Clinton can't "fire" Brock. That would be illegal.

[Recursion]

Clinton can't control Priorities USA Action's message; that would be illegal.

Super PACs can and do go off the reservation, and end up biting the candidate they're trying to "help", and this is probably a case in point (see also JEB! early in the primary season). But the candidate doesn't and legally can't try to stop them. This is why I think in the end they're going to turn out to be a lot less effective than their donors hope they will. (The ones that work will be the ones like AFL-CIO's, which are actually issue-oriented committees rather than ersatz campaign committees that are locked out of the conference calls.)

Similarly, if the nurses' super PAC started to run stuff that embarrassed Sanders, he would not be legally able to tell them to stop.

Super PACs represent their donors, not the candidate they want to help (but may harm).

It's funny that for a board that claims to care about campaign finance, these very simple legal principles seem to elude so many.

[stone space]

1. Are superpacs above criticism by presidential candidates?

If it is actually illegal for presidential candidates to publicly criticize superpacs, then the 1st Amendment has really been trashed in favor of big moneyed interests.

Why do we allow folks with money to exempt themselves from public criticism and to nullify the 1st Amendment simply by forming a superpac?

If I form a superpac, will it be illegal for folks to criticize me?

If the NRA forms a superpac, does criticism of the NRA become off-limits?

[Recursion]

2. Crazily, yes, if it could be deemed "coordination"

That's literally the point: a candidate is not allowed to control that committee's messaging.

Brock himself has suggested that "coordination via op-eds" would be legal, but so far nobody's tried it that I know of.

[HERVEPA]

3. Good grief. Somebody actually believes her campaign doesn't coordinate with PACs

Unicorns next? People on this board (mostly) do know the rules. They just laugh at the idea that Hillary's campaign would be following them.

[Recursion]

4. If you have evidence it is, contact the FEC

Seriously. If you have any indication she is, you should tell the FEC about it. These innuendos are just pathetic.

[HERVEPA]

5. Thank you for your sage advice.

[Recursion]

6. Thank you for your Free Republic style distrust of government

Last edited Sun Apr 3, 2016, 11:22 AM - Edit history (1)

If you're that cynical about government to what extent are you actually progressive?

[HERVEPA]

7. That is a truly ludicrous argument.

One needs to not be cynical in order to be progressive? What planet do you live on?

[reddread]

49. PaRallel world

god bless the status quo

[Dem2]

44. Perfect argument

I could not have said it better myself.

[HERVEPA]

50. I'm sorry to hear that. Perhaps your skills will improve.

[Kentonio]

21. They are openly coordinating.

They have claimed that it is not in breach of FEC regulations because they are purely internet based.

[Recursion]

24. So it should be very easy to show me an example

Do so, please. An example of the Clinton campaign coordinating through public media with a Super PAC.

You seem fairly certain it happened, so I'm confident you can actually show that.

[Kentonio]

25. There's a post further down this thread discussing it in more detail.

They consider it a loophole in the rules.

[Recursion]

27. Right, so since you're convinced it happened, I assume you can give evidence

It's very simple. Point to an op-ed or tweet or whatever by a campaign that was coordination with a super PAC. Or vice versa.

One link. TIA!

[Kentonio]

29. You've already been shown a tweet from Hillarys campaign manager to Brock

[Recursion]

33. Post it in the reply

I seriously haven't seen that.

[Kentonio]

37. Apologies, for some reason I thought it had been posted as a reply to you.

"...But Clinton’s campaign chairman was not pleased by the news that Correct the Record was about to unleash an attack on Sanders’ health. “Chill out,” campaign chairman John Podesta tweeted at Brock. “We're fighting on who would make a better president, not on who has a better physical fitness test.”
..."

