Nonprofit, nonpartisan journalism. Supported by readers.


Obama’s fund-raisers get behind Hillary Clinton

History suggests that no one other than a popular incumbent president cruises to a major-party presidential nomination without a serious challenge. But it’s been a while since there was such a consensus front-runner as Hillary Clinton.

Now the NYTimes reports that Priorities USA Action, the biggest of the liberal SuperPACs and an outfit run Pres. Obama’s very successful and highly innovative fund-raisers, and now including Obama’s 2012 campaign manager Jim Messina, will fund-raise for Clinton.

From the Times story:

Unlike other pro-Clinton organizations, which have focused on recruiting small donors or building lists of grass-roots supporters, Priorities is seeking six- and seven-figure checks to power major advertising expenditures in support of Mrs. Clinton — including, if necessary, responses to attacks by Republicans and conservatives in advance of a formal campaign declaration.

In the corrupt world of big-time fund-raising the help of Priorities USA will bring plenty of potential conflicts of interest between the fund-raisers, donors and lobbyists. The Times piece begins the endless task of listing some of those.

You can also learn about all our free newsletter options.

Comments (23)

  1. Submitted by Neal Rovick on 01/23/2014 - 01:27 pm.

    Sigh.Shortest “honeymoon”


    Shortest “honeymoon” after the election if she wins.

    The “griddiest” of gridlocks.

    Endless replay of the Clinton era scandals–manufactured and real.

    Invention of the Clinton/Obama “axis of evil”.

    Even greater depths of paranoid right-wing fantasies.

    More right-wing push media widening the country’s split.

    I’m worn out and depressed by the knowledge of what will come.

    • Submitted by Paul Brandon on 01/23/2014 - 02:27 pm.

      And that’s

      the good news.

    • Submitted by Tom Lynch on 01/23/2014 - 06:44 pm.


      The GOPers will be raging lunatics no matter what Democratic president holds the office. You fail to understand that to the Republican voter there is NEVER a legitimate Democrat elected to public office.

    • Submitted by Dan Hintz on 01/23/2014 - 08:26 pm.


      Do you think that it would be any different if the Democrats elected someone else? That the Republicans are going to play nice and everyone will work toward the best interests of the country because its not Clinton?

      • Submitted by Neal Rovick on 01/24/2014 - 08:41 am.

        No, I don’t think that the Republicans will play nicely with anyone else.

        I am not thrilled with Clinton as a candidate for multiple reasons. It’s this lack of excitement, accompanied by the unease with the apparent development of ruling dynasties, her ties with the essentially conservative big money, the dragging of decades old strings of scandals (real and imagined), uninspiring stints as a carpet-bagger Senator and Secretary of State, no good new ideas for moving forward.

        I have no doubt she would be better than the Republican choice (if in line with the recent trends in Republican candidates), but ….

        Hence, “sigh”.

        I really do not want to hear the word “Whitewater” again.

        • Submitted by Peder DeFor on 01/24/2014 - 08:52 am.


          ‘her ties with the essentially conservative big money’. Want to give some explanation to that?

          • Submitted by Neal Rovick on 01/24/2014 - 09:18 am.

            As much fulmination as there is with the myth of big “liberal” money pushing a liberal agenda, the majority of “big money” is essentially concerned with remaining “big money”. Hence, “conservative” in the sense that major changes in the way things are done are not likely.

          • Submitted by Neal Rovick on 01/24/2014 - 09:21 am.

            Short version:Big money does

            Short version:

            Big money does not contribute to commit suicide.

            • Submitted by Peder DeFor on 01/24/2014 - 11:16 am.

              Short Version

              Big money is bad, and so is conservatism, so big money = conservatism. Which is silly. Big money comes in, for instance, from public sector unions which seek to keep the status quo in place. By your silly definition, they are then ‘conservative’. Does that make sense to anyone?
              There are gobs and gobs of money in the political process that can’t honestly be called conservative. I mentioned public sector unions already. Environmental groups also donate large amounts of money, as does Hollywood.
              The biggest amount is probably most fairly thought of as opportunistic, non-partisan money. The banks don’t really care about the party affiliation as long as they get to write the regulations. Lately they’ve found more willing partners on the Dem side but that doesn’t make them ‘liberal’ by any means.
              Neal, you’re employing a very shallow tautology. I fear that lots of your like minded political compatriots are too, and that’s why the Dems can’t even begin to clean their side from corruption.

