Sanders drops line attacking super PACs from speech after super PAC backs him

[brooklynite]

Source: Politico

Bernie Sanders’ disapproval of super PACs is a stand-by theme in his stump speech, and it’s a concept that was included in the prepared remarks of his much-anticipated speech on democratic socialism on Thursday.

But the pre-written line went missing on Thursday, as Sanders — with two TelePrompTers standing before him — skipped straight from a passage about mandatory voter registration to a line-by-line explanation of the differences between his own ideology and the socialism people commonly think of.

“It is unacceptable that we have a corrupt campaign finance system which allows millionaires, billionaires and large corporations to contribute as much as they want to super PACs to elect candidates who will represent their special interests,” Sanders’ was expected to say during his address at Georgetown University. “We must overturn Citizens United and move to public funding of elections."

The omission of that line went unnoticed by the 700-person audience, but it comes at a noteworthy time for Sanders: one day after the Sunlight Foundation noted that the National Nurses United union was using its affiliated super PAC to back Sanders with nearly $570,000.

Read more: http://www.politico.com/story/2015/11/bernie-sanders-drops-super-pacs-attack-216088#ixzz3rzRDxctE

[iandhr]

1. I am shocked SHOCKED to find gambling going on here.

[NurseJackie]

28. +1

One of my favorites!

[Angel Martin]

148. Meet the new boss...

same as the old boss !

[forest444]

2. Point taken - but remember: this is National Nurses United,

not something cobbled together between Sheldon Adelson and the Sinaloa Cartel.

That said, you're right: he should mention them in the future, and do so with pride. To neglect doing so could be seen as hypocrisy, however slight. All other candidates, of course, should do likewise.

[dlwickham]

39. a super pac by any other name

still makes him a hypocrite

[JonLeibowitz]

3. My question to the DU wise gods:

What could Sanders possibly do about this so-called superPAC even if he didn't want them to back him. He isn't coordinating with them, he says he doesn't want the backing of any superPAC, none of his former advisors work for the PAC. What could he possibly do to cut ties more with this PAC? It just seems as if this is the world that Citizens United has created, where a candidate cannot reject the support of a superPAC which claims to support him/her. Honest question here.

(Note: before anyone jumps to argue the other side, this same argument cannot be applied to HRC because she is very actively coordinating with her superPACs and has former advisors running them. Completely different ballgame. Let's not get sidetracked.)

[forest444]

5. Exactly. He can't very well "reject" their support or money, as he did with Shkreli the pharma bro.

That said, Bernie needs to be careful to avoid the appearance of hypocrisy. He should mention them in the near future, thank them, and of course ask that all candidates do likewise.

[dlwickham]

41. of course he could reject it

he could have simply said thank you but no thank you; I appreciate your support but I have pledged not to take funds from any super PAC

[JackRiddler]

44. No candidate takes funds from super PACs.

Super PACs spend independently and are not supposed to coordinate with campaigns. Of course they do.

[restorefreedom]

101. they won't give him funds but they might campaign for him

and thanks to c.u., they have "free speech." what is he supposed to do about that?

[dlwickham]

124. he could ask them not to spend that $500K on campaigning for him

seems pretty cut and dry

[Elmer S. E. Dump]

111. He doesn't have to "take any funds".

The SuperPac spends the money how they see fit. No coordination allowed. Unless you are someone I won't mention.

[dlwickham]

123. who could you be talking about?

[Elmer S. E. Dump]

126. Mitt. Yeah, Mitt Romney. Yeah, that's the ticket!

[brooklynite]

8. "Sanders campaign 'honored' by $500K support from super-PAC"

The Hill:

The Bernie Sanders presidential campaign says it is “honored” to receive more than $500,000 in support from a nurses union super-PAC, saying the independent financial backing in no way contradicts the Vermont senator’s opposition to big-money politics.

“We are honored to have the support of National Nurses United,” said Sanders campaign manager Jeff Weaver, responding to a report by the Sunlight Foundation — a group that tracks money in politics — that reveals the super-PAC has already spent $569,000 helping Sanders this primary season.

[JonLeibowitz]

11. Note carefully my wording: "even if he didn't want them to back him"

Any decent campaign is going to realize that he has to say that he is honored. Nobody will believe him when he says (however correctly it is) that he cannot control what a superPAC which claims to support him does.

[BlueCaliDem]

60. Note carefully: In the second debate, he said he DOES NOT WANT A SUPER PAC

and that he would tell them, "No thank you!". But now his campaign, speaking on his behalf and, of course, after receiving $569k support, says, "We are honored..."

Note also, he has PLEDGED, back in May and with great brou-ha-ha not to accept Super PAC support. And yet now he is feeling honored...

But it's not that a SuperPAC supports him that's hypocritical. After all, no campaign can stop a group of people from forming a Super PAC if they so choose. But it's his campaign's official response about feeling honored about the $569,000 support he got from them that makes this hypocritical - especially after his blatant attempt to impugn Hillary Clinton's integrity last Saturday.

That's a major flip-flop and pure hypocrisy. A Super PAC is a Super PAC, and he made no qualifications which Super PAC is acceptable and which isn't.

[forest444]

26. Good. He should be.

This is National Nurses United. Not one of Sheldon Adelson's Sinaloa fronts or Paul Singer's vulture slush funds.

[blackspade]

68. This is some creative reporting.

Weaver said that Sanders was “.... honored to have the support of National Nurses United” which is a union.
This is creative writing on the part of the "Hill"
This another pitiful attack on the Sanders campaign.

[RichVRichV]

86. More from the same link.

“Unlike others, we have not started a super PAC, are not coordinating with a super PAC, and we have not fundraised for a super PAC,” Weaver wrote.

“We stand by our position that we do not want the help of a super PAC.”

[MADem]

15. He recorded a video thanking them for their support. That's a NUDGE WINK way of saying "Keep it

Coming, Friends" without actually "coordinating." So let's leave it be. His staffers had a RUN BERNIE superpac that was shut down after he declared...but it was up and running previous to that.

