Shunning Corporate PACs Won’t End Corporate Influence in Elections

[truthout.org]

(Candidates for office at the federal level also benefit from Democratic Party fundraising institutions — which are funded largely by “individual wealthy donors,” as Kim Moody wrote:

The Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee (DCCC) saw its campaign contributions rise from $2 million in 1980 to $206 million in 2014, while those of the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee (DSCC) climbed from $1.6 million to $169.2 million over the same period…. State parties [accounted for] an additional $182.6 million for congressional elections in 2014.)

In other words. These committees know who the money is coming from. If you think for one minute that the people running these committees don't pressure people like AOC, Sanders, and the other progressive candidates newly making their way into office, I have a bridge to sell you. When it comes time to vote a particular way so that another representative, or more, can avoid a damaging vote to keep their seat when the pressure is on them, they'll be pressured to do so or face the wrath of the establishment.

(Booker, now a presidential candidate, made the anti-PAC pledge and said he would refuse to accept Super PAC money, although as the Center for Responsive Politics reported, “the campaign cannot actually prevent outside groups from making independent expenditures.)

(Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand — who, like the rest of the Democratic candidates has sworn off corporate PAC money — has already been garnering Wall Street support. She also has plans to attend a fundraiser for her campaign hosted by an executive of the drug giant Pfizer on March 31. The recommended donation is between $1,000 and $2,700 (the largest allowed individual donation). None of the money raised here qualifies as “corporate PAC” money, but it is hard to see why it is any less problematic.)

See how this is adding up? Citizens United can't stop this! And AOC and the other new representatives pulled in a lot of money the same way. As a matter of fact, AOC was put on the hot seat about a week ago over alleged fraud from some money raised. It didn't quite add up to much being her campaign is claiming it was a simple mistake. That is still going through the ringer though.

[medium.com]

That aside, it went viral, this is what I meant earlier about letting breaking news taking time to filter out the bullshit. I didn't even jump on that click bait, and I've had my doubts about AOC as those who stayed tuned in to my post should well know by now.

(There are certainly other areas where special interest money is a problem, but some of it is outside of a candidate’s control,” Bozzi said. “But they can control whether or no they take corporate PAC checks. And you’ve seen the focus on corporate PACs because that is where people recognize the problem is.)

No, that is where the main stream media has many conditioned to focus on. And I'll argue many of the groups who seem to be out there to confront this problem also have many conditioned to focus on. I'll add Represent US as being one of them. Have you even seen Represent US cover this method of hidden fund raising that ends up in a PAC? I haven't! They have a really nice pie chart that explains how the cycle works from corporations down to PAC'S then representatives, and all the capped ways they can make donations. This is what we all already know as being the problem. But this Luke Thompson guy is going into the dark zone most will not cover. Obviously someone has a problem with AOC. I wouldn't be surprised to see it leads back to the DNC.