Fibbers, All of Them – Dems Claim Will Not Take Corporate PAC Money for 2020 Election…

The campaign of Amy Klobuchar is the latest in a string of 2020 presidential candidates who claim they will not take corporate PAC money for their 2020 presidential bid.

However, all of them (Klobuchar, Warren, Harris, Gillibrand et al) are fibbers, who are “grubering” ie. relying on the stupidity of the American voter. They will all take corporate donations, they will just obscure the funding therein.  [Klobuchar example from 2018]:


That’s just a sample of the most recent Klobuchar corporate contributions, there are thousands more.

Dark Money is how most campaigns are financed [SEE HERE].  Democrats just do a better job than most of hiding it behind plausible deniability.   To be fair, there were a few candidates in 2016 who genuinely didn’t rely on corporate funding: ex. Donald Trump and Bernie Sanders had the best track record of small group donations. However, for the vast majority of all other candidates, they rely on corporate funding and specifically the funding through corporate political action committees (PACs).

The bigger issue is not really taking the contributions, which are -unfortunately- all quite legal, the bigger issue is the ridiculous lying about it.

A candidate earning $170,000 a year doesn’t become a millionaire without taking corporate donations.  The process they use is quite simple.  They establish leadership PAC’s.  Setting up the leadership PAC is one of the first steps any politician takes after winning office.

Alexandria Occasio Cortez aka “AOC” started her “leadership PAC”: “Courage to Change”,  less than three weeks after winning her congressional seat.  Once the leadership pac is formed, the politician can then legally accept the contributions that flow from corporations that are lobbying the representative to vote for their legislation.  [AOC PAC here]

This is the fundamental misconception that most people carry. You see, DC politicians don’t actually write laws, the K-Street lobbyists do.  The DC politicians vote on laws that are written by the lobbyists.  Most of the laws are regulatory changes to existing laws that benefit the lobbyists.  Those changes have a financial value; that value then determines the amount of payment the lobbyist is willing to make to gain the signature of the lawmaker.

Depending where the politician is within the specific process the lobbyist needs, the lobbyist will then deposit money in the Leadership PAC of the representative.  If the politician is in a key committee seat the vote is worth more; if the politician is a committee chair, the vote is worth even more, the reason is simple.  The laws, or changes to existing law, must first come out of committee; so the lobbyist is willing to pay the committee chair and committee members more to get their law out to the floor.

That’s why committee chairs are so coveted.  Being paid (bribed) more for those important positions is how politicians become millionaires on $170k salaries.

The leadership pacs can be used to pay generously for the expenses of politicians (mortgages, transportation, food, etc.) like lifestyle expense accounts.  OR the politician can take out a loan against the PAC and the PAC pays the politician back with ridiculously high interest rates.   Either way the leadership pac is like a bank account that supports the lifestyle of the politician.

This is the process.  All of the current politicians within the 2020 democrat field of candidates take full advantage of this process.   When a candidate says they do not take corporate money, they are simply not telling the truth.  They may not take money directly from corporations, but they all take money from corporations – and they all know it.

Perhaps someone, someday, will figure out a way to remove lobbyists from the DC process. However, until then the modern form of writing of legislation has been sub-contracted to corporate lobbyists because that’s the best way for DC to make money.

[The Hill] Sen. Amy Klobuchar (D-Minn.) is rebuffing campaign contributions from corporate political action committees a day after declaring her bid for the White House.

Carlie Waibel, a spokesperson for Klobuchar’s campaign, said that the nascent presidential candidate will not accept money from corporate PACs, following the lead of other Democratic hopefuls.

“The senator is not accepting contributions from corporate PACs during her campaign for president,” Waibel said in a statement first reported by CNBC on Monday. (More)

FEC Portal for Amy Klobuchar HERE

This entry was posted in Agitprop, Big Government, Big Stupid Government, Decepticons, Deep State, Dem Hypocrisy, Election 2020, Legislation, media bias, Notorious Liars, Occupy Type Moonbats, Professional Idiots, propaganda, Typical Prog Behavior, Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

89 Responses to Fibbers, All of Them – Dems Claim Will Not Take Corporate PAC Money for 2020 Election…

  1. William says:

    Democrats…..we are all sick of hearing about them. I cannot even see there being any validity to their train of thought. The constant lies, betrayals, misinformation…….