Here's his "coordinate without coordinating" message:

https://vimeo.com/143471247

They've spent a half million so far, and they have filed these expenditures with the FEC, they have another quarter million in the bank, and for all we know, maybe they are raising more.



He's staying entirely within the law, but he's acting just like a POLITICIAN. No better, no worse.

It is hypocritical to criticize one candidate when the other is doing the same thing.

[JonLeibowitz]

20. Thank you for that post.

Interesting. Interesting indeed.

I will have to think about this more and keep my eyes open as this develops.

Cheers.

[MADem]

29. Keep in mind this--what he is doing is ENTIRELY legal. That is the bottom line.

If you could say anything about this, you could say he's "evolving" on this issue.

He's starting to realize that you can't run a campaign on Love and Pale Moonlight, and you can't meet some of the key expenditures by hoping like hell that acolytes will Feel That Bern sufficiently (around expensive winter holidays like Thanksgiving, Chanukah and Christmas) to write enough of those little checks. He needs some funding streams that might be considered pretty stalwart, and are willing to take on a specific "chore" (like print ad buys, which is what the nurses are doing a lot of, among other things).

He's growing up, getting a taste of realpolitik. A state of 650K people (the size of the city of Boston, pretty much) is not a template for a national campaign. He needs money and lots of it. You don't make payroll without it.

Again--nothing wrong with it. And nothing wrong with OTHER candidates doing it, either. We have to dance with the ones what brung us, and the ones what brung us, on a mandatory date arranged by the Supreme Court, are Citizens United. With any luck we can eventually get a new crew in at the Supremes who will overturn that bad law, and then we can get on to the business of campaign finance reform in earnest.

[virtualobserver]

33. when union members who are billionaire nurse oligarchs exist .....I will be concerned

[TryLogic]

48. Exactly.

[MADem]

52. Way to miss the point. This isn't about "concern" or billionaire nurses--what he is doing is legal.

But he has lined out his snarking about SUPER PACS in his stump speech because he has come to realize that he can't make payroll without someone taking up some of these miscellaneous expenditures.

He has figured out that when SUPER PACS pay some of the bills, he has more money to pay his workers, rent his offices, pay his travel expenditures, etc.

[zalinda]

54. They are basically printing pamphlets

from what has been reported. Has nothing to do with paying his workers or renting his offices and he flies coach.

Z

[MADem]

62. Yes--they are taking out print ads, doing flyers, doing "candidate interest" print work, etc.

They are doing this so the CAMPAIGN doesn't HAVE to do it.

This frees up money to PAY those workers, rent those offices, etc. Every bill he does NOT have to pay is like money in the bank for him.

He can more reliably attend to his fixed expenses if his expenditures of opportunity are paid for by someone else.

He needs to pay those fixed expenses every month. The "nice to have" stuff -- that this Super Pac is covering--helps with outreach. If he had to cover his own outreach expenses, he might have to fire a few people if the money wasn't coming in--and the holidays are coming, when people are often strapped for cash.

[virtualobserver]

57. This PAC has received zero donations greater than $200....ZERO! It isn't functioning as a SuperPAC

small donations, just like Bernie.

When the nurses start donating at a million dollars a pop like Hillary's donors do, get back with me.

[MADem]

59. It's a SUPER PAC. Sorry if you don't like it, but it is what it is.

When the FEC changes the definition, you get back to me.

LOL!

[virtualobserver]

61. what makes a SuperPAC a SuperPAC?

[MADem]

63. Here ya go....

http://www.fec.gov/ans/answers_pac.shtml


I thought you knew all these rules...?

[virtualobserver]

65. no, I do know....that is my point....it is the unlimited dollar donations that Bernie objects to.

this is a union PAC and it has received no donations in excess of $200

It is perfectly in line with Bernie.

[MADem]

117. There is no limit on the amount of money that can be contributed, per the FEC.

It's a Super PAC. And it's perfectly LEGAL.

But let's not parse and play word games. Senator Sanders isn't doing that--it's why he took OUT that comment about Super PACS from his own stump speech. He realizes that "Do as I say, not as I do" looks hypocritical. You should follow his lead.

[virtualobserver]

118. it's a union PAC, funded only by the dues of hard working union members

you know, the people whose back Bernie Always has?

Bernie is beholden to nurses and union members. How hypocritical.


one family gave four times as much to Hillary's PAC than the total amount that is in in the Nurses PAC.

The games are all on the Hillary side of the field.

[MADem]

119. This is not "a" Union. It is a conglomeration of affiliated groups, called

"National Nurses United for Patient Protection."

You should look at their FEC form 1.

And "Hers are BIGGER!!!" is not an excuse.

Sanders stopped trashing SUPERPACS in his stump speech because he's taking money from one. Deal with it. He is--that's why he cut that line out.

[virtualobserver]

121. size IS the point

Bernie doesn't dislike superPACS because he hates the word super..or that he had a traumatic PACMAN experience a few decades ago..it is the donation size.

It is large donations from individuals and corporations corrupting the system that he is opposed to, not whether the FEC designates a small PAC
that is not funded by large donations as a superPAC.

so to reiterate, "Hers are BIGGER!!!" is not an excuse, it's the damn point, because when it comes to size of individual donations....size corrupts!

[MADem]

122. Not according to the FEC. Size doesn't matter.

If a wealthy member of this alliance throws a million or two into the pot, you'll have to eat your words. And don't think that's an impossibility, either, as things move forward.

I think Sanders realizes this, and this is why he took that SUPER PAC comment out of the stump speech.

[virtualobserver]

127. I care about reality, not about FEC labels

your hypotheticals are just that...imaginary maybes...... plus your vaunted ability to read Bernie's mind , of course.


I heard the same argument months ago from Hillary supporters swearing that Billions in Bernie SuperPACS were just on the horizon with the accompanying "Bernie has seen the light" postings.

In reality, we, along with some kind unions, can provide him with all of the funds that he needs.

[MADem]

128. Well, golly that's swell. But unlike you, the FEC has the force of law behind the things they care

about!

And there's no "argument" here. The FEC has their filings.

