There’s a new super PAC for Bernie Sanders. It wants billionaire donors.

[onehandle]

Source: Washington Post

A cornerstone of Bernie Sanders’s presidential campaign is extracting billionaire influence from politics. So imagine our surprise when a Sanders supporter seemed to miss that point and filed with the Federal Election Commission on Wednesday a super PAC called “Billionaires for Bernie.”

Putting aside the fact that Eric C. Jacobson, the Los Angeles lawyer behind the effort, will have to change the name because unaffiliated PACs can’t bear the name of the candidate, the goal of “Billionaires for Bernie” is exactly as it sounds. Jacobson is a self-described progressive, who likes Sanders because he’s “unbossed and unbought.” But to get Sanders to the White House means competing at the levels of a Hillary Clinton or Jeb Bush.

And in today’s politics, that takes money. Jacobson believes liberals’ general position against unlimited contributions in politics is limiting their ability to compete.

“I’m hoping to facilitate a level playing field where a billionaire of conscious can write a check … and I’m going to encourage them to do it,” Jacobson told the Loop. In his view, there are plenty of “well-heeled” liberals who should get in the big money game. He’s on the hunt now for those billionaires. He already has one in mind, Ronda Stryker, a Michigan philanthropist. He doesn’t know where her allegiances are, but he knows she cares about progressive causes.

Read more: http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/powerpost/wp/2015/07/15/theres-a-new-super-pac-for-bernie-sanders-it-wants-billionaire-donors

---

But... But... But...

The Kochs donate to some 'progressive' organizations. Give them a call...

'Anything to win.'

[Tarheel_Dem]

1. Incoming.....!!!!!

[daleanime]

4. Outgoing...!!!!!!

[AverageGuy]

29. This might be a Republican dirty trick

or a scammer who is just trying to raise money for himself.

[daleanime]

34. True to both....

or an idiot who thinks he's helping.

[pnwmom]

2. Bernie can't win without money. The idealists that think he can are wrong. n/t

[iandhr]

5. What

You mean that?

[marlizz]

37. Bernie cant win without money

Spot on....

This may be Senator Sanders downfall... he says he won't take PAC money and suggests, instead, that small donors (averaging $40) will be the sustainable, winning strategy. Has Senator Sanders really done the math?
Does the Senator realize that individuals and special interest groups with progressive ideas, ALSO HAVE A VOICE with their financial contributions.

The real fear is that if Hillary Clinton gets into office after raising over a billion dollars, she will claims that she would not be able to do much about Citizens' United and thus, not providing too much effort into overturning that ruling, other than shrugging her shoulders while having that smirk on her face.

[grasswire]

44. welcome to DU

a one poster!

[BainsBane]

52. No candidate takes PAC money. It's an empty promise

In fact coordination between campaigns and PACs is prohibited by law. PACs spend of their own volition. That is every bit as true for Sanders as Clinton or Bush.

[delrem]

60. Sanders explicitly disavows any message from such a "PAC".

So disingenuously you point at this ridiculous "PAC for Bernie", set up by people of questionable morals in total contradiction to what Sanders asked, as an excuse for Hillary Clinton.

Jeez. That is low.

[BainsBane]

64. Then why does his field director run a PAC?

The PAC that was fined for violating campaign finance law by failing to file forms? If he disavows all PACs, why does he employ someone in a very high position in the campaign who runs a PAC for him?

http://www.timesargus.com/article/20150704/NEWS03/707049936

The Burlington-based committee’s treasurer, Phil Fiermonte, a longtime Sanders aide and currently the field director for Sanders’ presidential campaign, received a letter from the FEC in December warning that the committee may have failed to file required financial reports.

[delrem]

65. Wow, wutasmear! Bernie is even worser than Hillary!!!

And triply plus Jeb!!!!***!!!

Totally in the pockets of billionaires, and their money PACs, their systems for "donating", for speeches and for ... well Jeb would take it for anything. Don't ya think?

[BainsBane]

66. I linked to valid information

You don't care. It makes no difference to me who you support for president, but don't call a plain statement of facts a "smear." You prefer not to know the truth, that is your problem.

[delrem]

68. No, Bainsbane, you can't smear Bernie as being worse than Hillary

on this score.
Worse than your $2.5billion candidate.
You'll be taken to the mat on *that*!

