Is One Party's Politicians More Or Less Corrupt Than The Other's?

Hard Ball by Nancy Ohanian

In terms of political parties, it was once clearer who the good guys were and who the bad guys were in the Dark Money world or legalistic, systemic bribery. Now... not so much. Poke a Democrat about taking legalistic bribes and he or she will start screeching about "unilateral disarmament." But as new report by Alex Seitz-Wald for NBC News makes it clear that if the Dems were once the party opposed to Dark Money, they are now the party getting the most out of it. Progressives tend to reject corporate PAC money, for example, but corrupt Democratic Party leaders like Pelosi and Hoyer scoop it up with alacrity and then buy loyalty within the House caucus by spreading it around. Seitz-Wald may be a fool but he's correct when he writes that "Democratic super PACs are spending more than Republican ones" and that Democratic Super PACs outspent conservative Super PACs in 2018. Russ Feingold's prediction has come true that Democrats would "lose our soul" if they allowed Big Money into the party. Just look at Chuck Schumer. There isn't a person on earth who would say he has anything even resembling a soul-- and he's one of (many) go-betweens connecting the Wall Street banksters with the Democratic Party.

Advocates are concerned with super PACs, which can accept donations of unlimited size but have to reveal the names of their donors and regularly disclose their activity. But they're more worried about dark money groups: nonprofit organizations that can't be as explicitly political as super PACs, but can keep their donors secret forever and don't have to reveal much about activities before elections.

While concerns about campaign finance reform that once animated Democratic voters have been eclipsed by the desire to oust President Donald Trump, advocates are left to wonder if the party can really be trusted to follow through on its promises to dismantle a system that may help them get elected.

"If Democrats were to win the Senate and the White House, there is reason to be concerned that they may not carry through with their commitments," Holman added. "I have no doubt that we are going to have to hold their word over their head."

The Democratic National Committee adopted a platform last month calling for a ban on dark money, and Joe Biden says one of his first priorities as president would be signing the sweeping reform bill House Democrats passed last year that would, among other things, match small donations 6-to-1 to encourage grassroots giving.

But his campaign also says they'll take all the help they can get for now and that bill, known as H.R.1, would have to compete for limited legislative bandwidth with efforts to address the coronavirus pandemic, the economy and much more.

Republicans, who generally oppose major campaign finance reform efforts, cry hypocrisy.

"It's just like everything else Biden stands for. He believes it until it's of political benefit to reverse himself," said Trump campaign communications director Tim Murtaugh.

Democrats, however, argue that the only way they can rein in big money in politics is to first use big money in politics to win.

"We aren't going to unilaterally disarm against Donald Trump and right-wing conservatives, but look forward to the day when unlimited money and super PACs are a thing of the past, even if it means putting our own PAC out of business," said Guy Cecil, the chairman of Priorities USA, the super PAC first founded to support Obama's re-election.

On principle, Democrats opposed Citizens United, the Supreme Court's landmark 2010 decision that opened the floodgates to virtually unlimited money in politics. But they also were against it because they were sure Republicans and their big-business allies would outspend them.

At first, Obama set the example for his party by trying to keep his hands clean of the super PAC game. "It was just this slog to try to get Democrats to think there was any benefit at all to giving to outside groups," said a Democrat involved in early efforts to raise money for a super PAC.

Quickly, though, party leaders concluded their position against unlimited donations and dark money wasn't tenable, and it turned out there was plenty of it flowing on the Democratic side, too. Obama eventually blessed Priorities USA, which helped kick off a proliferation of liberal big-money groups.

"If Democrats don't compete, it would be like preparing for a nuclear war by grabbing your fly swatter," said Jesse Ferguson, a Democratic operative who has worked for both campaigns and outside groups.

Democrats at first said they felt sick about doing it and vowed to hold themselves to a higher standard. They would support super PACs, which publicly disclose their donors, but railed against dark money groups, which don't. But that standard eventually eroded, the apologies grew more perfunctory and they ended up diving in head-first, looking for new loopholes to exploit. And Trump's election has supercharged the spending.