[virtualobserver]

129. get back to me when huge donors actually donate to this PAC

then we will see how Bernie reacts to it....

Until then both I and Bernie welcome this support from union nurses.

[MADem]

130. Why would I "get back to you?" I've told you how the FEC regards this. That's pretty much it.

As for Sanders, he took that snark about SUPER PACS out of his stump speech--so we know what he thinks they are.

[virtualobserver]

131. if he isn't getting big donations, the designation doesn't matter

Bernie's new ad shows that his message hasn't changed

[MADem]

132. Still doesn't change the FEC determination, or the fact that a sentence about super pacs was removed

from Sanders' stump speech.

As the OP pointed out....
http://www.politico.com/story/2015/11/bernie-sanders-drops-super-pacs-attack-216088

[virtualobserver]

133. one sentence removed from one speech.....

there are many things added and removed on the fly.

but desperately cling to that if you like.

[MADem]

134. Yeah, one BIG sentence--the only one about Super Pacs.

But you go on and don't stop believing that it was just "added and removed on the fly!"



I think you are the one doing the "desperately cling" thing, there, lil buddy!

A 'fan made' video, just for you!

[riversedge]

92. Thanks

[2pooped2pop]

76. ^this^ n/t

[cannabis_flower]

151. Couldn't have said it better myself!

[JonLeibowitz]

37. While everything you write could be true

Don't mistake for a second that i agree that this places any kind of moral equivalence with HRC.

Also, i argue elsewhere on this thread why for reasons of strategy he has no choice but to 'thank' them. The optics don't look good if he claims to denounce them as he has no control over them. Campaign Finance laws are a disaster here.

[MADem]

43. I think he's coming to that conclusion--otherwise he wouldn't have taken that comment out of his

speech.

In for a penny, in for a pound.

"I only took a little" isn't an excuse, and this isn't a 'purity' exercise, anyway.

And if he didn't want them paying his bills, he can come out and say "If I were running a SUPER PAC, I wouldn't pay for candidate print advertising, or (fill in the blank)." There are ways to tell a SUPER PAC "no" without actually talking to them.

It's obvious, though, that he likes what they are doing.

He has expenses, and he's figured out that he can't meet them relying on checks from the little guys. He's got payroll to meet, offices to staff and rent, and these things cost money. The more "miscellaneous expenditures" that a Super Pac (or two, or ten) can take on, the more he can devote the money he raises by himself and in cooperation with Debbie Wasserman Schultz (as agreed to in the first week of this month) to hard and fast expenditures that are predictable and recurring.

He's figuring out, at last, that this is how it works.

What's coming up in the next thirty some odd days? Thanksgiving $$$$ Chanukah $$$$$$$$$ Christmas $$$$$$$$. Those are HUGE sucking sounds you hear as disposable income is sucked down those holes (and not towards candidates). In the colder climates, people are paying the heat bill now. And that gets worse over the next several months.

He NEEDS some people picking up some of his bills, and he's figured that out. Reality is harsh, but it is what it is.

[JonLeibowitz]

89. And you say Bernie supporters have conspiracy theories...

Just for that, I chipped in another $50. Bernie Sanders thanks you for your contribution!

[MADem]

136. Go on, then, give him another fifty--just to "spite" me!

Good grief, you actually think I care what you do with your money? What kind of thought process comes to that conclusion?

"Just for THAT," eh? Now I'm wondering what you'd do for a Klondike Bar!



Give him $2700 dollars--PLEASE! Ya got that lying around? Go on, write that check!

Boost the economies of IA and NH! It's all dandy!

Never before have I heard the simple fact that holiday shopping impacts disposable income availability couched as a "conspiracy theory" -- but there's always a first time. Go on, prove me wrong--write that check for $2700 (minus, of course, what you've already contributed...wouldn't want to get you in hot water with ......

THE FEC!!!!!!)

[JonLeibowitz]

137. .

Give him $2700 dollars--PLEASE! Ya got that lying around? Go on, write that check!

Clever -- writing a $2700 check would put me at $2750+ donations in a single cycle, violating FEC regulations. I'm on to you!!

Nice try though.

[MADem]

139. I said "minus what you've already given" .... nt

[JonLeibowitz]

140. I should really read the full message before trying to crack an obvious joke.

Sorry!

[blackspade]

69. Oh, bullshit.

This was his response to the union endorsement.
The 'Sunshine Foundation' chose to include this in their blog simply to conflate the union with the PAC.
They did the same thing with the flyer that they included in the same post.

Pathetic.

[MADem]

70. So, did the FEC put them on their Super Pac list just to be mean and conflate?

http://www.fec.gov/press/press2011/ieoc_alpha.shtml

Go to line item 655, click on the link, and see their filings.

When you have to get all "Oh bullshit" in response to an assertion backed up with links and facts, I'd say you're operating behind the curve. What's pathetic is your response to these pesky facts.

There is a reason Sanders took out that SUPER PAC comment from his stump speech. The reason is that he's benefitting from one.

He's EVOLVING. Nothing wrong with it, except the reaction of his supporters to it....

[blackspade]

75. What facts are you talking about?

You posted a video thanking the Union for their endorsement and conflated it with thanking a PAC for their support.
The union has a PAC. The union is not the PAC.
And you have no idea why he took that line out of his speech. Your welcome to theorize based on your biases but don't assume that your supposition is a 'fact.'

[MADem]

78. I posted links to the FEC filings. Read them. This is not about "biases."

He took the line out of his speech because he is taking money from a Super Pac that is doing media and other ad buys for him.



Here's a "fact" for you--just one of this Super Pac's expenditure reports:

http://docquery.fec.gov/pdf/602/201511169003347602/201511169003347602.pdf#navpanes=0

[blackspade]

84. The FEC filings don't show the 'facts' you seem to think.

They show the expenditures of the PAC.
It is still not Sanders' PAC or endorsed by him no matter how you want to interpret it.

"He took the line out of his speech because he is taking money from a Super Pac that is doing media and other ad buys for him."

