"Once Our Revolution was formed Bernie"
"from a strictly legal standpoint, should not campaign for Conova."
I know at least one lawyer who told me that is the "advice he would have given to Sanders".
Ahead of the organization’s launch, Sanders’s involvement with Our Revolution raised legal questions. ABC News reported that the organization could be “venturing into uncharted legal territory,” since “typically, 501(c)(4) organizations … are run by political operatives, not elected officials.” During his speech on Wednesday, Sanders attempted to put those questions to rest, clarifying that he will not control or direct the organization.
http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2016/08/sanders-canova-our-r...
Because Sanders is an elected official and a former candidate for president, at least one expert suggested that the 501(c)(4) group with which he is connected may be constrained by campaign finance laws that limit how much donors are allowed to give and may require disclosure of donors.
"This definitely raises, in my experience, novel campaign finance issues," said Paul Ryan, the deputy executive director of the nonprofit Campaign Legal Center
http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/cracks-appear-in-bernie-sanders-revolu...
Since Sanders was fundraising for Our Revolution in early August, it very well may be that in this first of its kind campaign finance issue, Sanders was advised not to campaign for Canova.
Sanders began fundraising for "Our Revolution" earlier in the month, getting behind candidates like Tim Canova, who is running against former Democratic National Committee Chairwoman Debbie Wasserman Schultz, a congresswoman from Florida. But while campaign finance reform might have been a big part of his "revolution," Sanders may be treading into troubled waters with his latest endeavor.
There are clearly novel legal issues here that just aren't as popular, nor do they pull on the heart strings to the same degree as
Bernie betrayed us
does.
Comments
So Bernie started a Progressive PAC...
whose legal structure prevents Bernie from campaigning for Progressives?
That's beyond Kabuki.
The current working assumption appears to be that our Shroedinger's Cat system is still alive. But what if we all suspect it's not, and the real problem is we just can't bring ourselves to open the box?
Methinks it was
Jeff Weaver that began the 501(c)(4) category. Not Sanders idea.
"I can't understand why people are frightened of new ideas. I'm frightened of the old ones."
John Cage
I doubt Bernie...
has had an original idea since sometime in April.
The current working assumption appears to be that our Shroedinger's Cat system is still alive. But what if we all suspect it's not, and the real problem is we just can't bring ourselves to open the box?
What makes you think that and what difference does it make?
Plus, a 501(c)(4) may have been the only legal option for what they wanted to do.
I think that because
(I don't remember where) I was reading an article about how a number of, as many as half of the top staffers left when they brought Weaver on board to lead it and it was in part because it is weaver that wants to bring big money in, diverting from the path of the small donor as established by Sanders.
The difference is obvious. When you bring in big money donors then one must be sensitive as to what they want. is that not one of the primary reasons that we detest Clinton? Is that not why NPR cannot be trusted, not just because of their paradigm shift from journalism to stenography but because they are being funded by the likes of the Koch Bro's.
"I can't understand why people are frightened of new ideas. I'm frightened of the old ones."
John Cage
It's easier for me to start over.
You posted:
I replied
So, my post says How do you know whose idea forming a 501(c)(4) was and what difference does it make whose idea forming a 501(c)(4) was? Besides, a 501(c)(4) t may have been the only form in which they could legally do what they wanted to do.
I did not ask, nor does anyone who supported Sanders in the primary need to ask, what difference big donors make, only what difference whose idea it was makes.
Staffers leaving well after the 501(c))4) was formed does not seem to have much to do with whose idea formed the 501(c)(4) was in the first place. You read somewhere, you don't remember where, one thing about why the staffers left. I read in The Atlantic they left when they learned they could not coordinate with the campaigns of the candidates. And wouldn't the staffers have left for that reason, no matter whose idea it was?
But, okay, let's say it was not Bernie's idea or a lawyer's advice. Let's say it was Weaver's idea. Bernie did not say no. So, again, what difference does it make who had the idea first?
Of course he can. Canova was running as a Democrat, too, so
no interference with Sanders' senate career.
