A quick primer on US campaign finance law as it stands now

[Recursion]

Since it seems like DU needs it

http://www.fec.gov/info/contriblimitschart1516.pdf

Within a given year,

An election campaign committee can receive:
Up to $2700 from a given individual in a year
Up to $2000 from another given campaign
Up to $5000 from a multicandidate PAC (see below)
Up to $2700 from a non-multicandidate PAC (see below)
Up to $5000 from a state party committee
Up to $5000 from a national party committee
$0 from a Super PAC
$0 from a corporation
$0 from a labor union

An election campaign committee can donate:
Up to $2000 to a given other campaign committee
Up to $5000 to a given PAC
An unlimited amount to a super PAC
An unlimited amount to a state or national party committee

Any organization other than an election campaign committee which receives more than $2600 in a calendar year for the purpose of influencing a Federal election (including a party nomination for a Federal election) is a "PAC".

There are several kinds of PACs

Connected PACs are associated with a business (or more often an entire industry) and can only fundraise from people employed in that business or industry, or are associated with a labor union, and can only fundraise from members of that labor union.

They can receive:

Up to $5000 from an employee or member of the industry, business, or union; from another PAC; from a campaign committee; or from a national or state party
Unlimited administrative funding from their "parent" organization, which cannot be used for campaign expenses

They can donate:

$2700 or $5000 (see below) to a given campaign committee
$5000 to a given other PAC
$5000 or $10000 (see below) to a state party committee
$15000 or $33400 (see below) to a national party committee
$45000 or $100200 (see below) to a "soft money" party fund (which cannot be used for campaign expenses)

Independent PACs, in contrast, can solicit donations from the general public, but must pay their own operating expenses with that money. They otherwise have the same fundraising and donation limits (except that the fundraising isn't limited to a given industry or union).

Among these PACs, the distinction in donations allowable is based on whether the PAC has "multi-candidate" status or not (the multi-candidate PACs have the higher donation allowances). To be a multi-candidate PAC, the organization must have at least 51 contributors, must have been registered with the FEC for 6 months, and must donate to at least 5 campaign committees.

In 2011, the AFL-CIO realized that under this legal structure, a committee that did not donate to or coordinate with a campaign committee would bypass the donor restrictions, and so could solicit unlimited funding from any source as long as all of their communications remained about issues rather than candidates. They formed "Workers' Voices", the first Independent Expenditure-Only Committee, or "Super PAC".

A Super PAC cannot donate money to a campaign committee, or coordinate with one, nor can they donate to state or national parties (they can donate to other independent PACs). There is additionally a "cooling off period" of IIRC six months to keep someone from leaping straight from a campaign committee into a Super PAC.

Super PACs can receive unlimited donations from any source, though they must disclose it.

[pat_k]

1. Correct the Record, Brock's Super PAC, does coordinate with Clinton's campaign.

They make no bones about it.

http://www.factcheck.org/2016/01/correct-the-record/

Unlike other independent-expenditure only super PACs, which are prohibited by the Federal Election Commission from coordinating with campaigns or political parties, Correct the Record plans to work closely with the Clinton campaign. That’s because, the group says, it does not plan to spend money to run ads. Instead, the PAC intends to use its website and social media platforms to counter claims made about Clinton.

Blue Nation Review, 80% owned by Brock's True Blue Media, appears to be serving as one of those social media platforms. From wikipedia:

Brock is associated with several Super PACs that support the 2016 presidential campaign of Hillary Clinton. Peter Daou, the new CEO of True Blue Media, had previously served as a digital media strategist for Clinton's 2008 campaign. Since the sale of the publication to Brock, it endorsed Clinton for President. Blue Nation Review has also published numerous negative articles about Clinton opponent Bernie Sanders and his supporters.

[Recursion]

3. Media statements were ruled to not be "coordination" (nt)

[pat_k]

4. Seems like a pretty big loophole.

[Recursion]

5. IDK. Should PACs not be able to give interviews discussing strategy?

I don't think there's as easy an answer as people like to pretend there is. Hell, Citizens United was about a filmmaker who wasn't allowed to screen his documentary, which is problematic to me.

[pat_k]

6. Agreed. Best laid plans and all.

[PoliticAverse]

2. pat_k corrected the "coordination" part but also important is that the FEC is kind of paralyzed...

and not really enforcing the rules to any significant degree at the moment.

"The likelihood of the laws being enforced is slim"

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/05/03/us/politics/fec-cant-curb-2016-election-abuse-commission-chief-says.html?_r=0

[cosmicone]

7. This is naively or purposely overlooked by Sanders supporters

Hillary got $0 from big banks
Hillary got $0 from wall street firms
Hillary got $0 from private prison companies
Hillary got $0 from fossil fuel industry

Yet, they keep accusing her very disingenuously and people unfamiliar with campaign finance eat it up because it fits a narrative.

[Armstead]

8. Clinton disagree with you that the system works fine

“We have to end the flood of secret, unaccountable money that is distorting our elections, corrupting our political system, and drowning out the voices of too many everyday Americans. Our democracy should be about expanding the franchise, not charging an entrance fee.”
HILLARY, SEPTEMBER 8, 2015

[cosmicone]

10. She really believes that -- as a DEMOCRAT

No democrat should be against it because republicans will always have more money.

The point is that SHE or HER CAMPAIGN got no money from banks, wall street firms, private prison corporations or fossil fuel companies.
Nothing. Zero. Nada. Zilch.

But, Sanders and his supporters keep the smear alive -- heck, actually promote it!

[jmg257]

11. Yep - millions from lobbyist bundlers don't count - they are only clients of the FF insutry.

"Hillary Clinton told supporters that lobbyists should be exposed and publicly called out.

