3 ms·

I'm not disagreeing, I just think it's a stretch to call it fraud.

• mindslight 9y ago
  They materially benefited (voter participation, funding) through deception (the appearance of facilitating an impartial election). The only quibble I see is that there's a bit of responsibility laundering going as the individual states actually administer the primaries. But the DNC doesn't just provide the input to these primaries, but serves as the purpose for their administration. So it'd be a bit disingenuous to say the DNC has no responsibility to remain unbiased throughout the whole process. At any rate, I've been appealing to the wider concept of fraud only for its longstanding general applicability. We've got a de facto public institution that shows signs of blatant corruption, at direct odds with how they present themselves to the public. There are a myriad of anti-(corruption/conspiracy/etc) guilt-by-association laws that prosecutors generally have no compunction about using on organizations that smell fishy. If a private group ran a similarly-setup raffle, they would surely be under investigation - the lack of such prosecution is purely due to the connections of the people involved, and the larger issue that such behavior is just business as usual for the ruling class.