What I've been going on about
from the beginning. I've been involved--as a rank-and-file member and later the head of a local chapter--in a Political Action Committee (DFA). I've also been involved--as a founding member/board member--in a 501c4.
It's beyond me why you'd create an org that was purportedly to help candidates and make it anything other than a political action committee. Why?
At the very least, the PR on this was seriously mismanaged; if Brand New Congress is the PAC, and will do all the candidate support, while OR spends its time working on ballot initiatives, that's fine, but for God's sake make that crystal clear. Don't spend a lot of time talking about political candidates in your launch speech for the 501c4.
"More for Gore or the son of a drug lord--None of the above, fuck it, cut the cord."
--Zack de la Rocha
"I tell you I'll have nothing to do with the place...The roof of that hall is made of bones."
-- Fiver
It looks so inept.
The organizers didn't get legal advice at the inception?
"We'll know our disinformation program is complete when everything the American public believes is false." ---- William Casey, CIA Director, 1981
you have that backwards
Don't know how you can read my OP and come to that conclusion.
FDR 9-23-33, "If we cannot do this one way, we will do it another way. But do it we will.
Because he was campaigning for Canova
and then ceased to do so.
From what you wrote, I concluded he was advised to stop, apparently not advised from inception he shouldn't campaign for Canova.
At any rate, Bernie is not a part of it, so we shall see if Our Revolution has legs.
"We'll know our disinformation program is complete when everything the American public believes is false." ---- William Casey, CIA Director, 1981
The timeline
Once Bernie started raising money for OR.... he may have been advised not to campaign for Canova/
FDR 9-23-33, "If we cannot do this one way, we will do it another way. But do it we will.
A 501c4 is a PAC.....
really?
A PAC is allowed to donate a max of 5k to a candidate. A 501c4 can't do that.
DFA is a PAC, BNC is a PAC. OR is a 501c4. But hey please continue with the theater.
FDR 9-23-33, "If we cannot do this one way, we will do it another way. But do it we will.
which begs the question...
why didn't he just start a PAC. instead of a vehicle that hamstrings his ability to campaign for Progressive candidates?
From where I sit, the theater is all on Bernie.
The current working assumption appears to be that our Shroedinger's Cat system is still alive. But what if we all suspect it's not, and the real problem is we just can't bring ourselves to open the box?
Really!
A 501c4 is a super PAC, a PAC on steroids. I think most people would consider it a subset in the PAC universe.
You don't know enough to be this condescending.
No, of course it isn't. That's silly.
"More for Gore or the son of a drug lord--None of the above, fuck it, cut the cord."
--Zack de la Rocha
"I tell you I'll have nothing to do with the place...The roof of that hall is made of bones."
-- Fiver
No one could have foreseen
Right, no one, least of all Bernie, could have foreseen that a 501(c)4 committee would force him out of campaigning. All the young people running the committee realized it instantly the moment they heard about Weaver and the large contributions he intended to accept. Eight of them resigned. It was obvious to everyone the moment the plan became public. Except Bernie.
Please, explain what's better about what Bernie's letting Weaver do than the plan to accept small contributions that could have been given directly to candidates while Bernie could actively campaign on there behalf. What's better about the Bernie/Weaver plan (except the size of Weaver's paycheck) then the plan the people who resigned were developing? How effective is this glorious super PAC?
Poor Bernie. Clueless. He'll have to be content with watching the leaves turn from his new $600,000 lakefront home in the Champlain Islands, making time to campaign for Hillary, while all those progressives who worked their hearts out for him go down in flames. He woulda if he coulda.
Not us, him.
Hey FP~
Hey FP~
When you have walked the talk of the human rights advocate, for decades and accomplished a complete upending of the ideology of how campaign's must be funded and BY WHOM, and risked life and career to birth decently in governance at the national and global level; and challenged the PTB; The very same PTB that assassinated The Kennedy's, and Reverend MLK jr. . . While pulling back the curtain on the unethical behavior of the alleged democratic sacred cows; while implicating the "all powerful" Ones to which hommage is permenently demanded. . .
