Major Democrat Says NO To Super PACS

YouTube

“New York Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand, a potential contender in the 2020 Democratic presidential primary, said Tuesday she would no longer accept donations from the political action committees of for-profit companies.

Her prohibition includes contributions from PACs connected to trade associations and law firms, her spokesman Glen Caplin told Roll Call in an email, saying the goal was to "get corporate money out of politics."


PAC money from labor unions is still welcome, Caplin said.

PACs have amounted to about 15 percent of Gillibrand’s donations over her career in the House and Senate, according to data from the nonpartisan Center for Responsive Politics. A majority of that political money, 65 percent, has come from business PACs.

Labor PACs represented about 14 percent of Gillibrand's PAC dollars, while ideological or single-issue PACs amounted to more than 20 percent, the center’s data showed. She did not say that she would return past donations from corporate PACs.

“I want to reduce the influence of money in politics,” Gillibrand, who is up for re-election in November, said in a news release.

Lawyers and employees of securities and investment firms are among Gillibrand's top donors, the Center for Responsive Politics has tabulated using Federal Election Commission records.”

Originally posted by @zahlanzi
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GswUe4x0XIY

“New York Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand, a potential contender in the 2020 Democratic presidential primary, said Tuesday she would no longer accept donations from the political action committees of for-profit companies.

Her prohibition includes contributions from PACs connected to trade associations and law firms ...[text shortened]... rs, the Center for Responsive Politics has tabulated using Federal Election Commission records.”

You got it back to upside down, it's get politics out of the economy, then the pollies do't have anything to sell.

Since PAC money from labor unions are still welcome, then it certainly isn't a principled decision.

Originally posted by @quackquack
Since PAC money from labor unions are still welcome, then it certainly isn't a principled decision.

of course, koch brothers and walmart are totally the same as a bunch of workers organizing themselves to fight the ones with all the power.

Originally posted by @zahlanzi
of course, koch brothers and walmart are totally the same as a bunch of workers organizing themselves to fight the ones with all the power.

If a political candidate were against PACs, there is an argument that it is a principled decision (not a particularly good one because -- I don't buy into money is the root of all evil crap). But here Gillibrand shows that she has nothing against PACs -- she'll simply support those that influence in the direction she favors. Thus, she's simply for sale for certain causes and the joke is that you think that makes her wonderful.

Originally posted by @zahlanzi
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GswUe4x0XIY

“New York Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand, a potential contender in the 2020 Democratic presidential primary, said Tuesday she would no longer accept donations from the political action committees of for-profit companies.

Her prohibition includes contributions from PACs connected to trade associations and law firms ...[text shortened]... rs, the Center for Responsive Politics has tabulated using Federal Election Commission records.”

But what about super PACs?

YouTube

Cute, Booker got on the boat as well.

Originally posted by @zahlanzi
of course, koch brothers and walmart are totally the same as a bunch of workers organizing themselves to fight the ones with all the power.

The ones with all the power are the goobermint dolt boy.

Originally posted by @wajoma
The ones with all the power are the goobermint dolt boy.[sic]

The one with all the power is the goobermint dolt boy.

OR

The ones with all the power are the goobermint dolt boys.

Ensure your verbs agree with your nouns.

3/10