2016 Postmortem
Related: About this forumSpending $2700 to "bribe" a candidate is about the stupidest investment scheme you can
think of. Buying $2700 worth of lottery tickets would have a better return.
Think about it. In order for this to actually work, your $2700 has to convince the politician to adopt some policy that is beneficial for your employer, who then in turn makes greater profits, and pays out bigger salaries and bonuses, which nets you a benefit of at least $2700. It's totally implausible.
Since campaigns raise hundreds of millions of dollars, the amount of influence you buy is going to be on the order of 0.001% of the total donations. But even if that 0.001% actually has some kind of "bribery" effect, the benefit of whatever legislation you are hoping to pass doesn't go to you directly, it goes to your entire industry. You're not going to get a law saying "DanTex gets a big check from the government".
Whatever kick-back your industry gets from your bribe is going to have to be shared with everyone else who works in that industry or owns stock in that industry. So even under a totally absurd scenario, where a $2700 contribution results in an industry-wide kickback of say $2.7M (which would be 1000-1 return on investment), you're still not going to see anywhere near your original $2700 in bonus money to you.
But, wait, you say. Maybe one donation won't do it, but if a lot of employees donate, that could have some aggregate effect. Well, if you believe that, than the thing to do is not donate any of your own money, but freeload off of everyone else's donations. Obviously. Your $2700 is going to do nothing, let the other suckers pay the bribes, while you reap your share of the benefits.
Oh, and if anyone understands this, it's people who work an Wall Street. Say what you will about them, but they understand returns on investments.
The conspiracy theories being peddled about this are just plain dumb.
GeorgiaPeanuts
(2,353 posts)Warren Stupidity
(48,181 posts)Jefferson23
(30,099 posts)DanTex
(20,709 posts)And for employees of a corporation to donate on their employer's behalf to try and get a bigger bonus out of it is plainly stupid. Any corporation who employs people that dumb will soon be out of business.
WDIM
(1,662 posts)DanTex
(20,709 posts)individuals and unions. But, I agree, it is a problem, which is why I agree with Hillary that CU needs to be overturned.
insta8er
(960 posts)DanTex
(20,709 posts)But the conspiracies about "corporate money" that people have been spreading are with regards to individual campaign contributions. All those internet memes you see of all the money she has supposedly taken "from Wall Street" and all that, that's money that came from individual employees in amounts of $2700 or less.
GeorgiaPeanuts
(2,353 posts)All the same to me
And I am very skeptical she wants to overturn Citizen's United when she is one of the biggest users and abusers of the SuperPac addiction. She has even boasted she uses loopholes to directly coordinate with her SuperPac.
DanTex
(20,709 posts)Also, neither Bernie's SuperPAC nor Hillary's have been funded by corporations thus far. The contributors have been unions and individuals.
GeorgiaPeanuts
(2,353 posts)I consider her SuperPac like the propaganda ministry of the Nazis. The crap and lies from that SuperPac get posted here regularly in the form of BNR articles.
DanTex
(20,709 posts)which is funding his SuperPAC. Sure, there's a little coordination in reality, but they are basically run separately. And the campaign certainly has no say over who is donating to the SuperPAC.
RiverLover
(7,830 posts)the buy-off of the US govt.
But Hillary sure is!
How this years super PACs got so fat day by day by day
Open secrets
by Will Tucker on March 30, 2016
http://www.opensecrets.org/news/2016/03/how-this-years-super-pacs-got-so-fat-day-by-day-by-day/
She is going to owe a lot of favors if We The People are unlucky enough to have this DINO as our president.
I believe she calls them "commitments" as her emails have shown.
DanTex
(20,709 posts)RiverLover
(7,830 posts)It was a gift from Jimmy Kimmel.
http://www.boston.com/news/tv/2016/03/23/who-needs-super-pac-bernie-sanders-fanny-pack
DanTex
(20,709 posts)RiverLover
(7,830 posts)in their obvious coordination.
