Group Backing Hillary Clinton Gets $1 Million From Anonymous Donors

[Fearless]

WASHINGTON (AP) — Hillary Rodham Clinton told a cheering crowd at her largest rally so far that "the endless flow of secret, unaccountable money" must be stopped. Two weeks later, the main super PAC backing her bid for the Democratic presidential nomination accepted a $1 million contribution that cannot be traced.

The seven-figure donation, made June 29 to the pro-Clinton Priorities USA Action, came from another super political action committee, called Fair Share Action. Its two lone contributors are Fair Share Inc. and Environment America Inc., according to records filed with Federal Election Commission.

Those two groups are nonprofits that are not legally required to reveal information about their donors. Such contributions are sometimes called "dark money" by advocates for stricter campaign finance rules.

"This appears to be an out-and-out laundering operation designed to keep secret from the public the original source of the funds given to the super PAC, which is required to disclose its contributors," said Fred Wertheimer, director of one such group, the Washington-based Democracy 21.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/hillary-clinton-money_55c90342e4b0f1cbf1e5edf7?ncid=fcbklnkushpmg00000013&section=politics

--------------------------

Food for thought.

[4139]

1. Tom steyer groups... Payoff for her solar proposal?

[MADem]

2. Great news! Gives her more time for town halls, meetings with interest groups, etc.

Every dime she gets that she doesn't have to dance for is a good thing.

And of course, as usual, HUFFPO buries the lede:

"In the face of a billion dollar onslaught by right wing groups, there is too much at stake for everyday Americans for Democratic groups to unilaterally disarm," he said. Priorities USA raised about $15.6 million in the first six months of the year.

While another Democratic competitor, Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders, has rejected the support of super PACs altogether, Clinton has been plain that she needs big-money help.

"We're going to have to do what we can in this election to make sure that we're not swamped by money on the other side," she said last month.

Several of the Republican candidates for president also have nonprofits .... Conservative Solutions Project, a group paying for ads that boost Florida Sen. Marco Rubio, says it raised about $16 million through June. Former Florida Gov. Jeb Bush also has such a group, called Right to Rise Policy Solutions.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/hillary-clinton-money_55c90342e4b0f1cbf1e5edf7?ncid=fcbklnkushpmg00000013§ion=politics

How much are the other Klown Kar Kandidates racking up, I wonder, if idiot Glug-glug Rubio is able to garner sixteen million....

Citizens United sucks--but it's not going away before 2016, that much is CERTAIN. The more money any PAC has that can buy media time to counter the big bucks the Kochs have, the better.

While Sanders says he won't "take" PAC money, the truth is that candidates DON'T TAKE the money. The PACS operate independently, giving voters their POV on why the candidate they support should win.

Bernie has availed himself of PAC largesse (though not SUPER PAC money) in the past: http://www.opensecrets.org/politicians/pacs.php?cid=n00000528&cycle=2014 Of course, that's a pittance, for a statewide election, in a state with a population the size of Boston. That amount of cash wouldn't put his message out for an hour in a national contest.

If he won the nomination, and didn't rethink his SUPERPAC stance, we can say hello to a Republican President. By the time they got done with him, the average American would believe that he taught Osama everything he knew. Without money to counter that, he's screwed. I don't think "little guy" donations can make up the difference.

[arcane1]

4. And the PACs that buy the most ad time will get the most favorable coverage.

The media won't be an impartial observer in this. This will be their biggest money-making year ever, and they are not going to want to see CU go away.

And since the leftover money can be just given away, I don't expect the candidates to want to see CU go away either. And that includes, I suspect, candidate Clinton.

[MADem]

9. Absolutely. The PAC owners make that call on leftovers--I would suspect that it would be thrown

at Senate/House races that are tight but competitive, if their particular favorite POTUS candidate doesn't get the nod. The candidate has no influence over how that dough is spent. Of course, if the PAC knows the candidate's mind and is loyal to him or her, they can act in what they think are the candidate's interest. Or, they can go their own way.

I think the candidates and the legislative incumbents are starting to feel like they are on a damn treadmill. I do think some of them are exhausted at spending nearly half their time--and for House candidates who stand for office more frequently, that carries on AFTER they are elected--kissing ass and raising money. I think there are a lot of people who might like a little less money in politics. It's hard as hell to break the cycle.