When you have accomplished anything remotely as potentially game changing as Senator Sanders; for the good of the whole over a lifetime of being courageous for ethics; ACTING TO PROVIDE protections for the down trodden working class and the poor, and the
enviornment . . .then, you will be in a position to consider hurling accusations and making insinuations about someone whose virtues and courage you are incapable of perceiving.
Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety” ~Benjamin Franklin
No one can criticize a politician until they've done all they've
done? I reject that standard.
Sanders chose politics as his career and it's been his day job. Yes, he has been a far better politician than others. But, saying we can't question or criticize him until we do all he has done is false. We pay his salary, our donations financed his run and his organization is asking us to fund it. Damn straight, we have a right to question and criticize.
So sorry that you have such
So sorry that you have such CLUELESSNESS and inability to perceive nuance.
Denegrating someone's character and insinuating that their motives are base and self serving is another thing altogether.
Do try and comprehend the difference.
Senator Sanders deserves to be treated with the respect that his principles and his high standards of service to the cause that serving with courage and true moral decency deserve.
You may use a dictionary if your CLUELESSNESS gets in the way of your limited comprehension skills.
Get it
Now?
Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety” ~Benjamin Franklin
faithsoasis...
I just reread HenryWallace's comment and he/she said nothing that warranted the insults that you lobbed at him/her. Please refrain.
I was making an example of
I was making an example of the difference between a criticism of policy and insulting someones character.
One being a criticism of policy . . .
while the other is an attack on their character.
Nothing makes the point like using the offending method aimed at another; turned towards the defender of such a method.
Sorry you fail to see my motive.
Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety” ~Benjamin Franklin
Obviously, the insulting nature of your replies to FP and me was
the issue, not your motive. You may also have imagined your motive and distinctions to have been more clearly stated than they were. However, voters have as much right to attack the character of a politician as they do his policies, and the right to attack both is not conditioned upon duplicating the lifetime accomplishments of the politician. For one thing, character and policies are not isolated from each other.
As far as this justifying your personal insults to me,
I do not agree that insults to a politician justify personal insults to a poster. However, my post did not I did not personally insult either you, Sanders or anyone else.
The rule here is simply “avoid insult”
precisely because, as a rule, people are inclined to “litigate” (affirm their own virtue and engage in hairsplitting debates over) motive, to no good end.
I also reject that stance--regardless of the politician,
or his Party affiliation.
BTW, this is a nonpartisan site, for those folks new to it. So, all political views are welcome. The primary rule of conduct--'DBAA' when addressing members of the Community.
Which is not to say that there are no exceptions regarding critiquing public figures--such as threats of bodily harm, over-the-top vile, or vulgar language, etc. As a Mod, I tend to look to Admin to define 'over-the-top,' when there's not an obvious bright line.
Mollie
“I believe in the redemptive powers of a dog’s love. It is in recognition of each dog’s potential to lift the human spirit, and, therefore, to change society for the better, that I fight to make sure every street dog has its day.”
--Stasha Wong, Secretary, Save Our Street Dogs (SOSD)
National Mill Dog Rescue (NMDR) - Dogs Available For Adoption
Update: Misty May has been adopted. Yeah!
Everyone thinks they have the best dog, and none of them are wrong.
I m sorry, I didn't realize
I m sorry, I didn't realize name calling was now considered "a political view".
I stand corrected.
Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety” ~Benjamin Franklin
The word is political critique--which can include descriptors
which I may, or may not, agree with.
Again, this rule of thumb would not apply to members of this Community--who are (mostly) non-public persons, so to speak.
That is the vital distinction.
Mollie
“I believe in the redemptive powers of a dog’s love. It is in recognition of each dog’s potential to lift the human spirit, and, therefore, to change society for the better, that I fight to make sure every street dog has its day.”
--Stasha Wong, Secretary, Save Our Street Dogs (SOSD)
National Mill Dog Rescue (NMDR) - Dogs Available For Adoption
Update: Misty May has been adopted. Yeah!
