Hacked emails prove coordination between Clinton Campaign and Super PAC's - Polidicks

[quote] THE FACT THAT political candidates are closely coordinating with friendly Super PACs — making a mockery of a central tenet of the Supreme Court’s 2010 Citizens United decision — is one of the biggest open secrets in Washington. But newly disclosed hacked campaign documents published by WikiLeaks and a hacker who calls himself Guccifer 2.0 reveal in stark terms how Hillary Clinton’s staffers made Super PACs an integral part of her presidential campaign. Consider: In a July 2015 memo addressed to Clinton herself, her campaign laid out plans for working with the Democratic National Committee and Correct the Record, a Super PAC. Correct the Record was created by David Brock, a longtime Clinton ally and the founder of Media Matters for America. One section of the memo instructed: “Work with CTR and DNC to publicize specific GOP candidate vulnerabilities.” In October 2015, several Clinton staffers strategized over ways to attack author Ed Klein for attributing an apparently fake quote to former President Bill Clinton in his book. “I’m sure Brock and team would love to go at him. Nick, want me to put you in touch with them?” Clinton campaign communications staffer Christina Reynolds, wrote, referring to Clinton press secretary Nick Merrill. “I can reach out to David,” volunteered Karen Finney, another Clinton staffer on the email chain. A month later, Reynolds emailed a list of agenda items for an upcoming campaign meeting. High on the list: determining how to frame Bernie Sanders, and whether attacks on Republicans “should go through HRC, surrogates, DNC, CTR,” another reference to Correct the Record. In December 2015, a fundraiser for multiple pro-Clinton Super PACs emailed John Podesta, the campaign’s chairman, with a suggested seating chart for an event with Super PAC donors. “John, Below is the seating chart for this evening and attached is a best of hits for both Correct the Record and American Bridge on the Presidential,” Mary Pat Bonner, the fundraiser, wrote. Campaign finance records show four donors on Bonner’s list have given $725,000 to American Bridge 21st Century, which conducts opposition research against Republicans. One donor on the list has contributed $125,000 to Correct the Record. Bonner included a document highlighting the work done by Correct the Record. The paper asserts the group may “coordinate directly and strategically with the Hillary campaign.” In another email that month, Bonner requested Podesta speak to an adviser to Jim Simons, a hedge fund manager who was considering donating to Correct the Record. “He told me he is intending to call you on Monday to discuss the importance of CTR and their donation,” Bonner wrote. “He is interested in the fact that CTR is a coordinated PAC that does not do any paid communication.” (Simons has not donated to CTR.) In February 2016, Dennis Cheng, the lead fundraiser for the Clinton campaign, emailed other staffers to recommend that Podesta call certain donors to Priorities USA Action, the largest pro-Clinton Super PAC, to thank them for their six- and seven-figure donations. Cheng flagged three donor names, telling a colleague they were “very important Priorities USA calls that ideally John can make.” In a separate email, Guy Cecil, an official from Priorities USA, apologizes to Podesta for sending him to the wrong address for a meeting. Podesta noted it had been raining and quipped, “Priorities owes me a pair of shoes.” The emails show consistent, repeated efforts by the Clinton campaign to collaborate with Super PACs on strategy, research, attacks on political adversaries and fundraising. The cache also reveal meetings between the campaign and Priorities USA Action, and that campaign officials have helped with the group’s fundraising[/quote] SOURCE: [url]https://theintercept.com/2016/10/18/hillary-superpac-coordination/[/url]

Surprising absolutely nobody. Super PACs are shady by design, and the thin, arbitrary lines regarding communication are effectively impossible to regulate or enforce. It'd be naive to think that the Clinton campaign [I]wasn't[/I] making efforts to strategize with them, and the same is true for every other high level political figure in the country. Citizens United opened the floodgates for this kind of shit to occur, and that's why it needs to be overturned.

[QUOTE=Big Dumb American;51225330]Surprising absolutely nobody. Super PACs are shady by design, and the thin, arbitrary lines regarding communication are effectively impossible to regulate or enforce. It'd be naive to think that the Clinton campaign [I]wasn't[/I] making efforts to strategize with them, and the same is true for every other high level political figure in the country. Citizens United opened the floodgates for this kind of shit to occur, and that's why it needs to be overturned.[/QUOTE] Let's just hope that it will be soon. I've heard talk about it but with politicians talking doesn't mean action

[QUOTE=Big Dumb American;51225330]Surprising absolutely nobody. Super PACs are shady by design, and the thin, arbitrary lines regarding communication are effectively impossible to regulate or enforce. It'd be naive to think that the Clinton campaign [I]wasn't[/I] making efforts to strategize with them, and the same is true for every other high level political figure in the country. Citizens United opened the floodgates for this kind of shit to occur, and that's why it needs to be overturned.[/QUOTE]Why would Hillary overturn it when she benefited from it and won the election with its help?

while i do not doubt at all that previous campaigns have had similar levels of collusion, has there ever been actual evidence of it on this level?

[QUOTE=Killer900;51225346]Why would Hillary overturn it when she benefited from it and won the election with its help?[/QUOTE] Isn't Citizens United legality decided by the supreme court? If so Clinton could nominate a liberal judge that would be more likely to overturn it than whatever conservative judge Trump nominates.

[QUOTE=Killer900;51225346]Why would Hillary overturn it when she benefited from it and won the election with its help?[/QUOTE] [URL="http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2011/03/james-bopp-citizens-united"]the irony of it all is that the origin of the citizens united situation was actually an attack AGAINST hillary clinton [/URL]

[QUOTE=Killer900;51225346]Why would Hillary overturn it when she benefited from it and won the election with its help?[/QUOTE] It's not really Clinton's call either way. Hillary has no power to overturn Citizens United, because it is the result of a Supreme Court ruling. Short of nominating a liberal Supreme Court Justice, who may choose to vote against it should another ruling be held at some point, Clinton has little say in the future of that particular blight. Furthermore, Super PACs are just as much a problem for Hillary as they are a benefit for her. After all, it's not just the Democrats who are making use of them. Also, just as a final note... Clinton didn't win this election; Trump gave it to her. Had she been against [I]any[/I] other candidate, she almost certainly would have flopped.

[QUOTE=Big Dumb American;51225382]It's not really Clinton's call either way. Hillary has no power to overturn Citizens United, because it is the result of a Supreme Court ruling. Short of nominating a liberal Supreme Court Justice, who may choose to vote against it should another ruling be held at some point, Clinton has little say in the future of that particular blight.[/QUOTE]Didn't she say she'd fight to remove it

[QUOTE=Killer900;51225389]Didn't she say she'd fight to remove[/QUOTE] Yeah, but the only real power she has to fight to remove it is to instate a SC Justice who would vote against it given the opportunity. And, as it so happens, there is currently a vacant seat, and could well be at least one more within the next four years.

[QUOTE=Big Dumb American;51225398]Yeah, but the only real power she has to fight to remove it is to instate a SC Justice who would vote against it given the opportunity. And, as it so happens, there is currently a vacant seat, and could well be at least one more within the next four years.[/QUOTE] I doubt the SC would do much, even with a new, agreeable justice. They very rarely take back rulings they've made, and when they have, it's after decades, not years. I think a constitutional amendment to overrule it is the fastest way we'll ever see Citizens United gone. With Congress as it is - or might be come next year - it's a tough call to say whether that shit'll happen. I think it's going to be around for a bit, but I hope I'm wrong.