Superdelegates: Show Me the Money!

When is it OK for Hillary Clinton or Barack Obama to hand out large chunks of cash to Democratic voters -- and specifically to convention voters (also known as delegates)? When they're superdelegates.

And given the long-prevailing media narrative that superdelegates are somehow beholden to or likely to coalesce around Mrs. Clinton (and I argue over at Robert Emmet that the chances of superdelegates in smoke-filled rooms swinging the election are pretty slim) and one might be surprised which candidate has been most generous with the superdelegates.

Before going to the numbers, there's a proviso that all money-in-politics stories should have: The figures are fascinating but only partly illuminating. It's simplistic to say that you can draw a causal relationship through financial figures alone. One needs be careful not to read too much into these sorts of figures... but they do illuminate somewhat and are worth looking at.

Here's what we know, thanks to the Center for Responsive Politics' newsletter, the Capital Eye:

Clinton and Obama have collectively given at least $904,200 to superdelegates. (Here's how it works: The superdelegates are pols, as are the two presidential contenders; all have piles of campaign cash, some in their election accounts some in leadership PACs; Obama and Clinton can and have given some of that campaign money to their colleagues.)

Perhaps surprisingly, Obama has been the most generous in this regard. From Capital Eye:

Obama, who narrowly leads in the count of pledged, "non-super" delegates, has doled out more than $698,200 to superdelegates from his political action committee, Hope Fund, or campaign committee since 2005. Of the 82 elected officials who had announced as of Feb. 12 that their superdelegate votes would go to the Illinois senator, 35, or 43 percent of this group, have received campaign contributions from him in the 2006 or 2008 election cycles, totaling $232,200. In addition, Obama has been endorsed by 52 superdelegates who haven't held elected office recently and, therefore, didn't receive campaign contributions from him.

As for Mrs. Clinton:

Her PAC, HILLPAC, and campaign committee appear to have distributed $205,500 to superdelegates. Only 12 percent of her elected superdelegates, or 13 of 109 who have said they will back her, have received campaign contributions, totaling about $95,000 since 2005. An additional 128 unelected superdelegates support Clinton, according to a blog tracking superdelegates and their endorsements, 2008 Democratic Convention Watch.

As previously noted, one must be careful in drawing a causal line. (And that goes both ways -- one cannot assume that Clinton or Obama gave the money because of their superdelegate status.) But...

Yet the Center for Responsive Politics has found that campaign contributions have been a generally reliable predictor of whose side a superdelegate will take. In cases where superdelegates had received contributions from both Clinton and Obama, seven out of eight elected officials who received more money from Clinton have committed to her. The one exception: Sen. Ted Kennedy of Massachusetts, whose endorsement of Obama was highly publicized, received more from Clinton than from the Illinois senator--$10,000 compared to $4,200. Thirty-four of the 43 superdelegates who received more money from Obama, or 79 percent, are backing him. In every case the Center found in which superdelegates received money from one candidate but not the other, the superdelegate is backing the candidate who gave them money. Four superdelegates who have already pledged received the same amount of contributions from both Clinton and Obama--and all committed to Clinton.

One interesting question unanswered here is: When did they give the money? Did Obama's giving suddenly tick up in recent months as the superdelegate "issue" sprung up? Has Clinton's? Unknown, but fun numbers over which to chew.

Comments

[research]

Just when I think I can't get any more disgusted with the Coprate buyout of American politics...

Get the money the f!$k out of the election!

[eliandbo]

I thought bribery orof a vote was against the law!
OH, thats what the Supreme Court calls "FREE SPEECH"!

[eliandbo]

I thought bribery orof a vote was against the law!
OH, thats what the Supreme Court calls "FREE SPEECH"!

[eliandbo]

I thought bribery for a vote was against the law!
OH, thats what the Supreme Court calls "FREE SPEECH"!

[research]

Big money owning all the MSM is the very opposite of

Free Speech.

Eliandbo, Sometimes the Huff software won't take your first comment, till you add another. I always add a comments elsewhere in the same article to avoid the repeats. Sometime they also just get swamped and it takes them hours to pass stuff.

[Wulfstan]

It's the money, stupid.

In any event no matter who gets selected or elected, what can a President do against the paid off corporatists in Congress and the Senate? And even so they are held in check by the Pentagon and CIA, where the real power lies. The power to bump you off that is.

[Halsey]

For me..the bigger issue is not who gave more to super delegates..but why the hell do we have them in the first place..the whole thing Reeks of yes..smoke filled back office Daly (the first one in Chicago)..or Huey long (louisiana)..politics..not a democracy..one person, one vote... I hate caucuses (even when I like who won)... the whole party system needs to be cleaned up... publically financed elections..no pacs, no super anything...

no electoral college either!

[Heidfeld]

One reason is to keep independants and non Democrats from having too much influence over THE PARTY'S candidate. As is the case with Obama. Too many independants and johnny-come-latelys trying to have more influence over loyal party members who have stuck by the democrats for years.