DanTex
(20,709 posts)NNU, and in fact there is an FEC complaint citing multiple incidents of coordination between his campaign and the NNU SuperPAC.
RiverLover
(7,830 posts)http://www.ibtimes.com/political-capital/hillary-clinton-says-she-does-not-coordinate-super-pac-she-reportedly-raised-money
Hillary Clinton plans to coordinate directly with super PAC
http://www.cbsnews.com/news/hillary-clinton-plans-to-coordinate-directly-with-super-pac/
To start with, here are the names you need to know and how they fit under our current campaign finance system.2
Ready for Hillary PAC (hybrid super PAC)
Ready PAC (hybrid super PAC, formerly Ready for Hillary)
Hillary for America (candidate PAC)
Priorities USA Action (super PAC)
Correct the Record (super PAC)
American Bridge 21st Century (super PAC)
American Bridge 21st Century Foundation (501(c)(4))
American Independent Institute (501(c)(4))
Media Matters (501(c)(3))
The Bonner Group
Now that you know who is involved, heres the story we know right now of the money backing Hillary. It's rather lengthy so in this post we'll cover Ready for Hillary, Ready PAC, and Priorities USA Action. We'll be looking at the rest later in the week.
First of all, its important to point out that the Hillary Clinton political fundraising machine started a full two years before she declared she was running for president. (At least, the one actually associated with her name did.)
On Jan. 25, 2013, Ready for Hillary formally organized by filing paperwork with the FEC. Clinton was directly involved with the super PAC at that point you may remember the Ready for Hillary bus? Clinton was promoting her new book Hard Choices at that time (much like Ben Carson is promoting his book "Gifted Hands" now) and doing speaking events around the country.
Between January 2013 and when Clinton announced her intention to run for president in April 2015, Ready for Hillary raised about $12.9 million and spent $12.1 million. It ended the year in 2014 with $748,469 cash on hand.
Some notable donors during that time include billionaire Warren Buffett ($25,000) and Patricia Hoppey, the founder of direct mail marketing company Pivot ($60,000).
On its website, 270 Strategies documents its involvement in Ready for Hillary and offers it as case study in tapping into organic grassroots energy around a potential Hillary Clinton presidential run. It notes various steps taken during the 2014 campaign to get out the vote and to recruit volunteers to create a movement nearly 4 million strong.
On April 12, 2015, Hillary Clinton announced her intention to run for president, and Ready for Hillary evolved into its next iteration Ready PAC which we'll discuss further below.
Hillary for America
After her announcement, funds poured into her candidate committee, Hillary for America. In fact, since her announcement, her PAC has raised more than $77 million dollars from 84,741 different transactions. So far, it has spent $44 million of that, including $4 million in online ads with the firm Bully Pulpit Interactive as well as $3.3 million in media buys and $5 million in direct marketing.
The Washington Post did a fine job recently of breaking down the complexities and the money involved in the Bill and Hillary campaign fundraising efforts. So for this part of our post, well refer you to their excellent and extensive work.
Ready PAC
*******The day after Hillary announced her intention to run for President, Ready for Hillary officially changed its name to Ready PAC. Under FEC rules, super PACs are not allowed to coordinate with the candidate or the candidates committee, nor are they allowed to use the candidates name. Ready for Hillary had to change its name to keep operating.*********
Read in full, PLENTY of info~
https://sunlightfoundation.com/blog/2015/12/01/super-pacs-dark-money-and-the-hillary-clinton-campaign-part-1/
DanTex
(20,709 posts)they are independent entities.
GeorgiaPeanuts
(2,353 posts)dogman
(6,073 posts)But is National Nurses United for Patient Protection a superPAC? The question leads down the rabbit hole of campaign finance law.
Here's what sets it apart from the presidential superPACs.
