Schumer is emblamatic of all wrong with the "party of the people." Simply explained, Democrats are the party of big money, Republicans too, so really, only one party exists with differing cabals after spoils.
DWT, again, this link. Source of this post's headline. As to contesting for spoils, DWT's opening image stands correct.
As to much else, try this excerpt:
Is One Party's Politicians More Or Less Corrupt Than The Other's?
In terms of political parties, it was once clearer who the good guys were and who the bad guys were in the Dark Money world or legalistic, systemic bribery. [...] Poke a Democrat about taking legalistic bribes and he or she will start screeching about "unilateral disarmament." But as new report by Alex Seitz-Wald for NBC News makes it clear that if the Dems were once the party opposed to Dark Money, they are now the party getting the most out of it. [...] "Democratic super PACs are spending more than Republican ones" and that Democratic Super PACs outspent conservative Super PACs in 2018. Russ Feingold's prediction has come true that Democrats would "lose our soul" if they allowed Big Money into the party. Just look at Chuck Schumer. There isn't a person on earth who would say he has anything even resembling a soul-- and he's one of (many) go-betweens connecting the Wall Street banksters with the Democratic Party.
Hard Ball by Nancy Ohanian
Advocates are concerned with super PACs, which can accept donations of unlimited size but have to reveal the names of their donors and regularly disclose their activity. But they're more worried about dark money groups: nonprofit organizations that can't be as explicitly political as super PACs, but can keep their donors secret forever and don't have to reveal much about activities before elections.
While concerns about campaign finance reform that once animated Democratic voters have been eclipsed by the desire to oust President Donald Trump, advocates are left to wonder if the party can really be trusted to follow through on its promises to dismantle a system that may help them get elected.
[...] The Democratic National Committee adopted a platform last month calling for a ban on dark money, and Joe Biden says one of his first priorities as president would be signing the sweeping reform bill House Democrats passed last year that would, among other things, match small donations 6-to-1 to encourage grassroots giving.
But his campaign also says they'll take all the help they can get for now and that bill, known as H.R.1, would have to compete for limited legislative bandwidth with efforts to address the coronavirus pandemic, the economy and much more.
Republicans, who generally oppose major campaign finance reform efforts, cry hypocrisy.
"It's just like everything else Biden stands for. He believes it until it's of political benefit to reverse himself," said Trump campaign communications director Tim Murtaugh.
Democrats, however, argue that the only way they can rein in big money in politics is to first use big money in politics to win.
"We aren't going to unilaterally disarm against Donald Trump and right-wing conservatives, but look forward to the day when unlimited money and super PACs are a thing of the past, even if it means putting our own PAC out of business," said Guy Cecil, the chairman of Priorities USA, the super PAC first founded to support Obama's re-election.
On principle, Democrats opposed Citizens United, the Supreme Court's landmark 2010 decision that opened the floodgates to virtually unlimited money in politics. But they also were against it because they were sure Republicans and their big-business allies would outspend them.
At first, Obama set the example for his party by trying to keep his hands clean of the super PAC game. [...]
Quickly, though, party leaders concluded their position against unlimited donations and dark money wasn't tenable, and it turned out there was plenty of it flowing on the Democratic side, too. Obama eventually blessed Priorities USA, which helped kick off a proliferation of liberal big-money groups.
"If Democrats don't compete, it would be like preparing for a nuclear war by grabbing your fly swatter," said Jesse Ferguson, a Democratic operative who has worked for both campaigns and outside groups.
[italics added - words are cheap]
Further in the DWT post - continuing the quote within the item:
...Sheila Krumholz, executive director of the Center for Responsive Politics, which runs the campaign finance data warehouse OpenSecrets.org, said her group has tracked liberal groups "taking dark money in politics to a new level of opacity" and caught them trying new tricks, such as creating faux news sites to make their attack ads seem more credible.
While overall dark money spending is roughly even between the parties right now, Democrats have a clear edge in congressional races, Krumholz said. Around 65 percent of dark money TV ads in 2020 Senate races and 85 percent of dark money TV ads in House races are sponsored by liberal groups, according to Krumholz.
"Unfortunately, there has been comfort with this that has grown over time on both sides of the aisle," Krumholz said. "Nobody wants to be the sucker that is playing by the rules when someone is getting away with murder."
Bloomberg. Can you identify any greater source of slush money? Of course not. Continuing, still more of the item the DWT post is quoting:
Meanwhile, Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) remains one of the fiercest opponents of campaign finance reform, not only blocking bills like H.R.1 and disclosure measures, but even intervening in legal battles to overturn state campaign finance rules.
He sees it as a free speech issue, hailing the Citizens United decision as "an important step in the direction of restoring First Amendment rights."
All this leaves campaign finance reform advocates dependent on Democrats winning in November-- even if it takes some dark money to get them there.
"We are on the cusp of having the best opportunity to repair the campaign finance system since the Watergate scandal of the 1970s," said Fred Wertheimer, a veteran good-government advocate and president of Democracy 21. "But that depends on how the elections come out."
After posing the argument, DWT begins its own analysis:
What a crock of crap. "Depends on how the elections come out?" Why? Are the corrupt conservatives the DCCC and DSCC recruited going to suddenly become reformers? It takes real effort and real talent-- of a kind most politicians don't possess or even strive to develop-- to raise campaign cash without resorting to criminality.
Then DWT segues to commentary about promising progressive candidacies its Blue America effort is backing, and those specific observations are again at this link.
The problem is Schumer. The problem is Pelosi, Hoyer, Clyburn - takers of donor money and following donor wishes. That is how/why we face a stinking, awful Biden-Trump election where you puke before you vote.
That bad. The Bloombergs of our nation must be laughing long and loud.
They own this nation, as theirs to laugh at. To cynically scorn. US. Getting screwed.
So, what is your definition of fascism?
So, is there any answer when the people entrusted with the levers of power to reform the stinking cesspool got there by being corrupted with original sin in the process? Is anything real beyond hypocrites bleating?
The Dems did pass that number one bill, knowing it would be dead on arrival once reaching the serial bill killer, McConnell. All show. However, a text exists, and while words are cheap, having a textual roadmap toward betterment is a step better than not having it. The problem, Pelosi, Schumer, the DNC, among such there is no will nor motive to change their ways. They prosper. They age, comfortably. They cherish their gatekeeper roles. And then -
Consider how Bernie got flummoxed by the mini-candidates nipping at his heals up to South Carolina all metamorphosing into Biden love creatures while Clyburn played his tune.
Sick.
No other word for it. Remember - Beto, the little South Bend mayor, law and order Amy, and never again believe a single word any of them say.
That is a first step. Reject known, shown corruption which got in the way of better times and better chances.
SAY THEIR NAMES.
NEVER BELIEVE ANY ONE OF THEM AGAIN ABOUT ANYTHING.
CERTAINLY NEVER CAST A VOTE FOR ANY ONE OF THEM AGAIN.