And you know this how? Another one of your suppositions mascarading as 'facts'

[MADem]

87. Look harder.

http://docquery.fec.gov/pdf/602/201511169003347602/201511169003347602.pdf#navpanes=0

See where it says "name of federal candidate" and they've typed in BERNARD SANDERS?

See where there are two blocks, SUPPORT and OPPOSE, and they've checked SUPPORT?

Mmm hmmm.

These expenditures benefit Sanders. He is "taking money from a Super Pac" every bit as much as Clinton is doing it.

That is why he took that line out of his stump speech.

[blackspade]

103. He is not taking money from a PAC.

An independent PAC belonging to a union, that endorsed him, is expending the money.
But please proceed governor.

[MADem]

138. Yes, he is, and he's HONORED to do so, too!

http://thehill.com/blogs/ballot-box/fundraising/260754-sanders-campaign-honored-by-500k-support-from-super-pac

Sanders campaign 'honored' by $500K support from super-PAC

[davidpdx]

71. He is thanking ONE union for supporting him

Nope, nothing about money. FAIL!

[MADem]

73. Thanking one union AFTER they spent a half million bucks on him...

And right before he took out that SUPER PAC insult from his stump speech. So, still a "fail?" Why did he delete that snark from his speech? Ya think because he knew it was ....oh, what's the word...?

Hypocritical?

http://www.fec.gov/press/press2011/ieoc_alpha.shtml

Here you go--go to line 655, and click on the link. That "union" -- according to the FEC -- is a SUPER PAC. They have an FEC number and everything--and they regularly file expenditure reports.

[davidpdx]

74. $500,000?

And please remind me how much Hillary Clinton's PACs have raised. You should know the number since you guys brag about it.

Yet there is still no mention of money in the video. FAIL!

[MADem]

135. I don't think Sen. Sanders is stupid.

Why do you?

Because he'd have to be an IDIOT to "mention" money, because to do so would be ILLEGAL. That would be the "FAIL!" of which you speak.

The FEC has called this affiliated organization (not "a union&quot a SUPER PAC.

Sanders has removed references to Super Pacs from his stump speech.

He's definitely not stupid at all--he knows what hypocrisy is, and he's not going to give that money back, now, is he?

[davidpdx]

142. He certainly doesn't need it given the amount of money he is bringing in from small donations

I've posted again and again the FEC fundraising for both showing that the majority of Sanders money comes from donors under $200, whereas Clinton's is the opposite.

Still no proof exists that he approved the pack. It is speculation on your part.

[MADem]

144. He probably DOES need it. That's why he thanked them. Campaigns cost money. Payroll needs to be

made. The more 'independent expenditures' are paid by other agencies, the more money there is to do regular housekeeping chores, like keep the lights on or the offices heated.

It's a SUPER PAC, it's not "a union," and you can look at their filings as well as anyone else.

It's a grouping of affiliated, like - minded people, many of whom are members of various unions, and they have organized themselves into an entity called National Nurses United For Patient Protection, which is an independent expenditure group, AKA a Super PAC. They have filed a Form 1 with the FEC saying this.

It's just not a disputable point.

That's why Sanders took that sentence snarking about Super PACs out of his speech.

No "speculation" there at all.

And for the UMPTEENTH time (you really should know better), for Sanders to say he "approved the (sic) pack" would be ILLEGAL. You want Sanders to violate the law?

He recorded a "Thank you" video shortly after these nice Super PAC nurses and friends of nurses spent a half million on him.

No "speculation" there, either.

Nothing to see here, nudge wink, move along!

[davidpdx]

145. He needs them to pay because he needs money for "housekeeping"

Well he must be a mess then. Actually he's spending a fraction of what Clinton is between her campaign and her super pacs. He's also got more donors than Obama had at this point in 2008.

So no, he doesn't need the money.

[MADem]

146. Be as obtuse about this as you'd like.

Campaigns ALWAYS need the money.

You think Sanders can campaign in fifty states with the scratch he's got to date?

Dream on!

[KittyWampus]

112. Thanks for that. As always, you're sharp as a tack.

[PotatoChip]

105. Yes, what is he supposed to do about it? Sue them?

He has repeatedly and publicly said, time and again, "I do not want a SuperPac".

These are Independent Expenditures done by a group by the name of National Nurses United for Patient Protection. They receive much (but not all) of their funding from the nurses union who endorsed Bernie. The union who endorsed Bernie is National Nurses United (NNU).

So what is Bernie's campaign supposed to do if an affiliated group of the group who actually endorsed him (NNU) goes against his wishes, and makes independent expenditures that he likely did not know about until after the fact?... Furthermore, even if he knew (which is what is disgustingly being implied here)... even if he did know about it, what the hell could he do to stop them?

He has no control over what they do, and it's not entirely clear to me if even the union who endorsed him (NNU) has much of a say either.

Even the Sunlight Foundation, who appears to have broken this story, acknowledges that the Sanders Campaign has little choice in the matter. To wit:

Bernie Sanders can often be heard on the campaign trail decrying the role of money in politics. Sanders has stated many times he does not have a super PAC, and even dedicated a page on his website entitled “I don’t have a super PAC.” But it seems he's getting super PAC support — whether he wants it or not.

National Nurses United endorsed Sanders on Aug. 11, and to date the group's affiliated super PAC has spent a little more than $569,000 in support of him. The spending ranges from print and online ads to printing materials, with significant buys in key states like Iowa, New Hampshire, South Carolina and Nevada. As of the last super PAC filing on June 30, the group had about $250,000 cash on hand.

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

Even NPR, as recently as yesterday, includes Bernie's campaign manager's statement which reiterates Bernie's steadfast opposition to SuperPac expenditures. The Sanders Campaign DOES NOT want SuperPacs to have any role whatsoever in their campaign:

SuperPAC Or Not, This Group Has Money To Bern For Sanders
Updated November 19, 2015 12:52 PM ET

/Snip
Sanders campaign manager Jeff Weaver said in an email, "We are honored to have the support of National Nurses United."

