2016 Postmortem
Related: About this forumClinton can't "fire" Brock. That would be illegal.
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
(6,498 posts)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
(56,582 posts)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
(6,107 posts)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
(56,582 posts)Seriously. If you have any indication she is, you should tell the FEC about it. These innuendos are just pathetic.
HERVEPA
(6,107 posts)Recursion
(56,582 posts)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
(6,107 posts)One needs to not be cynical in order to be progressive? What planet do you live on?
reddread
(6,896 posts)god bless the status quo
Dem2
(8,168 posts)I could not have said it better myself.
HERVEPA
(6,107 posts)Kentonio
(4,377 posts)They have claimed that it is not in breach of FEC regulations because they are purely internet based.
Recursion
(56,582 posts)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
(4,377 posts)They consider it a loophole in the rules.
Recursion
(56,582 posts)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
(4,377 posts)Recursion
(56,582 posts)I seriously haven't seen that.
Kentonio
(4,377 posts)..."
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
(56,582 posts)I hope the FEC fines the Clinton campaign for it
Kentonio
(4,377 posts)Personally I find campaigns donating to SuperPACs to be more disturbing. That just seems totally wrong.
questionseverything
(9,662 posts)apologize perhaps?
snagglepuss
(12,704 posts)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
(56,582 posts)If you really think campaigns don't follow the law, you sound closer to Free Republic than Democratic Underground to me.
snagglepuss
(12,704 posts)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
(56,582 posts)Since you believe doctors' and hospitals' lobbies will hopelessly corrupt elected officials.
Bill USA
(6,436 posts)Lizzie Poppet
(10,164 posts)But the rules don't apply to Princess Weathervane. It's her time, goddammit!!
Recursion
(56,582 posts)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
(6,498 posts)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
(16,974 posts)Directly coordinate, old news
Recursion
(56,582 posts)That's some amazingly phantom "public" statements.
Warren Stupidity
(48,181 posts)You should research first and then give us the lectures.
Armstead
(47,803 posts)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
(9,688 posts)http://www.latimes.com/politics/la-na-hillary-clinton-super-pac-20160117-story.html
"...But Clintons 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
(1,947 posts)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
(9,688 posts)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
(56,582 posts)This is precisely the problem
Armstead
(47,803 posts)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
(9,688 posts)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 workas opposed to broadcast communications or other paid mediaallows it to legally coordinate with the campaign.
Experts say Brocks 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
(5,252 posts)I'm just wondering what low-life she'd say, "Hey, I can't have this guy around. Please replace him. Thank you."
Recursion
(56,582 posts)Seriously. Why are you asking a candidate to break the law?
stone space
(6,498 posts)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.
Response to Recursion (Reply #16)
WhaTHellsgoingonhere This message was self-deleted by its author.
Paulie
(8,462 posts)Which would be equivalent to firing.
http://www.msnbc.com/msnbc/hillary-clinton-campaign-rebukes-top-ally-david-brock
WhaTHellsgoingonhere
(5,252 posts)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
(56,582 posts)WhaTHellsgoingonhere
(5,252 posts)Kentonio
(4,377 posts)Their 2nd highest donor is Hillary's own campaign.
Loudestlib
(980 posts)Kentonio
(4,377 posts)To Brock's superPAC Correct the Record. They were the biggest contributor until Xmas.
reformist2
(9,841 posts)Duckhunter935
(16,974 posts)DirectlyDirectly coordinate
Recursion
(56,582 posts)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
(9,688 posts)How a super PAC plans to coordinate directly with Hillary Clintons 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 organizations 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
(14,524 posts)... are the ones made by this OP.
Patently and deliberately false. Delusional.
jmg257
(11,996 posts)...
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 campaigns 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 groups 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 workas opposed to broadcast communications or other paid mediaallows it to legally coordinate with the campaign.
stone space
(6,498 posts)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?