ivn.us/posts/dnc-to-court-we-are-a-private-corporation-with-no-obligation-to-follow-our-rules

(Note: This article is from 2017)

Rather than reflecting on the consternation everyday voters are having over the conduct of the Democratic presidential primary, the Democratic National Committee is doubling down on the assertion that the primary election belongs to the people who control the party -- not voters.

In the transcript for last week's hearing in Wilding, et. al. v. DNC Services, d/b/a DNC and Deborah “Debbie” Wasserman Schultz, released Friday, DNC attorneys assert that the party has every right to favor one candidate or another, despite their party rules that state otherwise because, after all, they are a private corporation and they can change their rules if they want.

The argument is not without merit. In fact, it is a legally sound argument that has rarely been overcome in the court of law, where courts are extraordinarily hesitant to get involved in the “political thicket.”

The last time the court rejected the “private party rights” argument was in 1944 when, despite the Democratic Party’s objections, the court held that the party had to let African-Americans participate in “their” primary. (See, Smith v. Allwright)

In that case, the court sided with the protections of the Fourteenth Amendment, holding that the exclusion of blacks from the Democratic primary violated their fundamental right to vote at meaningful stages of the election process.

In this case, a group of Bernie Sanders supporters filed a class action lawsuit against the DNC and former DNC Chair Debbie Wasserman Schultz because, they argue, they were denied a fair and impartial election and had given money to a campaign on the belief that it was fair and impartial.

In other words, the plaintiffs are relying on laws that impose a fiduciary obligation on corporations to protect their shareholders and protect against tortious conduct like misrepresentation, not fundamental rights secured by the constitution.

But the Democratic Party’s argument remains the same as it did over 70 years ago.

From the transcript:

"The court would have to basically tell the party that it couldn't change the neutrality rule, even though it's a discretionary rule that it didn't need to adopt to begin with." - DNC attorney Bruce Spiva
"The party could have favored a candidate. I'll put it that way. Maybe that's a better way of answering your Honor's original question. Even if it were true, that's the business of the party, and it's not justiciable." - DNC attorney Bruce Spiva
"If you had a charity where somebody said, Hey, I'm gonna take this money and use it for a specific purpose, X, and they pocketed it and stole the money, of course that's different. But here, where you have a party that's saying, We're gonna, you know, choose our standard bearer, and we're gonna follow these general rules of the road, which we are voluntarily deciding, we could have — and we could have voluntarily decided that, Look, we're gonna go into back rooms like they used to and smoke cigars and pick the candidate that way. That's not the way it was done. But they could have. And that would have also been their right, and it would drag the Court well into party politics, internal party politics to answer those questions." - DNC attorney Bruce Spiva

Leaked DNC emails showed that Democratic leaders indeed tried to minimize and undermine Sanders' campaign, despite organization bylaws that say DNC officials must be neutral in the primary process.

"We're not asking this Court to infringe on the province of another branch of this government or to get involved in the conduct of Congress or the conduct of the Office of President. We're asking this Court to determine whether representations and omissions were false and misleading, and whether money was paid on the basis of those representations, whether folks were injured in a financial sense as a result of those representations, and whether duties to the class members were breached, including fiduciary duties." - Jared H. Beck, attorney for the plaintiffs
“People paid money in reliance on the understanding that the primary elections for the Democratic nominee—nominating process in 2016 were fair and impartial. And that’s not just a bedrock assumption that we would assume just by virtue of the fact that we live in a democracy, and we assume that our elections are run in a fair and impartial manner. But that’s what the Democratic National Committee’s own charter says. It says it in black and white. And they can’t deny that. Not only is it in the charter, but it was stated over and over again in the media by the Democratic National Committee’s employees, including Congresswoman Wassermann Schultz, that they were, in fact, acting in compliance with the charter.” - Jared H. Beck, attorney for the plaintiffs

However, DNC lawyers have argued and continue to argue that the Democratic Party doesn't owe anyone a fair process. It has every right to disregard its own rules or interpret its rules how it wants because it is a private organization, and therefore the plaintiffs have no standing. And that is the conundrum millions of American voters find themselves in today.

This is the very reason why organizations like the Independent Voter Project (a co-publisher of IVN) have supported nonpartisan primary election reform like the “top-two nonpartisan primary” they authored in California. At a fundamental level, the “top-two nonpartisan primary” in California took away the private purpose of the primary election (to elect a party nominee) and made the first stage of the process serve the public (to narrow the candidate field, regardless of party).

Unfortunately, however, even in California, the presidential election is another big animal and was not reformed along with the rest of the state elections. This is because parties have control of the process in 50 states all the way to the federal level -- a much bigger fight that organizations like the Independent Voter Project, Fair Vote, Open Primaries, and many others vow to continue.

There are few Americans who will say they do not want a fair election process, a process that holds elected officials accountable to all voters. Now more than ever, voters are calling for it. But that can't exist when private corporations define and manipulate the rules at will, and are allowed to do so because they control the entire process. Elections should belong to voters, not parties.

i hope americans riot like the french

imagine

Like any private corp the one who bankrolls it gets a seat at the table.

Pink hair fat b****es going wild!!!!

if these “pink hair fat b****es” were destroying property i’m sure you would cry

You’re so right.

bye

Did that really hurt your feelings?

DNC really is a sham.

We need a restructuring.

Cuz Republicans only doing s*** for themselves, the party of Cacs sure as f*** ain't gonna make things fair.

yeh

god I wish but Americans are too lazy

DNC’s main prerogative is to make sure the Dems lose as many elections as possible

I’d imagine if Americans were even slightly more informed about what’s going on then you’d see more actions. The media does a fantastic job of ensuring that Americans stay as uninvested as possible in their politics. The media wins when Americans are either totally uninterested or jaded by the ridiculousness of it all

“The thumb on the scale doesn’t matter cuz Bernie would have lost anyway” always smacked of “Watergate doesn’t matter cuz McGovern would have lost anyway” to me

Or like “Russian interference doesn’t matter because Hillary is a c*** anyway”

These are equivalent? Ah, silly me, I forgot how little Russian interference has been discussed since fall 2016. After all, the weed-addled Chapo Trap House patrons who believe your statement have all the political power in this country while the major political party (of thumb-on-the-scale-for-Hilldawg fame) and their affiliated mainstream media apparatus whose apparatchiks have missed not a single opportunity to tell the country Russian interference is to blame for whatever doesn’t go the Democrats’ way in the last three years— up to and including Rachel Maddow suggesting the Russians might hack the power grid during winter to shut off middle America’s heat— have none. Mean ol’ Synopsis sure is ruining the democratic process with his salty KTT2 posts. Pay no attention to Adam Schiff suggesting the integrity of the vote is in question in November.

Non Americans seriously getting off on slandering Americans will never not be corny to me.

If you joking sure it's fine but otherwise I don't get the point.

Me - "Americans suck"

Foreigners- "Americans suck"

Me- "WATCH your f***ing mouth "

Stop perpetuating the Bernie Bro myth!

I mean too lazy politically lol

It’s not as bad as Australia tho tbr so I don’t have any room to talk

Pause this convo am I that cold blooded Niggas think OP this thread my alt?

ktt2.com/new-york-fucking-stinks-33169/1#post-1935195