...Sheila Krumholz, executive director of the Center for Responsive Politics, which runs the campaign finance data warehouse OpenSecrets.org, said her group has tracked liberal groups "taking dark money in politics to a new level of opacity" and caught them trying new tricks, such as creating faux news sites to make their attack ads seem more credible.

While overall dark money spending is roughly even between the parties right now, Democrats have a clear edge in congressional races, Krumholz said. Around 65 percent of dark money TV ads in 2020 Senate races and 85 percent of dark money TV ads in House races are sponsored by liberal groups, according to Krumholz.

"Unfortunately, there has been comfort with this that has grown over time on both sides of the aisle," Krumholz said. "Nobody wants to be the sucker that is playing by the rules when someone is getting away with murder."

One large dark money group, the Sixteen Thirty Fund, has funneled millions of dollars to more than 100 liberal groups, accepting individual donations as large as $51.7 million and $26.7 million, all without having to reveal any information about who is behind those donations.

Amy Kurtz, the Sixteen Thirty Fund's executive director, said they're just playing by the rules.

"We support and have lobbied in favor of reform to the current campaign finance system (through H.R. 1), but we are equally committed to following the current laws to level the playing field for progressives in this election," Kurtz said in a statement.

Now, many super PACs, which disclose their donors, are routing money through allied nonprofits, which do not have to make their contributors' names public, further obscuring the ultimate source of the cash.

"For a voter who simply wants to know where the money is coming from and going to, you almost have to be a full-time researcher or investigative reporter to connect all the dots," Krumholz said.

Meanwhile, Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) remains one of the fiercest opponents of campaign finance reform, not only blocking bills like H.R.1 and disclosure measures, but even intervening in legal battles to overturn state campaign finance rules.

He sees it as a free speech issue, hailing the Citizens United decision as "an important step in the direction of restoring First Amendment rights."

All this leaves campaign finance reform advocates dependent on Democrats winning in November-- even if it takes some dark money to get them there.

"We are on the cusp of having the best opportunity to repair the campaign finance system since the Watergate scandal of the 1970s," said Fred Wertheimer, a veteran good-government advocate and president of Democracy 21. "But that depends on how the elections come out."

What a crock of crap. "Depends on how the elections come out?" Why? Are the corrupt conservatives the DCCC and DSCC recruited going to suddenly become reformers? It takes real effort and real talent-- of a kind most politicians don't possess or even strive to develop-- to raise campaign cash without resorting to criminality. Two grassroots progressives who are not owned an operated by the DC Democrats are Kara Eastman in Nebraska and Julie Oliver in Texas. Neither accepts Dark Money and both are likely too be in Congress next year. It's worth contributing to womanlike Kara and Julie (which is what I included the thermometer below.

Last night Julie told me that she doesn't take a dime from any PAC, unlike Roger Williams. We need to get corporations and big money out of our politics and out of our democracy, and that's why it's so important that we're taking this stance."

Kara's campaign has been very much driven by a desire to get dark money out of American politics. Her opponent reeks of corruption. "Don Bacon must be spooked because the Republican dark money machine recently went into overdrive in Nebraska’s Second. We’ve seen dark and grainy TV ads accusing me of all sorts of hellfire and brimstone in the Omaha suburbs, paid for by secretive groups like “Defending Mainstreet” (ironic name from a DC-based right-wing Super PAC). When I talk to voters in the district they tell me the ads aren’t landing. My concern is that, like another right wing authoritarian once said, “if you repeat a lie often enough it becomes truth.” Unlike the dark money ads propping up Bacon, my voter communications are all based on fact and the Congressional record. It’s easily to do since Bacon votes with Trump 94% of the time."

Biden's Better Than Trump-- But Biden's The Worst Democrat Running Against Trump

I recall-- vividly-- Trump's flat-out lies about not accepting SuperPAC money. While he was doing everything he could to scrounge it up, he was making fun of Jeb Bush, Ted Cruz, Hillary Clinton and all the other 2016 presidential candidates for being puppets of the Big Money donors. He was too, of course, but he swore up and down he was self-financing his campaign. He lied from day one; and he never stopped lying. He still hasn't. You noticed that right?

