Corruption of ‘Emily’s List’ Is Hidden by Liberals

Eric Zuesse

A liberal website buried this huge scandal, by giving it the sleep-inducing headline “You Know Who Always Wins in Elections? Lobbyists, Consultants, NY’s Organized Politics.” Then, the anonymous Democratic-Party-activist-blogger, buried his real news yet deeper, by waiting till the middle of his second paragraph to introduce it, when he finally announced there the shocking allegation (with my interjections shown in brackets):

“Although basically every Democratic woman candidate is petrified to speak publicly about EMILY’s List’s shenanigans [about which he had not yet said anything nor even mentioned], I’ve heard from candidate after candidate the same exact details [what ‘details’?] for years. For example [Oh, there are others? He mentions none. This, which is to come, is his actual news story in his article:], when EMILY’s List ‘suggests’ that the candidates [whom] they raise money for hire The New Media, Inc., not everyone is aware that that firm’s president, Tierney Hunt is the wife of EMILY’s List Campaigns Director Jonathan Parker. The money EMILY’s List demands cannot be spent on something useful — like a field operation — but must be wasted on a lame Beltway firm [that] is going to personally enrich an EMILY’s List executive. It’s how EMILY’s List killed the campaigns this year of Alex Sink, Wendy Greuel and Eloise Reyes. Several despairing candidates have said to me that they are forced to sit on the phone all day begging for money and that all the money winds up in the pockets of utterly worthless consultants they are forced to hire. And then they lose.”

This blogger’s blogging had started in 2000 and has been filled since then with anecdotes from Democratic campaigns in which he has been active, but the Democratic candidates who are being ripped off by these “consultants” are evidently protected not only by such bloggers as this, but by anonymous Democratic Party higher-ups, who, presumably, benefit by assisting operations such as Emily’s List to, basically, rob donors who think that the money they’re donating will go to the campaign-needs of the nominal candidate.

Who benefits from this robbing of liberals? Who benefits from outfits such as Emily’s List is here described as being?

Well, of course, Republican candidates do. And, so: why are Democratic candidates keeping this theft secret?

According to the blogger, these are “consultants they are forced to hire.”

The blogger isn’t saying precisely who is “forcing” this. And he is not saying why he is burying this sensational news, instead of leading with it and headlining it, something like, “Corruption of ‘Emily’s List’ Is Hidden by Liberals.”

If such people as this are to be called ‘liberals,’ then what actually separates them significantly from ‘conservatives’?

If the Democratic Party is so corrupt – enough to hide instead of boldly to expose people who are basically robbing liberal donors — then how is it supposed to be importantly different from the overtly conservative Party, which unabashedly endorses corruption? (That link is to the actual vote in the U.S. Senate, on September 11th, regarding a bill to amend the U.S. Constitution to reverse the U.S. Supreme Court’s, bare 5-Republican to 4-Democrat, Citizens United, decision, which has allowed corporate CEOs unlimitedly to loot their stockholders’ funds to finance political campaigns of the candidates who will do these executives the biggest personal favors. 100% of the Senate votes for such a Constitutional amendment came from all of the Democratic Senators, and the two Independents, while 100% of the votes against it came only from Republicans — and there were enough of them to kill this bill.)

Conservatives control the money flowing to the candidates in “both” Parties, even though virtually all Democratic politicians (except the ones at the very top, such as the Clintons and Obama) want to end that corruption.

Guess, then, which candidates’ campaigns are getting robbed blind? Obviously, it’s the most progressive ones, all of whom are Democrats and independents.

This is ‘democracy’? It’s actually a rigged game, for corruption in both Parties. Not enough honest politicians can beat it, for the corrupt system itself to be ended. It’s a game that is rigged for corruption, and against democracy.

———-

Investigative historian Eric Zuesse is the author, most recently, of They’re Not Even Close: The Democratic vs. Republican Economic Records, 1910-2010, and of CHRIST’S VENTRILOQUISTS: The Event that Created Christianity.