Here's the Washington Post talking about the SuperPACs decision to split off and coordinate directly with the campaign via the loophole in the rules by the way.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-politics/wp/2015/05/12/how-a-super-pac-plans-to-coordinate-directly-with-hillary-clintons-campaign/

[Recursion]

39. That's a violation of law

I hope the FEC fines the Clinton campaign for it

[Kentonio]

41. Yeah, that was back in January though so I'm not holding my breath

Personally I find campaigns donating to SuperPACs to be more disturbing. That just seems totally wrong.

[questionseverything]

51. so you going to edit your op now that it has been proven they are directing the superpac?

apologize perhaps?

[snagglepuss]

34. Laws without effective enforcement are meaningless. It is absurd to believe that

campaigns don't coordinate with SuperPacs which is why they are a scam. If someone in Hillary's camp calls Brock who the hell is going to know?

[Recursion]

35. It's absolutely not absurd, and a baseless claim like that feeds right-wing BS

If you really think campaigns don't follow the law, you sound closer to Free Republic than Democratic Underground to me.

[snagglepuss]

42. All laws have loopholes which is why lawyers are never out of work

even without loopholes you are being disingenuous to say that people will comply with laws 100% when there is no effective oversight. Your belief that voluntary compliance works is the position of taken by the Right in all sorts of areas.

[Recursion]

46. Single payer must be a horrifying prospect to you, then

Since you believe doctors' and hospitals' lobbies will hopelessly corrupt elected officials.

[Bill USA]

53. oh you are being too mean. Without innuendo, what would the GOP do for a campaign against HRC?

[Lizzie Poppet]

11. No one who isn't suffering from cranio-rectal inversion.

But the rules don't apply to Princess Weathervane. It's her time, goddammit!!

[Recursion]

47. Nobody has his or her "time"

Which is a big reason I didn't vote for Clinton. Though I'm still furious we managed to winnow down to our two worst potential candidates. Sanders was my first "lesser evil" primary vote, rather than someone I actively believed in, and I don't like that feeling at all.

[stone space]

9. It may be time for presidential candidates to stand up to superpacs, then.

To tell superpacs in no uncertain terms that they do not have a veto over our 1st Amendment rights.

There is a time for civil disobedience, and if superpacs have somehow managed to make themselves legally exempt from criticism under the 1st Amendment, candidates need to stand up against this, and let us know where they stand on Free Speech.

Even if the candidates risk arrest for doing so.

There is no shame in civil disobedience.

[Duckhunter935]

31. He already has stated they

Directly coordinate, old news

[Recursion]

32. And yet nobody can point to these public statements he's talking about

That's some amazingly phantom "public" statements.

[Warren Stupidity]

55. Brock's pac claims it is allowed to coordinate.

You should research first and then give us the lectures.

[Armstead]

8. They can publicly and forcefully disavow PAC claims...and Embarass them publicly too

It's not against the law to say "I totally disagree with that claim by that organization that my opponent sleeps with sheep. Theyare making up lies that have no basis in fact, and I reject that kind of trash and those who espouse it with every fiber of my being."

I doubt a candidate would be thrown in jail for saying something like that.

[delrem]

12. Hillary Clinton campaign chairman tells super PAC to 'chill out'

http://www.latimes.com/politics/la-na-hillary-clinton-super-pac-20160117-story.html

"...But Clinton’s campaign chairman was not pleased by the news that Correct the Record was about to unleash an attack on Sanders’ health. “Chill out,” campaign chairman John Podesta tweeted at Brock. “We're fighting on who would make a better president, not on who has a better physical fitness test.”
..."

Also, Hillary's campaign directly coordinates with Brock.
Brock runs many branches of PAC activity, some directly coordinated, others not. Perhaps Brock switches wigs when he shifts from one persona to another, to take care of legal niceties.

[Blue Meany]

52. I supect Hillary has her own health issues that she

would prefer not be examined in too much detail (I can just imagine an attack ad about the blood clot in her brain aimed at low information votes), but whoever wins, the Republicans are going to attack the candidate on health and age. As a Bernie voter, my biggest concern is his age and health, which is why I want him to pick Elizabeth Warren as his VP.

