Hillary won't take Super PAC money either: Bernie, PACs, and Super PACs

[BainsBane]

Last edited Sat Jul 18, 2015, 05:50 PM - Edit history (1)

O'Malley won't take Super Pac money. Not even Ted Cruz, Scott Walker, or Jeb Bush will take Super PAC money. You know why? It's illegal for Super PACs to give money to candidates. Yet Hillary isn't trying to fool the electorate into believing she is above it all by making a grand announcement that she won't take money that is already illegal to take.

Technically known as independent expenditure-only committees, Super may raise unlimited sums of money from corporations, unions, associations and individuals, then spend unlimited sums to overtly advocate for or against political candidates. Super must, however, report their donors to the Federal Election Commission on a monthly or quarterly basis -- the Super choice -- as a traditional PAC would. Unlike traditional , Super are prohibited from donating money directly to political candidates.
https://www.opensecrets.org/pacs/superpacs.php

It's easy to promise something no candidate can do anyway. So why is Bernie making a promise when he knows he can't take money from Super PACs anyway? He's counting on the electorate being uninformed about campaign finance. He's counting on gullibility.

Bernie does take money from PACs and has throughout his career. One PAC that has supported him for over a decade, whose treasurer is Bernie's his Field Director, was recently fined for violating the already far too meager campaign finance law . http://www.timesargus.com/article/20150704/NEWS03/707049936

I have been told Bernie disavows any PAC activity on his behalf, but if that were true, why would he continue to keep in a high position within the campaign the Treasurer of a long-term PAC for Bernie? And why has he accepted money from that PAC?

Super PACs can't contribute directly to candidates, but they can run ads and campaign on behalf of candidates. That is precisely the purpose of the Super PACs set up around Sanders presidential campaign:
I know of two, but there may well be more.
1) Bet on Bernie 2016 http://www.pledgesanders2016.com/

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

So perhaps, just perhaps, before people call the country's first viable female candidate for the presidency a "whore," and accuse her for taking "bribes" for doing exactly what every president you have voted for does, you ought to think twice. Perhaps you ought to think about the campaign finance system rather than pretending it's all about an awful woman who dares to exceed her place in life by doing exactly what male candidates you have voted for do. Perhaps you ought to think about why you are heralding Bernie Sanders as superior to not only every other politician but also voters who dare to ask questions, when he makes empty promises about not taking money from Super PACs?

Clinton isn't pandering to the public about Super PACs. She isn't pretending she is special for following the law. She knows the problem of money in politics is a systemic issue that hinges around SCOTUS, which is why she has pledged to appoint judges who will overturn Citizens United. She also supports a constitutional amendment to overturn it and legislation to get Dark Money out of politics.

Sanders is a politician. He is not the messiah. He advances some very important issues, but he is not prefect, as his empty claims on Super PACs reveal. You as a citizen have an obligation to inform yourself on issues of campaign finance, even if doing so counters the claims of a politician you support.

Now, I don't post this to convince people to vote for Clinton in the primary. I know full well that is a lost cause for most here. Moreover, I fully respect your right to make your own democratic choices in the primary. What I am FED UP with is the false accusations, name calling, and fabrications directed against her. She is in fact a leading Democratic candidate for the presidency and she has a strong chance of being the nominee, whether you like it or not. On the GOP side, the nominee is more likely to be a Tea Bagger than not, probably Scott Walker. So think twice about whether supporting Sanders requires promoting false claims that may work to suppress the vote in the general election and help usher in a Tea Bag presidency.

[arcane1]

1. You figured out how Super-PACs work!

Welcome to the club!

And there is a huge difference between a PAC and a Super-PAC. I can't wait for your OP once you figure that out.

[BainsBane]

5. The OP explains both

And it points to an article about campaign finance violations long-term PAC that Bernie takes money from, a PAC run by his field director.

Are you going to tell Bernie supporters who make that claim as a reason to support him that the promise is moot?

