Spending $2700 to "bribe" a candidate is about the stupidest investment scheme you can

[DanTex]

think of. Buying $2700 worth of lottery tickets would have a better return.

Think about it. In order for this to actually work, your $2700 has to convince the politician to adopt some policy that is beneficial for your employer, who then in turn makes greater profits, and pays out bigger salaries and bonuses, which nets you a benefit of at least $2700. It's totally implausible.

Since campaigns raise hundreds of millions of dollars, the amount of influence you buy is going to be on the order of 0.001% of the total donations. But even if that 0.001% actually has some kind of "bribery" effect, the benefit of whatever legislation you are hoping to pass doesn't go to you directly, it goes to your entire industry. You're not going to get a law saying "DanTex gets a big check from the government".

Whatever kick-back your industry gets from your bribe is going to have to be shared with everyone else who works in that industry or owns stock in that industry. So even under a totally absurd scenario, where a $2700 contribution results in an industry-wide kickback of say $2.7M (which would be 1000-1 return on investment), you're still not going to see anywhere near your original $2700 in bonus money to you.

But, wait, you say. Maybe one donation won't do it, but if a lot of employees donate, that could have some aggregate effect. Well, if you believe that, than the thing to do is not donate any of your own money, but freeload off of everyone else's donations. Obviously. Your $2700 is going to do nothing, let the other suckers pay the bribes, while you reap your share of the benefits.

Oh, and if anyone understands this, it's people who work an Wall Street. Say what you will about them, but they understand returns on investments.

The conspiracy theories being peddled about this are just plain dumb.

[GeorgiaPeanuts]

1. That is another lie... They spend way more by contributing as much as they want to the SuperPac.. nt

[Warren Stupidity]

2. You have to admire the dedicated posting of idiotic horseshit.

[Jefferson23]

6. Non stop too. n/t

[DanTex]

7. I'm posting facts. Corporations are not allowed to donate to campaigns.

And for employees of a corporation to donate on their employer's behalf to try and get a bigger bonus out of it is plainly stupid. Any corporation who employs people that dumb will soon be out of business.

[WDIM]

13. They donate to super pacs and foundations though. nt

[DanTex]

16. Not so far. The SuperPACs backing both Bernie and Hillary have been funded by

individuals and unions. But, I agree, it is a problem, which is why I agree with Hillary that CU needs to be overturned.

[insta8er]

42. But he gets a response, so he keeps doing it.

[DanTex]

4. SuperPACs are much more abusive, which is why Hillary wants to overturn CU.

But the conspiracies about "corporate money" that people have been spreading are with regards to individual campaign contributions. All those internet memes you see of all the money she has supposedly taken "from Wall Street" and all that, that's money that came from individual employees in amounts of $2700 or less.

[GeorgiaPeanuts]

8. Not really... to me whether your campaign committee or your SuperPac receives corporate money...

All the same to me

And I am very skeptical she wants to overturn Citizen's United when she is one of the biggest users and abusers of the SuperPac addiction. She has even boasted she uses loopholes to directly coordinate with her SuperPac.

[DanTex]

11. A campaign has no control over SuperPACs.

Also, neither Bernie's SuperPAC nor Hillary's have been funded by corporations thus far. The contributors have been unions and individuals.

[GeorgiaPeanuts]

14. Another LIE.... She is directly coordinating with her superpac

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

I consider her SuperPac like the propaganda ministry of the Nazis. The crap and lies from that SuperPac get posted here regularly in the form of BNR articles.

[DanTex]

20. Very minor, and they don't coordinate in fundraising. Bernie has also made appearances with NNU

which is funding his SuperPAC. Sure, there's a little coordination in reality, but they are basically run separately. And the campaign certainly has no say over who is donating to the SuperPAC.

[RiverLover]

3. $280 MILLION so far in 2016 election in SuperPAC money. Sanders & Trump not getting in on

the buy-off of the US govt.

But Hillary sure is!

How this year’s super PACs got so fat — day by day by day…
Open secrets
by Will Tucker on March 30, 2016

http://www.opensecrets.org/news/2016/03/how-this-years-super-pacs-got-so-fat-day-by-day-by-day/

She is going to owe a lot of favors if We The People are unlucky enough to have this DINO as our president.

I believe she calls them "commitments" as her emails have shown.

[DanTex]

5. Sanders also has a SuperPAC backing him.

[RiverLover]

9. I think you mean fanny pack.

Bernie Sanders doesn’t have a super PAC, but now he has a fanny pack
It was a gift from Jimmy Kimmel.
http://www.boston.com/news/tv/2016/03/23/who-needs-super-pac-bernie-sanders-fanny-pack

[DanTex]

12. The NNU SuperPAC is squarely behind Bernie.

[RiverLover]

17. But he has absolutley nothing to do with them. While Hillary's superpac is breaking campaign regs

in their obvious coordination.

