Progressive prosecutor Wesley Bell pledged to stay out of the race—before millions of dollars enticed him in

Last June, local prosecutor Wesley Bell called Rep. Cori Bush to assure her that under no circumstances would he be running against her, according to audio of a phone call between Bell and Bush obtained by Drop Site News.

A few months later, he launched his primary challenge against Bush for the Missouri House seat after being recruited by AIPAC.

    • Blackbeard@lemmy.worldEnglish
      177·
      4 months ago

      Preeeety sure Democrats didn’t decide Citizens United. Whether we like it or not, the Roberts court said money = speech, so PACs can do whatever they want, whenever they want, with whomever they want. Don’t hate the player, hate the game.

        • Blackbeard@lemmy.worldEnglish
          61·
          4 months ago

          Me too, friend. Our lives are meaningfully shittier because a bunch of robed morons with lifetime appointments pretend not to know how the real world actually works and then shrug when their decisions lead to predictably awful outcomes. “I told you so” doesn’t even begin to feel cathartic.

        • Blackbeard@lemmy.worldEnglish
          62·
          4 months ago

          They stopped members taking NRA money when the NRA was trying to play bothsides

          Gonna need proof on that one. Take this, this, or this as counterexamples.

          You’re flipping causality. AIPAC gives money to Democrats because they want to give money to Democrats. The NRA (generally) doesn’t give money to Democrats because it doesn’t want to give money to Democrats. It has nothing to do with the party “stopping members” from taking their donations.

          Swearing off money from AIPAC and other Israeli groups should be a requirement to run in the party.

          That’s not how running for office as a registered member of a party works. Like, at all.

            • Blackbeard@lemmy.worldEnglish
              52·
              4 months ago

              No, I’m not. The NRA historically spent over a thirdof its lobbying money on Democratic races. They stopped because Democrats stopped accepting the money or were just donating it to charity as in the case of Tim Walz, not because the NRA doesn’t want influence over Democrats.

              Straight from your source:

              What changed? Two things, according to many of those who have followed the group.

              First, in the fall of 1994, the Democratic-controlled Congress — with staunch opposition from the NRA — narrowly passed a 10-year federal ban on assault weapons.

              Second, many who study the issue say, both the NRA and the Republican Party became more implacably opposed to gun regulations, while Democrats mostly favored them.

              You should actually read the sources you cite.

              You know who the largest source of Republican money into Democratic races is right now? AIPAC. Now why would Republicans donate to AIPAC knowing that AIPAC is going to be spending millions in these Dem primaries? Hmm 🤔

              Because Citizens United makes that completely and utterly legal.

              Almost like AIPAC is a means of introducing far-right influence into the Dem party and attempting to displace criticis of the rightwing extremist Israeli regime. Like how AIPAC spent record amounts to help replace Jamaal Bowman with a racist like George Latimer.

              You do realize Wayne LaPierre could switch his registration to Democrat this very moment without changing a single one of the positions and philosophies he holds and run for office as a Democrat, right? You’re obsessing over the branches on the trees and refusing to step back and observe that’s how the system works. Party registration doesn’t do what you think it does. It’s not a litmus test for acceptance, it’s just a checked box on a registration form.

              Also, I’m not defending the morality of AIPAC, so not sure why you’re so utterly bent out of shape on that point. I’m saying AIPAC is allowed to spend any amount of money it wants, on any race it wants, to support any candidate it wants, because of the Roberts Court, not because of anything the Democratic Party is or isn’t doing.

              The Democrats absolutely can create rules about where members can recieve money from, and they absolutely should.

              You’re so flabbergastingly confused about how this works that I’m not even sure where to begin explaining your misunderstanding. That’s quite literally not how political parties work. A nonprofit cannot tell its members they’re not allowed to take money. You know, that whole “1st amendment” thing and all.

              It is a choice the party makes for themselves, it’s not foisted upon them. It’s naive (or dishonest) to pretend that money isn’t leveraged to direct party politics and that it’s weaponized across party lines.

              See how I never even implied that? Go back and read my comments in case you’re unsure. That’s an argument you’re fighting against inside your own head. You’d do better to argue against what people actually argue, rather than what you want them to be arguing.

              Civic literacy in this country is fucking awful.

                • Blackbeard@lemmy.worldEnglish
                  21·
                  4 months ago

                  Yup, Democrats started to institute firearm regulation as a pillar of the party platform and as a result began accepting progressively less and less NRA donations. The 90s was when it began and the trend continued into the 2000s until today when Democrats overwhelmingly and explicitly pledge not to take NRA money. It was a decision by the party that public safety was of greater importance than taking NRA money.

                  A pledge not to take NRA money is the prerogative of the candidate. I’m not sure how much more simple I can make this. The Party doesn’t regulate what money candidates can and cannot take. Party members simply support a political position with varying degrees of consistency, and the money follows. Not sure why that’s so difficult for you to grasp. Any role the Party has in directing money is indirect, at best, in that they can make acceptance of certain kinds of money unpalatable with public pressure, but not with membership requirements.

                  I can’t think of anything more mind numbing than to argue about what a political party does or doesn’t do to someone who’s so obviously never even attended a precinct meeting.

                  You quite literally did. Your kneejerk response to someone making a simple observation that Democrats allow the meddling of zionist PACs in our democracy (by allowing members of the party to accept AIPAC money) was to deflect responsibility away from those willfully accepting the money to the decision that allowed them to accept the money. You’re being deeply dishonest about your intentions here, attempting to obfuscate it with condescension and trying to project an unearned sense of authority.

                  LOL. I correct your half-cocked understanding of how political parties do and do not control the flow of money and you lay into an ad hominem about ulterior motives. The copium is real, y’all.

                  Its not that people opposed to zionism are civically illiterate, it’s that you’ve mistaken your latent right-wing views and intellectual dishonesty with civic literacy.

                  The progressive instinct to contort any factual correction into the challenge of an enemy is absolutely fascinating. Your outgroup hostility is so strikingly similar to another group that shows up in the media with regularity. How deeply ironic.

    • Intrama@lemmy.worldEnglish
      2·
      4 months ago

      Yeah, the lobbyists have power in and against both major parties. There’s nothing wrong with being critical thinking oriented… but that’s exactly what’s being suppressed by that movement. I hope ppl start realising it isn’t about what they’re being fed to believe pertaining to Israeli policy.