[ad_1]
Many candidates for the Democratic presidential election are faced with the need to raise huge sums of money – and to do so at the behest of political party activists who want to reduce their traditional sources of funding.
Most candidates will likely present a package of proposals to limit spending in politics and support legislation to overthrow Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission 2010 Supreme Court ruling authorizing unlimited expenses through external campaigns.
But many go beyond, responding to requests to reject outside assistance from independent groups or to stop accepting donations from employees of specific companies, among other restrictions. The hottest battle so far has been whether candidates should accept money from those employed in the oil and gas industry – an action considered contrary to the party's position on climate change.
Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) Is about to make self-imposed limits a key element of a campaign, engaging as she did during her recent race at the # Statewide scale to deny contributions from registered private companies or federal lobbyists. She also plans to avoid coming back from a super PAC – and would be unlikely to support a candidate who relies on a super PAC, according to a person familiar with his thinking.
Rep. Beto O'Rourke (D-Tex.) Made campaign funding one of the cornerstones of his unsuccessful bid for the US Senate in Texas, a race in which he collected record donations, while disavowing donations from any PAC.
Sen. Cory Booker (D-N.J.), On the other hand, has close ties to Wall Street and Silicon Valley and, in previous campaigns, has collected most of his money from major donors. A super PAC has already been formed to support it, an alliance whose campaign can calculate needs but which could become a political handicap for Democrats looking for a show of support from multi-million supporters.
Those who plan to seek Democratic nomination see their decisions on how to raise money as a definition for voters – even though these choices may also put them at a disadvantage compared to President Gordon Trump, whose campaign embraced and the Republican Party apparatus broke fundraising records in the past.
"For Democrats, this is a crucial issue, and this should be the case," said Robert Zimmerman, a prominent fundraiser and member of the Democratic National Committee of New York. "It's not acceptable for Democrats to talk about campaign finance reform, then volunteer to be part of the corrupt system that they condemn."
One of the first The political power indices of the 2020 candidates will be the extent to which any of them will be able to do it. increase in the first quarter of 2019. This is one of the reasons why several leading candidates are expected to announce their campaigns in early January, leaving them with the maximum amount of time to raise as much money as possible before the end. of March.
Several billionaires, the richest. Michael Bloomberg, the businessman and former mayor of New York, is likely to come forward, which will give them immediate access to resources and pressure on the rest of the field. Billionaires will not be as solicited to raise funds – which could protect them from attacks on external sources of funds – but they could also face criticism of their extreme wealth in an increasingly populist party.
Several potential candidates, including Warren, O. Rourke and Senator Kamala D. Harris (D-Calif.) Would participate in the competition with another type of benefit: the formidable address lists electronic donors that they built during previous campaigns, which could place them at the top of the non-millionaire. flank of candidates. But the campaign aides privately conceded that there was probably an important overlap between the donors on these lists. Some may choose to donate to several candidates, but it is more likely that they will choose one or wait until the land is settled.
The landscape of democratic fundraising has changed dramatically over the past four years, when Hillary Clinton won the inauguration after amassing a large, donor-based fund. Party activists turned more to Senator Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.), Who led a small-donor campaign in which he launched a flood of damaging criticisms of Clinton's ties with wealthy benefactors . (He boasted regularly not to have a great cap becoming a hit line "Saturday Night Live," even though Sanders was enjoying a super PAC run by a nurses union.)
"I Absolutely think that's the way the campaigns stand out and send a message on the voice that matters most, "said Jeff Weaver, one of Sanders' leading strategists. "A campaign that relies on a super PAC as the main source of funding must ask if the basic support it needs to move forward."
In this regard, there are some substantial differences between the candidates, if the past races are an indication. Since 2013, Warren has received 56% of his donations – and Sanders 76% of his own – from donors donating less than $ 200, according to the Center for Responsive Politics. The center found that less than 12% of Booker's donations came from these small donors. About a quarter of donations to Sens. Amy Klobuchar (D-Min.) And Sherrod Brown (D-Ohio), also potential candidates, came from small donors, compared to about one-third of those paid to Harris and Senator Kirsten. Gillibrand (DN.Y.).
An example of the pressure on election candidates came earlier this year, when Harris was invited, in a public session in Sacramento, to refuse donations from a company or private sector.