The other day, Status Quo Joe Biden, who would cut off a limb to get Obama's endorsement might have thought he was fooling someone when he claimed that he asked Obama not to endorse him. If that were true, Obama would be the only Democrat alive ever elected to office-- and office--who Biden hasn't asked!



But that isn't the only bullshit Biden was flinging during his first hours as an official candidate. Biden says he doesn't want any money raised for him by BidenPAC (which has now changed its name to either For The People PAC or G Street, depending where you look ). All the other credible Democratic candidates had already publicly rejected the idea of accepting money from lobbyists or from Super PACs during the primary. Biden quickly realized he had no choice but to follow along, at least with the Super PACs. (His first fundraiser was hosted by a Comcast lobbyist and the mansion was lousy with lobbyists, each of whom had given Biden a check.) Kate Bedingfield is Biden's Deputy Campaign Manager for Communications:

No one looks like a liar compared to Trump, of course, but take him out of the equation and Biden looks bad-- really bad. Branko Marcetic pointed out on Friday that for all his posturing about being the guy who fights for organized labor, "an episode from the not-so-distant past cuts against this 'friend of the working man' image: Biden's leading role in the Obama administration's 2011 efforts to slash the deficit by offering Republicans spending cuts to Medicare and Social Security-- the so-called Grand Bargain that, luckily for the country, was killed by Tea Party extremism and overreach.

Biden's always been a completely worthless piece of shit. A proud neoliberal, he was calling for a spending freeze on Social Security and a higher Social Security retirement age since the 1980s. He always embraced GOP bullshit about balancing the budget, something Republicans are only for while Democrats are in power. Biden's one of the morons who has always fallen for the trap and has always been the first Democrat in any circumstance to advocate raising the retirement age. The Joe Biden I remember has always been the guy who could not wait to screw working families with Austerity, which is just what anyone supporting his presidential race should be ready for if he wins. Sacrificing people dependent on Medicare and Social Security was something Biden seemed as enthusiastic about as Paul Ryan was.

The crappy deal Biden negotiated with the Republicans for the Obama administration "extended the Bush tax cuts, cut payroll taxes by $112 billion and met a host of other Republican demands: a lower estate tax with a higher exemption, new tax write-offs for businesses, and a maximum 15 percent capital gains tax rate locked in for two years. In return, unemployment insurance was extended for 13 months and the Opportunity Tax Credit for two years.

House Democrats were furious at both the estate tax provision and the Bush tax cut extension, partly because, according to Woodward, Biden had failed to mention the extension was on the table when he briefed Democratic leaders during the talks. Even conservative Democrats like House Whip Steny Hoyer had strongly opposed the extension, and the deal drew consternation from across the party. Dianne Feinstein balked at its size, and Bernie Sanders and two other senators interrupted Biden's presentation of the package. Sanders later vowed to “do everything I can to defeat this proposal,” including filibuster it. However, enough Democrats eventually capitulated, with some grumbling, for the deal to pass, overcoming an eight-hour filibuster by Sanders.

Biden subsequently led the debt negotiations with then-House Majority Leader Eric Cantor, Sen. Jon Kyl and other Republicans. Biden's “opening bid” was cutting $4 trillion in spending over ten years, with a 3 to 1 proportion of cuts to revenue. Biden later proposed $2 trillion in cuts to general spending, federal retirement funds, Medicare and Medicaid, and, at Cantor's urging, food stamps.

At one point, Biden suddenly called for $200 billion more in cuts that had never been discussed, which, according to Woodward, led then-Maryland Rep. Chris Van Hollen-- also involved in the negotiations-- to believe Biden had gone over to the Cantor-Kyl side. Biden again crossed Van Hollen when he offered to take revenue-raising out of the “trigger”-- a combination of revenue raising and spending cuts meant to be equally unpalatable to both parties, which would automatically kick in if a deal failed to be reached.

