Joe Biden flip-flops on getting a Super PAC.

[Eric J in MN]

Joe Biden, in 2018 book, on why he would dismiss super PAC help: ‘People were sick of it all. ‘We the People’ didn’t ring so true anymore. It was more like ‘We the Donors.’

Link to tweet

Joe Biden now via The NY Times: “After ending the third quarter with less cash than four rivals, Joe Biden’s campaign reversed course to stop discouraging supporters from forming a super PAC to help him in the Democratic primary.”

http://www.nytimes.com/2019/10/24/us/politics/joe-biden-super-pac.amp.html

[evertonfc]

1. Good

He will need the money to fight in General. Trump already has 200 million. Plus, there are a lot of good Pac's. We are in the fight of our lives. Voters won't give a rats behind if you take PAC money. Just best Trump.

[HerbChestnut]

9. Yes, voters do care.

Campaign finance law was a huge issue during the 2016 primary and general. Joe is selling out.

[evertonfc]

19. hardly

I've worked on campaigns at every level for 35 years and I can tell you, they don't give a shit. Half the voters don't even know what a PAC is. lol... come on.

[DownriverDem]

22. Until

money is taken out of politics, you have to have it to run. I just want to win.

[napi21]

58. don't see it that way. If you listened to the last debate recaps, you'd have heard all the pundits

talking about all the top tier candidates have lots of $$, except for Joe He only has XX $ to spend. I think, just remain in thee race, Joe HD to authorize PAC $$. I think the majority of his supporters don't have much $$. I know that's ME! I'm retired & living on SS. I hve sent Joe $10 every so often, but I can't afford to do much more than that. As one of his strong supporters, I'm glad he dcided to take the PA $$ because I want him to continue winning and hopefully that extra $$ will enable him to stay in the race.

[emulatorloo]

60. Bernie has a super pac. Unfortunately a candidate needs money these days

Additionally Trump has raised a shit ton of cash. Until Citizens United is overturned, Dems should not unilaterally disarm.

I think there can be “good super PACs” Our Revolution is a “good” one. There are liberal Democrats who have money and want to help Democrats win.

[HerbChestnut]

63. Our Revolution is not a SuperPAC.

There are PAC's and SuperPAC's. Our Revolution is a PAC. The difference is that individuals can donate unlimited sums of money to SuperPAC's while they are limited in what they can donate to a PAC. That means, in theory (and likely in practice), SuperPAC's can be funded by only a few multi-millionaires/billionaires, which means they have leverage over the candidates they provide money to.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_action_committee

[emulatorloo]

64. Our Revolution does not have to report the names of donors or the amounts they donate

I like the work they do, but they are a dark money PAC

This is why I say there can be “good” PACs and SuperPacs that support progressive/liberal agenda.

Because of Citizens United, they are unfortunately a necessary evil until Citizens United is overturned.

BTW I am very excited that I get to see Bernie speak tomorrow night!

[HerbChestnut]

65. Not entirely true.

From Wikipedia:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/501(c)_organization#501(c)(4)

Contributions to 501(c)(4) organizations are not tax-deductible as charitable donations unless the organization is either a volunteer fire department or a veterans organization.[46][47] Dues or contributions to 501(c)(4) organizations may be deductible as a business expense under IRC 162, although amounts paid for intervention or participation in any political campaign, direct lobbying, grass roots lobbying, and contact with certain federal officials are not deductible.[48] If a 501(c)(4) engages in a substantial number of these activities, then only the amount of dues or contributions that can be attributed to other activities may be deductible as a business expense.[49]

The organization must provide a notice to its members containing a reasonable estimate of the amount related to lobbying and political campaign expenditures, or else it is subject to a proxy tax on its lobbying and political campaign expenditures. It must also state that contributions to the organization are not deductible as charitable contributions during fundraising.[48]

A 501(c)(4) organization is not required to disclose their donors publicly,[50] with the exception of organizations that make independent expenditures as of 2018.[51][52][53][54] The former complete lack of disclosure led to extensive use of the 501(c)(4) provisions for organizations that are actively involved in lobbying, and has become controversial.[55][56] Criticized as "dark money", spending from these organizations on political advertisements has exceeded spending from Super PACs.[57][58] Spending by organizations that do not disclose their donors increased from less than $5.2 million in 2006 to well over $300 million during the 2012 election season.[59]

Every organization, including a 501(c)(4) organization, that expressly advocates for the election or defeat of a particular political candidate and spends more than $250 during a calendar year must disclose the name of each person who contributed more than $200 during the calendar year to the Federal Election Commission.[51][53] The Federal Election Commission is required to enforce this provision based on a federal court decision in 2018.[52][54][53]

Our Revolution has endorsed Sanders, which means they will have to provide the FEC with donor information. This is in contrast to SuperPAC's which can raise millions of dollars from a single individual without directly revealing where that money came from.

