The last barriers preventing corporate dark money from flooding the Democratic party have been removed, as the DNC – chaired by Debbie Wasserman Schultz – dismantled the last of the prohibitions on receiving money from lobbyists and political action committees.
The ban was in place since 2008 and associated heavily with President Obama’s promise to change how corporate money would work in Washington D.C.
We are going to change how Washington works. Lobbyists and corporate PACs will not fund my party. They will not run our White House. And they will not drown out the voice of the American people when I’m president of the United States of America.
The DNC insists this is ok, though, because the money men will not be able to attend events with the president, vice president, or their wives. This is literally the only elaboration they made on what “separations” remain yet. How does not attending events with 4 people mean that there is some kind of plausible distance established between the candidates and their new monied donor-owners?
Under the stewardship of Debbie Wasserman Schultz, the DNC has taken a decidedly dystopic turn for the worse.
The DNC’s recent optics problems started with, what some Democrats believe is debate-fixing, because of their decisions to have a scant few debates scheduled at asinine times to ensure low viewership. Now this new development of fully opening the cash-valves for the corporate influence of dark money has happened. Even the DNC-preferred candidate, Hillary Clinton, has come out against corporate money in politics. This begs the question; just what the hell happened to the DNC and why are Democrats allowing it to continue in such an unchallenged way?
The move comes at a strange time, with a severe and growing dissatisfaction among many with “establishment politics” and the undue influence that corporations and billionaires have on our elections. It’s absolutely tone-deaf for the DNC to take this turn at the point they did, in this of all elections. The huge popularity of outsider candidates like Bernie Sanders will only make this decision more likely to fracture the party less than a year from an incredibly important presidential election.
Also strange is the recent criticism from the establishment about Bernie Sanders supposedly “abandoning” Barack Obama’s legacy by trying to move from Obamacare into universal healthcare. The establishment just literally abandoned a portion of Obama’s legacy that he ran on in 2008, regarding campaign finance. Do we even have a national party anymore as progressives?
Featured image via rolandsmartin.com