So Campaign Hillary Is At It Again -- Pushing Another False Story About Super PACs

[berni_mccoy]

As some might remember, I called out how Clinton is using Rovian tactics to paint her opponent with her own flaws (see: http://www.democraticunderground.com/1251817271 ). Well she's at it again with this latest Nurses Super PAC story. A couple of DUers here were the first to float this story, which as of today is now being picked up by some of the MSMS. This tells me there must be coordination among the campaign and sounds very similar to how the GOP used to float stories and phrases before making them go mainstream.

What's the story? "OH NOES BERNIE HAS A SUPER PAC!!!11!1"

Except that's note even close to the truth.

They are calling out that the National Nurses Union PAC (not a Super PAC) is has donated the Maximum of 10,000 (an FEC limit) to his campaign and that they have about $500,000 to spend (which they can no longer spend on his campaign).

The propagandists know this is not a Super PAC, a legal difference from a PAC. PACs have been around for a very long time, they are regulated, donations and transparent and monitored by the FEC. Super PACs are the results of Citizens United and they have no limit on the amount of money it can donate or spend for a candidate. And they also know that Clinton has a Super PAC called Priorities USA which has given her campaign millions (just check OpenSecrets).

Please don't buy the bullshit from Campaign Hillary. She played dirty in 2008 (see: http://www.democraticunderground.com/1251758204 ). She's going to play dirty now. And she's going to use vast amounts of money from Wall Street to do it.

[Agschmid]

1. The super PAC, is a non story.

As is the conspiracy that this is the Clinton campaign acting against Bernie.

Both are crap.

[berni_mccoy]

2. Clinton had a coordinated effort to act against Obama in 2008

Mark Penn's memo's even call out using race as a tactic (see the link in my OP). There is no doubt they are doing the same here.

[Agschmid]

3. Yes it's a campaign.

People work to get elected on both sides...

[berni_mccoy]

4. So not a conspiracy as you bullshittingly suggested

[Agschmid]

7. My suggestion is not bullshit.

I'm over the Bernie is going to get elected because of some vast conspiracy against him. It just isn't true, but I'm sure this isn't the end of it.

[berni_mccoy]

8. That's not what you said before.

And as for Bernie getting elected it will be up to the people to see through the bullshit. On that cause, I am totally dedicated to maximizing the truth.

[Agschmid]

10. Me too.

That's why I volunteer for my candidate every week.

[rhett o rick]

57. Problem is that HRC is funded by the billionaires spending billions. They don't want to lose

and have the resources to see that they don't lose at all costs. If you sleep with the dogs, your going to get fleas.

Why not choose to back the People's side?

[think]

5. And some campaigns resort to sleazy tactics. It's vile & reprehensible.

America loses when politicians act this way. The results are all too obvious...

[Agschmid]

6. Again how is this vile?

It's a non story, it's not going to go anywhere?

If you think this is vile buckle up for the GE.

[winter is coming]

17. It's a lie; a sleazy attempt to deceive.

Using tactics like this teaches voters that we're as dirty and corrupt as the GOP. Genius move!!

[JackInGreen]

38. I don't think it's vile

I do think that when liberals start using republican dirty tricks like the Clinton campaign seems to, the rest of their intentions become suspect.

[A Simple Game]

49. It's vile because the Clinton campaign is giving the Republicans

ammunition, false but ammunition none the less, to use against Bernie in the general election.

Clinton and her supporters should think of the Country first and the Party second and not just of themselves.

Does any of this sound familiar to you?

[nc4bo]

9. Reason #1000 I do not trust Hillary Rodham Clinton.

The enemy of my enemy is my friend, even if I have to borrow pages from the Karl Rove book of dirty campaign tactics (see chapter 2, page 1: using your enemy's strengths to camouflage your own weaknesses) and even when my "enemy" plays on the same team as I.



The tactics worked sooooo well we have President Barack Obama

[sabrina 1]

53. And HOW they work matters, lying Rovian tactics use in a campaign tells a lot about the candiate.

I'm proud to have a candidate who would not associate with dirty tricksters like David BRock caught trying to plant SMEARS against Bernie in the press.