              • Submitted by Neal Rovick on 01/24/2014 - 01:44 pm.

                I’m confused–you seem to be making my point…bankers donating to Dems so they can have a say on writing regulations?

                Seems to support my main point that big money is generally conservative, in the sense that most donors want, at the very least, to preserve–not worsen–their condition. Enhancement would be preferred.

                And, I can guarantee that the Sierra Club, unions or any other goblins of the right, will be attending the fundraising parties of the type being contemplated. They are taken for granted by the party at this point in the game because of the looniness of recent Republican contenders.

                It’s the people in the middle, who can push their money any which way, that are being courted right now. Do you think they are being encouraged to donate by being told to prepare themselves for worse times?

                • Submitted by Peder DeFor on 01/24/2014 - 02:58 pm.


                  When you use words like ‘conservative’ or ‘liberal’ in a political discussion, it seems like they should attach themselves to conservative or liberal beliefs. What you’re talking about, using political money to improve your position as a company/institute/other, is more often referred to crony capitalism. To which I would say, yes, Hillary is most definitely a fan of crony capitalism and other similar corruptions.
                  And I have to admit confusion over your last two paragraphs, by the way. Most of the money that is being spent is coming in from groups that are in the bag. There is no question which party is more aligned with unions and yet the money keeps coming in from them. Are they being told by someone to hang on to that cash because of dark days ahead?
                  If you’re saying that businesses will donate to either and both parties, then I think we’re in agreement.

                  • Submitted by Neal Rovick on 01/24/2014 - 04:06 pm.

                    A cynic would say, in the end, all of the high-profile political battles, Tea Party fervor, manufactured outrages like Benghazi, serve no party better than the wealthy interests. All bright, shiny baubles to distract from the looting, plundering and desecration.

                    How do you think progress is stopped?

                    Only troglodytes block the schoolhouse door these days.

                    • Submitted by Peder DeFor on 01/24/2014 - 09:22 pm.


                      That might be what a cynic would say, though frankly roundabout theories like that smack more of paranoia. I don’t know if a cynic would agree, but from outside of the liberal bubble, it looks like those inside are willing to put up with a corruption and bad government as long as the ‘right people’ are in control of the levers.
                      The Tea Party has rejected the big money. Don’t you remember back during the government shut down, when people were complaining that they wouldn’t listen to big business? They’re the same people that fought to shut down earmarks. The ones who have fought against the give aways to banks and other industries.
                      You think that they’re in the way of progress? The progress that you define, I suppose. Some of us don’t think that cronyism is the best way to the future. We think that there are better ways forward than to keep chipping away at people’s freedoms. Certainly a better way than to fan whatever flames of racial animus you can find.
                      The past five years don’t seem like progress to me. They seem like a horrible series of missteps.

                    • Submitted by Neal Rovick on 01/25/2014 - 09:25 am.

                      …The Tea Party has rejected the big money…

                      Check this out:The Billionaires Bankrolling the Tea Party


                      Or google “big money behind Tea Party”

                      The Koch family supports the Tea Party in a major way.

                      Now, they might just want to pay less taxes.

                      Or, they might just want to stop and slow any progress in climate change because they made their billions in the oil extraction and processing business and the survival of the world as we know it depends on curtailing carbon.

                      Or, perhaps they want to prevent the naming of formaldehyde, which they produce, as a carcinogen.

                      The Koch family really only control a few votes–their own.

                      What better way to magnify their influence by funding a party where people are of the kind where they don’t really know science, think that because it is cold today that climate change is a crock, that are distrustful of big gubmint, that have bought into the “trickle down” theory of patronage, and they are connected vitally into the Murdoch media empire for their information. Now, instead of a handful of votes, the Koch have control of lots of votes, still have lots of money and still have a major segment of the media, and are actually pulling the other two parties under their sway.

