“DNC attorneys assert that the party has every right to favor one candidate or another, despite their party rules that state otherwise…”
NOTHING HAS CHANGED. THIS WAS 2017 IN COURT.
DNC to Court: We Are a Private Corporation With No Obligation to Follow Our Rules
“The court would have to basically tell the party that it couldn’t change [the neutrality rule], even though it’s a discretionary rule that it didn’t need to adopt to begin with.” – DNC attorney Bruce Spiva
“The party could have favored a candidate. I’ll put it that way. Maybe that’s a better way of answering your Honor’s original question. Even if it were true, that’s the business of the party, and it’s not justiciable.” – DNC attorney Bruce Spiva
“[I]f you had a charity where somebody said, Hey, I’m gonna take this money and use it for a specific purpose, X, and they pocketed it and stole the money, of course that’s different. 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, and it would drag the Court well into party politics, internal party politics to answer those questions.” – DNC attorney Bruce Spiva