Later in the negotiations, Biden dangled the possibility of Medicare cuts in return for more revenue-- meaning higher taxes. Soon after, he suggested Democrats might be comfortable raising the eligibility age for entitlements, imposing means testing and changing the consumer price index calculation, known as CPI. (Means testing is often seen a Trojan horse for chipping away at these programs, because their universality is one of the reasons they've remained virtually untouchable for almost a century. It’s also been criticized for imposing an unnecessary and discouraging layer of bureaucracy.)

At one point, Biden reportedly called the Medicare provider tax a “scam.” “For a moment, Biden sounded like a Republican,” Woodward notes. Biden’s team was forced to remind him that such a move would force states to cut services to the poor, to which he replied, “We're going to do lots of hard things,” and so “we might as well do this.”

As Woodward writes, “this was a huge deal” for Cantor (“Biden had caved”), and showed the administration had adopted the Republican view on the matter of the Medicare provider tax. Despite this giveaway, the Republicans continued their stubborn opposition to any revenue increases in the proposed deal.

The negotiations were ultimately scuttled by Cantor, after Biden inadvertently revealed to him that then-Speaker of the House John Boehner was secretly holding his own “grand bargain” talks with Obama. But the Biden portrayed in Woodward's book continued this pattern of bending over backwards to achieve the Republicans' cooperation in subsequent negotiations.

...[T]here are indications that another “grand bargain” may be in the cards should Biden win the presidency. In a speech last year at a joint event held by the Brookings Institution and the Biden Foundation, Biden said, “Paul Ryan was correct when he did the tax code. What’s the first thing he decided we needed to go after? Social Security and Medicare. We need to do something about Social Security and Medicare.” At the event, Biden suggested the programs should be means tested, and would require “adjustments.”

Biden’s willingness to go after the last remnants of the New Deal may well win him points from the political establishment, which has long treated such an approach as a mark of seriousness. Whether it wins him points among voters, who are overwhelmingly supportive of such programs, is another story altogether.

Big Money In Politics Is Ugly And Should Be Illegal

Friday, Michelle Ye Hee Lee, reporting for the Washington Post, named the 11 biggest donors to SuperPACs since the Citizens United case was wrongly decided by a right-wing, corporate Supreme Court.

1- Sheldon Adelsons (R)- $287 million ($112 this cycle)
2- Tom Steyer (D)- 213.8 million
3- Michael Bloomberg (I)- 120.7 million
4- Fred Eychaner (D)- $74.1 million
5- Donald Sussman (D)- $62.9 million
6- Richard Uihlein (R)- $61.3 million
7- James Simons (D)- $57.9 million
8- Paul Singer (R)- $42.5 million
9- Robert Mercer (R)- $41.2 million
10- George Soros (D)- $39.4 million
11- Joe Ricketts (R)- 38.4 million

So... 5 Republicans, 5 Democrats-- although Eychaner is a huge supporter of the Republican wing iff the Democratic Party-- and Bloomberg, who was an independent giving to both sides and is now running for the Democratic presidential nomination and gives massively to help Democrats. As Lee put it, a bunch of hedge-fund billionaires, entrepreneurs, media magnates and a casino mogul."

What do you think? Heroes of America? Oligarchs who should be stood up in front of a wall, handed a last cigarette and shot by a firing squad? "Just 11 donors," she wrote, "have injected $1 billion into U.S. political races in the past eight years through super PACs, the big-money entities that have given wealthy contributors a powerful way to influence elections... together contributed more than one-fifth of the $4.5 billion collected by super PACs since their inception in 2010... The intense concentration of money shows how a tiny group of super-rich individuals has embraced these political groups, which have emerged as indispensable allies of candidates and political parties since the Supreme Court’s landmark Citizens United decision in 2010. That ruling helped give rise to super PACs, which are allowed to raise and spend unlimited amounts of money on political activity."