[arcane1]

7. Who make what claim?

Your OP is filled with claims. You could've just said "Sanders isn't the messiah" and spared yourself the semantics.

[BainsBane]

13. The claim oft repeated that he has sworn not to take money from Super PACs

I provide lots of evidence for my points, for the laws about super PACs, the existence of Super PACs for Bernie, and an article about his field director being fined for violating campaign finance law with his PAC. You focus on the word messiah in order to distract from the issue. It is clear to me that the problem of the campaign finance system means far less to you than Sanders political career. I find that impossible to respect.

[arcane1]

14. We've known about the (non-Super) PACs all along. They're in that donation graph of Clinton/Sanders

The one that some claim proves Clinton is getting all this banker money, and gets debunked and rebunked and fought over? There are PAC donations right in there.

[BainsBane]

17. So what you care about is money that goes to Clinton

but money that goes to Sanders is okay. That right there is why we have a seriously problem. Until people start to care about the issue and demand more than platitudes, the problem will only get worse. Action requires organization. It requires a constitutional amendment, which means working with people other than the 17% who support Sanders. It requires caring about something other than who occupies the oval office.

The problem is not individuals. It is the system. As long as you make it about individuals, you avoid even discussing, let alone doing anything, about it.

[Sheepshank]

30. Fact of the matter is that Bernie supporters don't know he has personal affiliation with PACs

I've been asked at least 5 times just in the last week to offer support for my statements regarding Bernie and his affiliation with PACs. Especially the PAC where Bernie has campaign Personnel also serving I a financial capacity with a pro Bernie pac.

The other fact of the matter is that there a lot of pro Bernie supporters that have been told that Bernie's honesty and non financially corrupt status will never be blemished because he will never accept PAC money. OPs like this attempts to clear up a very widespread misconception that permeates a large swath of Bernie supporters...this same supporters unwittingly promoting and spreading a lie.

[George II]

35. Over the years Sanders has gotten a higher percentage of his contributions from PACs than....

....Clinton has, and a lower percentage of his contributions from individuals than Clinton has.

[George II]

34. She (he? if so sorry!) already did explain the difference between the two.

[mcar]

2. Stop being logical BB!

It hurts the "everything Hillary does is bad" narrative.

[shenmue]

40. I hate when that happens

[virtualobserver]

3. Hillary is raising money for her SuperPAC

Sanders campaign spokesman Michael Briggs told Boston.com that Sanders does not want billionaires spending unlimited amounts of money for him, or any other candidate

http://www.boston.com/news/politics/2015/07/16/supporter-creates-super-pac-for-bernie-sanders-who-hates-super-pacs/TTiyTWZkp7W09L0cwdmk4I/story.html

[BainsBane]

9. “It’s a free country,” he said.

Yeah, he seems really broken up about it.

"unlimited amounts of money" means unlimited. Even billionaires have limited amounts of money. It's a statement that means nothing. It doesn't even say he doesn't want them contributing to Super PACs in his name.

Your article provides no evidence that Clinton is raising money for her Super Pac. If you have any, you should report it to the FEC. At least provide a link so we can see if there is any actual evidence to support the point.

So I conclude from your response that you don't care that he makes empty claims about not taking Super PAC money that count on an uninformed electorate?

[virtualobserver]

12. I repeat....

Sanders campaign spokesman Michael Briggs told Boston.com that Sanders does not want billionaires spending unlimited amounts of money for him, or any other candidate.

Is that clear enough?


Hillary is RAISING money for her SuperPAC.
Is that clear enough?


http://www.nytimes.com/2015/05/07/us/politics/hillary-clinton-to-court-donors-for-super-pac.html?_r=0

[BainsBane]

15. then I suggest you consult the dictionary

for the definition of the word unlimited. It is an empty statement, not unlike the promise not to take money from Super PACs. But it satisfied you, so who cares if Billionaires fund Super PACS for Bernie?