"Well, it depends. It depends, "said Harris.
" The answer is wrong, "replied the questioner. 19659018] "Well, that's not the answer you want to hear," Harris said. "That does not make it wrong."
A few weeks later, Harris turned around saying that after thinking about the mayor's question, she had decided to join in with others politicians to promise not to take money from the PACs. 19659020] The promise of not taking business cap funds – also made by Booker and Gillibrand earlier in the year – has both symbolic and financial significance. PAC corporate donations have not played an important role in campaign funding and candidates who do not want to use CAP money from companies continue to receive individual donations from CEOs. business or lobbyists.
This has led some candidates to go further. Allegiance on Changes to the Election Campaign Financing System
During his campaign in the Senate, O 'Rourke refused to take money from a PAC, even though he was not allowed to pay. he was not related to a company. (This was a change; during his races in the House in 2012 and 2014, he had taken money from the PAC.)
"Political Action Committees represent businesses and organizations. interests in the presence of Congress – that is to say the pharmaceutical, telecommunications and energy industries. , the insurance industries – and they are giving money to members of Congress, not just for access, even if that's part of it, "said O Rourke at the HBO show of Bill Maher in March. "They also buy results, the legislative language that appears in bills and that become bills."
Warren was one of the most virulent candidates for political spending, tabling a draft bill. law requiring more information to provide for companies and super PAC. A bill she tabled in August would prohibit lobbyists from donating to anyone who occupies or stands in federal elections.
"The recent explosion of great political spending has hit our democracy hard," Warren said in a recent speech. "Much remains to be done in campaign finance, beginning with the overthrow of Citizens United . But it is not enough.
Warren has just won a noncompetitive re-election campaign and has $ 12.5 million, which would make it easy to forgo any outside help.
Booker and Harris's calculations are different and influenced by their followers. . A super PAC that would benefit Booker could tap into Wall Street money, while Harris would have wealthy Californian donors ready to support his campaign.
The outside initiative to help Booker is organized by Steve Phillips, a Democratic donor based in San Francisco. . As announced for the first time by The New York Times, he plans to raise $ 10 million for this effort, called Dream United.
It is forbidden for Super PAC to coordinate with a candidate but they can collect unlimited sums from donors. Campaign donations from individual donors are limited to $ 2,700 per election.
In addition to splits between outside groups, Democrats are also arguing over the opportunity to invoke purity testing of specific donors.
In preparation for the mid-term elections in November, Oil Change USA, a coalition of environmental groups, tried to get candidates to sign a "financial commitment to reduce fossil fuels" in order not to accept contributions in excess of $ 200 by PACs or fossil fuel companies. They have met with various presidential candidates – including Warren, Booker and Harris – but until now, only Sanders and Sen. Jeff Merkley (D-Ore.) Have agreed.
The group plans to send people to candidate events to try to lobby. they pledge either to sign the pledge or to defend the reason why they took the fossil fuel money.
A glimpse came during the recent race in the US Senate in Texas. An activist associated with this effort persuaded O'Rourke to sign what appeared to be a copy of the promise made during his campaign against incumbent Republican Senator Ted Cruz. O & # 39; Rourke then took money from oil and gas executives.
According to him, the promise covered only the commitment not to take money from the PAC and the group did not make it clear to him that the promise also included not taking money from those who work in the industry. The group recently removed O & # Rourke from the list of those who had made the commitment.
"It's certainly fair to point out that he took this money out of the industry," said David Turnbull, spokesman for Oil Change USA. . "My concern is to make sure that we will not underestimate what he thought he had signed."
Candidates attempting to navigate changing morals also encounter a more fundamental problem: the size of the potential field has made it difficult to secure funding. sliding traction.
"Candidates are not determined to run; Donors do not commit to candidates, "said Zimmerman, the Democratic donor. "It's like an eighth-grade dance. Everyone is afraid to take the first step.
Ellen Susman, a Democratic donor in Texas, has received calls from a number of potential candidates and has met some of them. But she and her husband will not give anything until they find out who to support – "we will not play the game of support at all and we will not see who will win" – and for now, she is undecided.
a crapshoot, "she said about the presidential race. "That's why I'm sitting."
[ad_2]
Source link