"Indispensable?" Really? I don't think so. Destroyers of democracy sounds more accurate-- especially if you care to read it in this context, which I highly recommend. Meanwhile, NBC reported yesterday that Democrats outraised Republicans in about 90% of the most competitive House districts in the last 3 weeks.

Out of 107 House races rated as Toss Ups, Lean or Likely contests by the nonpartisan Cook Political Report, 97 saw the Democrat outraising their GOP competitor. In 70 of those races, the Democratic candidate will enter the final weeks of the election with more cash on hand.

The new data shows that Democratic fundraising-- which has continually outpaced GOP hauls-- isn’t waning as the election clock ticks down, even as Republicans cite tightening races and increased Republican voter enthusiasm. The average Democratic candidate in a competitive race raised about $528,000, while the average Republican clocks in at just $196,000 on average. The discrepancy is somewhat less when it comes to money left in the bank; the average Republican has about $490,000, while the average Democrat has $691,000... A total of 50 House candidates in competitive races raised more than half a million dollars in this 17 day fundraising period. Of those, just six are Republicans.

These were some of the Democratic heavy-hitters in October:

• Democrat Kim Schrier in WA-08 outraised Republican Dino Rossi by nearly $1.3 million.
• Democrat Antonio Delgado in NY-19 outraised Republican John Faso by more than $1 million.
• Democrat Katie Hill in CA-25 outraised Republican Steve Knight by $824k.
• In NY-27, where indicted Rep. Chris Collins is still on the ballot, the Republican has raised just $1,799, compared with about $246k for his Democratic opponent.
• In VA-10, a race that heavily favors Democrat Jennifer Wexton despite outside GOP groups still spending on Republican Barbara Comstock, Wexton has $1.3 million in the bank, while Comstock is down to $544k.

All of those candidates are getting some level of help from the DCCC. If you want to help candidates who need some more money for their ground games and who the DCCC still refuses to help, I'd suggest Kara Eastman, J.D. Scholten, James Thompson, Audrey Denney, Jess King, Mike Siegel and the other candidates on the ActBlue page you will get to by clicking on the thermometer above. Bloomberg isn't riding to the rescue of any of them.

If Conservatives Can Buy Both Parties, They Won't Need To Worry Who Wins Those Bothersome Elections

Jacobson- Rabid fox in the hen house

On Sunday we looked at a relatively new phenomenon happening in American politics right now: conservative-- usually Republican-- billionaires investing huge sums of money in Democratic primaries. We spoke specifically about how the web of shady SuperPACs that prop up the Republican-lite organization, No Labels, is pouring hundreds of thousands of last minute dollars into the Orlando-area seat that progressive Alan Grayson is trying to reclaim from right-of-center New Dem Darren Soto.

It's a district too blue for a Republican so big right wing money wants to make sure it's at least represented by a DINO with GOP tendencies-- like Soto. And certainly not by a skilled and effective progressive warrior like Grayson. Last week, for example, James Rupert Murdoch put another half million dollars into the battle through the No Labels web. And he isn't only only right-wing billionaire doing the same thing this cycle-- nor is the Grayson v Soto fight the only one where wealthy Republicans are testing out their ability to take over the Democratic Party with cash.

As I mentioned, No Labels head honcho, Nancy Jacobson, who is widely considered one of the most vicious and destructive players in American politics, runs a dark web of 8 of the most pernicious and sleazy SuperPACs in the country, United for Progress, United Together, Forward Not Back, Progress Tomorrow, Patriotic Americans PAC, Citizens for a Strong America, etc, entirely funded by contributions from 5 and 6-figure right wing donors, such as Rupert Murdoch, his son James Murdoch, Chicago White Sox and Bulls owner Jerry Reinsdorf, hedge fund manager Louis Bacon, former Major League Baseball Commissioner Allan Selig and Wheels Inc. executive Jim Frank. Jacobson, failed in her bid to insert right-wing faux-Dems John Morgantelli (PA) and Damon Martinez (NM) in their races against progressives Susan Wild and Debra Haaland. But she was very successful in rescuing the failed campaign of right-wing Blue Dog Dan Lipinksi in Chicago.

