Subscribe to Common Dreams News Updates
Most Popular This Week
Popular content
Today's Top News
On Heels of 9/11, Clinton Fundraiser Raises Eyebrows
Just days after the sixth anniversary of the Sept. 11 attacks, Hillary Clinton and several Democratic lawmakers will be getting uncomfortably cozy with moneyed interests who have stood to reap billions in post-9/11 homeland security spending, watchdog groups say.
On the sixth anniversary of the attacks which killed nearly 3,000 people, Democratic presidential hopeful Hillary Clinton is slated to attend a sober memorial service near Manhattan's Ground Zero.
One week later, the junior New York senator is scheduled to speak at a homeland security-themed, $1,000-a-plate fundraiser for her campaign in the downtown Washington, D.C. offices of a powerful legal firm.
"Being a week after 9/11, it appears unseemly and politically opportunistic," said Steve Ellis, a former Coast Guard officer who is now vice president of Taxpayers for Common Sense, a Washington, D.C. good government group.
Clinton's fundraising audience is expected to include many of the government contractors and lobbyists whose fortunes have soared in the years since the attacks, which triggered a massive government reorganization and billions in new government spending.
But that's not the only objectionable feature of the event, critics say.
For the price of a ticket -- from a $1,000 personal donation to a $25,000 bundle -- attendees will get a special treat after the luncheon: an opportunity to participate in small, hour-long "breakout sessions" hosted by key Democratic lawmakers, many of whom chair important subcommittees on the Homeland Security committee.
"It's an outrage," said Danielle Brian, executive director of the Washington, D.C. good-government group Project on Government Oversight.
"You never want to see lawmakers trading on their national security credentials...to people making large donations," Ellis concurred.
The break-out sessions include:
First Responders, with Reps. Henry Cuellar, Texas (chair, Emergency Communications, Preparedness, and Response Subcommittee of Homeland Security Committee) and Nita Lowey, N.Y. (Appropriations, Homeland Security Committee)
Intelligence and Information Sharing, with Reps. Jane Harman, Calif. (chair, Intelligence, Information Sharing and Terrorism Risk Assessment Subcommittee of Homeland Security Committee) and C. A. "Dutch" Ruppersburger, Md. (chair, Technical and Tactical Intelligence Subcommittee of intelligence committee)
Border, Maritime and Global Counterterrorism, with Reps. Sheila Jackson Lee, Texas (chair, Transportation Security and Infrastructure Protection Subcommittee of Homeland Security Committee) and Jerrold Nadler, N.Y. (Transportation and Infrastructure Committee; Judiciary Committee)
Science and Technology, with Reps. Jim Langevin, R.I. (chair, Emerging Threats, Cybersecurity, Science and Technology Subcommittee of Homeland Security Committee; intelligence committee) and Ellen Tauscher, Calif. (chair, Strategic Forces Subcommittee of Armed Services Committee)
National Security, with Reps. Kendrick Meek, Fla. (Armed Services Committee) and Joseph Sestak, Pa. (Armed Services Committee)
"Political fundraising should have no relationship to policy recommendations," said Brian, a former policy analyst for Congress. "Most of these [participants] are seasoned policymakers. How can they not see this as wrong?" It only made things worse, she said, that the event was centered around so sensitive and vital a topic as homeland security.
The Clinton campaign and most lawmakers participating in the event did not respond to requests for comment for this story.
One participant, Rep. C. A. "Dutch" Ruppersberger, D-Md., said he didn't see anything wrong with the event.
"I very strongly feel that it's time we get politics out of national security," he said in an interview Monday. "It's more important than ever that we keep discussing national security."
"The unfortunate part of our [political] system is that to get your message out, you have to raise money," Ruppersberger said. "Until that system is changed, you have to have the ability to raise money so people know what you are and who you are."
© 2007 ABCNews Internet Ventures



45 Comments so far
Show All"...Clinton haters and other halfwits"
Sort of like Bush haters? Yes, I suppose that Bush would be pandering for the same source of mega bucks too.
That is the point you seem to miss. In defending Hillary, you might as well defend Bush. Would you be offended at an unflattering shot of Bush? You know, the ones the corporate media would take great pains to never reveal if they could, despite the fact that his "halfwit" presence is always on display.
Don't expect us here to put lipstick on a pig. We calls them as we see them, not as they are spun for consumption.
I appreciate the shots, just as much as I would appreciate the doofus appearance of the idiot they portray as King.
Further proof the Democrats are no fucking better than the Republicans.
The rot is everywhere...we're screwed, big time.
I've seen side profiles photographs of Hillary 'Corporatist' Clinton and she looks like a
witch.....Who knows???????
I've seen side profiles photographs of Hillary 'Corporatist' Clinton and she looks like a
witch.....Who knows???????....