[delrem]

56. Absolutely Bernie will have to address this.

It's a real issue.
On this issue Hillary has less immediate concern, since women typically outlive men - statistically speaking.

The issue with respect to the actual OP that I was replying to, which is David Brock, his superPAC, his coordination with Hillary Clinton, is one of "tone". I'm using that term deliberately. Tone.

The issue is who has ultimate responsibility for David Brock's tone.
I disagree with the OP, Recursion, about that matter. David Brock indeed coordinates immediately with Hillary Clinton's campaign and because of that the ultimate responsibility for his Rovian tone is a no-brainer.
Furthermore, I think that Recursion knows better and is posting this shit anyway.

[Recursion]

13. Well, in fact it would be against the law if it could be considered "coordination"

This is precisely the problem

[Armstead]

18. Most GOP candidates have publicly disavowed PAC ads for example

For example Cruze totally distanced himself from that ad about Trump's wife.

Whether he was sincere or not is another matter....But election officials or others certainly have not tossed Cruze in the pokey or threatened to censure him for those statements against a PAC supporting him.

[delrem]

10. Experts: David Brock Pushing Campaign Finance Boundaries

Dem operative remains on payroll of pro-Clinton super PAC despite coordinating with campaign

http://freebeacon.com/politics/experts-david-brock-pushing-campaign-finance-boundaries/

"...
Super PACs are generally prohibited from coordinating with candidates and their campaigns. American Bridge is legally barred from communicating with Clinton or her team while she campaigns for the Democratic presidential nomination.

Correct the Record says it has found a loophole in coordination laws.

The group maintains that the online-only nature of its work—as opposed to broadcast communications or other paid media—allows it to legally coordinate with the campaign.

Experts say Brock’s roles at the two groups show how he has used sophisticated legal maneuvers to circumvent campaign finance restrictions designed to prevent corruption and the influence of high-dollar donors on the political process.

“In short, it looks like Brock is running a shadow campaign,” said Robert Maguire, a researcher and reporter with the Center for Responsive Politics.
..."

[WhaTHellsgoingonhere]

14. Where would she draw the line? There is a line. Brock didn't meet it.

I'm just wondering what low-life she'd say, "Hey, I can't have this guy around. Please replace him. Thank you."

[Recursion]

16. Why do you want her to break the law?

Seriously. Why are you asking a candidate to break the law?

[stone space]

17. Have you never broken the law before?

Why do you want her to break the law?

Seriously. Why are you asking a candidate to break the law?

The same reason why one might ask anybody to break the law.

Because it is the right thing to do.

Candidates are people, too...just like you and me.

[Paulie]

15. They could publically rebuke and disavow, or better yet not fundraise for Him

Which would be equivalent to firing.

http://www.msnbc.com/msnbc/hillary-clinton-campaign-rebukes-top-ally-david-brock

[WhaTHellsgoingonhere]

20. David Brock resigned from the board of the super PAC Priorities USA Action over 1 year ago

So help me with your OP. Very confusing given this:

Brock resigns from Hillary Clinton PAC

http://www.politico.com/story/2015/02/david-brock-resigns-priorities-usa-action-115028

[Recursion]

22. If that's true, the calls to fire him are all the more confusing, no? (nt)

[WhaTHellsgoingonhere]

43. I appreciate your thread. I learned something about PACs today. Not my thing. Brock = bad dude

[Kentonio]

26. He runs another superPAC now called Correct The Record

Their 2nd highest donor is Hillary's own campaign.

[Loudestlib]

36. I'll help.

He came back.

http://www.nytimes.com/politics/first-draft/2015/05/20/super-pac-backing-hillary-clinton-sees-staff-overhaul/?_r=0

[Kentonio]

23. This is funny, given that Hillarys campaign is the 2nd highest contributor

To Brock's superPAC Correct the Record. They were the biggest contributor until Xmas.