Hillary's campaign tactics were vile last time and they are just as vile this time.

[cui bono]

60. Agree. n/t

[cui bono]

59. One is crap. The second one has happened several times already.

As well as many times in her last campaign against Obama. If you don't learn from history...

[retrowire]

11. Hillary has the utmost faith that people

are stupid enough to fall for this.

thanks for the vote of confidence Hillary!

[DanTex]

15. The only person with faith in the stupidity of people here is the OP.

The OP is hoping that, since there is a regular PAC with a similar name to the Super PAC that spend over $500K in support of Bernie Sanders, that people will be too dumb to tell the two apart.

If you ask me, it's an insult to Bernie supporters to think they would fall for something as transparent as this.

[retrowire]

47. there's definitely something you're not telling us. nt

[passiveporcupine]

68. While I agree it is a super PAC that just endorsed Bernie

Is legally called a super PAC, they do not compare to the kinds of super PACs other politicians and campaigns use. The primary funders are the nurses who are the members of the union.

In the link you provided of the super PAC, they have a story about Bernie benefiting from this super PAC.

In the story are two important lines:

It is true Sanders does not have an affiliated super PAC run by former aides

Overall, the spending by Nurses United is relatively modest in nature compared to the other big spending super PACs; the pro-Jeb Bush Right to Rise USA has doled out $31 million so far in independent expenditures.

They may technically be a super PAC, but the money spent on Bernie's campaign came from nurses in the union. Not wealthy people.

[DanTex]

12. Sorry, but the Super PAC story is legit.

Last edited Thu Nov 19, 2015, 09:46 AM - Edit history (1)

The Super PAC is National Nurses United For Patient Protection:
http://realtime.influenceexplorer.com/committee/2016/national-nurses-united-for-patient-protection/C00490375/
The PAC you are talking about is National Nurses United PAC:
http://realtime.influenceexplorer.com/committee/2016/national-nurses-united-pac-a-fund-for-a-healthy-america/C00446237/

They have similar names, but they are different entities.

As you can see from the first link, not only is National Nurses United For Patient Protection classified as a Super PAC, it also spent $569,169 in support of Bernie Sanders. These expenditures would have been illegal if not for Citizens United. Which means that, yes, Bernie does have Super PAC money supporting him, and he is benefiting from spending that would not be possible without Citizens United.

[retrowire]

14. has Bernie accepted the money?

because super PACs have tried to support him before but he's rejected the aid.

[DanTex]

16. No candidate has accepted any money from SuperPACs because SuperPACs cannot donate

money to campaigns. SuperPACs are technically "independent expenditure-only committees", which means they spend money to support a specific candidate, but they spend it themselves and don't donate it to the campaign.

[Duckhunter935]

18. Except Hillary and her campaign

Directly coordinate in violation of fec regulations as they know nothing will happen. Sickening

[DanTex]

21. LOL. You've just moved the goalposts to a different planet.

Let's see here. Bernie has SuperPAC money supporting him, spending that would be illegal under Citizens United. You have no problem with that.

Bernie falsely denies that he has SuperPAC support, while at the same time making a big deal about the fact that Hillary does. You have no problem with that.

No, none of that is "sickening" to you. The only "sickening" thing is that one SuperPAC supporting Clinton is using an exemption in the regulations that allows limited coordination with campaigns in some circumstances.

[Duckhunter935]

24. Except Bernie does not have one

That super pac was around before Bernie and since he can not coordinate, it does not belong to him unlike the one setup specifically for Hillary and in direct coordination with that campaign.

[DanTex]

26. There's no such thing as "having" a SuperPAC. SuperPACs by definition are independent

expenditure committees. They don't contribute to campaigns, and they aren't owned by candidates.

The whole Hillary-bashing argument used to be that since she is benefiting from Citizens United, she can't be trusted to overturn it. But now that Bernie is also benefiting from Citizens United, and "has" a SuperPAC in the only meaningful sense, I can understand why you want to move the goal posts.

[Duckhunter935]

29. Some serious twisting there

Hillary has one as she is in direct coordination with it.

