Suppose you were the chairperson of a major political party’s national committee, and you wanted to show your base how principled your party is.
Suppose you did so by very publicly announcing you would refuse any donations from an industry you have heavily attacked – donations, you make clear, are dirty money and not good enough for your party.
Suppose that, shortly thereafter, you realize that your party could really use some of that dirty not-good-enough money….
You can stop supposing now. Read this excerpt from Alexander C. Kaufman’s article at huffingtonpost.com and you’ll have the answers to all those suppositions:
The Democratic National Committee passed a resolution Friday afternoon that activists say effectively reverses a ban on fossil fuel company donations.
The resolution introduced by DNC Chair Tom Perez states that the party “support[s] fossil fuel workers” and will accept donations from “employers’ political action committees.” It was approved by a 30-2 vote just two months after the committee adopted another resolution prohibiting donations from fossil fuel companies by a unanimous vote.
The new resolution nods to “forward-looking employers” that are “powering America’s all-of-the-above energy economy and moving us towards a future fueled by clean and low-emissions energy technology, from renewables to carbon capture and storage to advanced nuclear technology.”
Translation: We need money. So we’ll take your dirty money, and pretend we’re doing it for high-minded purposes…in the hope that you are stupid enough to believe this is anything more than separating you from as many buckeroos as you’ll give us.
Do you think people in the fossil-fuel industry will buy this transparent BS?
Some probably will. Most, I suspect, won’t.
But however this turns out, there is no amount of wordsmithing that will change the fact that Democrats are telling the world dirty money becomes more tolerable when they need it to run their campaigns.
And, although it is not happening at this very moment, don’t doubt for one second that, faced with the same situation, Republicans would not do the same thing.