[DanTex]

19. No campaign has any control over their SuperPACs. Bernie has made appearances with

NNU, and in fact there is an FEC complaint citing multiple incidents of coordination between his campaign and the NNU SuperPAC.

[RiverLover]

30. Hillary is raising money for her superpacs! & she had to rename one so it would still be legal.

Hillary Clinton Says She Does Not Coordinate With Super PAC She Reportedly Raised Money For
http://www.ibtimes.com/political-capital/hillary-clinton-says-she-does-not-coordinate-super-pac-she-reportedly-raised-money

Hillary Clinton plans to coordinate directly with super PAC
http://www.cbsnews.com/news/hillary-clinton-plans-to-coordinate-directly-with-super-pac/

Players you should know

To start with, here are the names you need to know and how they fit under our current campaign finance system.2

Ready for Hillary PAC (hybrid super PAC)
Ready PAC (hybrid super PAC, formerly Ready for Hillary)
Hillary for America (candidate PAC)
Priorities USA Action (super PAC)
Correct the Record (super PAC)
American Bridge 21st Century (super PAC)
American Bridge 21st Century Foundation (501(c)(4))
American Independent Institute (501(c)(4))
Media Matters (501(c)(3))
The Bonner Group

Now that you know who is involved, here’s the story we know right now of the money backing Hillary. It's rather lengthy so in this post we'll cover Ready for Hillary, Ready PAC, and Priorities USA Action. We'll be looking at the rest later in the week.

First of all, it’s important to point out that the Hillary Clinton political fundraising machine started a full two years before she declared she was running for president. (At least, the one actually associated with her name did.)

On Jan. 25, 2013, Ready for Hillary formally organized by filing paperwork with the FEC. Clinton was directly involved with the super PAC at that point — you may remember the “Ready for Hillary” bus? Clinton was promoting her new book “Hard Choices” at that time (much like Ben Carson is promoting his book "Gifted Hands" now) and doing speaking events around the country.

Between January 2013 and when Clinton announced her intention to run for president in April 2015, Ready for Hillary raised about $12.9 million and spent $12.1 million. It ended the year in 2014 with $748,469 cash on hand.

Some notable donors during that time include billionaire Warren Buffett ($25,000) and Patricia Hoppey, the founder of direct mail marketing company Pivot ($60,000).

On its website, 270 Strategies documents its involvement in Ready for Hillary and offers it as case study in “tapping into organic grassroots energy around a potential Hillary Clinton presidential run.” It notes various steps taken during the 2014 campaign to “get out the vote” and to recruit volunteers to create “a movement nearly 4 million strong.”

On April 12, 2015, Hillary Clinton announced her intention to run for president, and Ready for Hillary evolved into its next iteration — Ready PAC — which we'll discuss further below.

Hillary for America

After her announcement, funds poured into her candidate committee, Hillary for America. In fact, since her announcement, her PAC has raised more than $77 million dollars from 84,741 different transactions. So far, it has spent $44 million of that, including $4 million in online ads with the firm Bully Pulpit Interactive as well as $3.3 million in media buys and $5 million in direct marketing.

The Washington Post did a fine job recently of breaking down the complexities and the money involved in the Bill and Hillary campaign fundraising efforts. So for this part of our post, we’ll refer you to their excellent and extensive work.

Ready PAC

*******The day after Hillary announced her intention to run for President, Ready for Hillary officially changed its name to Ready PAC. Under FEC rules, super PACs are not allowed to coordinate with the candidate or the candidate’s committee, nor are they allowed to use the candidate’s name. Ready for Hillary had to change its name to keep operating.*********

Read in full, PLENTY of info~
https://sunlightfoundation.com/blog/2015/12/01/super-pacs-dark-money-and-the-hillary-clinton-campaign-part-1/

[DanTex]

33. And Bernie has made appearances for NNU. Sure, there's a little cross-over, but mainly

they are independent entities.

[GeorgiaPeanuts]

35. Some of those are even dark money groups.... Discusting! nt

[dogman]

23. I didn't know that nursing was such a lucrative career. Real 1%ers there.

But is National Nurses United for Patient Protection a superPAC? The question leads down the rabbit hole of campaign finance law.

Here's what sets it apart from the presidential superPACs.

First, its donor list. The other superPACs are financed largely by millionaires. As for the NNU committee, "It's funded exclusively by our members," said Michael Lighty, the union's public policy director.

http://www.npr.org/2015/11/19/456560662/superpac-or-not-this-group-has-money-to-bern-for-sanders

[DanTex]

25. No it's not, but it is still a SuperPAC.

[WDIM]

10. They donate millions to superpacs and foundations.

The big money for all candidates but Bernie Sanders comes from super pacs not individual donations to the campaign.