[ACunningham]

I guess you did not see the TWENTY-ONE year old Kid Superdelegate who was interviewed on MSNBC!!!

The likes of him are not exactly "loyal party members who have stuck by the democrats for years." November '08 will be the first time this KID will be of Legal Age and allowed to vote.

[BUSHsurvivor]

It's easy to dismiss all of this as "just politics." BUT, the difference is many expect it from Hillary. Obama has claimed to be the new and improved saviour to the political community and tells everyone he is a Washington outsider. LIES! LIES! LIES! More money to superdelegates? WOW!

I remember back in 2000 when Bush was running, he spit out so many nice words, uplifting words, hopeful words, inspiring words...only to get in office and royally screw us all!

[gayleg]

"Obama, who narrowly leads in the count of pledged, "non-super" delegates, has doled out more than $698,200 to superdelegates from his political action committee, Hope Fund, or campaign committee since 2005."

"Hope Fund."

HA HA HA HA !!!!

[NABNYC]

I keeping asking the question of whether the superdelegate arrangement was simply another way for party insiders to line their pockets. It's always about money. The Democratic party has embraced corruption and refuses to give it up.

I have sent this question to several Democrats and they refuse to answer. Is there anything which prohibits candidates or their supporters from giving or promising anything of value to the superdelegates?

I figure this started out as a way to allow the Democratic party to pay for every politician to come to the convention and have a huge party, all at the expense of working people: pay for the air ticket (first class of course) hotels, meals, drinks, god knows what else. A big scam to transfer money to insider politicians. I wonder if they pay for the non-connected delegates?

What about the 21 year old who was on TV last week being wooed by the Clintons? Chelsea was taking him out to lunch. Presumably to some nice restaurants. What is this other than a scam to allow large amounts of money to be transferred to party insiders? What a disgrace this is. For everyone in the party.

I would like a full disclosure and accounting: every penny given or offered, everything of any value given or offered to superdelegates, to non-super delegates, and the source of that money.

[oddfellow]

Didn't this used to be called BRIBERY ?

[Heidfeld]

Obama's hypocrisy exposed in all its glory!

So good to see this story finally getting the attention it deserves.

You have to love all the Obamabots desperately trying to find excuses, as usual.

And as usual, they miss the point. This isn't even about the money per se(and the blogger even states as much). This is about Obama saying one thing and doing another.

He constantly attacks Hillary for being an "washington insider," yet he acts like more of an insider than she does, throwing his PAC money around.

And where did he get his PAC money? From lobbysist. He loves to attack Hillary as being friendly to the lobbyists, yet he is no better.

So stop with the weak argument that this is good cause he is more generous, or that this was in 2006... you are missing the point. The point is that Obama loves to use lobbyist money for political gain as much as the next guy.
http://www.harpers.org/archive/2006/11/0081275

The many is a liar, plain and simple.

Yes SHE Can

[AnninCA]

To answer your question, I heard one report that Obama's donations date back 3 years.

My objection is that Obama is now obviously trying to redefine the Democratic rules about the independence of the Super Delegates from their state.

Now, now.....you do not get it both ways! Can't buy them AND run around claiming that your NEW rules are for the good of Democracy.

He's patently out of line.

[Spike3905]

This superficial piece leaves out a major point. In 2005 and 2006, when Democrats were struggling to retake both Houses of Congress, there was tremendous pressure in the liberal blogosphere for Senators without a tough race in 2006 to contribute to House and Senate candidates. Senators were strongly encouraged to share the wealth for the good of the party. I recall Obama being praised and Clinton criticized because Obama was more generous in his giving to Democratic candidates -- many of whom are now super delegates. It is outrageous to imply that Obama was trying to buy votes when he was using his fundraising capacity to support the successful Democratic takeover of Congress in 2006. Would people prefer that he horde his campaign treasury for his own race rather than helping to build the party?

[independentrepublicrat]

You reaffirm what most readers to Huffington Post already know---most of you bloggers only write to see your names in print ... anywhere. What you unleash on the public has little to do with truth, integrity, or even your own research but has too much to do with your own egos and agendas.

A little effort would have shown you that most of the people Obama donated to are either supporting Clinton or remaining neutral. He shared his money to help get more Democrats elected and re-elected BEFORE he decided to run for president and before anyone even thought superdelegates would matter at all. He shared more money because he is not as selfish as Clinton and wasn't always planning a run for presidency like she was, so she hoarded more money at the expense of the party.

Sharing money on hand to help others in the party is a good thing and not nefarious, specifically in the case of Barack Obama--- I can't be so sure with Hillary considering that she knew she would run since 2000. On HuffPo however, why should context, detail, or little things called facts matter as long as you get to see your name on screen again, right?

[Heidfeld]

Oh, so detail and facts matter to you?

