Home
Archive
Columnists
Video
Blogs
Discuss
About
Search
Donate
Advertise
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Register to Vote: Rock the Vote, powered by Working Assets Wireless
Advertisement
  • AlterNetYour turn

Support AlterNet
Do you value the information you're getting from AlterNet? Please show your support with a tax-deductible donation.


Feedback
Tell us how we're doing.

Election 2008

Superdelegates Took Campaign Cash from Hillary and Obama

By Lindsay Renick Mayer, Capital Eye. Posted February 14, 2008.


Will the $890K they've received from Hillary and Obama sway their choices?
Advertisement

At this summer's Democratic National Convention, nearly 800 members of Congress, state governors and Democratic Party leaders could be the tiebreakers in the intense contest between Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama. If neither candidate can earn the support of at least 2,025 delegates in the primary voting process, the decision of who will represent the Democrats in November's presidential election will fall not to the will of the people but to these "superdelegates" -- the candidates' friends, colleagues and even financial beneficiaries. Both contenders will be calling in favors.

And while it would be unseemly for the candidates to hand out thousands of dollars to primary voters, or to the delegates pledged to represent the will of those voters, elected officials who are superdelegates have received at least $890,000 from Obama and Clinton in the form of campaign contributions over the last three years, according to the nonpartisan Center for Responsive Politics.

Obama, who narrowly leads in the count of pledged, "non-super" delegates, has doled out more than $694,000 to superdelegates from his political action committee, Hope Fund, or campaign committee since 2005. Of the 81 elected officials who had announced as of Feb. 12 that their superdelegate votes would go to the Illinois senator, 34, or 40 percent of this group, have received campaign contributions from him in the 2006 or 2008 election cycles, totaling $228,000. In addition, Obama has been endorsed by 52 superdelegates who haven't held elected office recently and, therefore, didn't receive campaign contributions from him.

Clinton does not appear to have been as openhanded. Her PAC, HILLPAC, and campaign committee appear to have distributed $195,500 to superdelegates. Only 12 percent of her elected superdelegates, or 13 of 109 who have said they will back her, have received campaign contributions, totaling about $95,000 since 2005. An additional 128 unelected superdelegates support Clinton.

Because superdelegates will make up around 20 percent of 4,000 delegates to the Democratic convention in August--Republicans don't have superdelegates -- Clinton and Obama are aggressively wooing the more than 400 superdelegates who haven't yet made up their minds. Since 2005 Obama has given 52 of the undecided superdelegates a total of at least $363,900, while Clinton has given a total of $88,000 to 15 of them. Anticipating that their intense competition for votes in state primaries and caucuses will result in a near-tie going into the nominating convention, the two candidates are making personal calls to superdelegates now, or are recruiting other big names to do so on their behalf. With no specific rules about what can and can't be done to court these delegates, just about anything goes.

"Only the limits of human creativity could restrict the ways in which Obama and Clinton will try to be helpful to superdelegates," said Larry Sabato, a political scientist at the University of Virginia. "My guess is that if the nomination actually depends on superdelegates, the unwritten rule may be, 'ask and ye shall receive.' "

Superdelegates will make their decisions based on a number of factors, said Richard Herrera, a political scientist at Arizona State University. Some have long-time political and personal ties to Clinton or Obama, some will support the candidate they think is more likely to beat the Republican nominee and others will commit to the candidate who won their state's support. Deciding whom to support based entirely on contributions from the candidates would be a political liability, Herrera said.

"I think Democrats, both regular delegates and superdelegates, see this year as an opportunity to really take back the White House," he said, "and I don't think there's that short-term political concern that money will play that kind of role. It's a much bigger picture at this point."

The superdelegates themselves say the same thing -- that any money flowing from the presidential candidates to the delegates' own campaigns hasn't had any sort of influence on their decisions. Pennsylvania Gov. Ed Rendell received $5,000 from Clinton in the 2006 election cycle and has endorsed her, while he hasn't received anything from Obama, campaign finance records indicate. Policy and a personal relationship with the Clintons, not money, swung his vote into her camp, according to spokesman Chuck Ardo. "The governor has known Mrs. Clinton for 15 years and has certainly had a close relationship with President Clinton as well," Ardo said. "I think those are the factors that are really more relevant, especially given the small fraction of his fundraising that Clinton's contributions made. It'd be ludicrous to tie that contribution to his support."


