2016 Postmortem
Related: About this forumBernie Sanders Campaign Oddly Accuses Clinton and DNC of Troubling, Perhaps Illegal, Fundraising
http://electionlawblog.org/?p=81996So legally this seems weak.
And politically, it is quite odd for Sanders, who would need the DNCs support to win the presidency should be be the Democratic nominee, to be attacking the DNC. (Then again, Trump has relentlessly attacked the RNC, so this must be the celebration of the season.)
It's as if the life-long Independent who's hated the Democratic party for most of his life doesn't have its interests at heart.
silvershadow
(10,336 posts)noretreatnosurrender
(1,890 posts)he caucused with them. Yeah, that's some real hate.
geek tragedy
(68,868 posts)into making himself the head of a nascient third party movement.
much more clever than Nader, but same basic motivation and agenda.
His goal was to either do a hostile takeover to the Democratic party, or fatally wound it in trying
JonLeibowitz
(6,282 posts)You forgot to add "in my opinion, with no evidence to support it". It's cool that you hate Bernie, but you have essentially no evidence to support this hyperbolic language.
randome
(34,845 posts)[hr][font color="blue"][center]The truth doesnt always set you free.
Sometimes it builds a bigger cage around the one youre already in.[/center][/font][hr]
JonLeibowitz
(6,282 posts)See post #4 for my thoughts on this issue
randome
(34,845 posts)As it is, crashing another political party and then trying to dictate what happens is a sure-fire method to ensure that positions will harden and nothing of any substance will be accomplished.
It's like me telling you, "Why are you so stupid, JonLeibowitz? Huh? Why? What's wrong with you?" And then expecting you to listen to what I have to say.
There is a reason Sanders has the same number of Senate endorsements as Ted Cruz. He does not work well with others. As much as I have tried -painfully at times- to stay neutral, it's become apparent to me that Sanders is not a uniter, he's a complainer. And there are plenty of things to complain about! But it takes much more than that to unite a party.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]The truth doesnt always set you free.
Sometimes it builds a bigger cage around the one youre already in.[/center][/font][hr]
JonLeibowitz
(6,282 posts)I see your point, and it is a good one. I never claimed Sanders' candidacy was without flaws. It has them. No question.
My point about the campaign finance violations stand though.
geek tragedy
(68,868 posts)he's telling his millions of supporters by email that the DNC is breaking the law, cheating, corrupt, etc.
You shall know your enemy by his acts.
His acts are those of an enemy, not an ally.
His top priority is preventing Hillary Clinton from being the President, even if it means letting Trump win.
JonLeibowitz
(6,282 posts)for 3rd parties.
geek tragedy
(68,868 posts)and there is nothing corrupt about a private group exercising their first amendment rights to govern themselves.
Third party people like Bernie Sanders don't like that, but then again Bernie hates the Democratic party and he's the best possible argument for a closed primary. We let the enemy in through the gates and this is how he's rewarding us, by trying to throw the election to Trump.
JonLeibowitz
(6,282 posts)Ralph Nader, in the Washington Post a few weeks ago:
My interest in moving politics past the two-party duopoly began long before I first ran for president in 1996. Historically, many major reform movements (abolition, womens suffrage, labor) have come out of smaller parties that never won national elections, starting with the anti-slavery Liberty Party in 1840. Several different parties for womens suffrage followed. Then came parties representing farmers struggles against railroads and banks, a movement that peaked in 1892 with the Populist Party. Labor parties which fought for fair labor standards, the right to organize and progressive taxation rose to prominence in the 20th century, along with the Socialist Party of America, formed in 1901. But when the Communist Party got on the national ballot after World War I, it drew widespread venom, and the two major parties began to raise barriers to ballot access and undertake other efforts to prevent these small parties from competing in elections. Admiring these reform movements and critical of the Democratic Partys decay, I knew what it would mean to run as a third-party candidate.
Just appearing on the ballot is a challenge for independent candidates. While any Democrat or Republican who wins their partys nomination is guaranteed a place on general-election ballots nationwide, smaller parties must, in many states, petition election officials to be listed. And that is a delicate process, easy for the major parties to disrupt. Their operatives have a number of tools at their disposal to knock third-party candidates off the ballot, render their campaigns broke, and harass and ostracize them.