[reformist2]

38. They can do that??? That doesn't sound kosher.

[Duckhunter935]

28. Brock already said they

DirectlyDirectly coordinate

[Recursion]

30. He said it would be legal to do so through public statements

Last edited Sun Apr 3, 2016, 10:29 AM - Edit history (1)

So obviously DU can give me an example of that actually happening, since the statements are public.

[delrem]

40. This is easy info to find. Most who are politically aware know about it.

How a super PAC plans to coordinate directly with Hillary Clinton’s campaign
By Matea Gold

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-politics/wp/2015/05/12/how-a-super-pac-plans-to-coordinate-directly-with-hillary-clintons-campaign/

"...
But Correct the Record believes it can avoid the coordination ban by relying on a 2006 Federal Election Commission regulation that declared that content posted online for free, such as blogs, is off limits from regulation.
...The rules “totally exempt individuals who engage in political activity on the Internet from the restrictions of the campaign finance laws. The exemption for individual Internet activity in the final rules is categorical and unqualified,” then-FEC Chairman Michael E. Toner said at the time,
...
The pro-Clinton group plans to keep its activities within the bounds of the Internet exemption by disseminating information about Clinton on its Web site and through its Facebook and Twitter accounts, officials said. The group will be registered as a super PAC, but does not intend to spend any money on ads or other expenditures that would constitute independent political activity.

“The 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,” Adrienne Watson, a spokeswoman for Correct The Record, said in a statement. “This exception has been relied upon countless times by organizations raising non-federal money. The only thing unique about Correct the Record is that it is making its contributors and expenditures public.”
..."

[99Forever]

45. The only claims more fucking ridiculous than those made by David Brock...

... are the ones made by this OP.

Patently and deliberately false. Delusional.

[jmg257]

48. This article was very interesting - still not sold on how up and up everything Clinton is...

https://shadowproof.com/2016/03/31/leader-clintons-dark-money-alliance-files-ethics-complaints-sanders/
...
During the second half of 2015, Priorities USA Action donated $1,000,000 to Correct the Record. American Bridge 21st Century donated $50,000. Hillary For America contributed the most money to Correct the Record in the first half of 2015. The Clinton campaign’s donation was for “research services.”

Brad Woodhouse, the co-founder of ALDF, is also the president of Correct the Record. He was previously the head of the American Bridge super PAC.

If it all seems incestuous, that is because individuals like Brock and Woodhouse are able to move from one group to another as the Clinton campaign desires.

Paul Ryan, a lawyer at the Campaign Legal Center, who considered filing complaints with the FEC and Justice Department challenging the group’s “novel legal theories,” told Time.com, “[Correct the Record] is creating new ways to undermine campaign regulation.”

As of February 1, Brock was drawing a paycheck from the American Bridge super PAC while he was coordinating with the Clinton campaign through Correct the Record, something which he should be legally prohibited from doing.

What is remarkable is Correct the Record defends its coordination with the Clinton campaign by arguing “the online-only nature of its work—as opposed to broadcast communications or other paid media—allows it to legally coordinate with the campaign.”

[stone space]

54. Which candidate or candidates are forbidden by law from commenting on this ad?

This ad, "Senator Bernie Sanders: Too Liberal For Iowa", ran here in Iowa during the run-up to the Iowa Caucus.

And does the answer depend on which side you think ran the ad?

It's supposedly an anti-Bernie ad, but that's not the impression that I got when I first saw it.

It looked to me like either it was produced by SNL or The Onion, or that it was a pro-Bernie ad made by some bored Bernie supporting college students hoping it would go viral.

Now, whoever made that particular ad, it does raise the question of determining just which political ads are counterproductive for a campaign, and (in the event of a counterproductive ad that was actually offensive, rather than merely humorous), what right (or obligation!) might a candidate have to reply to ads that actively harm their campaigns?

Are you seriously suggesting that a candidate is required by law to refrain from commenting on outside campaigns designed to derail their own campaigns, simply because somebody else might claim that those outside campaigns are trying to help their campaign, instead?