributions than candidates — $33,400 a year versus the $2,700 Mrs. Clinton can accept for the primary — donors are sometimes more inclined to write those checks if a popular candidate or elected official is attending the event.

edit on 19-12-2015 by IAMTAT because: (no reason given)

edit on 19-12-2015 by IAMTAT because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 19 2015 @ 05:53 PM
link   
a reply to: IAMTAT

I was with you right up until the name Breitbart showed up as the source and that's where I get off.

As much as I distrust Hillary, it won't come close to the distrust and disdain I hold for Breitbart.



posted on Dec, 19 2015 @ 05:57 PM
link   
a reply to: IAMTAT




Yup. Hillary is the DNC's 'Money Tree...although, 'Cash Cow' seems more fitting.


Must refrain from ad hominem., Must refrain from ad hominem. Must refrain from ad hominemn.

Must refrain.....

Yeah:




posted on Dec, 19 2015 @ 05:59 PM
link   

originally posted by: Flatfish
a reply to: IAMTAT

I was with you right up until the name Breitbart showed up as the source and that's where I get off.

As much as I distrust Hillary, it won't come close to the distrust and disdain I hold for Breitbart.


Fine. I assume you trust the New York Times.
www.nytimes.com...



posted on Dec, 19 2015 @ 06:16 PM
link   

originally posted by: IAMTAT

originally posted by: Flatfish
a reply to: IAMTAT

I was with you right up until the name Breitbart showed up as the source and that's where I get off.

As much as I distrust Hillary, it won't come close to the distrust and disdain I hold for Breitbart.


Fine. I assume you trust the New York Times.
www.nytimes.com...


Not completely, but it's definitely better than Breitbart.

That being said, in the NYT article I didn't see any reference to direct "transfers" of cash from the Hillary campaign to the DNC or any mention of emails referring to the subject.

The NYT article seems to be more about a joint fundraising deal between Hillary and the DNC. Which I have to admit that while it is different, it isn't much better.

If she's the only Democratic candidate doing it, it's hard to think that the DNC wouldn't show some favoritism in lieu of her efforts.



posted on Dec, 19 2015 @ 06:18 PM
link   
a reply to: Flatfish

It is exclusive to Hillary...at least at the time the article was written. I believe there was a mention that they were considering expanding the 'Deal' to other candidates.

EDIT: In essence, Clinton, through this arrangement, is heavily funding the cash-strapped DNC...Her campaign is also profiting from the 'deal'.
The payments referenced in the article represent the results of this agreement.
The connection was made through my own research.
edit on 19-12-2015 by IAMTAT because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 19 2015 @ 06:28 PM
link   
UPDATE:
Sanders just signed up for the 'deal' last month.


Sanders campaign inks joint fundraising pact with DNC





Bernie Sanders' presidential campaign has signed a joint fundraising agreement with the Democratic National Committee, the DNC confirmed to POLITICO.

The move, which comes more than two months after Hillary Clinton's campaign signed such an agreement in August, will allow Sanders' team to raise up to $33,400 for the committee as well as $2,700 for the campaign from individual donors at events.

The candidate rarely headlines fundraising events, and is not close with many big-money Democratic donors, but he has been working to prove his proximity to the party in recent months as he competes with Clinton.


The Vermont senator, who is an Independent but caucuses with Senate Democrats, also recently lent his name to a fundraising letter for the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee, according to a campaign adviser, in another indication of his slowly growing ties to the party's infrastructure.



www.politico.com...
edit on 19-12-2015 by IAMTAT because: highlighting



posted on Dec, 19 2015 @ 06:32 PM
link   
How the hell is that even legal??? Like the DNC can be impartial while at the same time fundraising with one of the candidates. That is exactly the opposite of being impartial. F*cking Dems can't even play fair within their own circle. It's unbelievable.

Just wait because they're all such little kiss asses nobody's going to say anything about it. Except possibly Bernie who should be pissed off and exposing it for what it is.

Bernie needs to go Independent. He's got a large enough grass roots movement going now if they just step it up he still has a change. But clearly he has no chance on the Dem ticket. They are clearly in bed with Hillary. The establishment isn't going to play fair. Same goes for the GOP. They will never accept Trump either no matter how many people want to vote him in it just won't happen as long as he's with the GOP establishment.



posted on Dec, 19 2015 @ 06:37 PM
link   

originally posted by: IAMTAT
UPDATE:
Sanders just signed up for the 'deal' last month.


So they are letting Sanders in on it too. I still think it's BS. All this is for Bernie is a way to make it seem like they're being fair when they should stay out of it. Let each candidate do their own work. Hillary has all the Establishment on her side already.

Just a bunch of games and BS. They're just stringing Sanders along making him think they're still playing fair. They're just going to screw him at the last moment anyway.



posted on Dec, 19 2015 @ 06:42 PM
link   
a reply to: mOjOm

Agreed.
Hillary is the DNC 'Cash Cow'.
They let Sanders in on it two months AFTER Clinton...I believe he was really trying to fit in with the DNC machine recently, and they decided he wasn't raising $$$ like Hillary has been.
As far as the DNC screwing him...That ship has sailed.



posted on Dec, 20 2015 @ 02:12 AM
link   
Sanders probably knows that too. I'm sure he's got ears in all the right places - he's no fool. But it doesn't really matter, ultimately. After the coup of JFK, no president has had the power to make any waves that the political infrastructure didn't OK first.

Sure, there are lucrative benefits to achieving POTUS, and so there will be genuine battling between the candidates, but to be a contender, you have to have already proven your loyalty. For example Obama was a second-generation offshoot of the US intelligence community, his mother being recruited early on before her work in Kenya, and other family connections. Guaranteed trustworthy from an early age. Clintons and Bushes are obvious. Sanders has been a longtime senator, and was instrumental in destroying the best chance we ever had at an audit of the Federal Reserve (which would have opened more doors to further scrutiny if not dismantling of that monstrosity). I'm sure there are other examples of him displaying his "trustworthiness", if I cared enough about this freak circus act to research him further.
But I trust the point is made.

It is interesting though to see these sociopathic hyenas vying for dominance in this Orwellian theater.



new topics

top topics



 
14
<< 1   >>

log in

join