As for Clinton and Super PACs, that sucks. It sucks majorly. It as well as Sanders' Super PACs and PACS in general point to why we need to change the LAWS on campaign finance, which can only be done through SCOTUS or a constitutional amendment. Your favorite pol can't do it alone, which you should know.

[virtualobserver]

20. If you can't see the difference between Hillary raising money for her SuperPAC....

and Bernie saying he wants nothing to do with them.

I am at a loss for words.


Joe Biden disagrees with you, BTW

"Folks, we ought to start in our own party. You ought to be demanding of all of us, all of us, because at least in our own party fights among ourselves, in primaries, that we adhere to a policy that doesn't rest on millionaires and billionaires," Biden said Thursday during a speech in Washington.

"They're good people. They're not bad, per se," Biden said to those gathered at the Generation Progress National Summit. "But it's a hell of a way to run a democracy."

"So the first place you got to start is in the Democratic Party. No matter how much you love me or somebody else, you have to demand of us that we demonstrate that we understand," he said.

http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/248331-biden-dems-shouldnt-rely-on-millionaires-and-billionaires

[George II]

36. Is that illegal? She's going to need hundreds of millions of dollars once she's the nominee...

...to counter the SuperPAC money raised by some of her potential rivals.

All this bluster about where money comes from is just that, bluster. The Citizens United decision dramatically changed the rules.

[virtualobserver]

37. no, but this thread is trying to imply that Bernie is doing exactly the same thing....

and he isn't.....that is the point.

[George II]

41. Yet. In fact, if a SuperPAC decides to spend millions of dollars to support Sanders' campaign....

....do you think he'll implore them not to?

To me the intent of OP is to show the fallacy of Sanders' proclamation that he won't accept any SuperPac money when, in fact if he did he would be violating the law. NO candidate can accept such money but the others don't feel the need to proclaim publicly that they won't.

It's like holding a press conference and declaring "I will obey ALL FEC laws". BFD.

[virtualobserver]

43. I am forced to type this over and over and over and over

Sanders campaign spokesman Michael Briggs told Boston.com that Sanders does not want billionaires spending unlimited amounts of money for him, or any other candidate

http://www.boston.com/news/politics/2015/07/16/supporter-creates-super-pac-for-bernie-sanders-who-hates-super-pacs/TTiyTWZkp7W09L0cwdmk4I/story.html

accept reality.....he means what he says.

[George II]

44. I know his spokesperson has said that, but its well known already that it's going to happen.

[virtualobserver]

48. It was announced by someone who (1) has never met Bernie

and (2) is defying Bernie in even creating this SuperPAC.

All this will do is piss Bernie off. He doesn't want someone tampering with his message.

[Agnosticsherbet]

4. They can not take money, but Colbert and Jon Stewart proved that there is no real impediment,

as long as appearances are kept.

I appreciate that article. Very well done.

[BainsBane]

10. Thanks. Yes, I remember that

Indeed, the system is rotten. That is why I submit focusing on one man as the savior, and one woman as the problem, is a false construct that doesn't address how deep the problem runs.

[arcane1]

16. "Focusing on one man as the savior" is a strawman, and is not based in real life.

It's your invention. It's a made-up claim to make Sanders supporters appear to have an irrational, supernatural ideal of him, and your attempt to disguise it under all this PAC/Super-PAC talk is clearly obvious.

Just come out and say it.

[BainsBane]

18. Hardly made-up

It's obvious to anyone who isn't in on it. Look how people react to any discussion of any issue. They claim any criticism or even a question is a "smear." They become outraged that anyone question the great man. I'm not even making an effort to conceal the obvious. It just wasn't the point of the OP. Those out of proportion expectations are so obvious as to not even require pointing out.

It is not a strawman. Virtually every thread about him on DU contains evidence of it. I hear folks did the same about Obama, though I wasn't here then. That's how people could go through a campaign believing he was promoting single payer and wouldn't escalate in Afghanistan, whereas anyone who actually paid attention to what he said would know exactly what he said in regard to those issues.