[Marr]

15. Today I learned from DanTex that there is zero corporate money in politics.

Seriously, who do you think you're kidding with this nonsense?

[DanTex]

18. You learned that corporations are not allowed to donate to campaigns.

I'm surprised how many people didn't know that. Go figure.

[RiverLover]

22. They think we're naive idiots. Its their undoing

with such a gross underestimation of our intelligence.

And no one who claims zero corporate money in politics is supporting We The People, they work for the corps buying our "Democracy" & are supporting the continued purchase of our political system.

[Octafish]

21. That's why all the money for speeches: $250,000 a pop.

Cost effective, you know.

[Hassin Bin Sober]

29. Saves on postage.

[Octafish]

45. You know just how many people 5 million individual contributors are?

Each sending $25 takes 10,000 for the take from just one speech is a lot of stamps. A LOT of stamps.

[Armstead]

24. Let it go Dan.....Politics has been corrupted by Corporate Cash. This is widely known and assumed

Even Clinton acknowledges that basic fact of modern American life.

[DanTex]

26. Sorry, not letting facts go. I agree that there's too much money in politics, but

the nutty conspiracy theories are just that.

[Armstead]

28. You mean the nutty conspiracy theories that even Clinton admits?

[Csainvestor]

27. The Hillary Super Pacs are where the real money is

Billionaires fund Hillary super pacs with tens and tens of millions.

[DanTex]

32. So why all the conspiracy theories and internet memes trying to conflate individual

campaign donations with "corporate money" from employers.

I agree that CU has to go, and SuperPACs are prone to abuse and corruption, but as long as it's the law, I sure don't want to surrender unilaterally to the GOP. The people funding her SuperPAC are wealthy liberals like George Soros and Tom Steyer, who have donated a lot of money over the years to liberal causes like the environment, etc. I'm glad there are wealthy liberals stepping up to the plate to fight against the Koch Brothers/Sheldon Adelsen money.

[Tom Rinaldo]

31. In addition to SupePACS, have you ever heard of "bundlers"? n/t

[DanTex]

36. Bundlers bundle money from other individual donors. There is no corporate money there,

no matter how you try to spin it. And I'm surprised that so many Bernie supporters didn't know (and many still refuse to believe) that corporations are prohibited by law from making campaign contributions.

[Tom Rinaldo]

38. Life is not quite that pure

Yes officially bundled donations all come from individuals without any corporate connection - but bundlers frequently personally recruit individual donors with shared corporate ties. Either with or without good reason, those who respond affirmatively often know what is expected of them and why.

[DanTex]

39. It's not just "officially", it's factually.

And, a "corporate connection" is something that most members of the American workforce have.

Like I said in the OP, anyone who thinks they're going to get their money's worth from a $2700 "bribe" is a total idiot.

[salinsky]

34. Sorry, but by law candidates do NOT control superpacs ...

... nor do they control outside groups who may support them.

So, if you want to claim Hillary is owned by the superpac that supports her, you must also accept the fact that Bernie is owned by the NRA that ran an ad in support of him.

Let's at least have some consistency.

[DanTex]

37. This is correct. And Bernie also owns Karl Rove's group that ran ads for him during the primary

to try to weaken Hillary.

[inchhigh]

40. I think the mistake is thinking of it as a bribe

They don't give her money to change her opinion. They give her money because they believe she already supports the same policies they do. It's not a bribe. The good news is they're not trying to buy her support. The bad news is they don't need to.

[DanTex]

41. This is true. People who donate to a candidate do so because that they agree with

that candidate on the issues. Any candidate.

[salinsky]

44. The idea that people who work for the fossil fuel industry gave money to a superpac ...

that supports Hillary because they know deep down that she will be soft on global warming and CO2 may be the most sophomoric smear of a primary that began as substantive and issue-oriented, but is descending rapidly into rightwing conspiracy theory nuttery.

I really thought Bernie was better than this, and it was just his supporters who wallowed in demagoguery.

Guess I was wrong.

[inchhigh]

46. These are not just "people who work for" the industry

They aren't just "rank and file" janitors or truck drivers who may or may not care about the future of the industry. Maybe they like her views on worker safety or highway maintenance.

Much of the money is from Lobbyists whose job is to affect legislation in ways that benefit the industry.

Why would those people most likely support someone?

[4Q2u2]

43. Hillary's Best SuperPAC

Drum Roll

is the DNC. No need to dirty your hands when the Corporate Political Structure is there for you.

https://www.reddit.com/r/SandersForPresident/comments/47q6c0/alice_walton_just_donated_353000_to_hillarys_dnc/

[jmg257]

47. That's right - lobbyist bundlers are not corporations, they are only the corp's clients...

or something.

[whatchamacallit]

48. Thrashing like a drowning man

Hard to watch.