Who knows, maybe in time there will be a perfect storm, where the donors don't feel they are getting enough bad law for their money (cheaper to just pay the tax!) and the politicians get sick of having to grovel and scrape. Don't know if I'll live to see a change, but hope springs eternal.

I've always said that if money equals speech, then poor folks are muzzled. It just doesn't seem fair to me that the Golden Rule in USA is "He who has the gold makes the rules."

[arcane1]

12. Well-said!

[Fearless]

6. And how is Jeb doing in the polls?

[MADem]

7. I don't know--maybe you can research that and tell the class...?

Bring in his SUPERPAC cash grab too, while you're at it--it will add to the conversation. I should think he's accumulated a good amount, given the fact that Poppy used to be RNC chair and has one of the best Rolodexes/Christmas Card Lists on the GOP side.

[Fearless]

8. He is doing poorly Mr Snarky

[MADem]

10. Snarky? Obviously you didn't want a sincere converstion on the topic, if that's your response. nt

[Fearless]

13. Certainly not after the attitude you've given me in response.

[MADem]

14. Your initial question was pure snark. Are you Jeb Bush's pollster? No?

Well, then--why in the world would you think I am?

Like I said, you want to discuss those issues, bring the data to the table.

[Fearless]

17. Actually it was a valid point.

[MADem]

18. When you gather that material, we can discuss it, if you'd like. nt

[Fearless]

20. If you'd like a poll showing Jeb not doing so well despite his "war chest" of super PAC money

Seek out every poll from the last month. Google it. It's common knowledge.

[MADem]

21. You were the one who introduced Jeb's poll numbers to the conversation. If you don't care, why did

you ask me?

Obviously you were not being serious. Thanks for making that clear.

[Fearless]

23. It was a rhetorical statement. Not a question.

A refutation that super PACs and money win elections. In Jeb's case, clearly they won't.

[MADem]

24. You could have made that point a long while ago. But now that you have, I will refute it.

I wouldn't count any chickens if I were you.

George W. Bush was a coked up, AWOL, dance-naked-on-the-bar, DWI drunkard, with a buried service and criminal record, incapable of putting the simplest sentence together; a Mr. Malaprop of "Everything's Big in Texas" show-us-your-dumbass proportions, who nonetheless managed, with super PACs and money, to win (or steal) elections against far more intelligent and superior in character opponents.

Money does change the dynamic, and anyone who eschews it out of some half - assed, high - minded "principle" is bringing a wet noodle to a gunfight, and will be plugged and planted on Boot Hill before high noon.

That's not a terribly cheery image, but that's fact. Right does not trump might. In this campaign environment, money talks, money owns the stage, money buys airtime, money buys digital and newsprint space, money is what gets the message out.

The Supreme Court has spoken--like it, or not--money is SPEECH.

Those without money? They're MUTES.

Don't hate the player, hate the game.

[sabrina 1]

30. So she publicly opposes the corrupting, corrosive effect of Dark Money on politics but

is benefiting from it herself?

Biden disagrees with you btw. THIS is going to be the single most important issue in this campaign so all she has to do to help end this bribery system is to publicly REFUSE it. Then USE it relentlessly against Republicans.

All the excuses in the world won't mean a thing as the focus on this escalates, as it should.

Thankfully we have a candidate in the race who is showing the way to end this obscene practice that so influences our government.

Not a single one of the current Republican crop of morons would be elected to dog catcher if it were not for their obscenely wealthy BUYERS who not only buy their elections, they buy whole groups, see the TP to help them along the way.

So what is Hillary's and your plan to end what she says she despises?

[MADem]

31. Sanders should do the very same thing. If he doesn't he will lose.

You're quoting BIDEN to make your case? Credit Card Joe? PLEASE. Take a look at his sponsors. Bank of America Biden!

It's easy to talk a good game, and laugh all the way to the bank. I like Joe just fine, but I'm not stupid. Neither is he--he's from Delaware--not Nebraska.


The path to repeal of these odious laws is through the Supreme Court.

A secondary path is through the Congressional selection process.

Most DUers are not aware that many candidates are groomed by the parties--they don't just wake up and decide to run. They are selected by pros with a good eye, helped along, given tips about how to conduct themselves, what clothes look good on TV, how to not make terrible faux pas, etc--it's why many candidates look similar. While some hate the cookie-cutter, it's soothing--one less thing to focus on.