A young progressive businesswoman, Marie Newman had been steadily gaining on Lipinski-- a Republican-lite fake Dem-- and by the week before the election it looked like she had the win in the bag. Suddenly a Republican SuperPAC in South Carolina that funds No Labels with cash from conservative donors like Jerry Reinsfeld and Dick Duchissois, started pouring money for a wave of false ads into the district. Newman's grassroots campaign was swamped with a flood of cash and she lost the election, albeit closely:

• Dan Lipinski (No Labels Blue Dog)- 48,675 (51.1%)
• Marie Newman (D)- 46,530 (48.9%)

Yesterday I asked her what had happened. "No Labels," she told me, "is widely known as a true PAC-bully for conservatives. To be clear, they are not centrist in any way. No Labels only supports conservatives. During my campaign they made up ridiculous lies-saturated ads and executed horrifying things on the ground to beat me. I am incredibly proud of all of my partner Non-profit PAC supporters. My campaign and supporters were honest, fair and ethical. No Labels was the opposite in every way."

No Labels and its affiliated PACs smeared her with $987,742 worth of ads, primarily with a contribution from United For Progress, Inc ($975,894), which gets it's money from the same kind of right-wing criminal types trying to take down Grayson and bolster Soto in Florida:

• Louis Bacon (Moore Capital Management)- $500,000
• Howard Marks (Oaktree Capital)- $375,000
• Christopher Stadler (CVC Stadler)- $250,000
• Jerry Reinsdorf (Chicago White Sox)- $200,000
• Michael Sonnenfeldt (Tiger 21 LLC)- $125,000
• Carl Ferenbach (High Meadows)- $125,000
• Craig Duchossois (Duchossois Group)- $100,000
• Jim Frank (Wheels)- $100,000

Should these plutocrats, primarily corrupt Wall Street banksters, get away with taking over the Democratic Party nominating process? They've already taken over the GOP but with the rise of Trump, conservative Republicans are looking for an alternative and they see No Labels as exactly that-- a viable alternative and an opportunity to insert more Wall Street-friendly "Democrats" into Congress in blue districts where the GOP would have no chance to win anyway. Please consider helping Alan Grayson stop them in Orlando by clicking on the Blue America 2018 congressional thermometer on the right. Grayson was the most effective member of Congress while he served. Soto is an inept, ineffective, backbencher party boy who votes the way he's told to vote-- a complete waste of a blue seat. His record is anti-Choice, pro-NRA and "neutral" on protecting Social Security from the Republicans and the greedy Wall Street monsters who want to "privatize" it.

Although it isn't the exact same thing, it's worth mentioning that Paul Ryan couldn't bear the idea of being defeated by a union construction worker, Randy Bryce... so he announced an early retirement and fled from the battlefield. Yesterday Mark Leibovich of the New York Times Magazine blamed it all-- somewhat brutally-- on Trump, not Bryce. "Ambitious 48-year-old politicians at the peak of their powers don’t suddenly just decide to quit because they’ve discovered that their teenage children are growing up fast back in Wisconsin. Ryan should, by rights, be riding out of town at the pinnacle of his starlit Washington career. Yet he remains a distinctly awkward match to a moment-- and president-- that seem certain to define much of his legacy." I've seen the same internal polls and focus group results Ryan has. Independent voters are done with him. He knew, Trump or no Trump, he has no chance against Bryce. The GOP isn't prepared to give up the southeast Wisconsin seat without a fight, so they have been pumping large amounts of money into the Democratic primary campaign to defeat Bryce and replace him with a pretend-- or vanity-- candidate that would be incredibly easy for them to defeat. It isn't working but it is forcing Bryce to put some attention into a primary he shouldn't have to think about instead of concentrating all his resources and firepower against the Paul Ryan clone that Ryan chose as the November candidate. So far No Labels hasn't weighed in on this one yet.