Just for the fact that at the same time as you throw out your smear, your bunch is laughing about how much $$$ they're taking in, and how the amount of $$$ taken in determines a winner. That being the only argument your bunch seems capable of, without dissembling.

[jen63]

62. He didn't say he wouldn't take PAC money.

He said he'd take PAC money, but not black super PAC money. He straight up said he'll take Union money, etc. I don't see any problem with that. As long as it leaves a paper trail, he'll take it.

[delrem]

67. These guys are trying to smear Bernie as being as bad as Hillary.

And they're proud of their smear.

[ancianita]

70. And you're trying to smear a fact-based discussion on ethical fundraising. Knock it off.

[Nitram]

72. "Bad as Hillary" The perfect strawman argument. Or is that a straw-woman?

[Trajan]

54. Pure Strawman ...

Nobody said he can win without any money whatsoever ... This is how YOU think of it ... This is you exposing your contempt for those who would dare to disagree with you ..

You go down the oubliette as well ... I need friends like you like I need a hole in the head ...

[delrem]

61. That's your *philosophy*, pnwmom, it isn't *truth*.

Whether you distinguish your *philosophy* from "idealism" whatever you think that might mean, it is nothing more than an excuse.
It isn't a reason.

[daleanime]

3. It's always nice....

when some one else makes an opening, enjoy yourself.

[randys1]

6. Would we all welcome this billionaire or Soros if they wanted to open community

hospitals for the lower middle class and poor?

Would we all welcome this billionaire or Soros if they wanted to create community projects that employed people and so on?

I think we would , this is the same thing.

[arcane1]

7. But what?

There isn't anything the Sanders campaign can do about someone else's activities. Just like they can't do anything about a Super-PAC that buys ads against him.

[George II]

8. Uh oh.

I knew it was only a matter of time.

Would like to hear Senator Sanders' take on this development...will he discourage Jacobson?

[arcane1]

9. Why do you say that?

You know how Super-PACs work, right? Stephen Colbert even had one. Probably still does.

[NCjack]

10. Hummm. A super PAC that will take money from wealth progressives, spends

it for Bernie's campaign so that he can win and reset the tax system to direct a higher percentage of the Nation's wealth to working poor and middle class. Are there really wealthy progressives willing? I have no problem with them donating their money to such a super PAC. I do regret that most of the campaign big money will flow to Republican businesses, including that spent for Bernie.

[cosmicone]

11. Do as I say .. not as I do...

but then of course there is the thing of "plausible deniability". Jacobson who -- can't recall ever knowing him

[arcane1]

13. Are you implying that Sanders is coordinating with him?

Surely you have evidence of this.

[Snotcicles]

39. Nothing has happened, but this other guy wants to do something. So that equals Bernie is bad. nt

[jeff47]

15. Want me to set up "NAMBLA for Hillary"? Or "MRA for Hillary?" Or "KKK for Hillary?"

The domains are available. And Clinton would never recall knowing me, since I've never met her.

Or does "plausible deniability" not occur with candidates you like?

[arcane1]

18. They're so desperate to find ANYTHING to smear him with

So now even the actions of people he's never met are being pinned on him.

Clearly some idiots don't know how Super-PACs work

[George II]

46. Were those references really necessary? Not sure about others, but your entire post is offensive...

...to me.

[jeff47]

48. Yes, they were. Because it shows just how inane your claims of hypocrisy are.

You wanna stay with the story that this shows hypocrisy? 'Cause I can think of plenty of other references.

[George II]

49. Nah, just stick with your reference to NAMBLA, thank you.

[Evergreen Emerald]

77. Here is the hypocrisy:

Last edited Fri Jul 17, 2015, 09:09 AM - Edit history (1)

You complain about Clinton and how she is bought with big money. You shout from the rooftops how Bernie is the opposite of Clinton and refuses to take big money. You list the distorted differences between big money donors of Clinton and only small grass roots donors of Bernie.

And now when you learn that Bernie has big money supporting him....you respond as if the above language has never ever been utter by a DU Bernie supporter.

[jeff47]

80. War Criminals for Hillary is also available.

What you fail to understand is the actions of the candidates in regard to super PACs.