Facebooktwittergoogle_plusredditpinterestlinkedinmail
This entry was posted in Business / Economics, Energy / Environment, General, Politics / World News and tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.
  • jo6pac

    Well, of course, Republican candidates do. And, so: why are Democratic candidates keeping this theft secret?
    That not true, repugs and demodog win and Main Street loses only Main Street isn’t smart enough o see this. They both run on kept the sheeple divided and it’s a win for both. This is what happened in Calif when they voted on the highest vote getters run against one other locking out third parties. The so-called elected officials will not give up power and neither will their puppet masters.
    The example you give is weak at best there are to many others that show it just the same show just a different dog and pony. Voting Green because there’s nothing worth saving in the corp. owned demodog party it’s doa.

  • MCB

    Why don’t the political chattel supporters and donators do a little research first on the financials? Also, they should ask simple questions such as: how.many full and part time people work in paying positions, and how much are they paid, “roughly and how many are volunteers? How much of every dollar gets invested in each candidate on average? Do they have Mission and Vision Statements? Do they use any metrics so that they can measure their own internal processes, cost, time, efficiency and strive for continual improvement? More importantly, do they have a metric to baseline their overall candidate selection and utilization of resources? How do they measure successes and track their history, so they first come up with a baseline, chart past rates of failures and successes and make improvements when and where necessary?

    P.S. “EMILY’s list” is an abbreviation for “Eager Mislead Ignorant Liberals Yield salaries – and “liberals ignore simple thinking.”

  • MCB

    Why don’t the political chattel supporters and donators do a little research first on the financials? Also, they should ask simple questions such as: how.many full and part time people work in paying positions, and how much are they paid, “roughly and how many are volunteers? How much of every dollar gets invested in each candidate on average? Do they have Mission and Vision Statements? Do they use any metrics so that they can measure their own internal processes, cost, time, efficiency and strive for continual improvement? More importantly, do they have a metric to baseline their overall candidate selection and utilization of resources? How do they measure successes and track their history, so they first come up with a baseline, chart past rates of failures and successes and make improvements when and where necessary?

    P.S. “EMILY’s list” is an abbreviation for “Eager Mislead Ignorant Liberals Yield salaries – and “liberals ignore simple thinking.”

  • ax123man

    Eric,
    you keep pointing out obvious problems with politics. what are the solutions?

    • cettel

      If what that blogger says is true (and there is every reason to think it to be true), then it documents that conservatives who call themselves “Democrat” are controlling the Democratic Party (its candidates) by stealing from donors to the Democratic Party, and also by forcing Democratic candidates to devote even more time raising campaign funds than would otherwise be the case; and, so, doubly hobbling Democratic Party candidates. The implication of this is obviously that in order to free Democratic Party candidates from the grip of conservative operatives, the necessary prerequisite must be for Democratic Party candidates to denounce publicly such operations as Emily’s List and to state publicly that those operations are fake “Democratic” ones. However, the prerequisite to that being able to be done effectively would be for Democratic Party candidates to collectively establish new fundraising organizations that are controlled by the candidates, instead of by individuals who seek to destroy the Democratic Party. That would be the necessary prerequisite solution. Unless the candidates become empowered to choose whom their fundraisers will be, they will continue to be controlled and hobbled by the existing ones, which are corrupt and which weaken their campaigns while they also steal from their donors.

      • ax123man

        Yea, that’s not exactly what I was thinking. Back away from the trees and take a look at the forest. There is very little real difference between policies of democrats and republicans. It’s a fake battle… staged for you and millions of others. The politicians with the real power only join sides to continue the charade. There is a natural human tendency for humans to “choose sides” (try to find someone who will talk to you about palestine who hasn’t chosen sides, or any other subject for that matter).

        Politics can’t work, period. End of story. As long as governments with monopoly power exist, the misery of human kind will continue. When I ask “what are the solutions”, you offer up how democrats can “take control”. That wasn’t my question. The question is how will we stop trend in America toward tyranny, prevent more and more power, esp. war power front entering the executive branch, solve the issue of rich elite controlling financial and political power.

        You think if democrats take control they will solve this? What, with socialism? If not that, what?

      • ax123man

        Here’s one view of why politics and central control can’t work:
        https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=4JYL5VUe5NQ

        But there is much more proof out there, including just looking at the empirical evidence.