Separation from the Democratic National Committee
Whereas, For purposes of expedience and clarification this Motion is to separate the Nevada Democratic Party from the Democratic National Committee (afterwards known as DNC), a separate and privately held Company and the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee (afterwards known as the DCCC):
Whereas, There has been in the past and currently a violation of the Democratic National Committee’s own Articles of Incorporation and Bylaws. Primarily the wordage of “Impartial” and “Distribution of Funds” in regards to Candidates and States.
Whereas, In 2016 there were clear violations of Impartiality and Funding of State Level Democratic Candidates from the DNC:
• Documented instances of many States funding from the DNC being returned to the “Hillary Clinton Victory Fund” leaving nothing for any candidates other than the Incumbent Candidates.
• verifiable actions from the DNC leadership clearly showing bias for, or against Democratic Candidates in violation of their Own Rules, Bylaws and Articles of Incorporation which state the DNC is to be “Impartial”. This was made very public in the transcripts of the lawsuit against the DNC regarding donations. (Southern District of Florida, CASE NO. 16-61511-CIV-WJZ, CAROL WILDING, ET AL. plaintif, v DNC SERVICES CORP, d/b/a, page 104 lines 15&16)
• In a Statement from the Attorney for the DNC, Bruce V. Spiva, Esq. “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,”
Whereas, During the 2020 Campaign and Debate there were several clear instances of Bias and Favoritism shown by the DNC which is listed as a “Not for Profit” organization created to support ALL Democratic Candidates and fairly distribute funds to all Democratic Candidates. As noted above: “But they are still private associations. They still have a right to order their own affairs.” Attorney for DNC ‘Bruce V. Spiva, Esq’.”
Whereas, There have been numerous instances of undue influence by the leadership of the DCCC concerning Fair Election of Congressional Candidates. Cheri Bustos, the DCCC Chairwoman dictates who is going to receive financial support for various Congressional Positions.
• “THE DEMOCRATIC CONGRESSIONAL Campaign Committee warned political strategists and vendors Thursday night that if they support candidates mounting primary challenges against incumbent House Democrats, the party will cut them off from business.” From “The Intercept, March 22 2019”
• “To apply to become a preferred vendor in the 2020 cycle, firms must agree to a set of standards that includes agreeing not to work with anyone challenging an incumbent.” Also from “The Intercept”
• From an actual form that vendors are required to sign to work for the DCCC; “I understand the above statement that the DCCC will not conduct business with, nor recommend to any of its targeted campaigns, any consultant that works with an opponent of a sitting Member of the House Democratic Caucus,”
• On March 24, 2017 Levi Tilleman made a recording of Congressman Steny Hoyer, House Whip. “So your position is, a decision was made very early on before voters had a say," Tillemann said. "That’s fine, because the DCCC knows better than the voters of the 6th Congressional District and we should line up that candidate.”
Hoyer replied, saying, “That’s certainly a consequence of our decision.”
• The DCCC has stated that they would only support “Incumbent Candidates” where they only want the established congressional members where they are . In Massachusetts the DCCC Leadership, Steny Hoyer, and the DSCC’s Chuck Schumer, as well as House Speaker, Nancy Pelosi, are supporting a more “conservative” Candidate over the more “progressive” incumbent, thereby creating a “Catch 22” about their own position in order to seat a more conservative candidate .
• The DSCC is apparently taking the “Blacklisting of vendors for the Incumbent one step further by “Blacklisting” the progressive Candidate Challenger themselves, thereby depriving all of the progressive Candidates from needed resources and support to mount serious, viable Senate campaigns.
Whereas, Actions like these are altogether to commonplace to continue any association with the DNC, et al and should be ended immediately. All ties to the DNC and all of its subsidiaries should be severed and all business with all entities ended. The Nevada Democratic Party has no need of this off balanced association with the DNC and subsidiaries.
Whereas, During the 2020 meetings to establish the Democratic National Platform the DNC leadership has consistently ignored the wishes of the American Citizens and the various States Democratic Party with regards to the omission of “Medicare for All”. 72% of the registered Democrats and 80% of the entire population of the United States wishes to include “Medicare for All” as a Right. The Democratic National Committee leadership has, with the use of its own corporate lobbyists appointed as Delegates, blocked every attempt to have it included in the Democrat Platform.
Whereas, In framing the 2020 Democratic Platform, while on the surface the DNC is apparently working in a transparent fashion, it is becoming increasingly apparent that the DNC is working in a fashion favoring a Corporate Structured outcome. At this same time, the DNC leadership has asked John Kasich(R), former Governor to Ohio 2011-2019, to speak at the National Convention trying to attract more Republicans to change party, not to try unifying the existing party and move in a fashion favorable to the newer more progressive Democratic Party membership and the Citizens of the United States.
Resolved, That the Nevada State Democratic Party should not be held in subservience to the DNC or its other Sub-Committees (re. DCCC, DSCC, etc) and shall not support the DNC financially. Since there is apparently no allowed input from the States involved, there is NO NEED for the State to support either the ambiguity or the dictatorial actions of the DNC. The State Party’s Fundraising should be held here, where it can be put to the best use within our Party and State.
In Closing, just a brief personal statement: Our Allegiance is to the People of the United States of America not to a privately held Corporation.
“The core mission of the DCCC is electing House Democrats, which includes supporting and protecting incumbents. To that end, the DCCC will not conduct business with, nor recommend to any of its targeted campaigns, any consultant that works with an opponent of a sitting Member of the House Democratic Caucus.”
“I understand the above statement that the DCCC will not conduct business with, nor recommend to any of its targeted campaigns, any consultant that works with an opponent of a sitting Member of the House Democratic Caucus”
“We shouldn’t rig elections,” retired Admiral Michael Franken, who is also running against Greenfield, told TIME. “And that’s a tough word—rig—but generally speaking the operatives in Washington, DC, do not have a track history in this state of choosing the most viable candidate.”
A DNC spokesperson told HuffPost in a statement that the amendment was “incorrectly included” and removed “after the error was discovered.”