                      But hey, believe what you want– I’m sure that.the Koch family and the Murdoch family have YOUR interests at heart. After all, that’s what they will tell you every day..

                    • Submitted by Peder DeFor on 01/26/2014 - 02:32 pm.

                      Linked Article

                      If you think that a Frank Rich Op-Ed is proof of big money behind the Tea Party, then frankly, you’re so far into the echo chamber that I don’t think there is any point in continuing the discussion. The Koch family is certainly of like mind as the Tea Party and they’ve contributed money to various groups, but if they weren’t around, you’d still have protests and opposition.
                      If you think that the Koch brothers have spent tens of millions so that they can keep making formaldehyde, then you don’t understand how Washington works. They could have bought plenty of Senators for far cheaper. Just this week we found out that you can buy an Ambassadorship from Obama for less than a million.
                      I did like this part: “When David Koch ran to the right of Reagan as vice president on the 1980 Libertarian ticket (it polled 1 percent), his campaign called for the abolition not just of Social Security, federal regulatory agencies and welfare but also of the F.B.I., the C.I.A., and public schools — in other words, any government enterprise that would either inhibit his business profits or increase his taxes.”
                      How strange it is that someone running for the Libertarian party would oppose large government agencies! Why, they must be doing it for conspiratorial reasons, and not, in line with their stated positions, because they think that government should be smaller!
                      As to Murdoch, how dare he have a loud voice and say things you don’t approve of! I guess the Progressive urge is to simply shut up speech that you don’t agree with. That seems thuggish to me, but hey, you have to break some eggs to make omelets, right?

                    • Submitted by Sean Huntley on 01/25/2014 - 11:16 pm.

                      “The Tea Party has rejected the big money.”

                      That is one of the funniest things I have read in a long, long time.

  2. Submitted by jason myron on 01/23/2014 - 02:16 pm.

    Hillary will be different…

    The reason that Repubs are scared is that Hillary eats scandal for breakfast….these people had her whacking Vince Foster for chrissake……she won’t put up with republican nonsense in the way Obama did. She’ll put her boot heel on their throat and keep it there.

  3. Submitted by Dennis Tester on 01/23/2014 - 04:34 pm.

    “What difference does it make?!”

    I think the democrats are taking quite a risk putting all their eggs in one basket. When Hillary is exposed for the unaccomplished, lying, incompetent candidate that she is, who are they going to fall back on, Plugs Biden?

    • Submitted by RB Holbrook on 01/23/2014 - 05:05 pm.

      Good luck with the grand exposure

      Republicans have been flinging ordure at Hilary Clinton for the past 20 years. I wold think that, if it was going to be effective, some of it would have worked by now. Instead, there have been only three years since 1993 that she has not been at the top of the list of “Most Admired Women.”

      Besides, who are the Republicans going to run? Ted “I Ran Out of Lithium” Cruz? That would be too sad to be amusing.

    • Submitted by Dan Hintz on 01/23/2014 - 08:21 pm.

      How is that coming along?

      The Republicans have been “exposing” Hillary Clinton for 20 years now.

    • Submitted by Jonathan Ecklund on 01/29/2014 - 01:46 pm.

      Perhaps they’ll also fall back on ad hominem attacks…

      And mocking the VP for vanity? Really, Dennis… you can’t convince me your profile picture on Minnpost is current within 20 years. It’s best not to throw stones in a glass house.

  4. Submitted by Peder DeFor on 01/23/2014 - 09:54 pm.


    If left leaning groups are really interested in reducing the money corruption in politics, they could, oh I don’t know, be a little bit more picky in which candidates they put their support behind. If you spend time now complaining about the money and then go all in for the Clintons, then it’s very hard to believe in your sincerity.

  5. Submitted by tiffany vanvorken on 01/28/2014 - 06:25 am.

    hillaryand Benghazi

    She will have to explain away Benghazi. I hope she can do it. But I don’t think she can.
    She was in charge of that failed effort. It was a small problem. I can’t trust her with the whole USA.

Leave a Reply