[DanTex]

31. The twisting is all on your end.

The big talking point used to be that Bernie doesn't have a Super PAC supporting him and Hillary does. That Hillary is benefiting from Citizens United so she can't be trusted on campaign finance reform. In fact, this is the story that Bernie tells on the campaign trail.

Now that Bernie is also benefiting from CU, and also has a Super PAC in every meaningful sense of the word "have" (for example, 100% of the $500K that the Super PAC spent last quarter was in support of Bernie), obviously y'all need to change the story, because the old one has gone completely sideways.

[misterhighwasted]

42. Which one would that be?

Doubt your statement. We'd have heard the RW shouting about it long before you.
She is the only threat to the RW trifecta. Ask Gowdy.

[Cali_Democrat]

58. Sorry, but DanTex really laid out the facts very nicely.

You appear to be out of your league.

[misterhighwasted]

43. That's a pretty blatant accusation. You keeping the Name of that PAC secret for a reason?

Waiting..

[Duckhunter935]

50. Does this help

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

[passiveporcupine]

70. They have not given money to him directly.

They have spent it on advertising and printing materials supporting him for President.

[bigtree]

22. interesting

[Hortensis]

28. Thanks for the info so I didn't have to check. This OP had the usual

whiff of hostility running amok in fact-land.

[passiveporcupine]

69. These expenditures would have been illegal if not for Citizens United.

Are you sure about that?

Since the people who donated this money were nurses in the union, do you think any of them spent $2500 or more, individually on these donations? I doubt it. It happens to be a very large union and it took a lot of nurses to donate that much money...but they could have done it as a regular PAC with all the funds registered as well.

That is if I'm understanding the difference between a PAC (individual donations limited to $2500) and super PAC with unlimited donations allowed without accountability.

[DanTex]

71. Yes. NNU actually has two PACs. A "normal" PAC and a SuperPAC.

The normal PAC is called NATIONAL NURSES UNITED PAC - A FUND FOR A HEALTHY AMERICA
http://realtime.influenceexplorer.com/committee/2016/national-nurses-united-pac-a-fund-for-a-healthy-america/C00446237

The super PAC is called NATIONAL NURSES UNITED FOR PATIENT PROTECTION (2016 CYCLE )
http://realtime.influenceexplorer.com/committee/2016/national-nurses-united-for-patient-protection/C00490375


The normal PAC is funded by individual donations. The SuperPAC, according to Sunlight, is primarily funded by the union itself, which would not be possible pre-CU, since unions and corporations cannot donate to regular PACs. Also, according to that Influence Explorer link, it recieved a contribution of $127K from a group called Progressive Kick, another progressive SuperPAC which has endorsed Bernie for president, and this also would not have happened pre-CU, since Progressive Kick could not exist as a SuperPAC pre-CU.

The reason NNU has two PACs is precisely because the SuperPAC can do these things that the ordinary PAC cannot.

I don't begrudge progressives for making use of SuperPACs in order to fight against the GOP. As Obama and Hillary have pointed out, unilateral disarmament is a bad strategy for fighting the GOP. What I do object to is Bernie making a campaign issue about this while he is also benefiting from SuperPACs. In order to overturn CU, we need to win the election, and that means using the legal means available to beat the GOP.

[passiveporcupine]

74. you said:

The normal PAC is funded by individual donations. The SuperPAC, according to Sunlight, is primarily funded by the union itself,

I don't see where they indicate "primary funding" on the link you provided. I thought I saw that yesterday in the article, but I don't see the article today, and yesterday the article said the money was primarily from the nurses in the union...the current link doesn't provide that info. Or maybe you have a better link?

Yes, in the article I read on yesterday's link they mentioned the second PAC (PK) contributions, but do you really think $127K is the kind of money Bernie is talking about? They also said in that article that the money for the pac "primarily" came from the union members. I didn't post that here because I thought the article would still be there to resource, but it's apparently gone.

We can quibble all day about whether or not Bernie has broken his word, but I just don't see the relevance, as this super PAC is no more powerful than a regular PAC. And these moneys were spent without Bernie's request/coordination. What is he going to do? Tell them to "Quit it". That didn't work too well for wall street.

He still does not have any of his previous aides/staffers creating a super PAC and raising money specifically to get him elected.