[emulatorloo]

66. A distinction without a difference

[PhoenixDem]

70. +1000 n/t

[Teach-only-love]

17. Yes, take PAC money for the GE

But not before he has become our chosen candidate if the other candidates do not take PAC money. Otherwise, he would open himself to the charge of being a hypocrite.

[emmaverybo]

2. He has evolved. Good idea. Now Bernie, he's making the doobie stance. Come get your legal

pot.
Well, ya gotta have a gimmick.

[ritapria]

4. Over 60% of the people have taken "The Doobie Stance"

I have never smoked Pot but is not my decision to tell people they can not...….

[George II]

5. I wouldn't be surprised if a majority, if not 60%, of American drivers approve of speeding.....

....in fact I wouldn't be surprised if that many or more actually DO drive over the speed limit. Should we change the law?

[ritapria]

6. Do you wan't to maintain the current policy

where people who smoke pot go to jail ?

[HerbChestnut]

7. George is a puritan, didn't you know?

[George II]

12. I'm practical.

[progressoid]

49. Practical would be to legalize it.

According to the ACLU, enforcing laws on possession alone costs us more than $3.6 billion a year.

[George II]

16. To be honest, I think there are a lot more important things to worry about in the world and....

.....the US these days than legalizing marijuana use.

[Teach-only-love]

24. How did we get on the subject of

legalizing marijuana use. We were talking about
taking PAC money. Anyway, we should be for decriminalizing marijuana use, if not legalizing it.

[emmaverybo]

73. Biden is for decriminalizing.

[George II]

14. ...

[Cha]

68. BAZINGA!!! lol

George

[George II]

69. Yes, Mahalo. I just LOVE those "stupid gifs"! A picture is worth a thousand words.

[Cha]

72. Yes It Is.. except to those who

don't want to see.

[rzemanfl]

46. Bookmarking. n/t

[emmaverybo]

11. I see no point in fighting over wedge issues, no matter how popular. Legalization of Marijuana

continues at the state level. Decriminalize at the Federal and we have a good enough situation for now to build on.

Professions will still restrict according to what is required for optimum functioning in transportation, medicine, building trades etc.

Marijuana is so easily accessed, and more affordably than through dispensaries, that people should not be unduly burdened in states where it is not yet legal. As for impurities through a lack of regulation, such has been the risk for decades with, as legalization proponents argue , still no record of deaths from pot alone.

[Baked Potato]

34. Not a gimmick

Democrats always do the heavy lifting on social issues, legalizing cannabis being one of them.

[George II]

51. We've got children dying in cages, small children who will never see their parents again....

....North Korea building nuclear weapons and long range missiles, Russia interfering in our elections (and choosing our candidates/presidents), millions of Americans being denied the vote, Kurds being slaughtered because of US (trump, actually) policy, and we're worried about legalized marijuana.

[Baked Potato]

53. I agree with everything you say

Bernie made his statement about the issue and now he can move on from it.

[betsuni]

54. And worried that super PACs somehow corrupt Democrats.

[Lordquinton]

59. So you are for legalization?

Cause several of those points can be attributed to the status of cannabis. Children never seeing their parents again, Adults in cages for decades, millions being denied their vote.

[Baked Potato]

62. Good points

You make here.

[PhoenixDem]

71. I don't care where Joe gets the money legally

I just want him to win.

All this superpac talk is a distraction of no consequence.

[ritapria]

3. I really wish Joe

Would have taken the sage advice of his friend, Bernie Sanders … Judging from his comments made in 2018 , he knows accepting Super Pac Money is the wrong way to go ... ... Joe is a Man of Honor ...I believe and hope he will change his mind ….

[George II]

21. First, no candidates accept money from Super PACs, that's illegal. Second, has Joe's friend...

...Bernie Sanders ever asked National Nurses United to stop running ads for him?

[bluewater]

25. Things people need to know about super PACs

What makes a super PAC super?

