Correct the Record - what is it exactly?

[TM99]

How a super PAC plans to coordinate directly with Hillary Clinton’s campaign

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

Hillary Clinton’s campaign plans to work in tight conjunction with an independent rapid-response group financed by unlimited donations, another novel form of political outsourcing that has emerged as a dominant practice in the 2016 presidential race.

On Tuesday, Correct the Record, a pro-Clinton rapid-response operation, announced it was splitting off from its parent American Bridge and will work in coordination with the Clinton campaign as a stand-alone super PAC. The group’s move was first reported by the New York Times.

That befuddled many campaign finance experts, who noted that super PACs, by definition, are political committees that solely do independent expenditures, which cannot be coordinated with a candidate or political party. Several said the relationship between the campaign and the super PAC would test the legal limits.

Most troubling of course are the borderline ethical and even legal issues with Correct the Record.

Fred Wertheimer, president of the advocacy group Democracy 21, said “it certainly looks like this new operation will violate the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act, which prevents an entity set up by a candidate or acting on behalf of a candidate, from raising or spending unlimited contributions, or soft money.”

“In addition, if this entity is operating as a policy arm of the campaign, it will be violating the coordination laws if it raises and spends soft money, whether or not it runs ads or other public communications,” he added.

Correct the Record and posts made from it seem to be reinforcing the idea that perhaps Clinton does have some serious ethical issues to contend with in this election. Whether this organization stands up to the legal scrutiny also remains to be seen.

[morningfog]

1. She's banking on waltzing to the White House before

Any legal challenge to her Big Money campaign is resolved.

[whatchamacallit]

30. The big money she vows to eradicate

just as soon as she's done with it.

[morningfog]

33. Only an absolute idiot would believe she would do anything about the very beast that feed her.

[whatchamacallit]

35. Of course

Why would the corporations bankrolling her bid do so if they believed she'd actually cut them out. They wouldn't. Unlike her supporters, who believe every promise and sound bite, they know it's bullshit red meat.

[sabrina 1]

2. Just get the f&*(ing money OUT OF OUR POLITICAL SYSTEM!

[m-lekktor]

3. It's another David Brock thing.

http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2014/09/david-brock-hillary-clinton-correct-the-record

[TM99]

7. What I find interesting is this.

Ready for Hillary collects the voter data. Priorities USA collects the big money. And Correct the Record pounces on any and all criticism of the Clintons.

But this strategy could backfire. Hillary has always struggled with the perception that she is inauthentic and quick to become defensive; being shielded by a group that pounces on every slight could reinforce that image.

And I believe this will backfire, especially with the coalition of the progressive Left includings Democrats, Independents, left-leaning Libertarians, and Greens. Because as we are seeing tonight, this Correct the Record is being used as a bludgeon to stop discussion and valid criticism of her past record, allegiances, alliances, and positions.

Not only does she look inauthentic and defensive, she looks manipulative and entitled. That is not someone I trust to be our next President.

[Mr. Robot]

49. I absolutely agree.

When people get blasted with ads that has to "correct" her stances, then people will only wind up getting confused and find another option, and certainly that option is Bernie.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

5. Is this the same Hillary who was recently talking about the corrosive influence of money

in politics? Or, is she "evolving" again?

[840high]

51. haha! She revolving

on Wall st.

[BrotherIvan]

6. Is anyone challenging it in court?

[TM99]

8. Not that I am aware.

It should be but it remains to be seen if anyone will do so.

[wyldwolf]

10. Why not do it yourself?

[jeff47]

22. It's a new development. It will take a while for people to look at what it does

and then decide if those actions are something they can sue over.

Also, most campaign laws are not enforced via lawsuit.

[wyldwolf]

9. It's a way to counter the BS the right and the left throw her way

I know that worries some people.

[TM99]

11. It is also unethical

and perhaps even illegal.

I know that does not worry enough people.

[wyldwolf]

15. When you have definitive proof of that, let us know

Otherwise it's perfectly legal and ethical.