Digg!

See more stories tagged with: superdelegates, election 2008

Lindsay Renick Mayer is Money-in-Politics Reporter for Capital Eye

Liked this story? Get top stories in your inbox each week from Election 2008! Sign up now »


Advertisement

 

Comments Turn comments off sitewide Give us feedback »
Comments closed.
The comments for this story have been closed. Thank you to everyone who participated.
View:
Wheres the coin!
Posted by: carbon-based on Feb 14, 2008 6:24 PM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
One had to figure that both Obama and Clinton had behind the scene efforts to ensure those superdelegates would be in there pockets. Seems that politics isn't that different between republicans or democrats..

While everyone is talking change maybe they mean coin vs action!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Wheres the coin! Posted by: lisa lynn
Layers of financial influence
Posted by: WhichTruth on Feb 14, 2008 7:37 PM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
This proves the case for Clean Elections. Public financing would put the emphasis on the message rather than raising money that is often tied to influence.

You are the we in We the People.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

money makes the world go around
Posted by: allyourbasearebelongtous on Feb 14, 2008 7:51 PM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
what???? you mean that politics is about money, power and manipulation???? omigod!!!! ;)

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Thank you for keeping the hysteria down.
Posted by: Sojourner on Feb 14, 2008 8:13 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I don't know much about money changing hands in the nation's capitol and in the states' but I am not surprised that the big stars are willing to share what they get with others.

In education, it's called mentoring--perks are distributed by those who have them to give.

It might help to take a look at Obama's campaign staff. There you will find many former B. Clinton staff people. That is to say, the name of the game is politics and you work for whoever pays your salary.

The real story is in the last paragraph about the intended role of the superdelegates. Their job is to choose the most electable candidate, someone who can win. The primaries are the minor leagues. Although we have not had such a close contest since RFK was assassinated, no one wants a repeat of the glorious McGovern defeat.

This year, it's the Demos' to lose, and if they cannot get their act together enough to win, we will all eat more crow until they do.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

uh...
Posted by: Herb3705 on Feb 14, 2008 10:14 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
why does this article purport to be reporting some unknown secret? it said the information was found in PUBLIC records.

both candidates obviously were not hiding anything. i don't think this piece is really reporting what is going on.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

"Change.." $$$ "Pocket Change..!" $$$
Posted by: TJ-stars4peace on Feb 14, 2008 11:42 PM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Maybe that's what they meant by "Change..!"

"Pocket Change..!"

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Is this democracy?
Posted by: Pau on Feb 15, 2008 3:47 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
And some still would have us believe that USA is a democracy?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Is this democracy? Posted by: Pau
Unique, Unforeseen Situation Should Not Cast Such A Negative Light
Posted by: ianrey on Feb 15, 2008 5:59 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
In past elections, candidates with rich war chests, especially those in uncontested or minimally contested races, have been lauded for contributing to others in more urgent need. The party encouraged, almost required, this to be done as a "share the wealth" tactic, and its use in 2006 contributed greatly to successful Democratic elections nationwide. I think you're greatly overstressing the sinister implication of buying superdelegate votes; for one, primaries have almost always been decided by the popular vote long before the convention, relegating superdelegates to honored guests and nothing more.

This close race could hardly have been anticipated in 2004 or 2006; consider Sen. Clinton's donation to Richardson's gubernatorial campaign. Yes, in February 2008 it seems sinister, that she might have been buying a delegate vote, but as little as three months ago, it could have been read as foolish, contributing to an opponent's campaign. In truth, neither is the case; Hillary had a rich warchest, and she gave money to a political ally and friend, without regard to a specific act at an undetermined convention site years later. If Richardson ends up endorsing Clinton, it will be unsurprising, not because of this meager donation, but because they are closely related ideologically and politically. Huge donations right now would be questionable, but donations 2 years ago were rightfully seen then as signs of party loyalty, and I think should continue to be seen as such.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Buying Their Votes
Posted by: jr9657 on Feb 15, 2008 7:34 AM   
Current rating: 1    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Okay, this is ENTIRELY wrong and very undemocratic! I'm not a fan of either candidate, and this just confirms my rationale as to why. The nomination process is supposed to be a democratic process, not a buyout! Shame, shame on both candidates!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