Another thought to add to this spurious 'brew'....These post World War 2 'Baby Boomer' Politicians on both sides of the fence have been an absolute DISASTER for America and by association the World....
Such direct corporate-state relationships are no different than fascist dictators throughout history - Batista, Somoza, Pinochet, Mussolini. So, why even bother with these meaningless shows of elections? The reason is that the corporations still want a say, and they still haven't figured out how to keep the public entirely out of the process.
But, it won't be too long that we will just have elections managed by a private corporation (government-run elections, being "government run" are "socialistic" and therefore bad) It will be based on a dollar-a-vote, with a $5000 minimum to cover administrative expenses and a tidy profit. It will be sold to us on the fundamental principle of economic freedom - why should a poor "loser" have the same say on national issues as a hard working billionaire?
But once again, this was all covered in thay bearded guy's speech. Regardless of who actually wrote it, nothing excells it in the way it concisely lays out and diagnoses the sickness spread around the world by the US.
http://msnbcmedia.msn.com/i/msnbc/sections/news/070907_bin_laden_transcript.pdf
The war continues for domestic political reasons. The Repubs don't want to "lose" it and the Dems want to hang it around the Repub 2008 nominee.
In addition, there is lots of money to be made in Homeland Security and in peddling fear. The Dems are just as guilty and Hillary especially is just shameless and disgusting.
Enough already!
We know that the Repubs are horrible. It's now time for the Dems to go the way of the Federalists, the Whigs, and the Know-Nothings: into the dustbin of history.
Cindy Sheehan for Congress!
Anyone selling "Anyone but Hilary" bumper stickers yet?
PJD,
The bearded guy's mumbo jumbo religion and explanation of what is occurring in Iraq seem to make a heck of a lot more sense than that of the cokehead fratboy.
Next time there is a demonstration in DC, everyone needs to get off their asses and show up. Everyone...that means everyone who do not agree with the Repugs and the leadership of the Democrats...
That should amount to millions of people, right????
Hillary Bushlite, political slut!
Not two party system, only one party of GREED. If I have 1,000,000 I can buy more democrecy than you. Only the fools believe in two party.
To Demerara...
"Next time there is a demonstration in DC, everyone needs to get off their asses and show up. Everyone…that means everyone who do not agree with the Repugs and the leadership of the Democrats… That should amount to millions of people, right????"
You're in luck. There's a large mass antiwar demonstration this Saturday (15 September). It has been planned for months. To find information, go to your favorite search engine and input "September 15th March on Washington", or something similar. Link, read, and plan to be there.
If it doesn't draw at least a million, I'd guess any hope of influencing congress, or getting the corporate media's attention, is just about nil.
Peace
We should join our millions of working class compatriots who register their discontent by boycotting the elections - only it should not be a silent protest. Let your neighbors and local papers know you refuse to be used by either War Party. The rest of the world pays attention to the proportion of the electorate who don't vote, or, better still, who boycott the election, as a measure of the legitimacy of the 'victors'. We should not be puppets or props in the grand theatrics of the ruling class. Our people's theater should be in the streets, class rooms, offices, neighborhoods and churches. Our voices are irrelevant to these 'leaders'. Let us not be used to legitimize their claims of a mandate to abuse our treasure and our precious children's blood. No to Hillary, No to Guiliani, NO, NO, NO!
Classic Clintons -- donate and hobnob: the Democratic Leadership Brothel is re-opened for business.
Hillary and Dodd are the beneficiary of the most corporate donations on the Democratic side to date. I won't vote for either in the primaries.
Nevertheless, until we get a publicly-financed political campaign system, we have three choices:
1. Accept the current pay-to-play lunacy and corruption
2. Elect someone who can buy the election from personal funds ... Mike Bloomberg, Bill Gates, Oprah, etc.
3. Convince all Democrats to refuse corporate donations ... and all but ensure that the GOP wins The White House and Congress in 2008. There is no question that GOP financial supporters will provide a Tsunami of $$$$ once the nomination processes are completed.
This is reality.
Although the Democrats blame Ralph Nader for spoiling the 2000 election, when Bill Clinton lied about getting the blowjob, he blew (no pun intended) Al Gore's chances to win the 2000 election.
Consider that issue along with Hillary's support of the Iraq invasion and other right wing policies and it appears to be a no-brainer that the Democrats need to keep those Clintons out of DC.
Just another Capitalist HOG.
The Hillary juggernaut rumbles on, ignoring propriety and brushing aside honest criticism. I am a very left progressive, but I just don't want her and her policies in power. And I don't trust her.
The only credible candidate who does not accept dirty corporate money is Dennis Kucinich. If everyone who hates Hillary et al, would vote for Kucinich, he would be the next president and have a good chance to get us on the road to peace. The hell with the MSM and their campaign to sideline Kucinich!