[TM99]

17. Apparently you did not read the linked article in the

OP which answers your question.

[wyldwolf]

19. It quotes a few people with differing opinions

How does that prove your point?

[BrotherIvan]

27. "It's perfectly legal and ethical"

Facts not in evidence.

[Katashi_itto]

12. K&R

[Scuba]

13. Interesting that Democrats are all over Scott Walker for doing the same thing.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10024638239

Oooops. At CPAC Panel, Rience Preibus admits illegal campaign coordination in Wisconsin

The "John Doe 1" investigation in Wisconsin looked into illegal campaigning on government time by Scott Walker's staff while he was Milwaukee County Executive. As a result of the investigation, six of Walker's closest staff members were convicted of crimes.

The "John Doe 2" investigation is looking into illegal campaign coordination between Walker and third party political groups in the runup to the 2012 recall election. At CPAC RNC Chairman Rience Preibus casually admitted that such coordination occurred.


http://uppitywis.org/blogarticle/yes-we-have-no-bad-actors-conservative-speakers-let-slip-coordin

YES, WE HAVE NO BAD ACTORS: Conservative speakers let slip coordination between Walker campaign & third-party issue groups

"How did we do it in Wisconsin?” (Priebus) asked Saturday morning. “The simplest way I can tell you is we had total and complete unity between the state party, quite frankly, Americans for Prosperity, the Tea Party groups, the Grandsons of Liberty. The (Glenn Beck-instigated) 9/12ers were involved. It was a total and complete agreement that nobody cared who got the credit, that everyone was going to run down the tracks together.”

...

2. More important, Americans For Prosperity is among groups believed to be the subject of the current John Doe investigation into whether such clearly political organizations illegally coordinated with the Walker campaign. Based on the Salon report, it sure sounds like Walker and the rest of that "intrepid group" of activists were pretty friendly -- same-room, same-meeting friendly! According to Priebus, all conservative interests were in "total and complete agreement." He would know, since he took a hands-on role in Wisconsin election campaigning. Moreover, according to Priebus all the groups ran "down the tracks together." That's for sure; they railroaded opponents at high speed, using tremendous amounts of expensive advertising.

Remember, "independent" third-party "educational" groups are not supposed to go near the campaigns of candidates for public office or strategize with them, especially candidates they indirectly support through their "non-campaign" advertising. Yeah, if I were a John Doe investigator, I'd be grabbing a complete set of the CPAC forum transcripts.

The DU thread has over 100 recs.

[arcane1]

39. Well, that's different, because.... um... er...

I got nothin'

[840high]

52. Thanks.

[delrem]

53. Walker doesn't have a quick response team tuned into DU,

ready with a warbaharbl defence.
So it isn't a fair comparison.

[Cerridwen]

14. Something I wish the Democrats would have put in place long ago.

Something I wish the Democrats would have put in place long ago. RightWing Watch and Media Matters are two such others. I notice wapo isn't checking into groups such as citizens united and groundswell. I'm sure it's just an oversight and not intentional...uh, huh.

It became obvious in the 90s that the r/w was going to do anything, lie, obfuscate, twist, spin, and bloviate, to destroy Democrats and to misinform and muddy the works and words of Democrats. They "started" their loudest campaign against the Clintons (they'd been doing much the same since at least nixon (the richards, mellon-scaife and viguerie) but they became exceptionally loud and obnoxious during the Clinton years; see this article from The New Yorker on "citizens united&quot and they haven't shut up since. If anything, they've perfected their spin machines. See, for an example, this article from Mother Jones about "the groundswell group,"

Believing they are losing the messaging war with progressives, a group of prominent conservatives in Washington—including the wife of Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas and journalists from Breitbart News and the Washington Examiner—has been meeting privately since early this year to concoct talking points, coordinate messaging, and hatch plans for "a 30 front war seeking to fundamentally transform the nation," according to documents obtained by Mother Jones.

MoJo's full coverage of Groundswell.

