Why has HRC's campaign spent ~$300k of party committee money opposing other dems?

[JonLeibowitz]

I am basing this OP on the data that opensecrets.org has on outside spending, available at: https://www.opensecrets.org/outsidespending/summ.php?cycle=2016&disp=C&pty=N&type=A

Please do independently verify the screenshots below.

These two pictures pretty much say all that needs stating:





$3,607,885 - $3,306,964 = $300,921

This is ignoring the $20,886 spent by candidate(?!?!?) Bill Clinton.

Okay I actually do have one (obviously rhetorical) question as a follow up:
Why is Party Committee money being used against other democratic candidates in a primary contest?

[libdem4life]

1. How do you spend money Against Dems? It must be common as it has its own column.

My question isn't rhetorical...its WTF?

[JonLeibowitz]

4. I think David Brock intends to show us this weekend with his new ageism smear.

[libdem4life]

8. I take that to mean that the figure reflects money spent against a Dem opponent?

So, this is all new to me, they keep track of how much each candidate spends against the other/s? Now I'm curious as to the definition of the funds themselves...negative ads? That's fairly subjective...hardly numerical.

Oh well, we see who's the Queen of that little column, as well.

[JonLeibowitz]

9. Yes, that is what it means. Sorry, I should have directly addressed your question. n/t

[zazen]

2. quote from web site explaining this--I think it's superPAC money?

"2016 Outside Spending, by Candidate
Some candidates attract a great deal of outside spending as various interests attempt to help or harm their election bids; others, not so much. Furthermore, some waves of spending come during the primary elections, and others don't hit until the general. Outside interest groups have a wide range of vehicles at their disposal to use for independent expenditures, electioneering communications and communication costs in contested races-- including super PACs, which may raise unlimited sums from almost any source and use the funds for ads that overtly advocate for or against a candidate. Special interest groups may also seek to influence voters through 501(c) nonprofit operations; these aren't primarily supposed to be involved in politics, but some appear to find ways to skirt the restriction. These nonprofit operations, as well as other kinds of committees known as 527 groups, both register with the IRS."

[JonLeibowitz]

3. Hm, I'm not sure that is an explanation per se.

Why would a super PAC be considered a party committee? The breakdown is clearly by Party committee vs. non-Party committee.

[zazen]

5. I mean, it's just "outside spending"--not what's described below. n/t

"Outside Spending
The term "outside spending" refers to political expenditures made by groups or individuals independently of, and not coordinated with, candidates' committees. Groups in this category range from conventional party committees to the more controversial super PACs and 501(c) "dark money" organizations."

[JonLeibowitz]

6. I agree, but so..? The point is that the data here shows party committee being used...

presumably against Sanders. But I thought the party was supposed to be neutral (or, at least, has long claimed to be)?

[zazen]

7. I didn't read it that way--it's "excluding party committee" n/t

[JonLeibowitz]

10. Uh...

$ Total = $ Excluding Party Committees + $ Party Committees

implies

$ Party Committees = $ Total - $ Excluding Party Committees

Hence, the calculation and the $301k number.

[zazen]

11. so why is her 3.3 million against Dems for "general," but "primary" is $713K?

When you run it as "primary expenditures only" you get this.

I don't understand how she can be "spending money against other dems" under the "general election" as you've copied above, but Open Secrets allows you to calculate it that way. The way they classify things doesn't make sense to me either, but I'm not sure that means that the DNC has spent money on her (I wouldn't be surprised, but I think they'd go to more trouble to hide it).

Clinton, Hillary (D) PRES $1,140,547 $427,290 $713,257 $0 $0
Sanders, Bernie (D) PRES $964,393 $954,370 $10,023 $0 $0

[JonLeibowitz]

12. You're right, it doesn't make much sense to classify the expenditures as for general election.

The discrepancy I noted is only listed under the "general election" breakdown.