1. Thanks for that great picture of Hillary - she ain't even the Pres yet and she already looks worse than Bill. She is a punk ass copycat riding on the shoulders of The Big Dog, and she ain't got the "creds".
2. As a proud Maryland Democrat, Hooray for "Dutch"! Yep, we may have gotten him out of Baltimore County, but he's proven he can be just as big a whore at the national level as he was at the state level. It is like the old joke of the priest and the street walker, which end with "...we know what you are, all we are haggling over is the price."
Hey, anyone got any Bargain Basement Democrats we Common Dreams people can buy? I've got about $20 left from my Bush tax refund money from a couple of years ago.
Wow! What a picture! Looks like she needs a cup of coffee or a Red Bull, and a new wrinkle cream!
Yay! Now you're getting it. There's only one party..the Republicraps.
The United States, however, is not the only one spreading shit around the world.
It's not capitalism that sucks. It's state-run capitalism. Kind of like communism, which also sucks.
And another thing..Dennis Kucinich is not the only honest candidate. Ron Paul is as honest as you can get. Barbara Boxer is pretty cool, too.
"The only credible candidate who does not accept dirty corporate money is Dennis Kucinich. If everyone who hates Hillary et al, would vote for Kucinich, he would be the next president and have a good chance to get us on the road to peace. The hell with the MSM and their campaign to sideline Kucinich!"
You saved me some typing, kittyladyoregon.
What will be the final tipping point that brings all Progressives into the Kucinich camp? The stench of politics-as-usual is all over the "top three". Isn't being Progressive partly about REAL CHANGE?
I am listening to Dennis on the Ed Shultz Show as I write this. I hope you will go to http://www.wegoted.com/listen/index.asp
and catch a stream of a delayed broadcast. How can anyone listen to this man's intelligence and passion and STILL look for reasons not to support him?!
Do you wonder why Hillary is regarded as a Republican by everyone except the neoNazis? Catering to the war profiteers is only one of the reasons she has no regrets for helping to start the war.
Hey, you guys are all forgetting about Mike Gravel. He is, in my opinion, as honest as they come...and he has a track record of ballbusting with regard to political corruption...
Speaking of which...thank you, "trails end," for "state-run capitalism." That is absolutely dead on and I hope you don't mind my stealing it...
I can recall when I called my broker during the Bush/Cheney runnup and asked what happens when these jingos start and lose world war three.
The answer was "then we're all screwed" - so it goes.
Is October a good month for a revolution?
Michael Parenti termed our political system as "corporatocracy". This term sums it all up. Thankfully, the Green Party offers a progressive alternative and an authentic choice in this world of fakes.
I keep reading these comments (here and elsewhere) about the one corporate party state in which we find ourselves and while I agree with them completely I wonder why no one seems to consider the Greens as an option.
We don't accept corporate donations and wouldn't be caught dead in an event like this. I know the deck is stacked against us in the short term, but in the short term we can at least serve to put pressure on the Dems so they can't continually take progressives for granted. And in the long term change has to start somewhere and sometime.
And besides, wouldn't it feel good for once to vote for something you believe in?
PS, before you all start on the spoiler argument remember that Fla. and Ohio were stolen and that Gore and Kerry gave up without a fight. Greens actually raised money and fought the Ohio debacle in court.
This is what frightens me: that as we become more focused on and vocal about our anger toward Democrats, our negative judgments of Republicans diminish. This puts us at risk of re-creating the election of 1968 in which we vocally attacked and protested against Democrats instead of Republicans, paving the way for 8 more years of Republican tyranny. This close to an election, be careful who you protest against!
kerryd...WELL SAID!
This NewsCenter report had precisely its intended effect, which was to motivate a bunch of Clinton haters and other halfwits to refuse to vote for Hillary. That Clinton has little or nothing to do with the people that happen to support her campaign, doesn't seem to alter these brainless reactions. Every politician running for the presidency, would trip over themselves for the chance to get this kind of financial support, but Hillary is the only one blamed for getting it. That only those that have no chance of getting the dem party nomination, let alone a chance to win the election, can be said to be free of "big" money contributions and support, also doesn't seem to have any effect on the determination of these malcontents, to fault Hillary for finding herself in this position. That she desperately needs financial support any way she can get it, in fact that any candidate in the dem lineup, also desperately needs this support, to have any hope of winning against the republican money and bullshit machine, doesn't have any influence on these people. The ultimate folly is seen from those people that immediately come to these chat sites to tell everyone that these contributions are "evidence" that democrats are no better than republicans. It doesn't matter whether you're incapable of thinking, or whether you're unwilling to think clearly about these things; the results are the same.