    Liked by 13 people

    • Bob says:

      It can be sickening….but we have to keep watching them. This AOC dumb plan could be another ruse….watch the news behind the seen….that’s their usual playbook.

      Liked by 2 people

      • Carrie2 says:

        Precisely, do not let ourselves get caught in a trap. Stop, think, and then make a decision because the communist democrats are using whatever they can on a daily or weekly basis to confound their own brainwashed/brainless voters and we don’t want to fall into their traps.


    • G. Alistar says:

      To wit: Harvey Weinstein and his outrageous political and very generous donations. All to Democrats including HRC and some of the currently announced Democrat’s running for POTUS, 2020

      Liked by 1 person

  2. bertdilbert says:

    If Trump is going to make lasting change in this country, he is going to have to tear down the money tables in the temple. Otherwise, everything will revert to business as usual the moment he leaves office.

    Liked by 17 people

  3. fanbeav says:

    We need campaign finance reform and term limits!

    Liked by 14 people

  4. andy says:

    Starting now!
    I mean, Starting Now!

    Liked by 3 people

  5. booger71 says:

    Wish we could require Congress to wear patches on their suits and pantsuits so we new who they worked for. Sort of like nascar drivers do6. Bigger the patch the more money they are given

    Liked by 19 people

  6. AmericaFirst says:

    Obozo said the same thing, then conveniently changed his mind. Ahem

    Liked by 3 people

  7. Suite D says:

    Donaldus Maximus, “I’m really really rich.”
    Lefties, “We all want to be really really rich. And even though we’ll all lose we’ll quietly keep ALL your contributions, suckers.”

    Liked by 8 people

    • jahealy says:

      Bingo. There’s no other logical reason why a couple dozen Dems will throw their hats in the ring against the unbeatable force that is PDJT. They are looking to either increase their already fat personal fortunes with campaign contributions, or use them as salt money to begin building their fortunes in earnest. I’d love to know the percentages – campaign contributions vs. backdoor deals with CoC, foreign nationals, etc. – that turn our $170K/year “representatives” into multi-millionaires the longer they stay in D.C.

      Liked by 1 person

  8. Bullseye says:

    Then we need to remove all salary and benefits paid from tax payers. Just another slap in the face

    Liked by 4 people

    • Sharpshorts says:

      The Catch-22
      Any changes that we citizens think are needed go through the same folks who receive the benefits, ie; the politicians and their current partners, the corporate PAC contributers
      A very tough system to correct once it’s in place.

      IMO, that’s what Thomas Jefferson meant by
      [a revolution is needed every 20 years]…We have had only one in over 200.

      Liked by 2 people

  9. Ellie says:

    Sundance, you’re being too kind.
    Prostitutes come to mind.

    Liked by 12 people

  10. CNY3 says:

    Just expose that lie on a daily basis. Will be my pleasure. 😁👍🏻🇺🇸

    Liked by 1 person

  11. snellvillebob says:

    What she will do is have the corporations co-sign loans she uses for campaign cash, then not pay them back.

    Liked by 1 person

  12. StanH says:

    Bought and paid for before they declare their candidacy. That goes for any member of the uni-party.

    Liked by 6 people

  13. Phflipper says:

    Understanding correctly, setting up a leadership PAC = selling yourself on the street.

    Liked by 3 people

  14. thebigharry says:

    That ain’t work
    That’s the way they do it
    I want my P A C


  15. thedoc00 says:

    Lest one forgets. The Labor Unions occupy most of the slots in the top 20 publicly listed political donors. They are money launderers for the rich and famous.

    Liked by 6 people

  16. Tazio Nuvolari says:

    Just a reminder of the author of the Green New Deal and that all the Democrat candidates have endorsed it.