Everyone thinks they have the best dog, and none of them are wrong.
Clueless
You know nothing about me. I know a great deal about Bernie.
Bernie didn't risk life OR career. As long as he tows the line his career as a token liberal is going places--unless he can't deliver enough of his supporters to Hillary.
Bernie didn't pull back any curtain. He was trying his best to hold it shut while Bernie supporters struggled valiantly to pull it open. Don't confuse Bernie with the valiant people who gave so much to him as a spokesperson for their cause. What did Bernie say after CA?
Whether you're running for president or managing a little league baseball team you don't let anybody treat your people the way Bernie's delegates and supporters were treated at the Democratic Convention. He wasn't going to be assassinated if he told them to "cut it out." He got a few extra brownie points from HRC for keeping his mouth shut.
I think everybody new he was going to endorse Hillary. I don't think many people expected he would abandon the progressive effort. He had over 40% of the primary votes. He got NOTHING. He behaved like an honors graduate of the Barack Obama school of negotiation.
I reject the notion that you
I reject the notion that you "know" Bernie~
OR
the intimidation and death threats which have been leveled at him.
ttp://www.usasupreme.com/bernie-sanders-received-death-threats-philadelphia/
Get back to me when you have any more proof of what you claim then an armchair politician.
In addition I borrowed the disrespectful term; clueless; from you, since you leveled it at a man who has proved his mettle and competence.
You freely hurled it at him, while you sit safely behind your screen, without the long long resume of courage and competence which, Senator Sanders has amassed over a lifetime of Public Service . . . in the highest sense of the word.
Those who hurl insults of character assassination at others . . .
might want to consider thickening up their political skins . . .
Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety” ~Benjamin Franklin
Rejection
Explain to me why I care that you reject the notion that I know Bernie. I missed that part.
I didn't say I knew Bernie. I said I know a great deal about him.
I have no doubt that Bernie's position in the senate was threatened by Schumer. That's more than an adequate explanation for Bernie's behavior. (Bernie shifted 180 degrees on US imperialism to get his position in the Democratic caucus in 1991.) Whether it's an adequate justification for abandoning his supporters at the convention is a judgment we can all make for ourselves.
When you throw out a threatened assassination attempt the burden of proof is on you. It takes more than a newspaper article about how the entire MSM were silent out of loyalty to Hillary. When you have something more tangible don't feel the need to get back to me.
'
Please stop attacking the c99p user you are addressing
A tip from site moderation.
Personalizing the conflict (“attacking the messenger”) inevitably drags down the culture of debate at a website. It leads to a verbal arms race where bullying wins.
The temptation may be to tolerate some bullying if it is articulate, witty, or rhetorically clever. It’s a trap — the eventual end result is the same.
I reject the notion that you
Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety” ~Benjamin Franklin
"All of the young people realized it instantly"
Apparently not.
Bernie sat down with USA Today for an interview, after he endorsed Hillary, which ran on 15 July. The article stated that Our Revolution would be a 501(c)(4), and that it would help recruit, train, and fund Progressive candidates.
It was about a month later that the staffers left citing the 501(c)(4) designation & appointment of Weaver as reasons.
Since the 501(c)(4) designation had been known for a month It seems the real reason they left is Weaver's appointment. And even there their reasons are questionable. How can they say so definitively that 'Weaver mismanaged the campaign and caused Bernie to lose.'?
http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/elections/2016/07/15/bernie-...
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/08/25/us/politics/bernie-sanders-our-revolut...
The Atlantic is usually a sound source and says otherwise.
http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2016/08/canova-revolution-be...
You seem to be assuming that staffers knew all the legal ins and outs of a 501(c)(4) before someone explained to them what they could and could not do. If so, I don't think that is a sound assumption.
My point is
That the 501(c)(4) status was known in July, not August.
If those staffers felt so strongly that the 501 (c)(4) designation meant that OR couldn't be what they understood it to be, why did it take them a month to decide it?
