Democratic Party of Wisconsin signs fundraising pact with Hillary Clinton

Meh. Here’s yet another example of “the more things change, the more they stay the same.”

Hillary Rodham Clinton’s campaign has received commitments from four Democratic state parties, including in the crucial proving ground of New Hampshire, to enter joint fund-raising agreements with the campaign just as the nomination battle is beginning.

The four are a small fraction of the dozens of state parties that the Hillary for America campaign has asked to join such agreements. Many are still considering the request; some officials said they are working through how the arrangement would be put into effect while the nominating fight is underway.

Mississippi, Virginia and Wisconsin have also signed agreements with the Clinton team, according to two people briefed on the issue who were not authorized to speak publicly. Virginia, a critical general election battleground, is home to Gov. Terry McAuliffe, a close friend of Mrs. Clinton’s and a former Democratic National Committee chairman.

The move to create the “Victory Funds” – in which the money raised would be divided between the state parties and the Clinton campaign – comes as efforts to form a joint fund-raising agreement with the Democratic National Committee have repeatedly hit snags over concerns in the Clinton campaign about the current party leadership’s controlling the money in any shared account. The national committee, which is intended to remain neutral, has been accused by Mrs. Clinton’s rivals for the nomination of taking actions that could benefit Mrs. Clinton, such as restricting the number of debates.

While an arrangement along these lines between the Democratic Party of Wisconsin and Hillary Clinton, the preferred Democratic presidential candidate of the establishment isn’t unexpected, it shows that the more things change, the more they stay the same.

At the end of the day, the Democratic establishment will always work to help elect the so-call “safe” (i.e. corporate) Democratic candidates for higher office at the expense of those pesky, bothersome progressives who actually might upset the proverbial apple cart and work to change our broken system instead of protecting the status quo.


Related Articles

10 thoughts on “Democratic Party of Wisconsin signs fundraising pact with Hillary Clinton

  1. This is exactly why I am not a member of the Democratic Party and why I will not send the party money. I will send donations to individual candidates (mostly Democratic) but the party is really out of touch with the progressives of this state. And it’s getting worse.

  2. I didn’t even realize they were allowed to do this. So if Bernie ends up with the nomination or at least gets to a point where it is clear he is going to win the nomination are they allowed to break these commitments?

    I get why a small group or organization would hitch their wagon to a candidate at this point, but it just seems to me it would be more prudent for an entire state party to stay out of it until at least the outcome is relatively certain.

  3. Martha Laning did send out an email yesterday, saying that this doesn’t mean they are endorsing her, and that other candidates can set up similar arrangements with the DPW. Time will tell, I guess.

    1. Martha, Martha, Martha; shades of the previous imperious leadership and the lack of consultation! How about some ground rules for future input from the Democratic rank and file!!!

      Ms Lansing, I respectfully submit that I thought you would bring a new ethic, energy, and integration regarding participation with the DPW by the use of my name. Instead, my incoming “dialing for dollars” continues, sadly, as the only or primary communication.from DPW et al..

      I know you are among the best. and I am confident you can meet the challenge to represent and lead us. One stumble does not mean a fall.

      Jackson County

      By the way, why have you not thought of attending a monthly meeting at the local level here and there, now and then, to get better acquainted? Or how about a Q&A session? Also, use this medium to your and our successful interchange. What have you and we to lose?

  4. Mase- I hope Laning is telling the truth, because this reeks of the same corporatist insider BS that the rank-and-file rebelled against to get Laning elected Chair in the first place.

    Between this and Tate working for Abele, I’m seeing that a lot of people in the DPW haven’t learned their lesson from the last 4 years. A wimpy inside-baseball and “money over message” mentality is not going to win, but these careerists sure don’t want to give up the gravy train, do they?

    You wonder why I Feel the Bern? It’s not just that I agree with Bernie’s ideas more, but it’s also because I think he represents the way this party should strategize and handle its business.

    1. Jake, it appears appears you and I share the same concerns in our counsel for Ms. Laning.

      While we may differ in our choice of candidates, DPW must at this very early stage be “fair and balanced.”

      1. Agree with your thoughts 100% Duane. Clearing the way for any candidate is a bad idea in general, and I think it makes Dems stronger in the general election, because they’ve had to get their name our and EARN the.nomination.

        The best thing the party can do is encourage a vigorous, positive debate. This looks like favortism, even if Laning claims the DPW will do the same arrangement with the Sanders campaign.

  5. Zach, thanks for covering this. Haven’t seen it anywhere else.

    I’m shocked by the level of hubris. If Sec. Clinton’s presidential campaign has taken over DPW, why do we need DPW?

    Sen. Vinehout backed Ms. Laning from the start. This is on her.

    If Ms. Laning signed off on this, why does she still have a job?

    Is this because Wisconsin unions weren’t contributing to Sec. Clinton’s campaign?

    Has Sec. Clinton’s campaign admitted they’ll lose to Sen. Sanders in NH, so Wisconsin is their firewall?

    I’d like to see the document. Who is doing the audit from DPW’s side? What’s to prevent Sec. Clinton’s campaign from pillaging DPW?

  6. Sec. Clinton’s campaign is beyond flush with cash from Wall Street and the elites, “Progressives Demand Answers From Clinton on Golden Parachutes for Wall Streeters-Turned-Government Officials.”

    This could be a two-pronged strategy. First, she might need contributions from small donors to disguise the massive six-figure support she’s received from many elites. Second, she’s probably trying to starve Sanders’ campaign.

    Speculation, worth at least half of what you paid for it.

    Anyone remember Sec. Clinton joining Sen. Warren and a few other Dems to oppose cuts to Social Security and Medicare?

  7. From Mark L Taylor’s intro at,

    (Editor’s Note: Folks, if you want to see any possibility of wrenching the Democratic Party away from the claws of corporate influence do not donate a dime to the state or national Democratic parties. Instead, donate generously and to the best of your ability to genuinely progressive candidates, interest groups and causes. But the parties? Please, they are minions of the corporate interests. — Mark L. Taylor)

    I’m with him on this completely and this has always been my approach to elections.

    I can see an experienced and intelligent manager like Chair Laning I’m certain likely is, is needing to have cash to operate in any effective fashion at all. We did find out that there were only about 13K paid Democratic party members in the whole state during the discussions leading to DPW leadership selection. Our county D office is closed until further notice, though Feingold fits into this picture somehow and has scheduled an official county campaign appearance next month.

    Third wrinkle here is remembering that Laning is Vinehout’s preference and Dems cannot miss winning a state Senate majority next year though I have absolutely no clue as to what those possibilities are. I’ll happily leave that to people way more informed than myself.


Comments are closed.