In 2004, Democratic operatives were especially zealous in their efforts against my campaign. They hired private investigators to harass my campaigns petition circulators in their homes in Ohio and Oregon and falsely threatened them with criminal prosecution for fake names that saboteurs had signed on their petitions, according to sworn affidavits from the workers and letters containing threats that were presented in court. Our petitions were also disqualified on arbitrary grounds: In Ohio, complaints submitted in court and to the office of the Secretary of State by groups of Democratic voters led officials there to invalidate our petitions. They disqualified hundreds of signatures on one list, for instance, because of a discrepancy involving the petition circulators signature. In Oregon, Democratic Secretary of State Bill Bradbury retroactively applied certain rules in a way that suddenly rendered our previously compliant petitions invalid.
Democrats and their allies (some later reimbursed by the DNC, according to both campaign finance reports and a party official in Maine who testified under oath) enlisted more than 90 lawyers from more than 50 law firms to file 29 complaints against my campaign in 18 states and with the Federal Election Commission for the express purpose of using the cost and delay of litigation to drain our resources. We wanted to neutralize his campaign by forcing him to spend money and resources defending these things, operative Toby Moffett told The Washington Post in 2004.
Democrats falsely accused my campaign of fraud in state after state. In Pennsylvania, they forced us off the ballot after challenging more than 30,000 signatures on spurious technical grounds. My running mate, Peter Camejo, and I were ordered to pay more than $81,000 in litigation costs the plaintiffs, a group of Democratic voters, said they incurred. In an effort to collect, their law firm, Reed Smith ,which the DNC also hired in that cycle, froze my personal accounts at several banks for eight years. A criminal prosecution by the state attorney general later revealed that Pennsylvania House Democrats had, illegally at taxpayer expense, prepared the complaints against our campaign, and several people were convicted of related felonies. A federal court in Pennsylvania ultimately struck down the state law used against me that had led to the order that I pay the litigation costs. But Reed Smith was still allowed to keep $34,000 it withdrew from my accounts, because state courts wouldnt let me present evidence that could have permitted me to recover the money.
With the exception of this handful of felony convictions, most of the partisans who fought to keep me from running got away with it.
geek tragedy
(68,868 posts)People who find Ralph Nader credible are generally the kind who do not have our party's best interests at heart.
Any how, looking forward to voting against Bernader tomorrow.
JonLeibowitz
(6,282 posts)Those who engage in ad hominem attacks on the writer (Nader, not me) generally don't receive much for their arguments from me.
I look forward to voting for against Hillary and for Bernie, June 7.
geek tragedy
(68,868 posts)waah waah waah
JonLeibowitz
(6,282 posts)geek tragedy
(68,868 posts)absolutely nothing to me.
You might as well ask me to believe what Donald Trump has to say.
Get back to me when someone credible backs Nader's claims up.
JonLeibowitz
(6,282 posts)Check them out: https://www.washingtonpost.com/posteverything/wp/2016/03/25/ralph-nader-why-bernie-sanders-was-right-to-run-as-a-democrat/
Saying "based on the word of Ralph Nader" implies there are no credible sources to back up his points. That is false and a lie.
geek tragedy
(68,868 posts)At the risk of repeating myself:
I do not give a cold, wet shit what Ralph Nader has to say about anything. You are wasting pixels posting his words.
JonLeibowitz
(6,282 posts)You'll have to refer back to the WaPo text for the context.
https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/50/842
http://www.ksg.harvard.edu/case/3pt/winger.html
http://www.toledoblade.com/Politics/2004/09/29/Blackwell-orders-removal-of-Nader-from-Ohio-s-Nov-2-ballot.html
http://www.foxnews.com/story/2004/09/24/nader-supporters-ask-supreme-court-for-help.html
http://caselaw.findlaw.com/me-supreme-judicial-court/1632227.html
http://www.opensecrets.org/parties/expend.php?cmte=DPC&cycle=2004&txtname=&page=3
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A26933-2004Aug23.html
http://old.post-gazette.com/pg/10109/1051564-152.stm
http://caselaw.findlaw.com/dc-court-of-appeals/1600662.html
http://www.post-gazette.com/opinion/ruth-ann-dailey/2010/04/26/Nader-nobly-battles-Pa-corruption-cont/stories/201004260195
http://www.post-gazette.com/news/state/2012/02/12/Bonusgate-timeline/stories/201202121884
http://www.leagle.com/decision/In%20FDCO%2020150727958/Constitution%20Party%20of%20Pennsylvania%20v.%20Cortes
http://www.post-gazette.com/business/2014/01/05/Nader-retaliates-for-PNC-Bank-s-handling-of-court-order/stories/201401050164
bettyellen
(47,209 posts)Seems like you would prefer to blame Dems instead of thinking it through. Ya think maybe the RNC has just as big of a role in this? Sheesh.