Oh, and guess what pops up when you google can 501()(4)s raise campaign contributions.
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2011/9/1/1012560/-
I understood your point and my prior post addressed the question
your reply to prior post asks me.
As for this,
I have no idea what your point is. The post of mine to which you are replying said nothing about campaign contributions and the thread topic is whether or not the 501(c)(4) status prevented Bernie from campaigning for Canova. Are you saying the staffers googled campaign contributions and saw a Kos post by a second year law student and therefore knew they were not going to be able to coordinate with the campaigns of the candidates OR supported? If so, I am not sure that is a sound assumption, eithr.
The Atlantic seems to have rounded the bend FOR HRC.
Many snippy daily articles about the collapse of the Sanders movement (on their FB feed). I think I will not renew.
Hey! my dear friends or soon-to-be's, JtC could use the donations to keep this site functioning for those of us who can still see the life preserver or flotsam in the water.
I am not sure what you are saying.
The claim on this board was the staffers left because Weaver (who, btw, has been joined at the hip with Sanders all along) heads OR. The Atlantic says the staffers left because the 501(c)(4) status prevented OR from doing all the staffers wanted to do for the candidates, in this case, Canova. I don't see how one of those reasons would help Hillary more than the other. So, I see no reason to distrust The Atlantic on this particular point.
Every msm publication is in the tank for Hillary. That is a reason to squint, but I don't think we can ignore everything all of them say about every subject. Also, there is an interview with Canova online in which he says he could not even get a return call from anyone after OR.
Thing is, I don't know if the kind of organization the staffers supposedly want exists. On the other hand, as far as I know, OR is not collecting the money itself. I get emails asking me to contribute to this candidate or that, but if I actually contribute, it's through Act Blue and Act Blue doesn't ask me if I am contributing because of OR.
Again, my problem with this thread is that no one posting seems to know much about the facts or the law, but most are posting as though they know both.
I'm not sure that we have any lawyers here, but what the
heck, we have non-doctors speculating over Hillary's health, so what's to stop us from speculating over the law?
My 2 cents, FWIW, if indeed c4's cannot coordinate with campaigns and they were in the middle of doing just that, then dropping coordination in order to be a nonprofit seems like a dumb move to me. Donors still are not able to take a tax deduction for their donations. It seems they could at least have taken a moment to tell Tim Canova that they had switched to a c4 and therefore could no longer coordinate with him - I don't think anyone would have hauled them before the elections board for a "severing ties" call so I think that was just rude.
Also, I know I've read elsewhere that nobody gets convicted of violating campaign finance laws these days, so there's really nothing to worry about. Of course, that's because the FEC is half Dems and half Repubs, so maybe the only laws they'd enforce would be against the indies. But it'd be a first in a very long time if they did.
But I've been up all night, so this is my last comment for a while.
Please check out Pet Vet Help, consider joining us to help pets, and follow me @ElenaCarlena on Twitter! Thank you.
Obviously, nothing is stopping the speculation. I simply said
that I don't see that much good will come of people who have little to zero knowledge of the facts and law speculating endlessly. The health speculation is not comparable. Most of us understand what a stroke is and that people lose reflexes, memory, etc. as they age. We also know her husband said it took her months to recover from a fall. We know that they don't allow filming when she boards a plane or "deplanes." Posters may not know everything about those things, but they have much more familiarity with vigor and good health and bad health and aging than they do with 501(c)(4) regulations and administrative and court decisions regarding super pacs.
Some people here may assume they know all there is to know about super PACs and the FEC regulations, but I'd bet a lot that what they know is a drop in the bucket compared to what they don't know. To argue about whether Hillary seemed to lose the thread of what she was saying is very different from arguing whether a super pac prevents Bernie from campaigning for Canova. And, as I said previously, nothing prevented someone from returning Canova's calls, if only to say they couldn't discuss anything with him.
