Forum Settings
Forums

Pete Buttigieg Says 'No' When Asked If He Thinks Getting Money Out Of Politics Includes Ending Closed-Door Fundraisers With Billionaires

#1
Dec 9, 2019 7:31 PM

Offline
Joined: Mar 2008
Posts: 32491
Democratic presidential candidate Pete Buttigieg recently suggested that he plans to continue taking money from billionaires in closed-during fundraisers, despite scrutiny and criticism.

During a campaign event over the weekend, student activist Greg Chung asked Buttigieg, the mayor of South Bend, Indiana, directly about the concerns. "I wanted to ask if you think that taking big money out of politics includes not taking money off of billionaires and closed-door fundraisers," Chung asked, in a clip that has circulated on social media.

Answering immediately, Buttigieg responded: "No." The candidate then walked away to talk to other attendees at the event.

Sean Savett, Buttigieg's campaign's rapid response communications director, told Newsweek via email that the the candidate does "not accept contributions from registered federal lobbyists, corporate PACs or the fossil fuel industry." He added that "Pete has made enacting critical campaign finance reforms part of his campaign platform, including strengthening the FEC [Federal Election Commission] and pushing to overturn Citizens United and Buckley v. Valeo, if necessary, by a constitutional amendment."

On Friday, Buttigieg faced related questions while speaking at the Local America Presidential Forum hosted by United States Conference of Mayors and Accelerator for America Action.

"Earlier today, you said you were open to having a conversation about opening your fundraisers, and that's a question that reporters have been asking for months now. So I'm wondering when do you expect to be– to actually have that conversation?" the mayor was asked by an attendee in the audience.

"Again, I don't have a timeline for you," he responded.

Another attendee pointed out that as a candidate, Buttigieg could just direct his staff to open the fundraisers. The mayor agreed. "Why haven't you done that?" the person asked.

"There are a lot of considerations and I'm thinking about it," he said.

Asked if he could give an example of those "considerations," Buttigieg said: "No."

Buttigieg faced direct criticism from fellow Democratic presidential candidate Senator Elizabeth Warren of Massachusetts on Friday over his willingness to hold the closed-door fundraisers with wealthy donors.

"I think that Mayor Pete should open up the doors so that anyone can come in and report on what's being said," the senator told journalists. "Those doors shouldn't be closed, and no one should be left to wonder what kind of promises are being made to the people that then pony up big bucks to be in the room."

Warren, as well as Democratic presidential candidate Senator Bernie Sanders of Vermont, have taken aim at billionaires and corporations throughout their campaigns. Both have pledged to raise taxes on the wealthiest Americans to pay for a range of social programs, such as Medicare-for-all, a Green New Deal, free college education and student loan forgiveness. While Buttigieg has also voiced support for raising taxes on the wealthy, he has positioned himself as a more moderate alternative, criticizing Sanders and Warren for offering to give free college education to everyone, including the children of millionaires, and pushing for "Medicare-for-all who want it," instead of the Sanders and Warren plans that do away with most private insurance.

Buttigieg is one of the leading candidates for the Democratic party's 2020 presidential nomination. Overall, an average of national polls by Real Clear Politics shows the candidate in fourth place with 11.4 percent support, behind the national frontrunner former Vice President Joe Biden, with Sanders and Warren in second and third place respectively.

https://www.newsweek.com/pete-buttigieg-money-politics-billionaire-fundraisers-1476189

Centrists need to go....big money needs to go.
 
#2
Dec 10, 2019 4:44 AM

Offline
Joined: Jun 2008
Posts: 22917
Let me once again break this down.

Bernie is the ONLY sensible choice if you are on the “Left”.

And people who think Bernie is “Far Left” only think that way because the ENTIRE GOP are on the Far Right so of course his ideas seem far Left in contrast.

Pete Butt and Biden are CONSERVATIVE Democrats who want to bring back the “status quo” of doing NOTHING while serving Wall Street and big money Donors!

This is NOT opinion, it’s a fucking fact!

Being in the “Center” is a fucking joke!!!

What is the point of trying to please both sides when you know you can’t!

If Biden or Pete Butt somehow win the nomination....you might as well give Trump 4 more years because they are BOTH terrible candidates with absolutely NOTHING going for them.

Personally, I already said I am 100% DONE with politics if this scenario comes true...there will be nothing to hope for, nothing to fight for, and just 4 more years of utter nonsense, more division, more hatred, more bullshit.
 