Groundswell's Secret Crusade to Crush Karl Rove
Is Ginni Thomas' Expanding Activism a Problem for Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas?
PHOTOS: Meet Groundswell's Major Players
Groundswell: A Secret Tape Reveals How It Lobbied Boehner and Issa on Benghazi

Dubbed Groundswell, this coalition convenes weekly in the offices of Judicial Watch, the conservative legal watchdog group. During these hush-hush sessions and through a Google group, the members of Groundswell—including aides to congressional Republicans—cook up battle plans for their ongoing fights against the Obama administration, congressional Democrats, progressive outfits, and the Republican establishment and "clueless" GOP congressional leaders. They devise strategies for killing immigration reform, hyping the Benghazi controversy, and countering the impression that the GOP exploits racism. And the Groundswell gang is mounting a behind-the-scenes organized effort to eradicate the outsize influence of GOP über-strategist/pundit Karl Rove within Republican and conservative ranks. (For more on Groundswell's "two front war" against Rove—a major clash on the right—click here.)

One of the influential conservatives guiding the group is Virginia "Ginni" Thomas, a columnist for the Daily Caller and a tea party consultant and lobbyist. Other Groundswell members include John Bolton, the former UN ambassador; Frank Gaffney, the president of the Center for Security Policy; Ken Blackwell and Jerry Boykin of the Family Research Council; Tom Fitton, the president of Judicial Watch; Gayle Trotter, a fellow at the Independent Women's Forum; Catherine Engelbrecht and Anita MonCrief of True the Vote; Allen West, the former GOP House member; Sue Myrick, also a former House GOPer; Diana Banister of the influential Shirley and Banister PR firm; and Max Pappas, a top aide to Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Texas).

Among the conveners listed in an invitation to a May 8 meeting of Groundswell were Stephen Bannon, executive chairman of Breitbart News Network; Dan Bongino, a former Secret Service agent who resoundingly lost a Maryland Senate race last year (and is now running for a House seat); Leonard Leo, executive vice president of the Federalist Society; Sandy Rios, a Fox News contributor; Lori Roman, a former executive director of the American Legislative Exchange Council; and Austin Ruse, the head of the Catholic Family and Human Rights Institute. Conservative journalists and commentators participating in Groundswell have included Breitbart News reporters Matthew Boyle and Mike Flynn, Washington Examiner executive editor Mark Tapscott, and National Review contributor Michael James Barton.

<snip to more at link

Here's a bit from the New Yorker article:

[center]Money Unlimited
How Chief Justice John Roberts orchestrated the Citizens United decision.[/center]
By Jeffrey Toobin

When Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission was first argued before the Supreme Court, on March 24, 2009, it seemed like a case of modest importance. The issue before the Justices was a narrow one. The McCain-Feingold campaign-finance law prohibited corporations from running television commercials for or against Presidential candidates for thirty days before primaries. During that period, Citizens United, a nonprofit corporation, had wanted to run a documentary, as a cable video on demand, called “Hillary: The Movie,” which was critical of Hillary Clinton. The F.E.C. had prohibited the broadcast under McCain-Feingold, and Citizens United had challenged the decision. There did not seem to be a lot riding on the outcome. After all, how many nonprofits wanted to run documentaries about Presidential candidates, using relatively obscure technologies, just before elections?

<snip>

Then Antonin Scalia spoke up. More than anyone, Scalia was responsible for transforming the dynamics of oral arguments at the Supreme Court. When Scalia became a Justice, in 1986, the Court sessions were often somnolent affairs, but his rapid-fire questioning spurred his colleagues to try to keep pace, and, as Roberts said, in a tribute to Scalia on his twenty-fifth anniversary as a Justice, “the place hasn’t been the same since.” Alternately witty and fierce, Scalia invariably made clear where he stood.

He had long detested campaign-spending restrictions, frequently voting to invalidate such statutes as violations of the First Amendment. For this reason, it seemed, Scalia was disappointed by the limited nature of Olson’s claim.