Clinton actually set up multiple super PACs to help her. She set them up before she was officially a candidate, when she could legally coordinate with them.

She is so attached to using super PACs that Correct the Record is likely illegal. Correct the Record has publically said they are coordinating with the Clinton campaign. The enforcement mechanism, the FEC, is neutered due to Republican sabotage. So she'll probably get away with it.

Sanders did not set up this PAC. He did not ask anyone to set up this PAC. He did not say "Oh, I really wish I had a super PAC". Some random guy set one up, likely as a scheme to separate people from their money.

The complaint against Clinton is not that "big money" is donating to her. I'm sure there are wealthy people who have donated to Sanders's campaign. The complaint is Clinton has embraced big money and sought out big money and in the past has done what big money wanted her to do. And Sanders has not.

A random guy setting up a PAC does not change that any more me setting up "War Criminals for Hillary" would make her a supporter of war criminals.

[chapdrum]

12. He's "a billionaire of...

conscious..."

On the serious side: Not to get all irrelevant and philosophical, but raising tens of millions to run for office is a CHOICE perpetuated largely by media companies to "earn" highly profitable revenue from air time and space. This was decided long ago by concensus amongst The Owners.

Another choice that could be made is that as a condition of maintaining their corporate charters, networks would be required to donate X percent of air time to all qualified (and "qualified&quot candidates. Those corporations in non-compliance get yanked off of what are (supposed to be) the people's airwaves until they comply.

[grasswire]

45. yeah, of "conscious"!!

I noticed that.

[BrotherIvan]

14. Never too low to stoop

You know people aren't really this stupid to believe this play. Well, not everybody. Have fun!

[jeff47]

17. I'd like to think people are not stupid enough to believe this

Either the guy behind it is an idiot, or he's a fraud - a super PAC would be a great way to separate people from their money.

But then you only need to read the first few replies to this thread to realize that there are plenty of people who would happily believe.

[BrotherIvan]

23. He may have good intentions, but he is not associated with the campaign

Hillary and Bill do personal fundraising appearances for their super pacs. Her super pac Correct the Record is directly working with the campaign, trying to take a shot at even breaking the rules of Citizens United, while *at the same time* Clinton's platform says she opposes it. You can't make this shit up.

http://www.bloomberg.com/politics/articles/2015-05-13/is-new-hillary-clinton-super-pac-pushing-legal-boundaries-

What’s unusual is that Correct the Record plans to coordinate with the Clinton campaign and potentially other federal campaigns and Democratic party committees—something that quickly drew skepticism from watchdogs who find it difficult to see how the group can function without running afoul of campaign finance laws. Those laws are designed to prevent committees that collect big-dollar contributions from having direct contact with campaigns.

Correct the Record’s plans to coordinate with Clinton’s team amount, at the very least, to a “campaign finance law boundary-pushing” arrangement, said Paul S. Ryan, senior counsel at the Campaign Legal Center. As a super-PAC, the group “cannot make any contributions to a candidate directly or in kind,” he said.

Correct the Record’s communications director, Adrienne Watson, defended its approach, arguing that “FEC rules specifically permit some activity—in particular, activity on an organization’s website, in email, and on social media—to be legally coordinated with candidates and political parties.”

But here you can see that they are already serving as part of the campaign and working in *traditional* media.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/the-making-of-a-hillary-clinton-echo-chamber/2015/07/07/01625c5e-24ae-11e5-b72c-2b7d516e1e0e_story.html

One day in May, operatives from a Washington-based super PAC gathered New Hampshire mayors, state representatives and local politicos at Saint Anselm College for a day of training.

They rehearsed their personal tales of how they met Hillary Rodham Clinton and why they support her for president. They sharpened their defenses of her record as secretary of state. They scripted their arguments for why the Democratic front-runner has been “a lifetime champion of income opportunity.” And they polished their on-camera presentations in a series of mock interviews.

The objective of the sessions: to nurture a seemingly grass-roots echo chamber of Clinton supporters reading from the same script across the communities that dot New Hampshire, a critical state that holds the nation’s first presidential primary.

The super PAC, called Correct the Record, convened similar talking-point tutorials and ­media-training classes in May and June in three other early-voting states — Iowa, Nevada and South Carolina — as well as sessions earlier this spring in California.