change
Posted by: lisa lynn on Feb 15, 2008 7:51 AM   
Current rating: 1    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
What would be a change would be everyone wake-up and relize beutiful speech's and fancy words w/rhetoric, will not sustain our economy and country we need a real plan w/someone that has some experience.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

obama
Posted by: lisa lynn on Feb 15, 2008 7:54 AM   
Current rating: 1    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
let see, w/no experience i guess that means big business still rules the day. and we the people face another 4-8yrs. of this do-nothing congress.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Pshaw!!
Posted by: rickiey on Feb 15, 2008 8:30 AM   
Current rating: 1    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
You think that little bit of money exchanging hands was superdelegate bribery? Sure, it was, but it was NOTHING. It was spare change.

The REAL bribery is what Clinton has been doing in the Senate for years, but not with her PAC money, she's been bribing superdelegates with our tax dollars instead. It's called "earmarks".

"Sure, I'll help you get that earmark for your home district through, and you can take all the credit. It'll almost guarantee you your re-election. But someday, I'm gonna call you and remind you, that you owe me a favor."

Who cares about the "almost a million dollars in PAC" money, compared to the billion dollar bribes out of our taxes?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Obama
Posted by: lesterliu on Feb 15, 2008 3:17 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
which is why Obama wants to end these very undemoncratic behaviors.He is calling for the superdelegates to represent the interests of his district/state(which will infact render superdelegates useless). without greasing these lil basterds,i dont see any prosepect of him being elected. And without committing the original sins, he hasnt got the tools to implement change. let's show some love to him.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

This is Complete Crap
Posted by: bluesmanjohnson on Feb 15, 2008 9:27 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Newsflash: All these people have PAC's and make donations to each other. Sometimes, donations are made based on a personal relationship. Obama or Hillary makes a donation (some of them years ago), to someone with whom they had a connection, and it is being pitched here as a presidential election bribe. I understand the superdelegate process is all about cashing in favors, but the underlying spin here is that Obama is somehow buying his way to glory in a "politics as usual" manner. I am typically a fan of the Center for Responsive Politics, but I think they are looking too hard here, as is this author.

This is pretty low quality stuff.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Whoa!
Posted by: nomomorons on Feb 15, 2008 10:19 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
It's easy to assume corruption--and why wouldn't you? I mean, it certainly has been the default in politics, of late.

However, a rational case can be made for the distinct possibility that superdelegates have relationships of some standing with one or the other of the candidates and THAT was be causal in both contribution and support.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

where's mine?
Posted by: undrgrndgirl on Feb 17, 2008 1:27 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
note to hillary and barak (and john and mike):
you'll have to pay ME if you want my vote - enough to pay off my credit cards, student loans (oh and enough to finish graduate school); as well as enough to pay for medical insurance until i reach whatever the qualifying age for medicare will be when those of us born in 1964 will be eligible...because none of you are addressing the real needs of the people of the united states.

once dennis bowed out, and we were left with this slate of corporatist war mongering candidates - i decided i can't in good conscious hold my nose and vote for anyone. i cannot envision voting for the lesser of two evils AGAIN. and i've never missed an election in 25 years.

super delegates my arse - i don't think the founding fathers would approve - this gives too much power to one branch of the government; albeit in party form, but it still stinks.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

why barack
Posted by: mechuniversal1 on Feb 21, 2008 2:18 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
obama is all talk right now. granted. this is an election. as his supportors, we fully realize that, but deeply feel that when he is thrown into the fire of things of which he has no experience with, he will realize the gravity of it all and NEVER act like bush did but INSTEAD surrond himself with INTELLIGENT and DIVERSE expertise and find a way to START to solve the incredibly COMPLEX situations he will have to deal with. but when making decisions, he will be driven by PRINCIPLE, not the pollitics of the time (AKA hillary 2003 Iraq)

and think about it. hillary is smart. back in 03 she had ALL the info needed to make a decision for our FUTURE. she is not a Mccain hawk. why? why did she play pollitics at such a CRUCIAL time?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]