One more thing...on this Sunlight Foundation site (supposedly nonpartisan), they posted a journalistic article about Bernie, but that doesn't sound "unbiased" to me. And they list Bernie on the page of Presidential super PACs as having a super PAC called Americans Socially United. The Super Pac is run by Cary Lee Peterson and has nothing to do with Bernie Sanders or his official campaign.

Also, the Bernie campaign sent them two cease and desist letters in June, as they wanted nothing to do with this PAC. Still the Sunlight Foundation site lists them as Bernie's super PAC. Not so nonpartisan, I think.

[DanTex]

75. Right here:

National Nurses United for Patient Protection is a super PAC whose primary donor is National Nurses United, a union of more than 185,000 registered nurses across all 50 states. The super PAC also has another donor from its filing earlier this year, a 527 group called Progressive Kick, which runs donor-matching programs for progressive causes.

[passiveporcupine]

77. That was from the article I can't find.

It is basically saying the money is from 185,000 nurses who are members of the union. The union does no fund raising, so the money comes from it's members. They are not management, CEO's, BODs, Presidents, or upper management. They are nurses. I seriously doubt they contributed more than $2500 each, so the money comes from small donations or union dues....directly from the nurses.

That is not the kind of super PAC Bernie has a problem with.

And I think you know that.

[DanTex]

78. I posted the link to it. Here it is again.

http://sunlightfoundation.com/blog/2015/11/18/bernie-sanders-benefits-from-566000-in-super-pac-support-from-nurses-union/

And it is not "basically saying" anything. It is specifically saying that the union itself provides most of the funding, except for part of the funding that comes from another SuperPAC. This would all be illegal if not for Citizens United. Which invalidates his whole "I walk the walk" argument -- he is benefiting from Citizens United also.

Oh, and I'd love to see Bernie hit the campaign trail with the excuses you are making for him. "I don't object to all SuperPACs, only some of them..."

[INdemo]

13. This is Bill working and he did the same thing in 2008 against Obama

Why is Billary going negative,they are nervous...and their polls must show they are losing or its real close.
Too close for comfort for them

[Laser102]

20. Don't believe it. Bill and Hillary have NO reason to be worried. On the other hand

there are those voting for someone else that have become increasingly desperate to post anything negative or outlandish about Hillary. Notice how that's not working? The reason is because there has been so much slime that no one cares anymore. She's become more popular than ever. But thanks to those that helped propel her.

[INdemo]

23. Negative? ok whatever

[Robbins]

33. Oh jesus

another member of cult of personilty of clinton.

Bernie talking about issues since he is progressive and she ic centrist corporist and neocon is fair.But,you guys have to try to paint him as sexist and racist and try to spread smears like he wants to end medicare.

[misterhighwasted]

37. cult personality of Clinton?? O c'mon now your're down to stealing our memes?

HRCers actually said it first. And a few were even Alerted on & actually got their post hidden for calling bernie fans cult personalities.

Find your own descriptive word. You gotta do better than this.
Stop copying Hillary fans.

[ieoeja]

46. But it doesn't make any sense for the HRCers to use it.

People supported Obama and Bernie because of what they had to say on the issues. Clinton supporters just seem to be loyal to the person, not the ideas. So the Clinton supporters are the ones exhibiting cult like behaviors, not the Obama and Bernie supporters.

BartCop was terrible about that. He never had anything good to say about a Democrat ever EXCEPT for the Clintons. I went through two weeks of blogs by him in 2004 and counted all the anti-Bush and anti-Kerry stories. Each and every day the anti-Kerry stories outnumbered the anti-Bush stories. Every day. And there seem to be a lot of that among Clinton supporters.

Of course, Bill Clinton himself did the same thing in 1992. It was famously noted at the time that he spent more of his campaign criticizing the Democratic controlled congress than he did criticizing Bush. He did not have a Sister Souljah "moment". His entire campaign was like that.

[misterhighwasted]

48. LOL Oh good lord! pretzel logic

2 months & 12 days.
HRC goes on to the GE.

[misterhighwasted]

39. Yes,the more hateful they got the greater her #'s & endorsements grew.

Funny how that happens.
I'd also like to offer a big ol thank you.