[Agnosticsherbet]

6. Stewart and Colbert's resoltuionon Superpac's (Link below)

http://thecolbertreport.cc.com/videos/av6bvx/colbert-super-pac---coordination-resolution-with-jon-stewart

[guillaumeb]

8. Very nicely said. Recommended.

But your last paragraph says it all:
"Now, I don't post this to convince people to vote for Clinton in the primary. I know full well that is a lost cause for most here. Moreover, I fully respect your right to make your own democratic choices in the primary."

Probably many here have a favorite candidate, and a ranking of preferred candidates. But that ranking should not distract people from realizing that in a country where gerrymandering by the GOP has risen to an art form, Democrats never have the luxury of only voting for the purest, or most liberal, or most progressive candidate to the exclusion of all others.

When that happens, generally in non-Presidential elections, the GOP generally takes advantage of a low turnout to make far better gains than could be expected. 2010 and 2014 are perfect, recent examples. Low turnout allowed the GOP to rouse their base and make huge gains.

[sadoldgirl]

11. We all know that candidates are not

allowed to be in contact with their super pacs. I t is also

well known that before HRC declared she was coordinating

ahead with her super pac. The FEC , since it is split 3:3

admitted that, but was unwilling to do the right thing.

[R B Garr]

19. Excellent! It's looking more like Bernie is quite the opportunist.

I would bet there are a lot of people wondering when the day(s) would come that Bernie's messages about money in politics would be exposed as the ploys they are.

He also doesn't seem to mind at all taking advantage of what others have done in the past to pave the way for him to seek the limelight now. He's benefitting from Obama breaking some of the stereotypes about candidates most recently through Obama's highly funded campaigns. He's also benefitted from Bill Clinton's prior campaigns where he slugged it out with the press as being the first candidate without a military record and having to explain his prior minimal pot use. Yet Bernie is being presented as some type of party stalwart with grand ideas, although he's never made any of the personal sacrifices or spent the political capital to bring himself to a national level until now when it's safe for him after others have done the necessary hard work. He's just an opportunist.

[Raine1967]

21. Thank you. It's been a point that I have been trying to make.

I have been saying that tBernie has received money from PACs and that he has no control over super pacs.

Never ever did I get a response.

A few weeks ago, people who were no O'MAlley supporters were VERY angry and demanded an apology from MAtin O'MAlley for the actions of a super pac. O'malley strongly discouraged such actions and even when explained to a few people that it was as much as he could do, it still seemed like not enough for a few very vocal supporters against O'MAlley.

I am tired of this as well.

No candidate is taking money from SUPER PACS.

[99th_Monkey]

22. SuperPACs are Hired Guns used by Candidates

to do their 'dirty work' the candidate themselves does not want to be associated with,
as in plausible deniability.

The reason Bernie says he doesn't want any SuperPAC support, what he's also saying
is he's got no 'dirty work' up his sleeve, so he doesn't need hired guns to do anything.

Please don't cite to me the "rule" about "SuperPACs and candidates not coordinating their
activities, because we all know candidates find creative ways (wink wink) to around the
non-coordination requirement.

[BainsBane]

23. They absolutely find creative ways

and convincing the public there is something special about not taking money from them is one such act of creativity.

Why should I believe he has no "dirty work" (your term) up his sleeve when he makes empty statements like that, when his Field Director is Treasurer of a PAC for Bernie?

The problem is the system is rotten, and it is the system that needs to be changed. That can be done only through SCOTUS or constitutional amendment.

[99th_Monkey]

24. If you feel the system is really rotten

then why aren't you a Sanders supporter?

[JaneyVee]

25. Because Hillary, who has the best shot at Prez, will appoint SCOTUS

To overturn CU.

[99th_Monkey]

27. So will Sanders

and a whole lot more good stuff. He's not blowing smoke about reinstating Glass-Steigal you know,
and on climate change he's hard to top.

[Thinkingabout]

29. It is really great to see the next president who is able to have a cordial relationship

With a former SOS and from the Republican party. It shows strength of negotiating to bring the greatest possibilities to Americans.