First, its donor list. The other superPACs are financed largely by millionaires. As for the NNU committee, "It's funded exclusively by our members," said Michael Lighty, the union's public policy director.
http://www.npr.org/2015/11/19/456560662/superpac-or-not-this-group-has-money-to-bern-for-sanders
DanTex
(20,709 posts)WDIM
(1,662 posts)The big money for all candidates but Bernie Sanders comes from super pacs not individual donations to the campaign.
Marr
(20,317 posts)Seriously, who do you think you're kidding with this nonsense?
DanTex
(20,709 posts)I'm surprised how many people didn't know that. Go figure.
RiverLover
(7,830 posts)with such a gross underestimation of our intelligence.
And no one who claims zero corporate money in politics is supporting We The People, they work for the corps buying our "Democracy" & are supporting the continued purchase of our political system.
Octafish
(55,745 posts)Cost effective, you know.
Hassin Bin Sober
(26,337 posts)Octafish
(55,745 posts)Each sending $25 takes 10,000 for the take from just one speech is a lot of stamps. A LOT of stamps.
Armstead
(47,803 posts)Even Clinton acknowledges that basic fact of modern American life.
DanTex
(20,709 posts)the nutty conspiracy theories are just that.
Armstead
(47,803 posts)Csainvestor
(388 posts)Billionaires fund Hillary super pacs with tens and tens of millions.
DanTex
(20,709 posts)campaign donations with "corporate money" from employers.
I agree that CU has to go, and SuperPACs are prone to abuse and corruption, but as long as it's the law, I sure don't want to surrender unilaterally to the GOP. The people funding her SuperPAC are wealthy liberals like George Soros and Tom Steyer, who have donated a lot of money over the years to liberal causes like the environment, etc. I'm glad there are wealthy liberals stepping up to the plate to fight against the Koch Brothers/Sheldon Adelsen money.
Tom Rinaldo
(22,913 posts)DanTex
(20,709 posts)no matter how you try to spin it. And I'm surprised that so many Bernie supporters didn't know (and many still refuse to believe) that corporations are prohibited by law from making campaign contributions.
Tom Rinaldo
(22,913 posts)Yes officially bundled donations all come from individuals without any corporate connection - but bundlers frequently personally recruit individual donors with shared corporate ties. Either with or without good reason, those who respond affirmatively often know what is expected of them and why.
DanTex
(20,709 posts)And, a "corporate connection" is something that most members of the American workforce have.
Like I said in the OP, anyone who thinks they're going to get their money's worth from a $2700 "bribe" is a total idiot.
salinsky
(1,065 posts)... nor do they control outside groups who may support them.
So, if you want to claim Hillary is owned by the superpac that supports her, you must also accept the fact that Bernie is owned by the NRA that ran an ad in support of him.
Let's at least have some consistency.
DanTex
(20,709 posts)to try to weaken Hillary.
inchhigh
(384 posts)They don't give her money to change her opinion. They give her money because they believe she already supports the same policies they do. It's not a bribe. The good news is they're not trying to buy her support. The bad news is they don't need to.
DanTex
(20,709 posts)that candidate on the issues. Any candidate.
salinsky
(1,065 posts)that supports Hillary because they know deep down that she will be soft on global warming and CO2 may be the most sophomoric smear of a primary that began as substantive and issue-oriented, but is descending rapidly into rightwing conspiracy theory nuttery.
I really thought Bernie was better than this, and it was just his supporters who wallowed in demagoguery.
Guess I was wrong.
inchhigh
(384 posts)They aren't just "rank and file" janitors or truck drivers who may or may not care about the future of the industry. Maybe they like her views on worker safety or highway maintenance.
Much of the money is from Lobbyists whose job is to affect legislation in ways that benefit the industry.
Why would those people most likely support someone?
4Q2u2
(1,406 posts)Drum Roll
is the DNC. No need to dirty your hands when the Corporate Political Structure is there for you.
https://www.reddit.com/r/SandersForPresident/comments/47q6c0/alice_walton_just_donated_353000_to_hillarys_dnc/
jmg257
(11,996 posts)or something.
whatchamacallit
(15,558 posts)Hard to watch.