Then he drew a line between the NNU PAC and the presidential superPACS. "We have not started a superPAC, are not coordinating with a superPAC, and we have not fundraised for a superPAC," he said. "We stand by our position that we do not want the help of a superPAC.

http://www.npr.org/2015/11/19/456560662/superpac-or-not-this-group-has-money-to-bern-for-sanders

The OP's article, along with many other MSM outlets have taken this situation which is beyond Bernie's control, and run with it, while disgustingly implying that he is ok with it. He is not. He does not condone what they are doing, despite what these articles disgustingly imply.

He does not want their "help".

[enid602]

4. schtick

I guess the only problem with super pacs is that up until recently, he wasn't getting any. Now he's deleted mention of them from his schtick. Predictable.

[JackRiddler]

46. Hmmm, nurses or billionaires?

All the same to you!

[Gman]

6. SuperPACs are exclusively evil corporate tools

Most people don't seem to know that there are a lot of liberal and/or union super PACs.

They. Just don't have as much money

[Omaha Steve]

7. Only members of the union can contribute by law

I'm sure there are many millionaire nurses in that union!

From the link: After that report surfaced, Sanders’ campaign manager Jeff Weaver told CNN, “We have not started a super PAC, are not coordinating with a super PAC, and have not fundraised for a super PAC."

Hillary attends super PAC fund raisers.

[brooklynite]

9. Name a SuperPAC fundraiser Hillary has attended

[JonLeibowitz]

12. While not an answer to your point, I can easily name a SuperPAC fundraiser that Bill (will) attend.

[nilram]

16. But Bill is NOT Hillary, so there is no collusion whatsoever.

Case dismissed!

[JonLeibowitz]

18. Whew! And I thought I was on to something.

Glad you set that straight!

[Omaha Steve]

24. .

[Jarqui]

14. You mean things like this?:

Hillary Clinton Meets With Potential Super PAC Donors
Private meetings mark escalation in fundraising as GOP donors fund super PACs to support favored candidates
http://www.wsj.com/articles/hillary-clinton-meets-with-potential-super-pac-donors-1430963103

SAN FRANCISCO— Hillary Clinton met privately here with a small group of potential high-dollar donors to the Priorities USA Action super PAC Wednesday, her first donor meeting aimed at supporting the political-action committee that is backing her presidential campaign.

Mrs. Clinton will participate in more of these gatherings, including one in Los Angeles on Thursday, said officials, who described them as conversations with small groups and individuals.

The meetings mark an escalation in fundraising by Mrs. Clinton, the front-runner for the Democratic nomination, at a time when GOP donors are funding super PACs to back favored candidates. Donations to the PACs aren’t subject to the $2,700-per-election cap that limit the size of individual donations to campaigns.
...
News of Mrs. Clinton’s aid to the PAC’s fundraising was first reported by the New York Times.

Mrs. Clinton’s meetings with potential high-dollar donors come at the same time she is raising money for her campaign. The events are intended to build on the “Hillstarters” program, which asks people to raise $27,000 for the campaign, or 10 or more contributions of $2,700.

Billionaire activist Tom Steyer hosted one of these gatherings for Mrs. Clinton at his San Francisco home on Wednesday. Mrs. Clinton addressed a crowd of more than 100 attendees, speaking about the economy, building stronger families and foreign policy.
...
Also on Wednesday evening, Mrs. Clinton was scheduled to attend another San Francisco gathering hosted by political donors Susie Tompkins Buell and Mark Buell.

Senior Clinton Aides Have Attended Super PAC Events
https://www.gop.com/senior-clinton-aides-have-attended-super-pac-events/

Facing Money Gap, Hillary Clinton Slowly Warms to ‘Super PAC’ Gifts
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/08/18/us/politics/facing-money-gap-hillary-clinton-slowly-warms-to-super-pac-gifts.html?_r=0

Democratic fund-raisers say Mrs. Clinton’s involvement is helping Priorities USA Action gain ground. Longtime Clinton donors like J. B. Pritzker and Fred Eychaner are expected to give this year, according to a senior Democratic strategist who is close to the Clintons but insisted on anonymity in order to discuss fund-raising candidly.

“At the end of the day,” said Andy Spahn, a political consultant to Hollywood donors, including Mr. Katzenberg, “it can’t be done without Hillary.”

[MADem]

19. Cough.

https://vimeo.com/143471247


Cough. Cough.

Scroll down to see fifty five expenditures between AUG-NOV of this year, filed by the Nurses' SUPER PAC 'supporting' Sanders:

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

[virtualobserver]

35. a few hundred thousand from union nurses vs the tens of millions in Hillary Superpacs

Team Hillary is just embarrassing.

[MADem]

45. This is not about amounts--it's about "evolving" on an issue.

Sanders has evolved on this issue.

He's stopped complaining about SUPER PACS in his stump speech, and he's accepting help from at least one SUPER PAC.

What's embarrassing is the IOKIYABS excuse making. Not a good look. The nurses have spent a half million + in just three short months and they've got a quarter million more in the bank. Are they raising more, still? You'll have to ask them.

I think Sanders changed his speech because he's changed his MIND on this issue, and realizes he needs the doggone cash.

And there's nothing wrong with that--it's legal what he's doing.

[virtualobserver]

55. This PAC has received zero donations greater than $200....ZERO!

small donations, just like Bernie's own campaign.

This is the typical fake Team Hillary attack.

Hillary's SuperPACS can accept donations of unlimited size and have raised tens of millions of dollars

Priorities USA has seven donors who have given $1,000,000 or more.

[BlueCaliDem]

66. Can you give me a link that supports what you say?

This is a SuperPAC, by the way, and unlike PACs that have to disclose their donors, SuperPACs do not.

[virtualobserver]

67. here you go

hillary's millions

https://www.opensecrets.org/pacs/pacgave2.php?cmte=C00495861&cycle=2016

nurse oligarch pac

http://www.opensecrets.org/pacs/pacgave2.php?cmte=C00490375&cycle=2016


The PAC is funded solely by the union.

[BlueCaliDem]

83. Thank you.

The PAC is funded solely by the union.

That's not entirely true.
One of the earliest donors of the National Nurses Union for Patient Protection SuperPAC is a 527 group called Progressive Kick,k and I'll wager a guess they'll remain a donor to the NNUPP's SuperPAC until the end of the primaries.