    The zips are in the wire.

    Liked by 9 people

  17. Cheese says:

    Government has become just another way for us to steal from one another.

    Liked by 1 person

  18. vikingmom says:

    This, IMHO, is the biggest issue that most voters do not understand. They don’t like politicians, per se, but think “their” guy or gal really cares about them and is back there in DC fighting for them. Most voters have no idea that “their” Representative, whether they have an R or a D after their name, does not care one whit about them or their miserable little issues. They are fully bought and paid for by lobbyists, PACs, and special interests and that is why the disconnect in this country between the government and the “governed” continues to grow exponentially!

    The passage of the Federal Election Campaign Acts of 1971 & 1974 basically created a huge new influx of professional lobbyists and removed bans on government contractors. Once that flood gate was opened, politicians were for sale to the highest bidder, and our vote became mostly meaningless. The PACs and SuperPACs followed and now shadow entities make all the decisions.

    How to stop it? Not sure that we can at this point because the only people who could pass the legislation are the very ones who are benefiting from it. But, if we could force them to make changes, what would they be?

    My first suggestion would be to eliminate all limitations on individual contributions – let people give as much as they want BUT the amount has to be reported online within 24 hours and each politician must have up to date figures available to any constituent who asks. If someone wants to buy influence, fine, but everyone should be able to see exactly who is funding whom!

    At the same time, stop all PACs and bundlers, INCLUDING Labor Unions. If a group wants to suggest their members vote for and support a specific person, they can go ahead and do so, BUT they should NOT be able to compel them to support someone with whom they might strongly disagree. And since a corporation cannot legally cast a vote, they should not be able to make ANY contributions to a candidate!

    Those are my ideas…would love to hear from other Treepers as to yours, AND how we might be able to force changes in DC to bring about the needed reforms!

    Liked by 9 people

    • Walt says:

      The fact that PAC money overpowers citizen views not only CAN be ended, it WILL be ended. The method’s simple enough: The federal government will become much smaller — say the size and functions of 1950 with a few additions for new federal-type issues and major subtractions because computers can do the work of a million clerks.

      We can get there by changing the laws to delete several cabinet departments and shrink most others. That’s the GOOD way to do it.

      The other way — the BAD way — is via civil war, financial collapse, or both. I think that’s the more likely way.

      However, we’re going to get rid of the PAC money problem, one way or another.

      Liked by 4 people

      • TheLastDemocrat says:

        I agree: limit the role of money by limiting what government can do.

        No other way to limit the influence of money. One way that moneyed interests buy favor is by helping family members! How can you make a law saying a family member cannot go work for a company that would be affected by legislation that might come up, if the candidate is elected or re-elected?

        Liked by 1 person

      • vikingmom says:

        Remember way back in 2000 when George W Bush promised to ELIMINATE whole departments if he won? And then proceeded to hand us “No Child Left Behind” “Medicare Part D” and “The Office of Faith Based Initiatives”?

        I think it was at that point that I finally realized there was only ONE party running the country and it wasn’t one that any of us had voted for!!


        • the5thranchhand says:

          vikingmom, and as it turns out, ‘No Child Left Behind’ was a major disaster for the schools, Medicare Part D, served to sky-rocket the cost of medical drugs, and The Office of Faith Based Initiatives, opened the door for Islam, and all other ‘kook’ religions, to access government money for their pet projects. (Namely, for islam, at least, to kill as many American citizens as they could.)

          Liked by 1 person

          • vikingmom says:

            Exactly! My point was that W marketed himself one way and then did a total 180 once he got into office! He was bought and paid for by special interests and instead of shrinking government, as he had promised, he instead grew it, just like his handlers told him to do!

            And yes, the OFBI was probably the worst thing that he did because that is what has led to all of the so-called “religious” social justice programs that are everywhere now…they have a veneer of Christianity that makes people trust them but they are mostly scams – the modern day equivalent of the money changers in the Temple!