#3
Dec 10, 2019 6:47 AM
Online
Joined: Jan 2009
Posts: 51479
profit/money over people thats about it
 
#4
Dec 10, 2019 1:02 PM

Offline
Joined: Jun 2008
Posts: 22917
BTW, I’m aware Pete Butt is leading in Iowa...so, let me RANT about that for a little bit...

Let me just say how utterly retarded it is to always have Iowa as the first primary in these election cycles.

Iowa is a throwaway State...as in THEY DO NOT MATTER....at all.

This is literally the ONLY time Iowa is even mentioned every 4 years...because they’re first.

But people gotta remember the states that DO matter/count....New York, California, Florida, Michigan, Illinois...

In California, Bernie has big time support, same goes for New York and possibly Florida.

He can do this, we just need to be patient and ignore nonsensical BS.
 
#5
Dec 10, 2019 6:46 PM

Offline
Joined: May 2019
Posts: 1000
Sean Savett, Buttigieg's campaign's rapid response communications director, told Newsweek via email that the the candidate does "not accept contributions from registered federal lobbyists, corporate PACs or the fossil fuel industry." He added that "Pete has made enacting critical campaign finance reforms part of his campaign platform, including strengthening the FEC [Federal Election Commission] and pushing to overturn Citizens United and Buckley v. Valeo, if necessary, by a constitutional amendment."

That would be a great step in the right direction at least, since those are the decisions that allow corporations to buy our elections despite the laws we had on the books on the federal, state and local levels. But of course getting it overturned by judical review has zero chances of happening so we need a constitutional amendment. Congress won't get the job done. There has to be a constitutional convention among the states. My suspicion is that Pete wouldn't rally everyone around this issue by calling the people to action. This is just an empty promise to lure in progressives if it comes down to him and Biden, which is still pretty far from happening.
Just follow the money me peeps.

We of course need a lot more than getting rid of Super Pacs. That's only part of the problem and is the most obvious form of corruption. A lot of Dems are pledging off them and it's not like they don't still represent wealthy donors. Politicians don't go to you or me for funding, largely. They have teams of big money bundlers that go to the wealthy who can pay out the max limit in one go. We need to lower the individual contribution limit further and move toward public financing of elections.

Also none of this addresses lobbyists, which is another form of corruption altogether that needs to be dealt with.
"I know not with what weapons World War III will be fought, but it's probably going to involve frogs. I freakin' hate those things."
- Albert Einstein
 
#6
Dec 10, 2019 7:58 PM

Offline
Joined: Mar 2019
Posts: 1844
My 14 year old brain read this thread title as "Pete Butt says no."😂😂😂
 
#7
Dec 10, 2019 9:54 PM

Offline
Joined: May 2019
Posts: 1000
Ryuk9428 said:
My 14 year old brain read this thread title as "Pete Butt says no."😂😂😂
He's gay so he can't help but make me giggle whenever I think of him, lol.
"I know not with what weapons World War III will be fought, but it's probably going to involve frogs. I freakin' hate those things."
- Albert Einstein
 
#8
Dec 10, 2019 10:16 PM

Offline
Joined: Nov 2019
Posts: 149
Anyone who doesn't advocate for banning unlimited individual donations, banning non-individual donations entirely, and having core electoral funds come from the federal budget on a very strict and equal basis is not at all for getting money out of politics.

I can understand the potential issues with having the federal system pay for election costs including potential for incumbents to play foul, though I'd counter with why do we have the FEC then? Granted it's been basically terminally crippled by this administration but that's nothing some reforms won't fix.
 
#9
Dec 10, 2019 11:13 PM

Offline
Joined: Sep 2018
Posts: 1693
Of course, bribery is why every politician in the US has the job. It's illegal in every civilised country except the US.

Somehow they tied it to "free speech" and won a court case and thus normal Americans have to put up with a coal guy in charge of the anti pollution agency who just cancels all the clean air and water act so they can get a little more money by contaminating the environment.
 
Dec 11, 2019 8:06 AM

Offline
Joined: Jun 2008
Posts: 22917
QPR said:
Of course, bribery is why every politician in the US has the job. It's illegal in every civilised country except the US.

Somehow they tied it to "free speech" and won a court case and thus normal Americans have to put up with a coal guy in charge of the anti pollution agency who just cancels all the clean air and water act so they can get a little more money by contaminating the environment.

Bernie continues to be the ONLY candidate that has firmly put his foot down at ending this legalized bribery.

Literally everyone else in some shape or form are still or have promised to keep it going.

It’s amazing how anyone can think Pete Butt or Biden are good candidates when they bring nothing to the table except a return to the status quo which ironically is the VERY REASON we got someone like Trump.
 
Top