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

But it's nice to see that Sanders has "evolved" and understands the realities of the costs of campaigning nationally. It took him long enough, but he's finally conceded.

[virtualobserver]

88. you are quoting a poorly researched article

http://realtime.influenceexplorer.com/filings/1016833/SB


in 2014 National Nurses United donated $1.5 million TO Progressive Kick.

The listing of the disbursement that the article is calling a donation is actually a "refund" to National Nurses United. for $127,000 from Progressive Kick.




National Nurses United is the provider of funds in this relationship.......so as I said.... The PAC is funded solely by the union.

He hasn't evolved at all

[BlueCaliDem]

90. The article is written by Sunlight Foundation. Influence Explorer

is a project by Sunlight Labs which is the technology arm of Sunlight Foundation. The article explicitly notes that "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."

Don't you think they'd know who is legally a donor and who isn't? If not, you should write them to have that corrected.

But it doesn't take away from the fact that National Nurses United IS a Super PAC. It's listed as such at the top here: https://www.opensecrets.org/pacs/lookup2.php?strID=C00490375

So yeah. Sanders has evolved.

[virtualobserver]

99. then they don't read their own documents well

Last edited Fri Nov 20, 2015, 10:17 AM - Edit history (1)

SB28A National Nurses United Silver Spring, MD $127,000 2015-02-19 Refund


Refunds are not donations. National Nurses United gave Progressive Kick a huge amount of money in the last election cycle and this is a small refund.

National Nurses United is a PAC funded exclusively by a union.

Team Hillary desperately wants to prove false equivalence between Hillary's massive SuperPACS and this tiny PAC.

What you miss is, it isn't about labeling. Team Hillary hangs its hat on a technicality, pointing frantically at this tiny union PAC

It is about corruption of and influence over......elections from giant SuperPACS from huge donors.

For example....going forward, compare Hillary's statements with that of Haim Saban in terms of the middle east.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10141265704


SABAN, CHERYL
LOS ANGELES, CA 90067 NOT EMPLOYED 06/29/15 $1,000,000

SABAN, HAIM
LOS ANGELES, CA 90067 SABAN ENTERTAINMENT 06/29/15 $1,000,000

[BlueCaliDem]

110. Whatever helps you sleep at night, vo. Me? I'll take Sunlight Foundation's word over an

anonymous Bernie supporter's opinion any day of the week...unless you can prove the article wrong and have the author of it correct his own piece. If you do so successfully, please let me know. Until such time, I'll maintain that Josh Stewart knows what he's writing about.

I will take the reporting by OpenSecrets, that labels the National Nurses United for Patient Protection is a Super PAC, over the opinion of an anonymous Bernie Sanders supporter any day of the week, as well - especially one who appears to believe in nefarious political conspiracy theories.

I'll take the word of an FEC spokesperson who spoke with CNN International that National Nurses United for Patient Protection is, indeed, a SuperPAC.

Once again...a Super PAC is a Super PAC until the FEC says it's not.

Haim Saban

This disturbs me. The man clearly is an elitist, über-wealthy a-hole who had to issue a public statement for his ridiculously prejudiced remark. The man clearly doesn't have a clue how strict the U.S. screening is for Syrian refugees.

That said, I'm not holding donors' remarks against the candidate, nor will I accept your implication that just because Saban and wife are clueless regarding refugees, Hillary Clinton should be held to account for them. I fully understand that in the era of Citizens United, Democratic nominees have to match dollar-for-dollar with Republican candidates if they want to win in the G.E. Even Sanders understands that now.

My first and foremost concern is having a Democrat in the White House who has the coattails to get and keep a Democratic Senate so that when about four seats become vacant on our SCOTUS in the next decade, we don't fill them with more Roberts and Alitos. Otherwise, Citizens United will remain the law of the land and this money in politics debacle will remain and people like the Haims will continue to pontificate bullshit in exchange for their donations.

We need to get rid of Citizens United. Period. It should be our priority. And I don't want to take a chance on Bernie Sanders since he's, so far, failed to get minorities to warm up to him. I don't want another (S)Election 2000, and without strong support from the African American, Hispanic/Latino American, and Asian American voting groups culminating their support behind him, he doesn't have a snowball's chance in Hades to win against a Republican.

[virtualobserver]

113. I take THEIR word that it is a REFUND, not a donation

I used their own site, influence explorer, to show that.

http://realtime.influenceexplorer.com/filings/1016833/SB

how much clearer can it be?

you are hung up on the label Super PAC......FEC after the fact labeling doesn't change the fact that this is a pac funded purely by the union....
and it is small. The FEC may call it a duck, but it doesn't look, walk or quack like a duck....So the label is only meaningful for team Hillary in the never
ending quest to justify her big donor pacs.


I'm not holding donors' remarks against the candidate either, what I am saying is.... watch as Haim Saban pushes Hillary's positions on the middle east
further to the right. She is already instinctively moving to the right. Watch Haim's statements, then watch her behavior. If I am wrong and she isn't influenced going forward.....then I'll be happy.

stay tuned

[BlueCaliDem]

115. I don't know how refunds and donations are treated, and if there is a significant difference under

FEC laws. I'm not an FEC lawyer. So I'll just take what Josh Stewart wrote; that Progressive Kick is listed as a donor. As I've said earlier, if you and others can convince him that that 527 group issued a refund and that a refund is treated differently than a donation under FEC guidelines, therefore disqualifying PK as a donor, and Stewart corrects his article, I will happily concede. Until that time, I will continue to take what he wrote as truth.

you are hung up on the label Super PAC

Because words matter. Ask your fellow Sanders supporters. They agree with me that words matter since they wanted to argue that the National Nurses United is not a SuperPAC but just a regular PAC that only receives donations from its members. That's only one of the differences between a PAC and a SuperPAC.