About convictions for violations of campaign finance law: John Edwards was not convicted of campaign law violation,but he and his family sure suffered from having the Obama administration prosecute that case on and on--and at possibly the crappiest time in his kids' lives in the bargain. The Obama admin, however, did not prosecute McCain. Republican McCain was caught redhanded, admitted guilt and was allowed, by the Democratic Obama admin, simply to pay back the money. Democrat John Edwards was clearly not guilty, but got prosecuted endlessly, by the Democratic Obama admin, until acquittal. Go figure. I was pretty angry at Edwards for knowing risking an October surprise, but not because a billionaireness doted on him and signed checks with the notation "for furniture" or whatever, after advice from her lawyer and accountant.
It would seem to me
that the seven or 8 that left (are now back?) could form the org. they want to form. If they build it (correctly) Berners will join, and maybe we can get this show back on the road.
the little things you can do are more valuable than the giant things you can't! - @thanatokephaloides. On Twitter @wink1radio. (-2.1) All about building progressive media.
I'm not sure a 501(c)(4) forces anyone out of campaigning.
If Bernie directed the 501(c)(4)--and there is no doubt a legal definition of what it means to direct a 501(c)(4), he would not be able to coordinate campaign strategy directly with the Canova campaign. Even if Bernie directed OR, I am not sure Bernie could not have jumped on a plane to Florida and held a rally vouching for Canova as a candidate with good ideas without directly coordinating with Canova.
Problem with this thread, as I see it, is a group of posters with zero inside info about the facts and no legal expertise in 501(c)(4) or the FEC making assumptions about factual and legal matters left and right. I don't think a lot of good can come from that.
Do yourself a favor and lose the bitterness...
It does you no good. By the way, the $600,000 lake front home is the result of an inheritance, not parlaying any funding from his presidential run into profit. Six hundred thousand dollars is not a lot of money for water front property, by any means.
"I can't understand why people are frightened of new ideas. I'm frightened of the old ones."
John Cage
I was fine with your comment up till the last paragraph--
Oh, poo.
Must we divide ourselves up over loyalty or lack thereof to a former leader who isn't even going to be involved in, basically, anything from here on out?
"More for Gore or the son of a drug lord--None of the above, fuck it, cut the cord."
--Zack de la Rocha
"I tell you I'll have nothing to do with the place...The roof of that hall is made of bones."
-- Fiver
Bernie is campaigning for Hellery tomorrow, Labor Day
Giving a speech at a high skool in NH. So yeah, I'm no longer listening to Bernie. Hellery got to him (one way or another).
Is the point of this essay that It's All Good? That Bernie is off the hook, because he could not legally support Canova. Well, he's on Hellery's team now -- so there's that.
Donnie The #ShitHole Douchebag. Fake Friend to the Working Class. Real Asshole.
Canova could not get a return call from Sanders or OR or anyone.
Nothing I know of explains why someone could not pick up the phone and fill in Canova.
setting up as a c4....
prohibits working directly with candidates. This was Weaver's strategy that led to several resignations from OR
“Until justice rolls down like water and righteousness like a mighty stream.”
Did you intend to reply to me? If so, what
does your reply have to do with my post?
In any case, what makes you think Weaver decided this on his own? More likely, one or more people told a lawyer experienced in this field what he, she or they wanted the organization to be able to do and a lawyer chose the form. Or he, she or they knew a super pac was the way to go.
Without evidence to the contrary--and no one who is saying this was Weaver without consultation with Bernie--cites a single basis for saying that--it seems highly unlikely Weaver made all the decisions all by his lonesome for operating the revolution Bernie promised he'd start.
As I posted above, the 501(c)(4) designation was known
For a month before weaver's appointment.
prolly had caller id. n/t
the little things you can do are more valuable than the giant things you can't! - @thanatokephaloides. On Twitter @wink1radio. (-2.1) All about building progressive media.
If this relates to my post about Canova getting a call
from someone--anyone--telling Canova that Sanders would not be campaigning for him, such a call would violate no law on earth. It could also have been a fax or an email or a registered letter or a post it.
This seems muddled to me.