[INdemo]

79. I think its the Hillary supporters that are posting the slime

and probably encouraged by the Clinton campaign.
Its 2008 all over again for Hillary

[Gamecock Lefty]

19. Hillary is Right!

Besides, she doesn't need conspiracies to beat ol Bernie. She'll do it head-to-head.

I've noticed lately now that the Bernie so-called surge has come and gone and Hillary is solidifying her support among Democrats, Bernie and his supporters are starting to crack and whine about, well, just about everything. When you start talking about your opponent more than your own candidate, your ship is sinking.

[TM99]

25. Hillary is wrong.

Her fan club here is wrong.

Facts are damnable things aren't they.

And yeah, over 10,000 in Cleveland the other day but yeah, his surge has come and gone.

Nah, the MSM just doesn't report on it now that terror 24/7 is back and bigger than ever.

[misterhighwasted]

35. Technically, they have 2 months 12 days to right the ship

But...its got a really big hole.
I wish them well.

[blackspade]

27. And the attack is based on a hit piece,

From a Vermont independent paper from fucking July resurrected and repackaged as 'new' news.
It's pathetic. And here I thought they were 'winning?'

[Scuba]

30. Hey, cut 'em some slack. After all, they can't comment on policy.

[99Forever]

32. Same dirty sleazy tactics, different campaign.

This is how Clintons roll.

[misterhighwasted]

34. Here a pac there a pac everywhere a pac pac,

Its all so ridiculous.
2 months 12 days
HRC takes her place in the GE.
Time's running out for the remaning candidates to up their #'s, so yes, its important they do whatever they must to keep their name in the news. I understand.

HRC obviously thought about this factor early on & secured her hundreds of endorsements, & delegates.
Good to hear the 2 million member SEIU will be on the ground doing a massive grassroots campaign for HRC.

The GOP will be determined to win this and it will be excellent to have so many united people standing with & working for Sec Clinton. 2016 will be hers.
And this is why, in 2 months 12 days,.this PAC flap won't even be an issue.
Irrelevant.

[daleanime]

40. Because it's her turn....

now stand in line and vote like you're told to like good little democrats.


And just incase

[Gothmog]

36. Legally, that entity is considered a super pac

Pretending that it is not a super pac is not going to work

[Android3.14]

41. So sad. Why do people support her?

They won't tell us.

Her supporters are standing on the tracks as a train approaches, and they refuse to see it and in fact are cheering on the train just because it has a female conductor and it's really big.

[Lorien]

61. It boggles the mind, doesn't it?

Favoring a candidate simply because of gender? Were they all Palin and Bachman fans too? Maybe her fans are all heavily invested in Wall Street? (I am too, but I care more about the welfare of the Nation and the planet than my retirement funds). Maybe they're paid operatives? Maybe they've just fallen for the media BS and actually think that she's our best chance? Hell, Trump has a better chance of winning, and that's scary as hell! Republicans hate her, and real Progressives and liberals don't trust her. Unless an election were massively rigged she doesn't have a prayer.

[MADem]

44. What foolishness--SEVEN DAYS in Vermont had this story a LONG WHILE ago. It's not evil DUers

using "Rovian tactics" who came up with this. It's a popular news publication in VT. Sheesh!!!

Get a grip.

Check the date on this "hot scoop"--it's from BACK IN JULY.

http://www.sevendaysvt.com/vermont/sanders-shifting-stance-on-super-pacs/Content?oid=2759783

But Sanders isn't being entirely straight when he says he doesn't have a super PAC. By law, such entities can't directly coordinate with the candidates they back, so many are run by close confidantes and former aides well acquainted with the candidates' strategy and message.

Such is the case with Collective Actions PAC, which is operated by Rep. Chris Pearson (P-Burlington), who previously served as Sanders' campaign coordinator and press assistant. Founded in January 2014 as Draft Bernie, the PAC maintains the Run Bernie Run Facebook and Twitter accounts and, according to its website, plans to invest in online advertising.

Pearson says his Super PAC will fund grassroots projects to spread Sanders' message, but he admits it will also serve a more traditional role: skirting fundraising limits by taking contributions from those who've already donated the maximum $2,700 to Sanders' official campaign.