"Maybe use social media? Maybe make a concerted effort to really call these people out all the time, get some social pressure on them, get people to know their names**," Clinton suggested"

Clinton did, however, make a point of noting that, while lobbyists are not new, the business of selling influence has taken a particularly cynical turn.

"It's not just the influence they peddle, it's the way they peddle the influence," Clinton said.


I'm sure Hillary** is glad so many are agreeing with her and pointing out the hypocrisy.

[Recursion]

12. Where do these "millions" go on that chart?

I don't see any category of donor from which a campaign committee can accept millions of dollars. What are you talking about?

(Bundlers, by the way, physically hand the checks that individual donors wrote to the campaign; they aren't giving any of their own money.)

[jmg257]

13. Not sure about a chart...

"As the Huffington Post reported last year, Clinton's biggest campaign bundlers are fossil fuel lobbyists. Reporters Kate Sheppard and Paul Blumenthal wrote in July that "fossil fuel interests have pumped $3.25 million into the largest super PAC supporting Hillary Clinton "

"Out of all the presidential candidates, Republican or Democrat, Clinton has raised the most money—$717,000—from lobbyist bundlers. "

"Clinton has previously justified contributions made from fossil lobbyists by stating that “they’re giving money that I’m going to use against them.”
...
“Clinton openly supports a Department of Justice investigation into Exxon’s climate crimes, meanwhile she’s still accepting millions of bundled campaign donations from their lobbyists -- there’s a disturbing disconnect there,” said Cho."

Lobbyist bundlers, etc. etc.

[Recursion]

14. So, $717,000 from individual donors that were physically handed to her campaign

By people whose clients include the fossil fuel industry. Got it. Don't particularly care, but those numbers sound accurate to me.

Where were these "millions" you mentioned? (Remember it's illegal for her to tell a Super PAC to return anybody's donations; same with Sanders.)

meanwhile she’s still accepting millions of bundled campaign donations from their lobbyists

Cho is simply wrong here; a bundler can only donate $2700 to her campaign.

[jmg257]

15. "Lobbyist Bundlers" ..Yep - cause I totes trust nothing illegal would be going on!

Ask Greenpeace for the details - like you I don't really care...the hypocrisy amuses though.

[Recursion]

16. I pretty much trust they aren't breaking the laws. Why don't you?

This is approaching Free Republic levels of distrust in government.

[jmg257]

17. ya know - that is a good point...agreed it should not be so easily accepted.

While I don't totally trust that all is on the up and up due to the system, it would be prudent to learn more.

Cheers!

[beedle]

18. Maybe Hillary is totally clean

and incorruptible.

But someone in congress is not as 'pure and innocent' as Hillary



We need someone who actually believes that this graph should be exactly the opposite, and someone that is willing to do something about it, rather than make excuses for how it doesn't need to change because you have no direct proof that she is involved, and it only appears that way.

[Recursion]

19. Is that graph noticeably different in countries with publicly financed elections?

Because I see the same complaint from people in Europe: the economically elite are very powerful forces in society.

I'm for public financing of elections, but not because I think it would take the 1%'s influence down by very much.

[beedle]

21. You mean countries

that have single-payer heath care or health insurance, have taken the money out of politics, have no prison industrial complex, provide mandated parental leave, mandated vacation, etc -- because that was the will of the monied elites won over government policies against the will of the people?

I'm sure you're not going to find any country in the world that is perfect, and the elite still get to control a significant percentage of the power, but some countries are better than others, and there is one country that is noticeably at the bottom of any list where the elites continually beat out the people.

[Recursion]

23. No, I don't. I mean Europe

Which has almost no single payer health programs (you may be thinking of Canada?), and in which there are in fact private prisons in several countries.

because that was the will of the monied elites won over government policies against the will of the people?

I think they do have nicer moneyed elites than we do, yes.

[beedle]

26. No,

I'm thinking of countries that have government as the focal point of heathcare based on need vs ability to pay.

Canada technically does not have single-payer health programs, it has single-payer health insurance if we aging to be picking nits.

You have a list of those countries with private prisons? I found info on the UK which have discontinued that practice (no new contracts and reverting the exiting ones to public after the contracts run out.)

I see Canada had two, but gave up on them as they found them to suck so they went back to Public.

Australia has some, and they are among the highest in terms of percentage of prison population of 'Western' countries (other than New Zealand, which also has private prisons.)

[Armstead]

9. Politics is clean as a houndstooth

No one ever does workarounds and finds ways to undermine the spirit of campaign finance regulations.

And it shows in that elected representatives only vote based on the beliefs and conscience.

I thought you were smarter than that.

[GeorgiaPeanuts]

20. I don't think Hillary got the memo...

I notice you didn't respond to it the last time (when you suggested I had no response)

[Recursion]

22. I don't understand your point; Clinton's attack back then was as dishonest as Sanders' attack now

What "response" are you looking for?

[GeorgiaPeanuts]

24. You keep claiming that we are misinformed...

Trying to obfuscate the issue by suggesting we think either

a)Companies are donating to campaign committees
b)That we consider donating to a candidate only donations to their campaign committee. -She has superpacs, dark money groups, and a Clinton Foundation that can all receive unlimited sums of money.
c)That the money lobbyists bundle shouldn't be considered from those lobbyists. (By working on her behalf to raise even more money than they can as an individual they are giving her material benefit by allowing her to avoid leaving the campaign trail to fundraise that money herself).

American People are sick and tired of politicians telling us that they can take money from special interests and it doesn't affect them.

[Recursion]

25. Most of DU is, by the looks of it

American People are sick and tired of politicians telling us that they can take money from special interests and it doesn't affect them.

It doesn't; they'd be just as much toadies if they weren't raising money at all.