[99th_Monkey]

32. This is the "Club" that George Carlin was famously talking about

[Thinkingabout]

46. Hillary will make a great president, she works for Americans, all lives matter.

[99th_Monkey]

47. You better not say "all lives matter" anywhere near Netroots Nation

or you'll get your candidate in serious trouble.

[Thinkingabout]

49. I don't hide my opinion from anyone, I also do not feel threatened by Netroots.

[BainsBane]

31. One man doesn't fix a system

Particularly one that can only be solved through constitutional amendment or a new SCOTUS ruling.
Clinton also seeks to fix the system. She promises to appoint SCOTUS judges who will overturn Citizens United and to propose legislation banning dark money. She also supports a constitutional amendment to overturn C.U. None of the candidates have proposed public financing, which I believe is the only long-term solution. That too will require a constitutional amendment.

Your absurd non-sequitur about Kissinger is an example of the sort of approach to politics I loathe.
The notion that you think one Secretary of State should not appear with a former one, or be rude when she greets him, is among the most ludicrous criticisms of Clinton that exists. You can bet Kerry has met with him, as has every SoS or anyone who is prominent in diplomatic circles. Sanders likely hasn't because he has nothing to do with US diplomacy other than his Senate votes, unwavering support for Israel and efforts to arm them to fight ISIS for us.

I addressed why I support Clinton over Sanders in this post here. Rather than repeating myself I will let you read it there, if you are actually interested. http://upload.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1251&pid=434515

[daybranch]

45. If Hillary can talk to that traitor

without throwing up, I lose respect for her. Kissinger and Nixon kept the Vietnam war going by sabotaging the peace agreement being worked out by Johnson and the North Vietnamese. It is fact not theory. His betrayal resulted in thousands of additional deaths of our soldiers. But what does he care, He works for the 1 percent. We soldiers are just cannon fodder.

[George II]

38. I wonder if any of the (non-Super) PACs affiliated with Clinton have been fined?

http://www.startribune.com/federal-election-commission-fines-sanders-affiliated-pac/311605411/

Progressive Voters of America:

From their Organizational Filing:

6. Name of Any Connected Organization, Affiliated Committee, Joint Fundraising Representative, or Leadership PAC Sponsor

Bernard Sanders

[sadoldgirl]

26. Since you seem to know so much about

the super pacs for Bernie, please let me know
when they were established. If they were started
after he declared, then there is nothing connecting
him to those.

However, we know that Jeb and HRC had theirs
established before they declared and had
coordinated their campaigns with their super pacs.

[George II]

52. "Hillary Clinton's SuperPAC" was in fact created long before she announced...

....this year. It was actually created way back in 2012 by two former Obama campaign people with the objective of supporting Obama's 2012 campaign. Obviously at the time there was no plan to support Clinton in 2015. But apparently they surveyed the field and decided Clinton is the best candidate, so they're supporting her now.

There appears to be a new one maybe a month or two old, but according to news reports it's not really a "SuperPac" (yet).

[NorthCarolina]

28. It might be enough to sway some here and there, regardless of how ridiculous the claim.

Not everyone pays attention to facts, and in the end it's all a numbers game. Misinformed voters voting against their personal best interest is a thing in America.

[SoapBox]

33. Ah yes...it's the two dirty angle attacks...

1. Somehow he supports Super PACS

2. He's a racist

Slimy and dirty.

[bluestateguy]

39. That's like when a candidate brags about not taking money from corporations.

And I always say, "I know you won't, because that's been illegal for over 100 years".

[BrotherIvan]

42. We've had this thread three times this week

So I'll just repost what I did in one of them. This meme won't stick and actually just brings out the facts that make your candidate look especially bad.

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.

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.

Oops.

[MannyGoldstein]

50. OK! And of course, you can provide links to a few of the many posts

by silly DUers who didn't understand this concept?

[SunSeeker]

51. Great post. Thanks. nt