Anyway, the secondary track would be to recruit and groom candidates who share the negative views about money in politics, who run on it, and who will be invested in shutting down the system.

The old lions are getting weary--this would be a very nice legacy for them.

Is that clear enough for you?

[sabrina 1]

32. Can you list the 'Dark Money' going to the Sanders campaign? Thanks

I know Joe Biden has taken money, he admits to it and BECAUSE of how that has tied his own hands, he has made it clear that it IS 'the most important issue that must be resolved' because he says 'until it is, nothing else can be done'.

I would think he knows first hand how taking that money put a stranglehold on his actions re issues relating to the credit card industry. He wasn't claiming that he had not been part of it, in fact he emphasized that and told his audience they should not even trust HIM.

So clearly at this point in his career he asking the public to free politicians from what he and his colleagues were bound by because he KNOWS there is no such thing as 'free money'.

Bernie's donors have always been the people who he has worked for, Unions and Individuals. WE are who HE is obligated to.

Not so those taking Corporate money, and there is just no question about that.

[MADem]

35. What? If you don't bother to read what I write, this conversation is pointless.

32. Can you list the 'Dark Money' going to the Sanders campaign? Thanks


Uhhhh....NO. Because the fool isn't taking any. And if he doesn't take any, he will LOSE. You can't change the system if you aren't in control of it.

Read post 31. Two steps to changing the culture.

[sabrina 1]

38. You can't control it if you are taking their money. Sanders is surging ahead without

that money.

Your opinion that those who are seriously working to change a corrupt system are 'fools' says nothing about them but a whole lot about WHY it still, and will continue to be, the corrupt system it is.

So far, that 'fool' has demonstrated what those who predicted he would 'disappear in a couple of weeks without all that money, 'once the initial excitement' is over, WRONG.

Today those predictions have changed, because they had to. Now it's well, even if he wins the nomination, he can't win the GE without all that Corporate money.

Yes he can, which we said after his announcement when he was dismissed, and were right.

He is now ahead of the well financed front runner in NH, something that was laughed at not so long ago.

[MADem]

41. He's "surging" in a poll from a loony rightwing paper teamed up with a college that accepts

pretty much ANYONE with the tuition money. Why aren't those results mirrored in Iowa? Could it be because the Herald/Pierce aren't running the numbers there?

Is that poll an outlier, or is it significant? Time will tell. Don't hang too many hopes on The Boston "Scott Brown is the ONE" Herald, though. You may find yourself sorely disappointed.

Bottom line is this: No one wins without a significant outlay of cash. If you and your friends want to empty your bank account, be my guest. I don't think any candidate, no matter how popular, can win this thing simply with "money from the little people." It's going to take that Big Nasty Cash. Don't yell at me--yell at the Supreme Court. They are the ones telling us that Money Is Speech.

[arcane1]

3. We will never know who she has to thank, nor will we ever know how it was spent.

And we will surely see DUers try to explain to us why this is supposed to be a good thing

[jfern]

5. Foreign TPP backers maybe?

[restorefreedom]

11. and the beat goes on.....

oligarchy knows no party lines. We need real reform.
Enough is enough.
Bernie 2016

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

15. I'm old enough to remember when politicians got their payoffs in brown paper bags.

Now it's just doing business.

[davidpdx]

16. Clinton is using Citizen's United to the fullest extent she can to funnel money to Super Pacs

We probably won't know where the money truly came from for several months and even then if it was funneled through another entity it maybe impossible to trace.

One more benefit of being the candidate of the 1%.

[MADem]

25. No one is stopping Sanders from doing the very same thing.

The fact that he refuses to use all the tools in the toolbox suggests to me that he is running a vanity campaign, and the only people who don't realize it are the crowds who come to see him and who "Believe." There's no way small donors can carry him the whole distance--the person making thirty or forty grand a year is going to feel tapped out well before they hit the grand mark. People can only give so much, and after a while, it's like that relative who can never make the rent, that you're always running down the street to pay their electric because if you give them the money directly they'll blow it on gambling, booze or drugs, leave the lights off and the kids will be sitting in the dark, and familial exasperation will set in.

If he wants the job, he's going to have to change his mind on PACs.