As I've explained in my previous post, the National Nurses United for Patient Protection is officially a SuperPAC. It's understandable that Sanders supporters don't like to hear or read this because their candidate has loudly stated, again and again, that he will refuse SuperPAC support but has now capitulated and is seeing it as "an honor", meaning, he's not above the political fray, and he should stop (and has, if I'm correct) vilifying other candidates for having SuperPACs supporting them and not condemning them.

Watch Haim's statements, then watch her behavior. If I am wrong and she isn't influenced going forward.....then I'll be happy.

I will watch her behavior and that of Sanders. I hope you will, too.

[virtualobserver]

116. deeds matter, not labels and technicalities

deeds are irrelevant from the perspective of team H., however.

it doesn't matter to team H. that National Nurses United is funded by union nurses
from their dues. Only the after the fact labeling of their PAC by the FEC matters.

This kind of thinking pervades much of her team's policies as well.

That is why it is so difficult for me to feel good about her candidacy.

Bernie asks, is this right or wrong?

Hillary asks is this legally permissible? or Which decision could damage me politically?

[840high]

51. ...+1

[Omaha Steve]

17. Trust MSNBC?

Hillary: http://www.msnbc.com/msnbc/hillary-clinton-endorses-super-pac

By Alex Seitz-Wald
Hillary Clinton is directly helping a super PAC supporting her presidential candidacy, two sources confirmed to msnbc, potentially complicating her message of reforming money in politics.

Clinton held a meeting Wednesday in San Francisco and will have another one Thursday in Los Angeles with donors to Priorities USA, the main super PAC that supported President Obama’s re-election bid and is now backing Clinton.

Hillary Clinton starts raising money for super PAC: http://www.cbsnews.com/news/hillary-clinton-starts-raising-money-for-super-pac/

CNN: http://www.cnn.com/2015/05/08/politics/hillary-clinton-fundraisers-chicago/ Please join us for a conversation with Hillary Rodham Clinton in support of Hillary for America," both invites read.

Here is Bill: http://www.nytimes.com/politics/first-draft/2015/11/17/bill-clinton-to-appear-for-super-pac-backing-hillary-clinton/


There are more but I'm kind of busy. Maybe somebody else will chime in.

[Thinkingabout]

10. K & R

Thanks for the info, we knew it was happening already. Another thought, if the DNC is supposed to "take of the candidates", has Sanders done any fund raising to make sure there at funds available to do all of the things needed by a candidate?

[azurnoir]

13. From a Nurses Union 'superpac'

oooooh the shame

be sure to keep that poo a flingin'

[Art_from_Ark]

21. I'm sure the OP will be more than happy

to honor your "keep that poo a-flingin'" request.

[brooklynite]

22. I have no objection with Sanders receiving and acknowledging SuperPAC support...

...as long as he doesn't criticize the practice.

[azurnoir]

96. I have no problem with Bernie accepting support from the Nurses Union which is now dubbed a superpac

so is the leadership of SEIU a superpac too, or is that reserved for unions that support Bernie?

[brooklynite]

97. They're a SuperPAC if they're making independent expenditures-e.g. not contributing to the campaign

Super PACs, officially known as "independent-expenditure only committees," may not make contributions to candidate campaigns or parties, but may engage in unlimited political spending independently of the campaigns. Unlike traditional PACs, they can raise funds from individuals, corporations, unions, and other groups without any legal limit on donation size.[18]

Super PACs were made possible by two judicial decisions: the aforementioned Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission and, two months later, Speechnow.org v. FEC. In Speechnow.org, the federal Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit held that PACs that did not make contributions to candidates, parties, or other PACs could accept unlimited contributions from individuals, unions, and corporations (both for profit and not-for-profit) for the purpose of making independent expenditures.

The result of the Citizens United and SpeechNow.org decisions was the rise of a new type of political action committee in 2010, popularly dubbed the "super PAC".[19] In an open meeting on July 22, 2010, the FEC approved two Advisory Opinions to modify FEC policy in accordance with the legal decisions.[20] These Advisory Opinions were issued in response to requests from two existing PACs, Club for Growth, and Commonsense Ten, which later became Senate Majority PAC. The opinions gave a sample wording letter which all Super PACs must submit to qualify for the deregulated status, and such letters continue to be used by Super PACs up to the present date. FEC Chairman Steven T. Walther dissented on both opinions and issued a statement giving his thoughts. In the statement, Walther stated "There are provisions of the Act and Commission regulations not addressed by the court in SpeechNow that continue to prohibit Commonsense Ten from soliciting or accepting contributions from political committees in excess of $5,000 annually or any contributions from corporations or labor organizations." (emphasis in original)[21]

The term "Super PAC" was coined by reporter Eliza Newlin Carney.[22] According to Politico, Carney, a staff writer covering lobbying and influence for CQ Roll Call, "made the first identifiable, published reference to 'super PAC' as it’s known today while working at National Journal, writing on June 26, 2010, of a group called Workers’ Voices, that it was a kind of '"super PAC" that could become increasingly popular in the post-Citizens United world.'"[23]

According to FEC advisories, Super PACs are not allowed to coordinate directly with candidates or political parties. This restriction is intended to prevent them from operating campaigns that complement or parallel those of the candidates they support or engaging in negotiations that could result in quid pro quo bargaining between donors to the PAC and the candidate or officeholder. However, it is legal for candidates and Super PAC managers to discuss campaign strategy and tactics through the media.[24][25]

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

[azurnoir]

98. ah so now the Nurses Union is just like Citizens United

keep flinging Nurses under the bus..............

[brooklynite]

100. If memory serves, Citizens United was in fact supported by several Unions for just that reason...

[azurnoir]

102. ah then the leadership of SEIU is also a superpac, right?

[brooklynite]

104. If they do independent expenditures and don't contribute to anyone's campaign

Just to be clear, the UNION is not a SuperPAC. A separate political action entity would need to be formed to comply with FEC regulations.

[azurnoir]

106. LOL

[azurnoir]

107. one thing though you've failed to prove the Nurses Union is a superpac

only insinuations and convoluted explanations

[brooklynite]

108. I wasn't that was actually a point being disputed

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

[MADem]

23. Gee, that 'poo' shit (pardon my french) is what makes DU suck. He's not doing anything illegal.

It's not "poo" to point out that he is now tacitly--by taking that "Why I NEVER" comment about SUPERPACs OFF the teleprompter and OUT of his stump speech-ADMITTING he's benefitting from their largesse.