Traditional political action committees are bound by a $5,000 annual limit on the size of contributions they can accept from individuals and are prohibited from accepting contributions from corporations and labor unions. A super PAC is freed from these restrictions under two conditions: The PAC must neither 1) give money directly to a candidate or other political committees that give directly to candidates, nor 2) coordinate how it spends its money with a federal candidate. As long as those two conditions are met, a super PAC may accept donations directly from corporate or union treasuries and in amounts that are limited only by the size of donors' bank accounts. Movie mogul Jeffrey Katzenberg wrote a $2 million check to the super PAC backing President Obama's reelection; casino magnate Sheldon Adelson and his wife have reportedly underwritten a super PAC backing Newt Gingrich to the tune of $10 million. Neither of these donations could have been legally given to a traditional PAC.

What's so new about the corporate and union activity? Haven't big labor and big business been active in political campaigns for years?

The Supreme Court’s ruling in Citizens United made it easier for corporations and unions to use their treasuries to directly influence elections. Some restrictions remain: if they want to give directly to candidates, they still have to establish political action committees and raise funds for them. But there are limits on how much traditional political action committees can accept in contributions and from whom: Currently, the cap on individual contributions is $5,000 a year. Donors to traditional union and corporate PACS must work for or own shares in those corporations or belong to those unions. They must be identified and the amounts of their donations made public. By contrast, super PACs can accept money in unlimited amounts from unions, corporations and unaffiliated individuals as well as from non-profit organizations that have been incorporated under innocuous-sounding names and that do not have to report the sources of their funding. That means individuals and entities with whom candidates might not wish to be publicly associated can support their campaigns anonymously.

What can super PACs do with their money?

Anything except contribute directly to, or coordinate expenditures with, candidates and candidate committees. They can pay for any typical political expenditure, and then some. Super PACs can and do pay for television ads, phone banks, canvassers and bumper stickers. In other words, they can act as a shadow campaign.

https://sunlightfoundation.com/2012/01/31/nine-things-you-need-know-about-super-pacs/

[George II]

26. Thanks, forgot about that $5000 allowance for PACs....

It's been almost 10 years since I've been a treasurer.

[bluewater]

29. Yes, and a _SUPER_ PAC is freed from that $5000 restriction

A super PAC is freed from these restrictions under two conditions: The PAC must neither 1) give money directly to a candidate or other political committees that give directly to candidates, nor 2) coordinate how it spends its money with a federal candidate. As long as those two conditions are met, a super PAC may accept donations directly from corporate or union treasuries and in amounts that are limited only by the size of donors' bank accounts.

[George II]

35. Over the years a few Super PACs and candidates have gotten in trouble for "coordinating".

[bluewater]

36. "There's a legal prohibition against "coordinating" but the FEC has been exceedingly lenient..."

Can candidates have super PACs?

Officially no. But it's easy to understand why it sometimes can seem as though they do. Although a candidate cannot coordinate expenditures with a super PAC (tell the PAC where an ad might be placed, whether the ad should be positive or negative, or what voters canvassers should contact), there's no law that says a candidate can't have connections with a the entities backing his or her election. Many super PACs — such as the one supporting Romney, the pro-Newt Gingrich Winning Our Future, and Priorities USA, which backs President Obama — are run by former top aides of the candidates. And candidates can headline fundraisers for the super PACs that are supporting them (as Romney has) so long as they don't ask for donations beyond the legal limits permitted for their own campaign committees. Donors are free to write larger checks and super PAC staffers are free to ask for them, but as long as the candidate abides by federal campaign limits or doesn’t actually ask for funds. it’s all kosher. Bottom line: There's a legal prohibition against candidates' coordinating with super PACs but the FEC has been exceedingly lenient in defining what constitutions coordination, as University of California law professor Rick Hasen pithily outlines in his Election Law Blog.

[OldRed2450]

56. Bernie has super pacs doesn't he?

Our revolution is a pac and so is the nurses united right?

[bluewater]

8. Joe Biden is a man of his word and would never go against his stand to reject Super Pacs.

right?

Link to tweet

wtf?

[crazytown]

15. This isnt't going to end well.

Rewind to HRC and Goldman Sachs. Perfectly legal, but Bernie wouldn't let it go.

[George II]

27. Although he never decried National Nurses United's support in the past.

[crazytown]

28. I know.

I'm not arguing the merits in this reply ... but the line of BS attack is clear. I will be disappointed if Warren takes it up.

[still_one]

41. I won't. Trump received over 125 million years n the third quarter. After you ate in power, that

is when you change things

[crazytown]

43. If you countenance using a PAC to go hard negative on Democrats

that a up to you. It's legal. Dean v Gephardt.

