Personal tools

Argument: Candidate solicitations of superdelegates damage the political process

From Debatepedia

Jump to: navigation, search

Parent debate

Supporting evidence

  • Andy Lutes. "Superdelegates could give Clinton unfair edge". February 12, 2008 - "Both the Obama and Clinton camps are waging covert campaigns for superdelegates, with Clinton supposedly using her daughter’s influence to petition individuals. As if interest trading within campaign donations wasn’t enough, superdelegates threaten the further manipulation of politics — an exploitation unregulated by campaign finance disclosure forms and financing reform laws. With these campaigns for superdelegates being waged behind the scenes, accountability has shrunk and the expectations for the quid pro quo are exacerbated."
Because 2008 is an election year not just for the presidency but also for one-third of the Senate and the entire House of Representatives, many superdelegates are in the midst of running campaigns for reelection.
In an effort to swing these superdelegates to their side, Obama and Clinton have been donating money- more than $900,000 in total between the two of them - to superdelegates' campaigns. That is not a healthy way for any party to choose its next candidate for president."
  • Lindsay Renick Mayer "Seeking Superdelegates" Capital Eyes. February 14, 2008-"...superdelegates have received at least $904,200 from Obama and Clinton in the form of campaign contributions over the last three years, according to the nonpartisan Center for Responsive Politics...Obama doled out more than $698,200 to superdelegates from his political action committee, Hope Fund, or campaign committee since 2005...Clinton does not appear to have been as openhanded. Her PAC, HILLPAC, and campaign committee appear to have distributed $205,500 to superdelegates..."

Supporting evidence

Problem with the site? 

Tweet a bug on bugtwits