@Not Henry Kissinger
corporate by-laws (which i don't know), then i don't know what free speech has to do with it, at least with respect to the executives' fiduciary responsibility to act within and under the by-laws (and/or articles of incorporation).

Are donors to a Presidential primary candidate entitled to consumer protection against fraudulent claims of election fairness by the political party administering the process?

The 1st Amendment may or may not cover the final decision of the party to nominate the candidate of its choice (the DNC argument), but that really doesn't address the core question of whether the 1st Amendment protects knowingly untrue statements about the process made for the purpose of soliciting donations.

Basically, it boils down to whether fraudulent statements made in furtherance of soliciting donations are political speech (protected) or commercial speech (less protected). The fact that the statements were made about the process of the election (that the DNC claims to run a clean game) rather than actual political issues would seem to weigh in favor of the plaintiffs.

Whenever a judge is arguing your position for you, it's typically a good sign the decision will go your way.

Here's hoping.

@eyo No matter how the bastards wiggle, they lied. They were supposed to be operating in accordance with their own published and publicly available rules. For a judge to rule otherwise (i.e., in favor of the DNC) would nullify ALL by-laws and most contracts in this country.

What else did they say in their defense, other than lying is protected speech? If the judge comes back with dismissal, well that's that I guess. Wish I could invest in deck chairs, to profit like them. Not really.

Thanks

@ZimInSeattle

who is over 80 on Inauguration Day.

I am not sure the Democratic National Committee wins if its defense to a fraud charge is the First Amendment. And, the fact is, Hillary did lose the election and a good number of Democrats are disgusted with the Party.

they will have won the battle. No one in their right mind will donate any money to a candidate under the Dem banner that wasn't appointed by the DNC leadership. This is why I wish Bernie would dump the Dems and run with Tulsi in 2020. Sanders/Gabbard 2020 Peoples Progressive Party (PPP). And a good penalty on the DNC would be to pay back all those donors to Bernie who were taken to the cleaners by this corrupt organization. I know I'm dreaming, but I'd really like my $2700 back to support any progressive candidate that's not a Dem.

@GreyWolf

It should be the DNC, full stop. However, wasn't it the Chair who did things like set the schedule for the debates? I believe Howard Dean even said DWS was advised not to do that. By holding off the first debate until after the NY deadline for changing registration had passed, she let the Republican debates and Republican use up all the oxygen in political reporting for months. She should have been sued for malpractice, ffs.

Impartiality-Clause-DNC-Charter-Bylaws-Art-5-Sec-4
"In the conduct and management of the affairs and procedures of the Democratic National Committee, particularly as they apply to the preparation and conduct of the Presidential nomination process, the Chairperson shall exercise impartiality and evenhandedness as between the Presidential candidates and campaigns."