Ryan's SuperPAC Is Setting Up Offices Everywhere To Save Trump Enablers

National SuperPACs operate out of Washington DC. I guess they could have a satellite office in L.A. or Chicago or NYC, although few are so fancy to even do that. But after Ryan passed the TaxScam, the Koch brothers patted him on the head, said "good boy," and gave him $500 million to play with. That's why Ryan's PAC has set up an office in... hold on, Spokane. It's also how Ryan can afford to give a $5,000 check to 143 Republicans in Congress ($715,000). Axios reported that each chief of staff for the 143 was invited over to his office Tuesday to have some bagels and coffee-- and pick up the 5 grand. Many of the mist vulnerable incumbents need the money since challengers are outraising them heavily.

Let's look at California as an example. Democrats out out-raising Republicans up and down the state. As of the December 31 FEC reporting deadline, Republican incumbent Dana Rohrabacher had brought in $1,110,094 and had $713,144 cash on hand, while one of the crowded field of Democrats raised $1,225,534 and had $833,688 in his campaign war-chest and 4 others were all raising 6-figures. Of course some the fundraising is embarrassing for Democrats or even quasi-Democrats, like these two jokers, who are just writing checks for themselves from money neither of them earned. When will Pelosi ever learn that voters want authenticity, not multimillionaire crooks out to buy seats in our House of Representatives? That was rhetorical. I'm afraid I know the answer.

I just spoke with J.D. Scholten, the progressive Democrat running against Iowa bigot and crackpot Steve King. JD outraised King this last quarter $174,343.57 to King's $87,543.50. Scholten's cash-on-hand is an impressive $133,522.62 while King-- who just pays his son and daughter-in-law massive salaries out of his campaign funds-- only has $52,578.83 in his campaign war-chest. J.D.: "We're grateful for the amount of support this campaign has received. At first, our focus was to get out on the road to engage with as many people as possible. At the time, people liked us simply because I wasn’t Steve King. Now we’re seeing the shift to people responding to our message of inclusiveness. I’m fighting for an inclusive health care system, an inclusive economy, and an inclusive community. My campaign is about beating Steve King, but our grassroots movement is about invoking the voice of the working class in Iowa’s 4th District."

But Ryan's SuperPAC means business and the DCCC better get some of their silly candidates out of the way or they're going to blow their chances to win in districts they should be able to roll up. Ryan's Congressional Leadership Fund is putting millions of dollars into field operations-- ergo, the auxiliary office in Spokane to save Cathy McMorris, a Ryan puppet, one of 27 offices Ryan has already opened thanks to the big-spending billionaires who are writing huge checks to keep Democrats from taking back Congress, including district offices to try to save Mimi Waters (CA-45), Mike Coffman (CO-06), Mike Bost (IL-12), Kevin Yoder(KS-03), Mike Bishop (MI-08), Peter Roskam (IL-06), Tom MacArthur (NJ03), John Katko (NY-24), John Culberson (TX-07), Leonard Lance (NJ-07), Don Bacon (NE-02), Lloyd Smucker (PA-16), Ryan Costello (PA-06), Brian Fitzpatrick (PA-08), Will Hurd (TX-23), Carlos Curbelo (FL-26), Rod Blum (IA-01), Andy Barr (KY-06), Erik Paulsen (MN-03), and Scott Taylor (VA-02). Ryan is promising another 8 offices for a total of 35.

The Ryan PAC's executive director, Corry Bliss: "Our data-driven field program is expanding, but more importantly, our staff and interns are building relationships and having ongoing conversations with voters across key congressional districts fourteen months before the midterm elections."

