Willa Rogers posted:

which staffers were paid by the end of 2015 by the HVF but whose activities were segregated to the general election?

Concerned Citizen posted:

They did do that

Al! posted:

i wish obama had lost in 08

Concerned Citizen posted:

You're fundamentally wrong - HVF funds were not used on Sanders, they were only legally spendable in the general election.

quote:

The venture, the Hillary Victory Fund, is a so-called joint fundraising committee comprised of Clinton’s presidential campaign, the Democratic National Committee and 32 state party committees. The setup allows Clinton to solicit checks of $350,000 or more from her super-rich supporters at extravagant fundraisers including a dinner at George Clooney’s house and a concert at Radio City Music Hall featuring Katy Perry and Elton John.

The victory fund has transferred $3.8 million to the state parties, but almost all of that cash ($3.3 million, or 88 percent) was quickly transferred to the DNC, usually within a day or two, by the Clinton staffer who controls the committee, POLITICO’s analysis of the FEC records found.

By contrast, the victory fund has transferred $15.4 million to Clinton’s campaign and $5.7 million to the DNC, which will work closely with Clinton’s campaign if and when she becomes the party’s nominee. And most of the $23.3 million spent directly by the victory fund has gone toward expenses that appear to have directly benefited Clinton’s campaign, including $2.8 million for “salary and overhead” and $8.6 million for web advertising that mostly looks indistinguishable from Clinton campaign ads and that has helped Clinton build a network of small donors who will be critical in a general election expected to cost each side well in excess of $1 billion.

The arrangement has sparked concerns among campaign finance watchdogs and allies of Clinton’s Democratic rival Bernie Sanders. They see it as a circumvention of campaign contribution limits by a national party apparatus intent on doing whatever it takes to help Clinton defeat Sanders during the party’s primary, and then win the White House.

Concerned Citizen posted:

Also any money donated to HVF counted toward a maximum, so if you donate 2700 to HVF it means you maxed out to HFA. HVF was used to raise huge amounts of general election money from large donors with a single check. The money that was funneled to the DNC was usable by whatever candidate won the primary.

Willa Rogers posted:

the real what-if had losers become winners was 2000.

would gore have gone to war as gwb did? would we have had pres. lieberman from 2008-2016?

Concerned Citizen posted:

Also any money donated to HVF counted toward a maximum, so if you donate 2700 to HVF it means you maxed out to HFA. HVF was used to raise huge amounts of general election money from large donors with a single check. The money that was funneled to the DNC was usable by whatever candidate won the primary.

comedyblissoption posted:

do you disagree with the politico article?

Willa Rogers posted:

HVF spent $30 million during Q1 of 2016.... all for the general election?

etalian posted:

Wasn't it funny how Dread Abuela spent so much money on fundraising with her corrupt friends, managed to raise 2X the budget as Trump's campaign but still lost the General election?

Concerned Citizen posted:

The Politico article isn't "wrong" but it's incomplete -in the sense that electioneering communications can be loosely defined. If an ad says "support Hillary" and has her face on it, and when you click it takes you to a donation page - is "support Hillary" an appeal for a vote or money? Money is allowable, votes are not. That's probably the diciest thing - however, I'll also point out that HVF's small donor program (ie online ads) was almost entirely paid for by HFA's share of the funds. The DNC only needed to cover the expenses of raising large dollar donations (over 2700) that ended up in their coffers. So even if you consider them
electioneering entirely, HFA still paid for it

comedyblissoption posted:

If an ad says "support Jeb" and has his face on it, and when you click it takes you to a donation page - is "support Jeb" an appeal for a vote or money?

Concerned Citizen posted:

Doesn't really change anything. Even with the worst possible interpretation (it's 100% electioneering) Jeb would still be paying 100% of the cost from his share of the money raised, thus nothing is net for the campaign other than not having to spend from the primary pot of money.

quote:

Most of the victory funds ads were executed by the same firm that does advertising for Clinton’s campaign, Bully Pulpit Interactive, which has been paid $8.6 million by the Hillary Victory Fund for online advertising, and $9.2 million by Hillary for America for online advertising and media buys.

Those victory fund ads, as well as a direct mail campaign funded by the same committee, “appear to benefit only [the Clinton campaign] by generating low-dollar contributions that flow only to HFA, rather than to the DNC or any of the participating state party committees,” charged Sanders’ campaign lawyer in an open letter sent to the DNC in April. It alleged that the victory fund was essentially a pass-through to allow Clinton to benefit from contributions that far exceed the amount that her campaign could legally accept.

comedyblissoption posted:

http://www.politico.com/story/2016/04/clinton-fundraising-leaves-little-for-state-parties-222670

Over Easy posted:

Remember when everyone was expecting HRC to reveal herself like the Emperor of Mankind at the Woman's March and roll back Trump's technobarbarians and instead she sat at home and wrote a complaint book to stir poo poo up about the 2016 primary, a primary she loving won?

comedyblissoption posted:

you were arguing that HVF is nominally for whichever candidate gets the nomination and is not used for the benefit of one candidate over another. please explain to me how if you assume the worst possible interpretation of web ads being used for electioneering that $8.6 million from the HVF (NOT HFA) to an ad company would not constitute using the HVF to bias one candidate over another

Squizzle posted:

Jazerus posted:

i'm glad the centrist convention is going so well

quote:

The best argument you can use is that the ads were really electioneering ads and it allowed them to advertise for Hillary from funds earmarked for general. Sure! I don't think they're very good ads if that's the case, but whatever.

Concerned Citizen posted:

The ads were fundraising ads and paid out of the money that was earmarked for HFA. HFA must pay 100% of all expenses related to small donor fundraising, which constitutes virtually all online acquisition. They can pay out of the funds HVF raises but is not yet disbursed to a committee. So no money is used from DNC, all money comes from funds that belonged to HFA.

quote:

That's really unfair to Sanders if he couldn't do the same thing, but he could as he also opened a joint fund with the DNC. He just chose not to use it.

comedyblissoption posted:

are you paid to write this .

comedyblissoption posted:

tip of the iceberg (all of these ads were run DURING THE PRIMARY):

docbeard posted:

The Democrats technically didn't do anything wrong (to the extent that I'm following CC's explanations, which I cheerfully admit that I am not).

"We didn't technically do anything wrong" is possibly the worst rallying cry in history.

Both of these things can be true. MANY SIDES

SKULL.GIF posted:

remember when people repeatedly tried to insist "I'm with her" wasn't a campaign slogan

etalian posted:

Having slaves work at Hillary's mansion wasn't wrong in technical terms.

Concerned Citizen posted:

No poo poo. But that $26 million for the Clinton Campaign was earmarked for the general. That's why the Clinton campaign got the first 2700 instead of the first 5200.