Maybe, and this is pure speculation, the DNC only allows itself to spend money on general election contests?

[zazen]

13. "DNC announces fundraising agreement with Clinton campaign"??

Maybe this has something to do with it . . . some sort of mixing of spending streams? At this point (and until about three weeks ago) it didn't seem that the DNC or any other mainstream outlet took Sanders seriously, so it wouldn't occur to them to worry about the DNC's agreement with anyone else.



From Politico in August.

http://www.politico.com/story/2015/08/dnc-democratic-committee-hillary-clinton-fundraising-agreement-2016-121813

The document will enable the DNC and the campaign to conduct events and other fundraising activities together that will generate money for both entities. Clinton wouldn’t have access to the money unless and until she’s the nominee — but this is seen as an essential step for banking cash to counter what’s expected to be massive Republican spending next year.

. . . All 50 state parties were invited to join the agreement as well. Several had already pursued their own joint fundraising agreements with the Clinton campaign while the DNC had held off on signing — largely over disagreements over how the money would be able to be spent. The Clinton campaign, wary of management and structural problems at the DNC, insisted on a tight rein on spending.

. . . A DNC official said the money would build infrastructure to “to support whoever the eventual Democratic nominee is — as soon as there is a nominee. It will help the party make critical investments in technology, in voter outreach and in helping get out our message leading up to the general election in 2016.”

. . . The DNC says it’s pursuing similar agreements with the other Democratic primary campaigns, but so far, those haven’t materialized.

[emulatorloo]

14. It is about >outside groups< spending. Look at Russ Feingold column for example

From the first paragraph on that open secrets page:

"Some candidates attract a great deal of outside spending as various interests attempt to help or harm their election bids; others, not so much."

So if you look at Russ's column, $690,810 has been spent by outside groups (against Democrats) to harm his campaign.

More info on how opensecrets are putting these numbers together in the paragraphs after the chart.

[JonLeibowitz]

15. I'm not sure, but you do have a point.

Russ Feingold's spending was all on a primary contest (you can verify this by filtering by primary contest and seeing the numbers remain the same). Why would outside groups be funding against Feingold in a primary? Actually for that matter I can't understand why Feingold would be spending any money on a primary contest anyway, given he has no declared challenger.

You very well may be right and this OP could be interpreting the data incorrectly. I also don't understand the presence of Bill Clinton on this list.

[emulatorloo]

18. between you and me I think opensecrets needs better writers!

Their writing is really kind of obtuse and difficult to understand.

As to Russ, I guess we would need to dig deeper why money would be spent against him in the primary.

I have some guesses: I know the Kochs hate him, and they seem to think they own Wisconsin.

Or, per the paragraph below, if some group ran an attack ad on somebody else but mentioned Feingold in the same ad, opensecrets would "credit" the money spent on the ad to Russ as well

-----

Anyway the other thing about how open secrets is putting this data together:

"Candidate totals on this page cannot be added together to obtain an overall total spent for the cycle. This is because some outside groups do not report spending per candidate. For the electioneering communications, for example, several candidates can be listed on a report with no indication of how the money should be distributed among the candidates, or even if the money is being spent for or against the candidates. In such cases, the "Total" column will reflect the full amount reported for the expenditure for each candidate. For instance, if a group spends $100,000 on an electioneering communication that mentions three candidates, all three candidates will show $100,000 for that expenditure.

(Lol they need better writers)

So to me that means say I am an outside group, I do an big lie ad that costs $100,000 attacking some Democratic candidate. Ad also goes on and on that s/he is an evil tool of the evil Obama.

So opensecrets would "credit" both the candidate and Obama each with $100,000 spent by the outside group against Democrats.

Maybe that's why Bill Clinton is on the list? Mentioned in an attack ad etc aimed at HRC?

[eridani]

16. Unclear whart this means--what time period is this over, for starters? n/t

[JonLeibowitz]

17. Only expenditures for the 2016 cycle. n/t