Then consider these facts on where Obama got his PAC money from:
http://www.harpers.org/archive/2006/11/0081275


The man is not who he seems to be. I'm sorry that the truth has to come to so many who have bought into his sales pitch. Obama is just as much a friend and tool of the lobbyists as ANY Washington insider.

Yes SHE Can

[independentrepublicrat]

You are really a moron. Do you not understand the difference between a Senatorial Campaign and a presidential one? Do you not understand that one can make a principled decision to not allow lobby money, PAC money, or other special interest money into your run for president in order to protect your agenda as well as the best interest of the American people? Can you not admit to the fact that Billary is OWNED by every corporation, lobby group, and rich elite in American? Are you just too stupid for any kind of reasoning?

[57andfemale]

With all due respect, before you write an article like this, know your facts: all of the money in question is from the 2006 election cycle. The contributions were made in 2005 or 2006. To think that anyone at that time would have anticipated a superdelegate fight like the one we're in now -- even the people who conducted the study aren't saying that. It was highly irresponsible of you to insinuate that the candidates are passing out campaign cash now. The PAC's go dormant after you announce for president. Listen to any of interviews with the authors and you would have known this. Shame on you.

I anticipate how negatively this will be spun against Obama -- he'd better be ready. It's interesting to now remember things I'd heard when I loved and defended the Clintons: The Clintons were notoriously cheap in helping other Democrats get elected: cheap with their time and money. Hillary's 2006 senate run is an example: she had tons of money for a race she could have won from her kitchen table. But she spent lavishly on her campaign. Time and money could have been spent helping other democrats when the size of our majority was critical. There was resentment in the party about this very thing. They have never given back to the party what they demand in return -- blind loyalty to bail them out of their --always unfounded-- scandals. The arrogance is breathtaking.

I've become more philosophical lately than angry -- Obama had better be able to win these fights. However, those of you who will call me sexist (hard to call a 57 white female feminist a sexist, but that's what it's come to these days) had better be ready for President McCain. Over the weekend, polls of head-to-head matchups show Obama beating McCain by decent to significant margins in Nevada, Colorado and Pennsylvania. Do you realize what we could accomplish with a mandate that peeled away even one or two red states? Instead of the Clintons "fighting" their petty personal battles instead of fighting for progressive causes.

[CannaWupass]

From what I understand, many of these non-elected super delegates head up community organizations and other local non-profits...It would seem to me that Obama is putting his money where his mouth is, unlike the Clintons, who essentially spent their money on themselves as opposed to the "solutions" they talk about.

Did you see Bill's "Bachelor Pad" above his presidential library? I'm not hating on him, but it's stuff like that that can make a person kinda wonder...ya know? Our president shouldn't cause us to have to repress those kinds questions (denile) to make it through the day.

Holy cow! In the midst of this post, I forgot Bill won't be president again...crazy...but I don't think I'm the only one who has to remind themselves that this really wouldn't be Bill's third term (officially). :)

[hank48188]

If you are a DEM why would you want to rip on the ONLY successful DEMOCRATIC PRESIDENT in the last 40 YEARS. If not for the Butterfly ballot in Palm Beach County in 2000 the wooden Al Gore would be Preident Today. Your Obama is being promoted by the old Jimmy Carter crew, Ziggy Brzezinski, Obama Advisor and Former NATIONAL SECURITY ADVISOR FOR CARTER, bring the ultra-rich Internationalists, David Rockerfeller and George Soros to promote their agenda of less borders and tariffs and more free trade.

[CannaWupass]

Unlike republican "ditto-heads," I won't cover my eyes to the Clinton history, as it informs their (ours, if you like) future...as for the old Carter crew, I do have a question about political retreads seeking intellectual vindication...and I don't have a problem with Soros, in that I think he realizes that the democratization of free enterprise, that is to say, transparent and fair trade, allows anyone in the world to make an honest buck and improve their life...if 3/4 of the world felt like they had a shot instead of have no shot, that diminishes the greatest causes of war:

Inequity, Greed, and hopelessness

[LeonBNJ]

Add to this the possible Billions in taxpayer paid to be promises or arrangements made with these Superdelegates to make sure that when win, government funds will go to their states, cities, districts to their pet projects or needs.
There should be a full and transparent disclosure of any such promises by all party canidates.

[TommyMcCarthy]

Great enlightening article!
Many thanx to Robert Schlesinger and Huffpo for providing it.

From the article: ......

"In every case.. (where a)...superdelegate recieved money from one candidate.......(he/she) ....is backing the candidate who gave them the money"........duh!

From the article: Amounts given to superdelagates: Obama: $698,200 Clinton $205,500

From the Article: Pledged Superdelegates who have recieved money from the candidates:

Obama: 35 of 82.....%43
Clinton: 13 of 109.....%11

Show me the money indeed!
Schlesinger asks the most important question last....WHEN was he money given...and...for a change not to whom....but BY whom?