• An old favorite feature returns: Q&ERA is back! This time we'll be collecting questions for Remedy Entertainment, makers of Max Payne, Alan Wake, Quantum Break, and Control. Members can submit questions for the next 20 hours, 45 minutes, 17 seconds. Submissions will close on Dec 12, 2019 at 12:00 AM.

Elizabeth Warren Will Forego Big Money Events If Nominated, She Announces

Apharmd

Member
Oct 25, 2017
4,480

Senator Elizabeth Warren of Massachusetts, who has risen in the Democratic presidential primary on her pledge to forgo traditional big-money fund-raisers, said this week that if she became the nominee she would continue to skip such events, a reversal of what her position has been throughout 2019.

From the day Ms. Warren announced her plan to skip traditional fund-raisers in February, she had said the pledge only applied to the primary. “I do not believe in unilateral disarmament,” she said then on MSNBC.

But she told CBS News in an interview posted on Tuesday evening that, even as President Trump has set fund-raising records, she would not change how her campaign raises money if she won the Democratic nomination.
This is a reversal of her previous decision.

Edit: chirt points out that she still hasn't reversed course on taking big donations during the GE altogether. So this is progress but still not all the way there.
 
Last edited:

RailWays

Avenger
Oct 25, 2017
6,853
It's the right call, imo.
Her and Bernie's totals in the primary so far have showcased that small donations can sustain a campaign. Now, I hope there is still a larger-dollar effort for down-ballot races because I don't think there is enough money to go around for helping the smaller, local elections. Maybe I'm wrong though.
 

phanphare

Member
Oct 25, 2017
19,912
glad she was open to reversing this decision

it'll make it even easier than it already was to vote for her in the primary
 

SolidSnakeUS

Member
Oct 25, 2017
1,949
This is a great decision. This shows that she actually cares about the people of the country as a whole, not just to the people with deep pockets. Love it!
 

chirt

Member
Oct 25, 2017
1,203
Big money events, sure. She will still presumably receive take funds from big money donors?
 

Blue Skies

Member
Mar 27, 2019
4,893
Mistake I think
Small money can’t beat big money

Only way this works is if Bernie’s donor hop ship now instead of waiting for the inevitable.
 

Titanpaul

Member
Jan 2, 2019
322
This is a huge gamble considering how much Republicans like throwing at Trump - but I think it's for the best.
 

kittens

Member
Oct 27, 2017
3,783
How does this match up to Bernie's donation commitment? He's done something similar, right? Also why doesn't Warren just start limiting large donations now?
 

tsampikos

The Fallen
Oct 27, 2017
2,213
We need someone who will say fuck you to all the burgeoning oligarch donors of this country
 

hurlex

Member
Oct 25, 2017
1,248
While I agree with this philosophical lly, you need money to win elections. Hope it works out for her.
 

DrROBschiz

Member
Oct 25, 2017
9,913
While I agree with this philosophical lly, you need money to win elections. Hope it works out for her.
Someone did point out that Trump beat Hillary even though spending was 2 to 1 sooo

who knows how the cards will fall. Do we rely on precedent and conventional wisdom going forward?

I am almost more concerned about the propaganda machines being implemented by foreign powers, troll farms, information warfare firms, facebook etc...
 

GoldenEye 007

Roll Tide, Y'all!
Member
Oct 25, 2017
4,000
Texas
If she gets the nomination, I hope she can win doing that. Those small donations need to pick up the slack then too. She’s going up against a propaganda machine with near unlimited money and resources. Not sure if a principle like this is critical before you’ve actually won.

We’ll see.... I’d be like “I’ll take whatever money you send, big or small, but know I’ll only fight for what’s best for all Americans. Not what your company wants.” Then at least every big donor can donate or not knowing that.
 

Kirblar

Member
Oct 25, 2017
27,826
Which is exactly why her previous position of leaving it open didn't make sense.