JonLeibowitz
(6,282 posts)My post about ballot access for general elections, and was not about the primaries. See my posts upthread about DNC shenanigans.
bettyellen
(47,209 posts)trying to suppress the vote among minorities for ages. Not sure if they are considering Nader at all- why would they?
JonLeibowitz
(6,282 posts)and how they abuse the legal process to limit ballot access for other candidates.
noretreatnosurrender
(1,890 posts)My guess is that your opinion is probably influenced by a bad case of the election season flu that has infected so many here on DU.
geek tragedy
(68,868 posts)major party candidates have done in recent memory:
Donald Trump and Bernie Sanders.
JonLeibowitz
(6,282 posts)The problem is the JFC is washing/laundering the big dollar donations (in excess of the contributions allowed to HFA, $2700) to solicit small dollar donations to HFA. Those are outreach dollars that would otherwise have to be spent by HFA, since money is fungible. This is the source of the in-kind donation complaint.
Abusing the spirit certainly, if not the letter (IANAL), of campaign finance regulations is not what I would consider to be the interests of the Democratic Party that I am a member of.
geek tragedy
(68,868 posts)it gets from the fund, if it gets 90% of the funds, it pays 90% of the costs.
This is just Bernader revealing his true nature, that of third party saboteur,
JonLeibowitz
(6,282 posts)"HFA pays the costs of the HVF in direct proportion to the amount of money it gets from the fund, if it gets 90% of the funds, it pays 90% of the costs."
I'm not sure what you mean by this: if HVF gives $1000 to HFA, then HFA pays $1000 to HVF for their costs? That doesn't actually result in a net transfer of funds.
My understanding is this: HVF is not "giving" money to HFA from the fund. HVF is using that money to run voter outreach to raise dollars for HFA, not the HVF or state committees. That's where the "in kind" accusation comes from. The HVF is using money to raise "clean" money in donations for HFA.
Is that right?
geek tragedy
(68,868 posts)JonLeibowitz
(6,282 posts)They use substantial sums of that money to raise more money in small $ donations for HFA.
Jefferson23
(30,099 posts)geek tragedy
(68,868 posts)gets.
Sanders is bamboozling his supporters in order to (a) hate Hillary; (b) hate the DNC; and (c) separate them from another $27 (maybe so the campaign pays for a trip so he can fly to see the Dalai Lama next).
JonLeibowitz
(6,282 posts)If HVF sends a mailer out with a total cost of $50 (postage + printing + man-hours to produce the card) and the receiver of the direct mailer decides donates $2700, the % is greater than 100.
geek tragedy
(68,868 posts)HFV payments to HFA/total HFV payments to HFA/DNC/state parties = HFA payments to cover HFV expenses/total HFV expenses
JonLeibowitz
(6,282 posts)Is that in the numerator, the denominator? which side of the equation?
You keep dodging the point about the direct mail campaign raising money for HFA while being a HVF expense.
Oh, and I do math in my job (studied math for my college degree), so please dispense with the condescending snark.
geek tragedy
(68,868 posts)Clinton has the best campaign lawyers in the country working on this.
JonLeibowitz
(6,282 posts)denominator, numerator? which side?
(btw, Nixon had some very good lawyers working for him too. What he did was still illegal)
JonLeibowitz
(6,282 posts)geek tragedy
(68,868 posts)Will let my vote speak for me tomorrow.
JonLeibowitz
(6,282 posts)It's okay.
Enjoy the voting.
lumberjack_jeff
(33,224 posts)If this is to be believed, HVF is doing HFA no favors by forcing HFA to pay the bills.
q) "Hey guys, I have this idea. You're prohibited from taking money from drug dealers, right? How about I spend the drug dealers money on advertisements directed at law abiding folks to get them to buy your stuff instead?"
a) "Isn't that money laundering?"
q) "Yeah, I suppose. How about, to make it legit, you would reimburse me from your legal business for those costs of fundraising?
a) "WTF? What good does that do me?"
I've concluded that Clinton supporters will believe anything and expect that everyone else is as gullible.
JonLeibowitz
(6,282 posts)It's a pity, because it's really a very interesting approach to money laundering. Kudos to their deviant minds for thinking this up.