He's doing what other candidates do. There's nothing WRONG with it. He has to fight fire with fire, and operate within existing paradigms--or he's screwed.

But he's cut out the "Holier Than Thou" sentence because he's NOT "holier than thou."

See? They have spent a half million on him:

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

[Orrex]

25. He was against super PACs before he was for them.

[PotatoChip]

114. He's still against SuperPacs, saying so as recently as yesterday.

He does not want the "help" of this group. They are operating independently and outside of his publicly stated wishes.

However, he has no control over what they choose to do. And since these independent expenditures are legal, I don't see where he has any recourse, other than to politely ask them to stop.

[Omaha Steve]

27. Does anyone want to look up what AFSCME is spending on Hillary AGAIN?

AFSCME is funded by roughly 1.4 million members and mandatory fees taken from 125,255 nonmembers

[brooklynite]

30. Hillary Clinton and her supporters acknowledge the reality of SuperPACs in our election system...

They've never applied the holier-than-thou standard.

[Omaha Steve]

32. "Name a SuperPAC fundraiser Hillary has attended"

I did. Goal posts just got moved.

[brooklynite]

34. An event with funders is not always a fundraiser...

...sometimes it's just a "donor maintenance" event which many non-profits engage in.

Just like Bernie Sanders attends a retreat for DSCC funders (at which no many changes hands)

[MADem]

36. It's not a contest. The point is that most candidates realize that they can't compete without them.

Bernie has come to that realization.

That's why he's stopped noodging about them.

[Omaha Steve]

42. He can't stop the unions citizens united specifically included them...free speech

Bernie has said no Supremes that won't vote to overturn citizens united.

But asked two unaffiliated using his name to stop. One is millionaires for Bernie.

[MADem]

47. He hasn't asked the Nurses to stop. He has THANKED them.

And they keep filing expenditure reports w/ the FEC.

[Omaha Steve]

53. He said thank you for the PAC $?

[MADem]

64. That would be ILLEGAL, Steve--come on, you know better than that. nt

[Omaha Steve]

91. Good morning

[november3rd]

31. Super Pac?

>$600,000?

He should leave the line in. This Pac ain't "super." $6 million or $60 million, yeah, but $600,000? That's not even 1/100th of the tax on Jamie Diamond's stock options this year.

[MADem]

38. Take it up with the FEC.

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

[snort]

40. This Nurses Union must be overflowing with

millionaires, billionaires and large corporations. The union itself represents the special interest in this case. Totally nailed.

[MADem]

49. That's not what this is about. Sanders has changed his mind re: SUPER PACS, is what we're seeing.

That amount isn't chickenfeed when you consider it was spent in about ninety days.

[Cha]

50. KICK!

[SunSeeker]

56. K & R

[Feeling the Bern]

58. A super-PAC supported by labor unions and not assholes like the Kochs

Yeah, he's in the pocket of Big Nurses and Big Teachers now.

Someone needs to step up for the poor, unrepresented banker, hedge fund manager and industrialist against Big Labor.

Jesus Christ!

[davidpdx]

72. Chris, how much have you yourself donated to the Hillary Superpac?

Since you ARE part of the 1%, why don't you tell us how that works?

[Rex]

80. Seriously, you will vouch for this guy being a 1%.

[davidpdx]

81. No, I don't know for sure

But if his brag posts are true then he probably is one of the few on DU.

[Rex]

82. Okay thanks, you used his first name so I thought you might know him.

Just curious.

[davidpdx]

85. No, I don't

It is in his profile.

[brooklynite]

94. Absolutely nothing

we don't support SupePACs with the exception of American Bridge, which does Republican oppo and tracking.

May I ask why you care?

[davidpdx]

143. You happened to post the article mentioning them and claim to be one of the big donors,

that's why I asked. I personally don't like them and don't think Clinton should be using them. It really doesn't matter the purpose of the Super Pac, you are still donating to one. Clinton is the one who is taking in millions in Super Pac donations.

[brooklynite]

147. I don't LIKE SuperPACS...I acknowledge their existence

and I refuse to unilaterally disarm in a fight with the Republicans.

Perhaps Bernie Sanders now agrees?

[davidpdx]

150. I hope not

Maybe the $500,000 was a one time thing. I would rather he not use any super pac to help him. The more a candidate is beholden to big money the more they are going to owe once they get elected and the less chance they are going to do something about CU. That is why I firmly believe Hillary Clinton will immediately start fundraising for 2020 if she wins and use the same line "it's not my fault". See how that works?

[2pooped2pop]

77. I can't believe he is willing to take any money from those evil nurses

who are obviously out to destroy everyone who is not rich like them. Oh wait...

[Rex]

79. Ouch!

[riversedge]

93. Smart move on Sanders part.

[MannyGoldstein]

95. Bastard! He should know to bring a spork, not a knife, to a nuclear war!

Next stop, Jamie and Lloyd!

[Gothmog]

109. This was an interesting change to Sanders stump speech

[LiberalLovinLug]

120. It was not founded as a Bernie Superpac!

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

Founded in December 2009, NNU brought together the California Nurses Association/National Nurses Organizing Committee, United American Nurses, and Massachusetts Nurses Association. Its purpose is to give registered nurses a national voice and organizing power.

It was deemed a "Superpac" when new laws came in after it was created..., and before Bernie Sanders ever declared his candidacy. It was not to set up to help a specific candidate.

Bernie came along and this union wanted to back him through their newly defined "superpac".

BIG DIFFERENCE.

[HuckleB]

125. When did this type of opinion-based piece become ok in LBN?

Look, I'm not picking a candidate, at this point. So attack me for that, but I'm backing anyone with this post.

[MADem]

141. The headline reports a rather important fact.

It is a fact that relates to the candidate's stated strongly held views up to this point.

It IS LBN, and it's totally salient.

[riversedge]

149. Wise move.