Presidential campaigns have for decades fed talking points to surrogates who appear on national television or introduce candidates on the stump. But the effort to script and train local supporters is unusually ambitious and illustrates the extent to which the Clinton campaign and its web of sanctioned, allied super PACs are leaving nothing to chance.

[Jefferson23]

51. +1. n/t

[zeemike]

21. Well sometimes it is willful.

Especially if you can use it as ammo for your cause.

[Doctor_J]

74. The people who swallow this also believe Clinton had an honest change of heart on

gay marriage. So yes, there are some this stupid.

[BrotherIvan]

16. Guess you didn't read the whole article

Now, no one at Sanders campaign responded to our inquires about this new “Billionaires for Bernie” endeavor, but the Vermont socialist has made clear he does not want super PAC help.

See the funny thing is, when you pull tricks like this, people look up the facts and see this is a lie. When something about your candidate is posted and y'all scream it's a right wing smear, it usually checks out. So why don't you start advertising the positive aspects of your candidate and leave the hit pieces to more talented spin meisters.

[arcane1]

19. Reading the actual article is not how the anti-Sanders people roll.

Facts are like Kryptonite.

[onehandle]

24. Wait... A Politician denies involvement with a Super PAC? Gosh! This must be a First in politics.

Couldn't say it's business as usual.

Nope. Nope. Nope.

[BrotherIvan]

26. So you're going to double down against facts in the article YOU posted?

Selective editing risks one's credibility.

[jeff47]

27. It's easy to risk that which you do not have. (nt)

[KoKo]

25. Indeed...

[passiveporcupine]

31. Because Bernie is a voice to fear

And hit pieces are the tools of fear.

I will be honest enough to admit, I fear Clinton's popularity and the possibility she might win the primary. But I'm not going to post unfounded hit pieces because of it.

[appalachiablue]

20. Battle of the Billionaires, really? Could definitely be a reality show. There's a novel idea...

[Jamastiene]

22. Oh dear! Oh dear!

Quick! Someone help me put my hair out. Firemen! Helllppp!


Cue the people who will spin up a quick controversy here.

What does this have to do with Bernie Sanders himself? The man can drink a glass of water and people act like their hair is on fire, all excited with some new conspiracy theory. Oh wait, that's mainly on DU.

[Koinos]

28. As you may or may not recall...

another candidate was severely and unduly criticized for an ad that a super PAC not under his control used against Bernie Sanders:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/128016300

My response was true then for O'Malley, and it is true now for Sanders:

A super PAC is not formed by a candidate, nor is it allowed to communicate with the candidate or provide money directly to a candidate. O'Malley had no knowledge of this ad before it was made.

A spokesperson for O’Malley’s campaign said the former governor was not aware of the ad before it was released and that he doesn’t currently fundraise for Generation Forward.

http://time.com/3936562/martin-omalley-bernie-sanders/

Any supporter can start up a super PAC....

Neither O'Malley nor Sanders likes super PACs; but, according to Citizens United, they are created without the candidate's approval and operate independently of the candidate's campaign.

Super PACs both help and hurt the candidate they support. You can see this with "Generation Forward" and its ad. Generation Forward hurt the candidate they supported. But it is unwarranted to say that O'Malley was responsible for this ad.

You will note that Bernie himself blamed the super PAC and not O'Malley for the ad.

Our candidates are great. Super PAC supporters are maybe not so great. They are like attack dogs without a leash.

[RichVRichV]

38. That's not entirely true.

The restrictions only apply once a candidate declares intent to run. The common strategy today is for candidates to setup and fund raise for the super pacs before declaring, then put the pacs on auto pilot. So not all super pacs are totally independent.

[Koinos]

57. I think you have to distinguish between PACs and super PACs.

They are not the same, and I believe that there are different "rules" for each. Enforcement from the FEC is limited these days, so the rules are not always followed.

It seems that certain republican candidates have had more coordination with their super PACs than is allowed.

ETA a quick source: http://people.howstuffworks.com/super-pac1.htm

[eridani]

69. Didn't know that. I've stopped being pissed off at O'Malley

And wondered why he would take potshots at a candidate not the front runner.