One comment on this list gives further confirmation to my suspicions, namely that the "picture" included in the the NewsCenter essay, was as horrible a photo of Hillary as NewsCenter could find of her. Is this a coincidence, or are the NewsCenter people anxious to see the imbecilic remarks made by Hillary haters provided on this list?
As usual, someone asked why the Greens were not considered as an option to "major party voters." That the Greens absolutely cannot win a presidential election, doesn't appear be an adequate reason for this person, is astonishing. He hasn't learned anything from the 2000 and 2004 campaigns.
trails_end September 12th, 2007 7:24 pm
"Ron Paul is as honest as you can get"
Are you insane? Ron Paul is a flaming ultra-libertarian scumbag who would like to completely eliminate government, privatize EVERYTHING and turn it ALL over to corporate control!
My opinion is that it doesn't matter if you bash H. Clinton or the Republicans, all the leading candidates from both parties are sell outs and barely any different except on a few minor issues. It really doesn't matter at all, this election is pointless to argue about and pointless to vote in. I know that is terrible and everyone hates to hear the "don't even bother voting" thing, our forefathers died for that right, and on and on, but the corruption is cemented in place on both sides Rep. and Dem. It truly doesn't matter if you vote or not anymore, we need to all do something else radically different from voting.
One more reason to work for Edwards!
Happy Days, there is something to be said for shades of gray; not everytning is black or white. Yours is exactly the kind of rhetoric that preceded the Nixon era. Do you not think that these current Republicans have had a devastating effect on the environment, the poor, the constitution? Do you really believe that the Democrats would simply continue the status quo in? I understand your hopeless feelings and was there myself in 1968 and again now. But what followed then with the anger getting directed toward the wrong party was suicide for us.
And now that they are working together and have been, behind the scenes, for a while, you, are going to say that one of these wealthy elitists are better than another wealthy elitist? IOf its one or the other I still dont see the change we are looking for, as a society. Nixon started the crumbling of our constitution and I wasn't his idea. He was, yes, bribed. He would have had nothing to gain but to much to lose if it was any other way.
For example, name one industry, business, or even product that doesn't in some way rely on Big Oil. So what is their vested interest in politics? Christmas cards?
Pepsi or Coke, Mac Piggy or Burger splurge; dichotomy monotony! Amerikan politics is kept simple for a simple folk, so it would appear. The ongoing shell game as the profi hucksters con the hayseeds of their hard earned dwindling evaporating greenbacks. How about a representatative democracy that can't be totally bought like the present two feuding whores at an old white man's orgy? Nah....sounds like socialism...too European or something!
Change the system and you just might be able to change amerika before what's his face or the Clinton hag lead the last of the lemmings over the approaching abyss.
I believe we should all vote, BUT RE-ELECT NO-ONE.
Regardless of party, reject all incumbents and vote for a clean sweep. Only in this way will the entrenched politicians take notice of the voters.
Every day we see more and more evidence that Hillary Clinton would be a disaster as the Democratic nominee. The best thing that could happen to end this money carnival is legislation that would require all elections to be publicly funded. No private donations of any amount!! If the corporate media doesn't go along with free airtime for candidates, to hell with them! Those sound-bite ads are worthless anyway.
Hey johncpt, did DU send you over here to scold us?
Here's the truth and you know it - corporate money is now swinging big time to the Dems which should tell you how bought and sold the system is. The Dems now can easily outspend the GOP on the national stage yet we still have some people peddling the bogus 'poor us' argument. Not gonna wash anymore.
And Ruppersberger knows damn well that the system is never going to change because it serves the people who run it so well. But let's tell it like it is: as long as the American Herd accepts the brainwashing of 'its either a D or and R' we're pretty well screwed.
It really doesn't matter who you vote for on the national stage - the same people who have a vested interest in the worldwide movement of capital and allocation of global resources call the shots no matter who sits in the White House.
again
ask the drug dealing bitch about Mena Arkansas and the two teenagers killed
Viva El Frente/Verde
need revolution not more of the same crap
You might find this link of interest as it points out what may well be the reason the alleged Dems are permitting what they were elected to get rid of.
http://www.opednews.com/articles/opedne_stephen__070811_whatever_happened_to.htm
The thought of Clinton or McCain (or anyone else for that matter) inheriting Cheney/Bush's powers, intact and functioning is mind boggling.
I am really tired of the complaints about Hillary. Come up with a candidate that can actually WIN, for cryin' out loud. Ralph Nader and his fans gave us Bush.
It IS pathetic.....the common American is not ready for Obama, and maybe not even Edwards. And, I am not so sure they aremuch better. "Liquid coal" anyone?
SO: Do you really want Rudy? Mitt?
Consider: Get Hillary on board, and then go to work yet again to make things better. This is government, not revolution.
And to those who say otherwise, just look at how Amerika eats, and spits out, "true progressives" any given moment of the day.