EDIT: I'm going to leave things with my reply to HPD. I've said all I need to say. Peace.

[still_one]

48. Wrong. I am not "going hard on Democrats", that is a choice. And any Democratic candidate who does

it I am all for it

Television is a powerful media, and not cheap

[crazytown]

57. You're all for it?

For what? Going as hard as possible on other Democrats? Presumably with plausible deniability.

[still_one]

61. For taking pac money. Once we get win the WH and Congress then we change the finance laws

[still_one]

39. We will see about that. Did you have a problem when Obama did the same thing?

[crazytown]

40. Yep :(

See my reply to HPD
https://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1287&pid=323537

[still_one]

42. I believe you, and applaud your consistency, but my view is you change things after we win the WH

and Congress, not before

[Raven123]

20. Ouch. Hope Joe can square his decision with his recent views.

[Otto Lidenbrock]

10. I'm giving him a pass because what Trump has done to him is unprecedented

An American president asking foreign governments to interfere on his behalf, a rogue lawyer conducting as a shadow secretary of state, million dollar ads that contain lies (CNN chose not to broadcast, MSNBC did) all to take down ONE man who may not even get the nomination.

This wouldn't be as big a deal if the media didn't amplify Trumpworld dishonesty and try to falsely equivocate democrats but we saw in 2016 the free media coverage he got propelled him and now he has a warchest of cash to burn.

[Raven123]

23. Would be easier to understand if ..

Joe had entered the race earlier and revved up his small donor efforts and if he didn’t do so poorly versus other Dem candidates in the last quarter. Not sure if you are suggesting Trump was the reason for his relatively low quarterly report, but I guess I figured it is very incongruous relative to his polling numbers.

[Otto Lidenbrock]

33. Trump is running as if the GE is now

Look if the media didn't give his lies oxygen, inviting his lackeys like Giuliani to broadcast bullshit, give them a right to reply, and carry false information ads none of this would be happening because HRC would be in the WH. My main goal now is to do all it takes within the law to get that man booted out. Biden's not even my candidate, no one is.

[Skittles]

18. big surprise

NOT

[dem4decades]

30. Joe needs money, it takes money to win. If more money means a better chance to win,

Then get more money.

[Skya Rhen]

31. The commenters on Matt Viser's tweet don't agree with his pearl-clutching. An epic fail.

[highplainsdem]

32. Obama did the same thing. See this thread for why that was the right decision:

https://www.democraticunderground.com/1287323471

[Baked Potato]

37. If raising outrageous amounts of money

is what it takes to beat Trump, then bring it on.

[still_one]

45. Trump raised 125 million in the third quarter. No Democratic candidate came even close to that in

the third quarter

After we take back the WH and Congress that is when you make those changes

[Baked Potato]

50. Agreed

[still_one]

52. Similar to the filibuster. Don't get rid of the filibuster until we control the Senate

[still_one]

38. Good. So did President Obama. You change things after you get in, not before to give the

republicans the advantage

[Thekaspervote]

44. This! The thread is more about poking at the front runner than anything else

Maybe the message was not passed on.... poking at one’s favorite candidate Biden or someone else never works to change the minds of voters. Hasn’t in the past.... isn’t now

[still_one]

47. I agree. I think it has the opposite intended effect

[EveHammond13]

55. do what is necessary to beat trump

[boomer_wv]

67. This!

I don't care if Biden's campaign starts putting on Presidents masks and robbing banks to raise money. If it beats Trump I will support it.

[Gothmog]

74. I agree with Joe on this

Super pacs are part of the process

[Eric J in MN]

75. 'JOE BIDEN'S SUPER PAC IS BEING ORGANIZED BY CORPORATE LOBBYISTS'

...’FOR HEALTH CARE INDUSTRY, WEAPONS MAKERS, FINANCE’

Longtime Biden supporter Larry Rasky, one of the people involved with the big-money effort, is the founder of lobbying firm Rasky Partners, which is currently registered to lobby on behalf of Raytheon, Harvard Pilgrim Health Care, and the Republic of Azerbaijan, among other clients.

https://theintercept.com/2019/10/25/joe-biden-super-pac/

[Turbineguy]

76. If he can't pass the purity test

we'd better keep trump.

[Eric J in MN]

77. This is primary season. NT

NT

[yardwork]

78. The phrase "flip flop" was used by the Republicans to smear John Kerry. Don't use it.