Political Fundraising Frauds And Scams, PART I: The Democrats

There’s nothing much  lower and making your iconic ,84 year old, women’s rights advocate on the Supreme Court look like she’s breached multiple judicial ethics rules, but the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee (DSCC) is up to the challenge, A current DSCC fundraising letter, forwarded to me by a friend, does this AND lies to its supporters in the interest of separating them from their money.

  • No, Justice Ruth Bader Ginsberg” does not “have a powerful message” about this topic. She made that statement more than 20 years ago, before she was “Justice Ginsberg,” when she told Senators that.

I assume that Justice Ginsberg neither gave her permission to be misrepresented  in this fraudulent manner, nor knew the DSCC was planning on making her a party to a scam. She’s old, but she’s not THAT old.

  • As a sitting judge of any kind, much less a Justice of the Supreme Court, lending her name and worsd to a political fundraising effort would put Ginsberg arguably in violation of of all five Canons of the Code of Conduct for U.S. Judges:

Canon 1: A Judge Should Uphold the Integrity and Independence of the Judiciary
Canon 2: A Judge Should Avoid Impropriety and the Appearance of Impropriety in All Activities
Canon 3: A Judge Should Perform the Duties of the Office Fairly, Impartially and Diligently
Canon 4: A Judge May Engage in Extrajudicial Activities That are Consistent With the Obligations of Judicial Office
Canon 5: A Judge Should Refrain From Political Activity

  • …but beyond question Canon 5, which states,

A judge should not…

(2) make speeches for a political organization or candidate, or publicly endorse or oppose a candidate for public office; or

(3) solicit funds for, pay an assessment to, or make a contribution to a political organization or candidate, or attend or purchase a ticket for a dinner or other event sponsored by a political organization or candidate.

  • The statement at the end about standing with the Justice is similarly deceptive. It implies that Ginsberg “stands” with this effort, which she cannot within core judicial ethics principles.

Yes, I am well aware that Supreme Court Justices are not formally bound by the Code that other U.S. judges must use for guidance. That as because, as the best of the best, they are presumed to be paragons of their profession in all respects. Conduct is ethical or unethical, however, whether there are written rules or not.

The DCSS is lying to its constituents, just as the Republican National Committee lied to get potential donors to open one of its recent fundraising appeals.

To slightly paraphrase what I wrote in 2010 about another national party’s dishonest and misleading fundraising techniques,  “How can a party that conducts business like this credibly campaign against Republicans in the Fall on the basis that they are corrupt and unethical?”

Furthermore, why should any voter trust a party that scams its own party members  with any power at all?

 

 

 

7 thoughts on “Political Fundraising Frauds And Scams, PART I: The Democrats

  1. Democrats are nothing if not masters of wordsmithing. I wonder; is a woman “exercising her reproductive rights” if she clubs her newborn infant like a baby seal? When you sift through the arguments and dispense with all the flimsy rationalizations, the comparison between this and a pre-term abortion really comes down to how much of the horror has to be directly witnessed by the abortionist and/ or mother. One is simply much more neat, clean, and tidy than the other, and through the years has somehow managed to be endowed with a veneer of respectability. Imagine an alternate reality where abortion was an unheard-of practice, and one day you see on the news that a group of women were demanding legal access this hitherto-unknown “procedure”. I wonder how it would be received?
    It really is amazing to contemplate the horrors we can be acclimatized to in small, steady increments.

    • What you’re talking about is called “normalization” by sociologists. It refers to things done as a society that are accepted because they are normal and people do not objectively think about them because they are dogma and are never thought about rationally.

      A very good example is routine infant circumcision of males in the United States. Just like your example, if it was introduced now and advocated for, it would be pilloried and people would think the advocates are nuts. I would say there is a very good chance that many of those regulars here would defend the practice, but they are not able to distance themselves of the defense because it is normalized. We have two dichotomous examples that demonstrates the lack of critical thinking on the topic in the United States:
      If you go to someplace where both boys and girls are circumcised, they don’t understand the difference. Sure, we can argue the differences, but to them and because of their normalization, they view them as the same thing. They view our stance against FGM as highly hypocritical because they don’t see the difference between doing it to either gender.
      And for the opposite extreme, go someplace like Japan, and they think what we do to boys is no different than what Africans do to little girls. Sure, they can see that there is a difference of extreme, but consider both abhorrent behavior.

      Now to hijack on another tangent based on your post, I would argue that severity of gore is relevant also in the death penalty. We embrace the lethal injection method because it is viewed as quick and painless, but many of the appeals are nowadays are attacking that it is often not quick and painless. The guillotine was invented to create a quick, painless death. It is questionable if the stories of consciousness post decapitation are urban legend or real. But it was most certainly an improvement of things at the time. It is horribly gorish. The firing squad is similar – if multiple rifles are aimed at the head and fired at the same time, it is over with before pain could be registered. But we’d never consider it as it is gory and would present infectious fluid risks.

      • With any luck, our more evolved distant descendants will look back at this as one of the Dark Ages.
        Of course, there will probably be New, technologically-advanced horrors our worst nightmares couldn’t conjure up.

        • Imagine a one-hour prison sentence for a violent crime, where you’re put into a chemically and electronically-induced state wherein you’re locked in an empty room for what subjectively seems like a thousand years.

      • “Sorry, Buddy. We’d like to make your death a whole lot less painful and drawn-out, but it would be a bit much for us to look at. We’re the ones who have to linger on, after all.”

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.