[Sunlei]

30. He needs a legal superpac to be competitive.

[madfloridian]

32. lol That's about like Billionaires for Bush.

http://www.billionairesforbush.com/photos.php

[madfloridian]

33. Or Billionaires for Weathcare.

[valerief]

35. "a billionaire of conscience"

That killed me!

[BrotherIvan]

36. Yeah, it's totes legit!

[DamnYankeeInHouston]

40. Gee. Billionaires are people, too.

[passiveporcupine]

43. are you posting in the correct thread?

[MNBrewer]

42. Yeah, "both sides do it"

[GoneFishin]

47. What? There is a connection between U.S. Presidential campaigns and money? No way!

That does it. I am withdrawing my support for Bernie Sanders,

NOT!

[Raine1967]

50. Can we just put this PAC meme to bed once and for all?

A fews weeks ago a few sanders supporters called for O'MAlley to apologize for an anti-Sanders ad. literally — to apologize.

AS thus this op was needed. http://www.democraticunderground.com/1251423415

[Trajan]

53. This is an example of DUers whom I have always liked

But whom I now know are actually quite mean spirited ... Once you cross the line into pure meanness, you can never go back ..

You are not welcome on my life ...

[onehandle]

55. My comments are simply a parody of the criticism of Hillary...

...we've heard over and over and over. I have had great patience and held back for the most part.

If billionaires want to line up and support progressives, I say bully for them.

I'm a big fan of both Hillary and Bernie.

[calimary]

56. Works for me, onehandle!

Everything AND your last line.

[jwirr]

58. Okay as a fan of both. Did Bernie set this super pac up or is someone doing it on his own and

are you saying that it is Bernie's fault?

[Doctor_J]

75. look at who they want to be president

Viciousness should not surprise you.

[delrem]

59. So, according as this abuse from the WP,

Bernie is as bad as Jeb, and the very worst of the corporate moneygrubbing politicians bought by billionaires, big Banks, and war industries.

I don't think that this is a good and honest thing to say about Sanders, who explicitly forbade those kind of post-Citizens_United "PACs" to be associated with him.

But then I'm just sayin'.

[Cha]

63. "Billionaires for Bernie".. I see nothing wrong with that but did the supporter check with

Bernie first?

Guess not..

"But Jacobson is not deterred. It will be a “very unaffiliated effort,” he told us."

Mahalo onehandle

[William769]

71. Oh the fucking irony!

Another meme out the fucking window!

And this is only the beginning of a doomed campaign.

[Koinos]

73. We've got to get Citizens United overturned.

It isn't good for anyone, even the candidates.

Since the republicans are having their own problems with Citizens United (unintended consequences for them), there may be a bipartisan effort to reverse it. We can hope anyway.

It reminds me of when a friend does an unsolicited favor for you, and things go wrong. It doesn't help to say that he or she "meant well."

The "war of billionaires" on the republican side is likely to cripple their entire primary. It would be fun to watch, if it weren't so tragic for the entire American electoral process.

Being wealthy doesn't make you smart. Many billionaires are very, very stupid and shortsighted.

But not all billionaires are evil. If some sincerely want to help us save the earth or fix income inequality, it would be foolish to reject their help simply because of a prejudice or bitterness against all wealthy people.

It is hard for me to say this, because I am a poor person who has felt and still does feel resentment toward rich people.

Let's save our "pitchforks" for our real enemies. During the American revolution, rebels gladly accepted financial and military help from France and other countries.

Getting help from the "friendly rich" to end oligarchy might be a very wise strategy.

[Agnosticsherbet]

76. Has Sanders told thise millionaires to take a hike?

Or weill he say that he can not control the acts of a Super Pac?

[Zorra]

78. *Yawn*...another day, another cheesy smear attempt on Bernie by the corporatists. nt

[joshcryer]

79. I don't get superpac hate with Citizens and Oligarchy United.

Who gives a fuck. Politics have changed. The money flows. I'd be thrilled if Sanders got Soros or Buffet's backing and I wouldn't bat a fucking eye. Drop several billion in the coffers. It doesn't bother me one iota.

[Corey_Baker08]

81. This Could Be A Ploy By Republicans Who Are Doing All They Can To Have Bernie As The Nominee...

Republicans know & are very confident that if Bernie Sanders is the nominee of the Democratic Party,they will win and they will win by a landslide.