Superdelegates on the payrolls

According to this article, both the Obama campaign and the Clinton campaign have superdelegates on their payrolls.

Bickford officially endorsed Clinton on Nov. 1, the same day he began consulting for her campaign in preparation for the New Hampshire primary, according to interviews with Bickford, the Clinton campaign and an endorsement pledge form obtained by The Sun.

Now, I'm not here to cast aspersions on Clinton's or Obama's campaigns for doing something completely within the rules.  However, it does raise some considerable concerns about the nature of the superdelegate system, and what it means to "woo" these party stalwarts.

We already heard about Ohio Congressmen who are waiting to endorse until the candidates address their concerns about the economy.  We know that Hillary invited a bunch of superdelegates over for lattes and appletinis last week.  And I think we also know that, while in general these men and women are of the highest character, in politics there is always the temptation to engage in ... quid pro quo.  There just is.

It's too late for the DNC to impose an ethics clause on the superdelegates (this is LEGAL activity after all), but it's not too late for the campaigns to stop paying superdelegates and for superdelegates themselves to sign a pledge that they will not take money from the campaigns.  Perhaps they can go one step further and pledge to endorse the candidate who ends the primary season with the most pledged delegates, so there will be no question of other possible ethics violations (promised jobs, $$ into congressional districts, etc.).

Either way, the superdelegate system is being tested like never before.  As a Democrat (and, let it be known, an Obama supporter), I feel like we should try to avoid the appearance of impropriety whenever possible.  And I feel like we should keep these little things in mind as we debate back and forth whether the supderdelegates should vote based on their conscience, the pledged delegates, the "popular vote," the polls, or who has the best shot in November.  Because I would hate to have the election ride on who most recently wrote a check for a superdelegate's services.

•  interested in others' thoughts

  Is this a concern?  Am I over analyzing things?

  by jakester on Mon Mar 17, 2008 at 03:13:21 PM PDT

  •  Since many of the Super Delegates are

    by definition party elders, it would follow that some of them would end up working for various candidates.  I don't see a problem, unless one candidate was able to put them all on their payroll - that might look a little strange.

    by importer on Mon Mar 17, 2008 at 03:17:45 PM PDT

    •  Maybe That's Why HRC Loaned Her Campaign $$$

      It's hard to get decent help these days.

      by Empower Ink on Mon Mar 17, 2008 at 04:36:00 PM PDT

    •  Suppose: bidding wars for influential ones...

      and whichever candidate can make the best offers, sweetest pots, best perks, prized access to positions of increased power and influence, access to special donors ...yep, how can this sort of set up not take on the pungeant odor of bundles of backroom oily handed, corruption money?  Abramoff type scandles have a chance of taking root and flourishing in such conditions, and may stay under the radar for some time, until someone cares enough to blow the whistle on this low profile game of big bags of money and promises for convention votes.

      Keep in mind the official term is 'unpledged delegates' as well as another bunch of 'add-on delegates'.  So, if we don't change this in 2008, can you imagine the easy targets that these 'unpledged delegates' could be, if having to campaign for re-election after it became known they had taken large amounts of 'compensation and benefits' in exchange for supporting a given 2008 candidate, possibly a losing one?  

      Also this may set up the unpalatable situation where a 'winning' candidate may feel a need to punish those who accepted the largesse of a competitor and took part in dirtball attacks upon the winner (versus more fact based 'hardball').  Doesn't this party have enough to do, without adding to the ways and ease with which it is possible to corrupt and destroy it's own members?

      by antirove on Mon Mar 17, 2008 at 05:20:40 PM PDT

•  Since both Clinton's and Obama are supers

  I don't see any way around it. Also... Add-on superdelegates are still being named. Some could already be on the payrolls.

  by Oreo on Mon Mar 17, 2008 at 03:16:17 PM PDT

  •  as is Terry McAuliffe, Harold Ickes...

    No, it's not totally avoidable, but it seems to be containable, no?

    by jakester on Mon Mar 17, 2008 at 03:25:42 PM PDT

•  Biggest indictment of the SD system ever.

  Seriously, if this doesn't convince people that nomination by superdelegate wouldn't be corrupt . . .

  by Geekesque on Mon Mar 17, 2008 at 03:16:47 PM PDT

•  This is not right. At the very least any

  delegate who is accepting money from candidates needs to declare this immediately.

  This generates real and apparently conflicts of interest.

  What are we to suspect then?  That the remaining unnannouced super are waiting to see who will be the highest bidder for their "consulting" services?

  This creates an unbeleivably bad appearence and Howard Dean needs to address it immediately.

  This sounds like the worst kind of third world corruption.  I hope this turns out to be wrong.

  by HoundDog on Mon Mar 17, 2008 at 03:17:42 PM PDT

•  Superdelegate financial support a symptom, the

  real problem is $ in politics in general. With this Supreme Court ($=speech), this cannot be changed. Does anyone else miss Gov. Moonbeam's no more than $100 campaign? Wish it was him, not the clintons.

  by zerzan on Mon Mar 17, 2008 at 03:31:39 PM PDT