If he were serious about winning, he'd say, straight out, "I am going to use the existing system to kill the existing system" and withdraw his objection to PACs, making it clear that he'd love to see a PAC founded as an adjunct to his campaign to raise millions to END PACs. If he said "I'm not afraid of being a one-term President" it would do much to remove the sword of Damocles that hangs over the non-incumbent candidates for POTUS.

Saying the same things, over and over again (yes, we know that working people don't get a fair shake, yes, we know the system is rigged) doesn't change the situation. I know the sky is blue and grass is green--repeating it isn't going to change the color scheme. Pipe dream solutions that sound great but will not pass congressional scrutiny aren't going to cut it, either. Changing the paradigm is the way to go. Use money to kill money, and show no fear about being a one-termer. It's probably the best way to assure a 2nd term, ironically (assuming his heath and age aren't an impediment) in the very unlikely event he could pull this off.

[sabrina 1]

33. Did you really say that? We KNOW he COULD do. Ethics and honesty are stopping him

So how do you 'use the existing system' to end it? Give us the plan and we will advocate for it. So far despite campaign promised in every election when it comes up, the money has only increased its flow into our system??

So what is your plan to use the corrupt system in order to end it?

I like Bernie's so far. When someone tries to bribe you, you can either say yes or no. He is the ONLY one saying NO so far, and he's doing just fine for someone who was an unknown just a few months ago.

It's inconvenient for those who keep on making excuses for their candidate's raking in the cash from Corporations, that there is now someone running who is proving all the excuses to be WRONG.

In just 3 months, and based mainly on this issue, one of the top issues for voters now, thanks OWS, this formerly referred to by Corporate tools, 'fringe candidate' has surged ahead of the Front Runner in NH WITHOUT taking that money.

[MADem]

34. Well, "ethics and honesty" will make him a loser. The 'plan' is at post 31.

And no one--save the Republicans--is running substantial ads in the mostly caucasian/next door to VT NH. YET.

I would not be surprised if Sanders does well in NH and IA. The demographics favor him, and they also favor the GOP.

He will be crushed on Super Tuesday, though.

[apnu]

28. To be fair, the genie is out of the bottle

and to be competitive, Super PAC money must be used. Otherwise, avoiding it, is to run a campaign with one hand behind her back. Genies don't go back into the bottle, she'd be a fool not to take the money.

Bernie's great, but he's going to have a crippling funding shortage if he's the nominee and avoids PAC money. Don't forget that unions can and do form PACs.

[sabrina 1]

36. Well three months ago the predictions were that without Corporate money Bernie

would be unheard in about a month after his announcement. Now he has surged past the Front Runner who if conventional wisdom, see your comment, were accurate should be miles ahead of him in every state.

So now the goal posts have moved to AFTER the primaries. I predict that USING THIS ISSUE alone is going ensure that Bernie has plenty of money to get to the GE as he will be much better known by then with more small donors.

[apnu]

37. Yeah, Bernie sure proved them wrong on Super PAC money

It also helps that, lets be real here, he's the only opposition to Hillary. If there was a huge field like 2008 for him to deal with, he'd have a problem getting noticed. But since its pretty much him and HRC, he gets free media exposure simple by virtue of not being HRC.

Which is fine, when denying PAC dollars, any and all free press helps. Its a smart move for Bernie. He's a politician, he knows when to grab a gift and run with it. Not everything is about money. He's using all the tools he can find, its good.

(Yeah I know O'Malley's there, but he's a distant 3rd right now, basically invisible)

[oasis]

19. I applaud Hillary's campaign. They understand it takes lots of money to win.

They don't intend to make any apologies to those who back opposing candidates. Hillary has her sights set on the General Election. I'm guessing Hill's GOP rival for the top spot won't try to shame her about the size of her war chest.

[MADem]

22. You are well named.

An oasis of sanity in a sea of unrealistic posturing!

[MoveIt]

27. Gosh if only her policies were any good

Big SuperPACs get what they pay for, right?

[azmom]

26. It's part of their shock and awe campaign.

It's beginning to bore me now.

[frylock]

29. the endless flow of secret, unaccountable money must be stopped..

right after I'm re-elected in 2020.

[brooklynite]

39. Fortunately, she's made this a top policy of her Administration...

...and since she's not unilaterally disarming, she'll have the resources to fight for it in the General Election.

[frylock]

40. Yeah, I'm sure it's priority 1