Last week, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi told reporters that she believed the presidential candidate with the most pledged delegates should be the Democratic nominee. Pelosi added that the party would likely be damaged if “superdelegates overturn what happened in the elections.”
It was noteworthy, in part because Pelosi has remained neutral in the Clinton-Obama competition, but the Speaker’s opinion was hardly shocking — most Dems seem to believe the candidate who does the best in the nation’s primaries and caucuses should get the party’s nod.
But that didn’t stop 20 high-dollar Clinton donors from getting together to push back rather aggressively against the Speaker’s remarks.
Angered that Pelosi wants Democratic insiders to follow the will of voters when they cast their own “superdelegate” votes in the nomination race, 20 of Clinton’s top fund-raisers issued a veiled threat to Pelosi and warned her to change her tune.
“We have been strong supporters of the [Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee],” they wrote, referring to the House fund-raising arm overseen by Pelosi. “We therefore urge you to clarify your position on superdelegates and reflect in your comments a more open view.”
Sources said Pelosi was infuriated by the implied threat the donors would quit giving cash to the committee.
Greg Sargent obtained and posted the letter in its entirety.
Pelosi, apparently, was unmoved by the tactic, and according to her spokesperson, continues to believe that superdelegates should respect “the decisions of millions of Americans who have voted.”
But the implications of such a letter being sent in the first place are worth considering.
Right off the bat, it’s hard not to see this as the kind of hardball move that divides the party and exacerbates tensions. To be sure, major Democratic donors, just like everybody else, have a right to share their concerns with party leaders, but that’s not what this letter was all about. This was an intimidation tactic — wealthy contributors didn’t like the Speaker endorsing the importance of pledged delegates, and they strongly recommended she keep her mouth shut. If not, their donations might dry up.
One veteran Dem called the letter “terrible,” adding, “[Clinton] looks desperate. There is no way they should have threatened to do this.”
Secondly, Joe Sunbay noted that the donors’ letter included this sentence: “We therefore urge you to clarify your position on super-delegates and reflect in your comments a more open view to the optional independent actions of each of the delegates” at the convention. Sunbay makes the case that these wealthy contributors seem to be arguing, based on the “each of the delegates” line, that Pelosi publicly say that all delegates, including pledged delegates, should be free to vote without regard for primary/caucus results.
For what it’s worth, the Obama campaign called the letter “inappropriate,” and urged the Clinton campaign to “reject the insinuation contained in it.” That isn’t going to happen — Clinton aides responded to questions by reemphasizing their belief that superdelegates should “exercise independent judgment.”
Ultimately, I think Oliver Willis gets this just right: “[The rich donors] have every right to add their voice to the chorus supporting Sen. Clinton, but they have no place, no standing, no right to order the Speaker around.”