As best I ever knew, a politician cannot coordinate directly with a PAC that is benefiting him or her. So, Bush could not coordinate directly with the Swiftboaters. And Canova cannot coordinate with OR, if OR is benefiting him. And, if OR is benefiting Bernie, Bernie cannot coordinate directly with OR.
However, as Colbert proved on his old show, with a lawyer versed in super pacs by his side, a lot is done on a *wink, wink* basis. This is no surprise since politicians make the laws about PACs, much as they make laws about political corruption and other laws that protect them.
I think Bernie has some strong First Amendment rights to campaign for whomever he wishes to campaign for.
Also: http://caucus99percent.com/comment/167584#comment-167584
http://caucus99percent.com/comment/167566#comment-167566
Certainly
A politician can't coordinate with a Super Pac.
It's wiki, but it's a quick place to look:
>of organization that pools campaign contributions from members and donates those funds to campaign for or against candidates, ballot initiatives, or legislation.[1][2] The legal term PAC has been created in pursuit of campaign finance reform in the United States. This term is quite specific to all activities of campaign finance in the United States. Democracies of other countries use different terms for the units of campaign spending or spending on political competition (see political finance). At the U.S. federal level, an organization becomes a PAC when it receives or spends more than $2,600 for the purpose of influencing a federal election, according to the Federal Election Campaign Act.[3] At the state level, an organization becomes a PAC according to the state's election laws.
>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]
Not exactly. Not "a" politician, but the candidate the super PAC
is benefiting. A super PAC cannot directly coordinate campaign efforts with the candidate for whose benefit the super PAC operates (although, as I stated, Colbert and his guest on his old show, a lawyer who specialized in Super PACs, showed a lot of coordinating does go on, much of it legal).
The material you quoted from wiki says nothing about coordination, only what a super PAC is and does not seem to relate to my post. I am confused as to your point in quoting that material in response to my post. Are you, by any chance, equating coordinating with contributing?
So the new organization has to bridge the gap
between a nasty political machine, on the one hand, and people who need to see a BIG CHANGE NOW (otherwise known as idealists--I like idealists!), on the other.
Looks like Weaver might not have been the right guy for the job of heading up the new organization.
Democracy for America, another pac, is chaired by Howard Dean's brother. D for A was founded by Howard Dean. According the brother Jim, D for A has already been working together with OR and looks forward to continued collaboration.
Maybe Howard Dean should chair Our Revolution?
After all the shit he said in favor of Hillary?
Well, I'd say that would settle most of the arguments about whether OR is worth any progressive's time.
I am saying this in sadness, because I was an early, and strong, convert to Howard Dean's movement back in the day. Even though I knew he was to the right of me. I essentially left what could have been a reasonably successful career to basically become a full-time activist (I figured, if not me, then who, given that I had no children and no husband and also had a financial cushion. And I was really, really motivated to do the work.)
Seeing him grovel to Hillary in order to get back into the fold actually does hurt a bit.
"More for Gore or the son of a drug lord--None of the above, fuck it, cut the cord."
--Zack de la Rocha
"I tell you I'll have nothing to do with the place...The roof of that hall is made of bones."
-- Fiver
Howard Dean is a centrist who has been shilling for Hillary
since well before she announced she was running. He and his brother were Park Avenue kids who summered in the Hamptons, courtesy of their Wall Street stockbroker dad. Howard Dean was a doctor/Governor with a practicing doctor wife who backed good health insurance in his state and who later backpedaled on that. Other than that, I am not sure what he has done that suggests Dean is a liberal.
Originally, D for A wanted Warren to run in the primary (and lose) to make Hillary a better candidate. (This was per an internal memo someone leaked early on.) After D for A's membership voted overwhelming for backing Sanders, it did. If anyone other Weaver, who at least was pro-Sanders all along, is going to run OR, it should at least be someone with clearly liberal positions. That said, I am still trying to evaluate OR, which so far seems to have backed liberals in the primary and Democrats of all kinds in the general, claiming they are progressive, which Hillary claims about herself.