    • Pa Hermit says:

      Tax those donations/contributions as a gift at 70%! Just kinda like Justice Roberts ruled O’care could become legal by taxing it instead of a penalty. Surely there’s some legal beagle that could wrangle that into being.

      Liked by 3 people

      • vikingmom says:

        That’s a good plan – if the pols had to personally claim ALL donations as income, they might decide it wasn’t worth it anymore. Or even give them a small amount that could be allowed before taxes would be applied – an exemption – that would be the same for each candidate in the race. Would remove the massive advantage that incumbents now have.

        Liked by 1 person

  19. Pa Hermit says:

    One way to cut down on the bribing of career pols is term limits. It would become awful expensive to keep buying all the new pols coming in. Maybe we should be documenting these bribes and taxing them! Just think how much these pols would be contributing! Seventy per cent sounds like a good starting point!

    Liked by 2 people

  20. magatrump says:

    So these politicians can use PAC money to pay off there mortgages, go on lavish trips, restaurants, and use it for cars and planes? So shameful. And since they write the laws they have nothing to worry about.


  21. Caius Lowell says:

    I’m pretty sure the MSM will do its job and take the DNC to task over this /s

    Liked by 1 person

  22. woohoowee says:

    DC is *the* Red Light District, swarming with politutes.

    Liked by 1 person

  23. Mark L. says:

    I thought all these Dems were running so as to avoid being indicted. Forgetabout the money


  24. cantcforest says:

    The PACs are almost as loathsome as a lot of our “aid” money coming back into foundations. Cut off the PACs, UN, and foreign aid.
    Figuring out why exercise is left to the reader.

    Liked by 2 people

  25. Sparky5253 says:

    Only way to wrestle control from the corporations and lobbyists is to legislate that corporate campaign donations can only be the same amount that an individual voter can contribute.

    Liked by 1 person

  26. Zippy says:

    “who are ‘grubering’ ie. relying on the stupidity of the American voter”

    Hey, it nearly worked in 2016. Now they’re going after the additional votes to take them past the victory line by going after the INCREDIBLY stupid vote. Who knows how many of them haven’t bothered to vote in he past. That must be what they’re hoping for.


  27. starfcker says:

    I certainly hope that in 2020 we can do better than pointing out how crooked Washington is while leaving it intact. Drain the swamp already

    Liked by 1 person

  28. Zaza says:

    “Dark Money is how most campaigns are financed” -Sundance

    this is the basis for the Uniparty Globalist Establishment, crony capitalism has seen it’s “finest hour” in the USA circa 2018. -Zaza


  29. Bruce_Dern's_Finger says:

    Here’s a better solution:

    We The People need to have the whole election process overhauled to include background checks for all personnel at all levels of government in the U.S.A. The whole election debacle in the U.S.A. has degraded into a three-ring circus operated by Mafia-style political committees, both on the right and on the left, plus the waffler Independent candidates that jump the fence when it financially benefits them. All sides violate election laws. Huge money donations corrupt all candidates. The electorate is not uneducated on their own right; they are uneducated due to NON-DISCLOSURES and massive obfuscations of and by all of the candidates.

    If the electorate is expected to make sound decisions on the political puke candidates, overhaul the election system as follows:

    All Article I and Article II personnel must be limited to only one term of office, bar none even if it takes a Constitutional Amendment. A Constitutional Amendment must be added to limit U.S. Supreme Court members’ term of office to one 5-year term, no exceptions.

    Government individuals, including U.S. presidents should receive no retirement benefits nor Secret Service protection upon completion of service. No one running for public office should receive more than one dollar ($1.00) donation from any one private U.S. citizen or from any one corporation during their campaign for office. All government salaries and raises should always be put to an electorate vote during the general election. Ban all foreign donations and if donated, disqualify candidate.

    Anyone running for the presidency, the Congress, and the U.S. Supreme Court offices should be subjected to a background investigation using Standard Form (SF) 86 covering their entire lifespan and the results of this SF86 document should be made public to all constituents one year prior to election, understanding of course that U.S. Supreme Court nominee selections are done in the U.S. Senate. A lie detector test should be a mandatory requirement before being added to the ballot.