"We're trying to raise big checks, yes," Pearson says. "We'll see how successful I will be."

Collective Actions doesn't have to file a report with the Federal Election Commission until the end of July, and Pearson won't reveal how much he's raised. But in a letter he sent the FEC last month, he wrote that the PAC "has a number of large donors who are interested" in contributing....Isn't it hypocritical for a Progressive pol who talks a big game about campaign finance reform to exploit the very rules he opposes in support of an anti-super PAC candidate? Pearson admits it's "strange," but he defends Collective Actions as different from, say, Bush's Right to Rise super PAC, because Sanders doesn't appear at Collective Actions fundraisers.

And how dare those evildoers at the SUNLIGHT FOUNDATION dare to mention that he has a half million plus dollar Superpac at the ready to support him. The NERVE!!!

http://www.cnn.com/2015/11/18/politics/bernie-sanders-super-pac-nurses-union/index.html

I think you need to click on this link and see what this Super Pac has filed with the Federal Election Commission--they are supporting/sending money on SANDERS, as this filing makes clear:

http://realtime.influenceexplorer.com/outside-spending/#?ordering=-expenditure_date_formatted&filer_committee_id_number=C00490375


So... he does have Super Pacs--deal with it. Stop calling people "Karl Rove" and worse for telling the truth about this. It's not "bullshit from Campaign Hillary." It's called FACTS. He's obviously "evolved" on this issue, and in a matter of time he will say so if he hasn't already.

Then, how are you going to feel, having besmirched people for reporting the truth?

[d_legendary1]

55. Oh No! Sanders is under the thumb of big nursing!

Whatever shall we do!?!?!?

[MADem]

56. Ha ha...! Actually, he's behaving just like a ....

politician.

He's committed no crime, and neither has anyone else who is working within the existing system.

He's starting to realize that it's not a simple thing to run a campaign on a national scale. Shit costs money. If Super PACS are ready to step up and do things for candidates, it's folly to not let them.

[Number23]

62. Another DUer posted a link to Open Secrets which also called that group a Super PAC

https://www.opensecrets.org/pacs/lookup2.php?strID=C00490375

Although of course you realize, this will only make them scream, accuse everyone being liars and evil, and flail LOUDER...

[MADem]

63. It's asinine--it only makes them look silly.

Sanders will, eventually, say something about this. He'll say how he hates the things but the only way to win is to fight fire with fire, or something.

He took that line out of his stump speech BECAUSE these filings made it obvious he was playing the 'Do as I say' game.

He probably doesn't like this, but he's figured out that it's expensive to run a national campaign.

And he'll keep taking the money. Christmas is coming, and people won't be donating as much to political campaigns--they'll be donating to Toys R Us and gifts for this one and that.

[Number23]

64. Absolutely. I have no problem with him taking this money and using it for his campaign

The only people that seem to have an issue are his supporters that have made this (along with every damn thing else) a big deal because Hillary was doing it. Now that Sanders is doing the same, they are breaking their backs to try to "splain" how it's not hypocritical and it's really embarrassing.

Alot of stuff in this forum today has been exceptionally cringe-inducing, even more than usual.

[MADem]

65. Ha--I'm glad I was conducting some real-world business today!! nt

[WillyT]

45. K & R !!!

[Faux pas]

51. K N R

[sabrina 1]

52. Shows you how nervous they are when they have to lie so sblsatantly

[gordyfl]

54. Nothing New Here

Most people here know Hillary's top donors are, and have been from Wall Street. According to Open Secrets, most of Bernie's big donors are union. So why is some sort of revelation? Bernie represents the working class.

[kath]

66. Thank you. I figured it was a lie. So glad you debunked it.

She's really got the Rove thing down, hasn't she? Just when I think I can't be any more disgusted by her...

[kath]

66. Duplicate post - deleted

[Cosmic Kitten]

72. Hillary supporters will cost her the election...

primary and/or general election.

[sabrina 1]

73. Yes, a lot of people have noticed that false meme. To me it says they are

really scared of something, when they have to focus on smears and deceptions rather than issues.

[djean111]

76. I don't buy anything at all from Campaign Hillary. n/t