<snip>

Floyd Brown had worked around the fringes of the conservative movement for years before he became famous, in 1988. He was the political director of an independent campaign committee called Americans for Bush, which produced and broadcast a commercial featuring Willie Horton, a convicted murderer who received a weekend furlough in Massachusetts and then committed several grisly crimes. When the election was over, Americans for Bush had outlived its usefulness. So Brown embraced the notoriety that came with the co–authorship of the Willie Horton ad, and founded a new organization. He called it Citizens United.

<snip to much more at the link posted above>

Let me know when wapo starts "investigating" the decades of r/w spin machines and "think tanks," such as aei, (phyllis schlafley worked as a "researcher" for them in the mid-40s<--end trivia), the heritage foundation and its coors family connections, focus on the family, rove's american crossroads, and grover norquist's americans for tax reform, to name just a few.

Of course, the rules are different for republicans, aren't they. Setup "think tanks" to lie and spin and use whatever money they may and it's just another republican tool. If a Democrat does it, it must be "illegal," and "unethical" and worthy of note.

Same shit. Different decade.

[wyldwolf]

16. And so-called 'bipartisan' legal organizations like quoted by WaPo always seem to go after Dems

... much to the delight of some. (read my sig line below)

[TM99]

18. Except Rightwingwatch

and Media Matters are non-profits not tied to a specific Democratic candidate through several PAC's funneling funds towards its usage.

Republican groups like Americans For Prosperity which is similar to this one have been investigated and discussed on DU. So no the rules are not different are they?

Read the OP again and then read up on http://www.democracy21.org/.

[wyldwolf]

20. You keep asking people to read the OP - we have

You're basing your entire argument on a couple of people's legal opinions. I assure you there's are not the only legal opinions on the matter as the piece also states.

[TM99]

21. So you are one of those Democrats

that believes like Republicans that as long as it is not yet illegal but damned unethical & inappropriate, it is A-OK.

You are definitely a part of the problem.

[wyldwolf]

23. LOL. That kind of fallback argument is typical

as long as it is not yet illegal

It isn't.

unethical & inappropriate,

Says who?

[DemocratSinceBirth]

42. I have a question.

Let's stipulate for the sake of discussion that HRC is our nominee.

What kind of Democrat would oppose other Democrats having an apparatus that responds to right wing attacks on her?


And what kind of Democrat would suggest she be a pinata for right wing attacks?


Thank you in advance.

[TM99]

50. I trust independent

watchdog organizations like this one and the Campaign Legal Center far more than I do a Clinton supporter on a forum or the legal counsel of Clinton's own personal firm Perkins Coie.

http://www.bloomberg.com/politics/articles/2015-05-13/is-new-hillary-clinton-super-pac-pushing-legal-boundaries-

[wyldwolf]

56. No one is asking you to trust a Clinton supporter on a forum

Actually, no one is asking you for anything.

[Agschmid]

24. They don't.

Whether this organization stands up to the legal scrutiny also remains to be seen.

But valiant effort. Bernie should get one of these set up STAT because the right wing won't waste any time if/when he becomes the front runner.

[wyldwolf]

26. WHEN Bernie does, the OP will think it's fine.

Or, at the very least, contend that if it's OK for Hillary, it's OK for Bernie.

[delrem]

54. That is pure smear, all smear, and nothing but smear.

You should apologize to TM99.

[wyldwolf]

55. no chance. Bookmarking, though.

[TM99]

58. Actually no I won't.

Why?

Because I have principles and boundaries. Something few in this thread seem to care about.

If Sanders sets up a PAC funded, borderline illegal, unethical organization that jumps to the defense of any criticism of his positions, policies, or past, then I will speak out vehemently against.

I don't expect him to do so. If he does, they he would be lying to us now about only taking public money. I would lose trust in him. It would just be another corporate stooge more interested in the title of president than the job.

[BrotherIvan]

28. You want Bernie to act like Hillary?

Because you "support" him so much?