    Additionally, the SF86 results should be used by an independent civilian organization to assess suitability for a top secret classified clearance. If a person is rejected for a classified clearance, they should also be rejected for the ballot.

    Ban paid lobbyists. They are mostly shills with evil intentions.

    Ban government officials from owning suitcases to prevent government officials from bringing money back home when their term of office is complete.


  30. ristvan says:

    This is not a directly solvable problem. Citizens United was correctly decided. Ther is no bigger free speech 1A issue than the right to support a political candidate.

    What can be done is forced sunlight. Uniparty cadidate promises not go accept some forms of donations, but force them to disclose. Then the opposing candidate can expose the hypocrasy. Essentially the Sanders/Trump strategy.
    Except when both candidates are Uniparty, they won’t expose (themselves). The solution is to primary all Uniparty candidates, and avoid /negate splitters. All that requires is getting locally/state level politically active. Iam a dedicated independent turned Trumplican, but will change primary FL affiliation to be active beyond just dollar contributions given the states closed primaries. (Of course, means might go Dem to primary in a nutcase like Gillum, rather than a great governor like De Santis.)

    Liked by 1 person

  31. Curt says:

    “However, all of them (Klobuchar, Warren, Harris, Gillibrand et al) are fibbers, who are ‘grubering’ ie. relying on the stupidity of the American voter. ”

    All I can say is they are absolutely correct and appropriate to rely on the “STUPIDITY” of the American voter. Honestly, it’s sickening.

    Liked by 1 person

  32. MS Idaho says:

    but … but …. McCain-Feingold Act: Campaign Finance Reform Law (guaranteed reelection act) fixed all that /s


  33. Scarlet says:

    This is a naive question but do they get to personally keep that money and spend it however they wish ?


    • JohninMK says:

      Certainly sounds like it, much the same as a trust where you can use the money but not actually own it. You can take a loan out of a trust and the trust can then write it off later. This is a way of avoiding income taxes.


  34. Herbert Kroll says:

    I would suggest less regulation and less legislation. That will decimate the need and opportunities for corruption. It should be clear to all that climate change hysteria is just a tool to artificially create a (made up) need for intervention. Taxes and prohibition are the weapons that politicians use to extort money if the corporations don’t pay their bribes.


  35. marilyn mary sidwell says:

    but … but … McCain-Feingold Act: Campaign Finance Reform Law (guaranteed reelection act) fixed all that / s

    Liked by 1 person

  36. beaujest says:

    Deport the whole bunch !


  37. Herbert Kroll says:

    What if the Dem’s candidates are all so lousy and radical because the Deep State will bring forward a Republican candidate who will pose as an independent? It may be that such a crooked Republican-in-Name-Only candidate will come forward after the impeachement proceedings have started.

    Maybe the positioning of such a person has only just started…


  38. freepetta says:

    Yeah ok and I’m Abraham Lincoln.


  39. GSparrow says:

    It must be frustrating for sundance to diligently expose the Dems’ lies, manipulations and corruption and other issues like the opportunistic groups that profit and enrich themselves at the trough of the illegal immigration industry but little or nothing seems to change. But Trump is still POTUS so there is still hope.

    It is a fact that a person can often learn more in one day of reading CTH than a year of the tripe and distortions on most of the MSM. Hopefully, the MSM and the “progressive” educators have not yet brainwashed a majority of Americans with their nation destroying propaganda.


  40. Justin says:

    Democrats telling fibs? Say it ain’t so!!


  41. TreeClimber says:

    Perhaps it’s just me over-simplifying again, but (aside from the obvious reason) why can’t we just ban all reimbursing lobbyists? No payments, no PACs, no lunches, no stadium tickets. Purely meritorial arguments.



  42. By the power invested in me, I now declare the term “Grubering”, to be entered in to the lexicon of political terms.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s