Crossposted

It takes a moment to set the stage for the question posed in the title — read on...

Most folks here who’ve been paying attention to the curious series of irregularities in the Democratic nominating process this season are aware of the recent Counterpunch article which detailed a collaboration apparently initiated by the DNC, which includes Hillary Clinton’s campaign, and 32+ state Democratic parties though an instrument called Hillary Victory Fund.

Hillary Victory Fund got a lot of press this past weekend because money raised at the George Clooney-hosted benefit was directed to this fund:

Clooney and his wife Amal hosted a fundraiser for Clinton at their Studio City home on Saturday. The money raised went to the Hillary Victory Fund, a joint committee for the Clinton campaign, the Democratic National Committee and state parties.

For those in the Machiavellian wing of the Democratic Party, there’s nothing to see here - it is is simply business as usual in the interest of maintaining the White House.

More than a few of us, however, have eyebrows raised and breath held about whether big and little ‘D’ politics will continue to have similar definitions for 2016 and beyond given the push for corporate and mega-donor dollars and the implications of what they expect in ROI for their investment in our government.

McCutcheon v. FEC

Nary a Democrat will fail to make a fist and raise it skyward to call the demise of Citizens United Supreme Court decision, although the fund-seeking behavior of the party this season is more consistent with that decision than averse to it. I only learned of a sibling decision, McCutcheon V. FEC in the above-linked Counterpunch article. McCutcheon, it turns out, needs to be shouted in the same breath decrying Citizen’s United for its unfettering of donations through political parties:

The case was argued before the Supreme Court on October 8, 2013, being brought on appeal after the United States District Court for the District of Columbia dismissed the challenge. It was decided on April 2, 2014, by a 5–4 vote, reversing the decision below and remanding. Justices Roberts, Scalia, Kennedy, and Alito invalidated "aggregate contribution limits" (amounts one can contribute over the two-year period) as violating the First Amendment. Justice Thomas provided the necessary fifth vote, but concurred separately in the judgment while arguing that all contribution limits are unconstitutional. href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McCutcheon_v._FEC">Wikipedia

McCutcheon v. FEC gives birth to Hillary Victory Fund

NPR describes Hillary Victory Fund this way:

The Hillary Victory Fund is a joint fundraising committee for Hillary for America, the Democratic National Committee and the Democratic committees of 32 states and Puerto Rico.

More from NPR about the campaign donations world post-McCutcheon:

Presidential candidates have always looked for legal ways to get more campaign cash. In 2008, for instance, the Obama operation asked big donors to give around $30,000, just hitting the legal limits for giving to the campaign, DNC and related committees combined.

snip

Donors who are rich — and willing — can give $5,400 to the Clinton campaign, $33,400 to the Democratic National Committee and $10,000 to each of the state parties, about $360,000 in all. A joint fundraising committee lets the donor do it all with a single check.

On Jan. 1, the contribution limits reset for the party committees, and the Hillary Victory Fund can go back to its donors for another $350,000 in party funds.

All told, a single donor can give more than $700,000 for the election.

...and a couple can double that amount if the annual amount is donated once in the name of each spouse. Note how that $350,000 number looks very similar to what is listed in articles about the Clooney fundraiser.

Who gives that kind of money?

The HVF is taking advantage of the stable of billionaire donors built up over the past 40 years by the Clinton fundraising organization. The same handful of Forbes World Billionaires repeatedly show up as top donors to the Clintons’ political and philanthropic organizations. People like Alice Walton, Haim and Cheryl Saban, J.B. Pritzker and George Soros have all contributed close to the maximum yearly limit for the HVF, in addition to pouring millions into outside spending groups on Clinton’s behalf. link

See the NPR table for more detail in How Hillary Clinton Could Ask A Single Donor For Over $700,000

How Campaign Donors Can Give 135 Times The Candidate Limit

The language about the joint fundraising arrangements with the state Democratic parties indicates that monies are shared with the state parties. However, an article following-up on the Counterpunch piece indicates that the state parties receive money and immediately forward it to the DNC, and

...Nancy Keenan, executive director of the Montana Democratic Party, said...
“We do not get any money,” she said...“Any innuendo that we were paid is inaccurate,” Keenan said. “We don’t get one red cent out of this.” link

Wisconsin Citizens Media Collective explains further:

Last December the Alaska Dispatch News reported that the state Democratic Party received $43,500 on behalf of the state party from the HVF, which turned around gave it back to the DNC on the same day…

Since the Counterpunch piece was published we’ve seen media buzz about the previously unnoticed Hillary Victory Fund and the rather enormous increase in donation limit individuals can now contribute to the national parties (now that donations can be made via the various state parties) compared to limits pre-McCutcheon.

The pushback line is a purported false equivalency that Bernie does it too so nothing to see here. Here’s a version from NPR:

Not only does Clinton have one, but so does her rival Bernie Sanders. His campaign and the DNC set up the Bernie Victory Fund last month. It doesn't appear nearly as active as the Hillary Victory Fund.

And here’s Rachel Maddow discussing Hillary Victory Fund with Andrea Mitchell — briefly, the exchange states the Sanders campaign signed an agreement with the DNC and then never exercised it, that the campaign never used the vehicle they had created with the DNC. This topic begins at about 3:30:

Do your own investigating and see if this explanation that ‘everyone does it,’ ‘Sanders is doing it too!’ makes sense to your own sniffer. Click on the link for each to see FEC information:

Hillary Victory Fund

Bernie Victory Fund

His fund has had $1,000 deposited in it compared to $60,028,729 in hers. Pretty comparable, huh? He’s doing xactly what she’s doing, amirite?

Now for the question in the title — you’ll notice from the FEC page for the Bernie Victory Fund that the treasurer for the organization is Bradley Marshall — click the link and look for yourself. The address for Mr. Marshall is listed as 430 South Capitol Street SE, which is an extremely similar address to what’s given on the Contact Us page of the DNC website. And it turns out Mr. Marshall has apparently been Chief Financial Officer of the DNC since 1992. Given how closely the Sanders campaign has been working with the DNC, it seems improbable that they would choose to have an officer in the DNC head an organization which belonged to the campaign.

Consider that the treasurer of the Hillary Victory Fund is plays a dual role as Chief Operating Officer for Hillary’s campaign:

When and how money is transferred from the (Hillary Victory) fund to the DNC and the states is at the “sole discretion” of the fund’s treasurer, Elizabeth Jones, who is also the Clinton campaign’s COO. link

Until anyone shows more convincing proof, the treasure of Bernie Victory Fund being a person directly connected to the DNC makes it a pretty safe assumption that Bernie 2016 is NOT actually affiliated with Bernie Victory Fund, which means any effort to make the case that Bernie’s doing the same thing is likely disingenuous.

As a dyed in the wool Democrat, I’d sure like to see my party to use the values I was raised to believe in.