[Agschmid]

29. I want him to win.

And he is going to be up against quite a challenge in the GE.

Right?

[BrotherIvan]

31. He is running AGAINST Citizens United and Super Pacs

That is why his base is growing. We need the money out of politics and we need to find a way to show that the people still own their government. His real supporters would leave him if he started acting like a Republican.

[Agschmid]

32. Can you tell me what the group "Friends of Bernie Sanders"

Is?

Because if he wants to win in 2016 he needs to work within the system which (sucks) but does exist.

He's not going to act like a republican, and I'm not going to take your bait.

[BrotherIvan]

34. His time is not spent fundraising for his pacs

Which your candidate and her husband are doing instead of having events. It is my understanding that Friends of Bernie is for the Senate campaigns but I could be wrong.

[Agschmid]

36. In 2012 even Bernie said he might need one...

Good read, old article though.

http://m.sevendaysvt.com/vermont/a-bernie-sanders-super-pac/Content?oid=2183600

[BrotherIvan]

37. Then you are right and I am wrong

And if and when he does it, I will be the first to speak out against it. I wish this wasn't the case and that people weren't so fucking stupid as to believe attack ads. The whole system is a cesspool.

[Agschmid]

38. Unfortunately the game is somewhat rigged.

If he wants to win he will most likely need to use these tools to make that happen. I have no doubt if he became president he would fight against this type of campaign finance.

[BrotherIvan]

40. He has said he would take public financing and I would hope he does

Obama opened the floodgates when he broke his word because McCain would have done it too. It could have changed everything.

[Agschmid]

41. Thing is it's really hard to know until it happens.

[NCTraveler]

25. The Gowdy record is being corrected.

For example: 1) email gate. Gowdys claim to failure fame. 2) Blumenthal: Gowdys second claim to failure fame. 3) The blatant lies being spread by right wingers about the Clinton Foundation. 4) The lie that Hillary wants to privatize social security.

Fact is, you get this. When Andrew Malcolm is cheered by people claiming to be the left of the party, their asses need to be corrected. They aren't making these claims in honest.

"Most troubling of course are the borderline ethical and even legal issues with Correct the Record."

The word "borderline" must be used because the attacks are not based in honesty. That is why such weasel words are used. It is a favorite of the Gowdy crowd.

[NYC Liberal]

43. There is nothing unethical, illegal, or dubious at all.

FEC regulations are clear that online activity can be coordinated, as stated in the article.

[TM99]

44. And the quoted watchdog group

still says this may also violate campaign finance laws.

But it will be another one of those 'after-the-fact' legal situation. Kind of like the Republicans she emulates.

I am not surprised that there is a small but vocal group of Clinton supporters that don't care if things are unethical, inappropriate, bordering on illegal, etc. as long as Clinton WINS!! It is alllllllll about the win.

[NYC Liberal]

46. Nothing at all illegal. Sorry, I know some anti-Hillary folks are desperately trying to find

something to stick her with, but this ain't it.

I am not surprised that there is a small but vocal group of Clinton supporters that don't care if things are unethical, inappropriate, bordering on illegal, etc. as long as Clinton WINS!! It is alllllllll about the win.

And others don't give a shit who wins as long as Clinton loses — even if it's a Republican. Just look at the people right here on DU saying they will not vote for her even if she is the nominee.

[TM99]

47. Like everything, this will come back

and bite her in the ass.

Latest polls show her losing favor with Independents.

[forthemiddle]

45. If Walker is the nominee

There goes another issue off the table.
John Doe 2, which is still in the courts is all about campaign coordination, and in my opinion a great knock against Walker, but if Clinton is doing the same thing there goes that issue.

[Mr. Robot]

48. Not quite surprising.

the SuperPACs will only irritate the voters and point the true path to the nomination - through one Bernard "Bernie" Sanders.

[Agschmid]

57. I fee real bad for the O'Malley supporters around here...

[Purveyor]

59. Kick. Thank you for posting. eom