Thank you.
Sarcasm's hard for you, huh. No, what doesn't make sense is the "of course anyone soliciting large campaign donations will be corrupted by money" stuff. It's like complaining you can't have alcohol present because no one can avoid getting drunk.
 

Tukarrs

Member
Oct 27, 2017
1,631
Sarcasm's hard for you, huh. No, what doesn't make sense is the "of course anyone soliciting large campaign donations will be corrupted by money" stuff. It's like complaining you can't have alcohol present because no one can avoid getting drunk.
Hey Kirblar. There's no need to be rude. I absolutely understood you were being glib. :)

I think a more apt analogy is that someone trying to stay sober shouldn't be accepting alcohol as gifts. I think it would be fair for people invested in that person's sobriety to be concerned.

I was saying that money has the power to influence which is not a foreign concept. I'm not saying she necessarily was being influenced but Warren's previous policy of being willing to accept those money in the general election was a concern in many people's minds. Her new policy removes a lot of doubt which is fantastic.
 

hurlex

Member
Oct 25, 2017
1,248
Someone did point out that Trump beat Hillary even though spending was 2 to 1 sooo

who knows how the cards will fall. Do we rely on precedent and conventional wisdom going forward?

I am almost more concerned about the propaganda machines being implemented by foreign powers, troll farms, information warfare firms, facebook etc...
Trump is a unique case. He had constant media attention so his lack of dollars didn't matter as much. On the flip side, all the bad shit he has done might mean Warren doesn't need to spend as much to beat him if it were a generic Republican.
 

JABEE

Member
Oct 25, 2017
6,259
Sarcasm's hard for you, huh. No, what doesn't make sense is the "of course anyone soliciting large campaign donations will be corrupted by money" stuff. It's like complaining you can't have alcohol present because no one can avoid getting drunk.
I love the distinction you are making between “corrupt money” lol
As if candidates aren’t influenced by big money donors.

There is no shady guy handing a duffle bag of money out for one vote.

This mentality is why corruption is so easy in Washington. You make it easy.
 

Umbrella Carp

Member
Jan 16, 2019
2,917
Warren will be the nominee and she will win. The only concern hanging around her is her proximity to Pelosi and the Democratic establishment, and how easily they could rope her in like they did Obama.
 

JABEE

Member
Oct 25, 2017
6,259
Also, I’m happy Warren is reversing her position. Hopefully this will extend to not taking large donations from corporations and PACs.
 

pj-

Member
Oct 25, 2017
1,177
Where does all the money for a presidential election go?

Assuming ads are targeted to battleground areas, does it not reach a saturation point long before a BILLION dollars is necessary?

TV must be unwatchable in purple states in election years
 

GrizzNKev

Avenger
Oct 25, 2017
1,393
Where does all the money for a presidential election go?

Assuming ads are targeted to battleground areas, does it not reach a saturation point long before a BILLION dollars is necessary?

TV must be unwatchable in purple states in election years
It's not just ad spending. They build up staff in various locations in every state. Lotta people to pay.
 

Kirblar

Member
Oct 25, 2017
27,826
Hey Kirblar. There's no need to be rude. I absolutely understood you were being glib. :)

I think a more apt analogy is that someone trying to stay sober shouldn't be accepting alcohol as gifts. I think it would be fair for people invested in that person's sobriety to be concerned.

I was saying that money has the power to influence which is not a foreign concept. I'm not saying she necessarily was being influenced but Warren's previous policy of being willing to accept those money in the general election was a concern in many people's minds. Her new policy removes a lot of doubt which is fantastic.
Why on earth would Elizabeth Warren be a "person struggling to stay sober" here? It makes absolutely no sense- there's nothing in her history suggesting this would be an issue. You then go on to argue the problem was "perception", which again, is not on her, its on you and others projecting behavior onto her.
The "not avoiding them for downballot donations" part is good, crowdfunding campaigns is absolutely not a viable solution for most downballot candidates and especially not for party organizations. OFA was a goddamn disaster post-'08 because without an election + charismatic candidate, that type of fundraising falls off a cliff.