Stephen Bounds
Aug 26, 2017 · 1 min read

It’s important to note that the court did not accept that the Democrat’s constitution was merely political posturing:

For their part, the DNC
and Wasserman Schultz have characterized the DNC charter’s promise
of “impartiality and evenhandedness” as a mere political promise——political rhetoric that is not enforceable in federal
courts. The Court does not accept this trivialization of the DNC’s
governing principles. While it may be true in the abstract that
the DNC has the right to have its delegates “go into back rooms
like they used to and smoke cigars and pick the candidate that way,” … the DNC, through its charter, has committed itself to a higher principle.

Rather, the court found that the action failed because the plaintiffs failed to demonstrate that they had donated in reliance of that clause of neutrality:

Because Plaintiffs do not allege a causal link between their
donations and the DNC’s statements, they lack standing to assert the fraud-type claims in Counts I, II, III, and IV of the First
Amended Complaint

Which means that as long as the Democrats retain that clause in their principles, people have a tangible way to pressure them to live up to their claims: simply assert an expectation that the Democrats will run a neutral campaign as per this principle at the time of their donation.

With a large enough bank of contingent donations, the Dems will need to think twice before deciding to flout the rules. And if they don’t accept the donation, that tells you all you need to know.

)

Stephen Bounds

Written by

Always interested, always learning. Executive, Information Management at Cordelta.