Jefferson23
(30,099 posts)As well as her horrific judgment on foreign policy...no biggie.
geek tragedy
(68,868 posts)Well, not true, Nader never pretended to be anything other than what he is.
Jefferson23
(30,099 posts)heads in the sand.
If Bernie were an allegedly true Democrat, he should start taking money from WS,
that way your side would not be so confused.
geek tragedy
(68,868 posts)Jefferson23
(30,099 posts)geek tragedy
(68,868 posts)CruzinNCrying
(17 posts)what dismissing Nader got ya?
NCTraveler
(30,481 posts)Letter from the FEC to his campaign about donor issues.
http://docquery.fec.gov/pdf/988/201602110300034988/201602110300034988.pdf
Another
http://docquery.fec.gov/pdf/619/201602250300038619/201602250300038619.pdf
This has turned into a fundraising tactic for them. It works.
Jefferson23
(30,099 posts)Joint committee helps state parties, but spends most of its cash boosting Clinton.
By Kenneth P. Vogel
04/16/16 12:14 AM EDT
Hillary Clinton in the first three months of the year raised $33 million into a joint account her campaign formed with Democratic Party committees, according to a report filed Friday night with the Federal Election Commission.
The report shows that the joint account, called the Hillary Victory Fund, spent heavily trying to develop a small donor base for Clintons presidential campaign, but also took advantage of its unique structure to raise nearly $5 million from just 14 mega-rich donors, including entertainment titans Barry Diller, James Cameron and Haim Saban.
The fund comprises Clintons presidential campaign committee, as well as the Democratic National Committee and 32 state party committees. As a result, it can accept checks as large as $358,000 per person a total determined by the maximum donation to each of its component committees ($5,400 to the Clinton campaign, $33,400 to the DNC and $10,000 to each of the state parties).
The idea is that the committee will help the state parties raise money for their general election efforts, an area where Clintons allies argue that her insurgent rival for the Democratic presidential nomination Bernie Sanders has done little. Sanders has a joint fundraising committee, as well, but it has been relatively inactive.
Yet, during the first three months of the year, the $2 million transferred by the Hillary Victory Fund to various state party committees paled in comparison to the $9.5 million it transferred to Clintons campaign committee or the $3.5 million it transferred to the DNC.
Read more: http://www.politico.com/story/2016/04/hillary-clinton-committee-raised-33-million-222044#ixzz46Dd5lzR1
snip*Brad Deutsch, the lawyer for the Sanders campaign, wrote an open letter to DNC chairwoman Debbie Wasserman Schultz arguing that the Clinton campaign's Hillary Victory Fund, the joint account between the campaign and various Democratic Party committees, "skirts legal limits on federal campaign donations." The fund is made up of the Clinton campaign, 32 state Democratic committees, and the DNC.
https://berniesanders.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/04/Bernie-2016-Letter-to-DNC-1.pdf
http://www.politico.com/blogs/2016-dem-primary-live-updates-and-results/2016/04/sanders-clinton-dnc-campaign-finance-laws-222102
Skwmom
(12,685 posts)passiveporcupine
(8,175 posts)What is 'odd' is the insane hissyfit some members here have had over Bernie campaign errors on donation reports turned into the FEC.
This actually might have legs.
It's a little soon to be posting about it though, because we don't know the outcome...just like we didn't know the outcome of Bernie's campaign reporting errors. Oh wait...he must be going to jail soon. I must have missed it.
geek tragedy
(68,868 posts)JonLeibowitz
(6,282 posts)geek tragedy
(68,868 posts)JonLeibowitz
(6,282 posts)riversedge
(70,242 posts)...So legally this seems weak.
And politically, it is quite odd for Sanders, who would need the DNCs support to win the presidency should be be the Democratic nominee, to be attacking the DNC. (Then again, Trump has relentlessly attacked the RNC, so this must be the celebration of the season.)
ismnotwasm
(41,989 posts)Since Sanders had his own FEC, uh, peccadillos, to look after,
geek tragedy
(68,868 posts)ismnotwasm
(41,989 posts)Yet another cluster.
riversedge
(70,242 posts)Brian Fallon @brianefallon 2h2 hours ago
Sanders, last month: "We'll win NY!"
Sanders, last wk: "We'll win NY!"
Sanders, on eve of NY: "Hey look at our bogus allegation abt the DNC"