On Monday, Seattle PI reporter Joel Connelly wrote that "The SuperPAC of House Speaker Paul Ryan, in a tacit admission that even solid Republican districts are in danger, is setting up a field office in Spokane to boost seven-term GOP Rep. Cathy McMorris Rodgers. A member of the House Republican Leadership, McMorris Rodgers has supported President Trump, been an outspoken opponent of Obamacare and boosted Republicans' recently passed tax reform package. She is facing a formidable challenger in Democrat Lisa Brown. Brown served until recently as chancellor of Washington State University-Spokane, and is a former majority leader in the Washington State Senate. Voicing delight that Ryan's forces are moving in to rescue McMorris Rodgers, Brown tweeted: 'Help us counter the effects of this outside dark money by joining us. The Congressional Leadership Fund, Ryan's political committee, is part of a planned $100 million campaign to hold onto the Republican Party's 24-seat majority against an anticipated Democratic 'wave' in the November elections... Brown has raised more than $400,000.  She is well known in Eastern Washington.  She has taught at its universities and is coming off a big win for Wazzu, the establishment of a Washington State University Medical School in Spokane, a cause she championed in the Legislature and as chancellor."

California Blue Dog Ellen Tauscher Is Back-- Lock Away Your Wallet

She's back-- and up to no good again!

It’s 10 years later and right-wing Democrat Ellen Tauscher-- once the head of the New Dems, a vice chair of the DLC, and a proud Blue Dog-- is rearing her head in Democratic politics again. She’s the chair of the California 7 Project (AKA- Fight Back California), which purports to being trying to defeat 7 California Republicans in 2018: Jeff Denham and David Valadao in the Central Valley, Steve Knight in the L.A./Ventura 25the district and the 4 vulnerable GOPers in Orange County, Ed Royce, Dana Rohrabacher, Darrell Issa and Mimi Walters. Typical of crooked political operations, Tauscher’s outfit-- a shady SuperPAC-- is raising money for itself, not for any Democratic candidates. Tauscher told Roll Call she plans to raise $10,000,000, money that could be used to defeat conservatives that will instead be used to bolster conservatives and, in all likelihood, Tauscher’s and her cronies’ own accounts. You just have to trust she’ll spend it right. But you shouldn’t… because history shows exactly how she’ll spend it.

Tauscher is working with her original campaign manager, strategist Katie Merrill, who loses all her races, and they hiding who has already funneled 6-figures into their SuperPAC. So just what you would expect of a slimy character like Tauscher-- dark money fueling her efforts to sucker the grassroots into contributing to… probably herself and a gaggle of dreadful right-of-center Republican-lite candidates just like herself. Their main goal will be to make sure no Berniecrats win any nominations, just Tauscher-like offal from the Republican wing of the Democratic Party. One source told me she’s getting money from the lottery winner the DCCC wants to sell the CA-39 nomination to, Gil Cisneros, but it’s impossible to confirm who’s giving Tauscher’s operation the cash, since she’s taking advantage of the dark money Supreme Court rulings to hide her sources.

My history with Tauscher goes back a ways. In 2006, she recruited an “ex”-Republican to run against the grassroots candidate in California she and Rahm were eager too defeat, Jerry McNerney. They decided McNerney was too liberal to beat Republican Natural Resources Committee chair Richard Pombo and they dug up a Republican masquerading as a Democrat instead. McNerney slaughtered the interloper in the primary and Tauscher and Rahm put a hex on the district, calling donors and telling them not to contribute to McNerney in the general. That’s how Rahm taught the DCCC to play-- a practice continued by Steve Israel and whoever tells the hapless Ben Ray Lujan what he should do. In any case, McNerney pulverized Pombo, shocking the GOP (and Tauscher’s and Rahm’s Republican wing of the Democratic Party). It was one of the biggest races of the year and McNerney, propelled by grassroots enthusiasm, took 109,868 votes (53.3%) to Pombo’s 96,396 (46.7%). Pombo spent $4,629,983 that year, to McNerney’s $2,422,962. The NRCC came to Pombo’s defense with a then-massive $1,442,492, while Rahm grudgingly allowed the DCCC to spend a mere $295,366, less that the Sierra Club or even the Defenders of Wildlife Action Fund.

The media has always white-washed Tauscher and given her favorable treatment. Ten years ago, I wrote about a Washington Post puff piece on her.

Eilperin and Grunwald have written an inherently dishonest piece-- pure Inside-the-Beltway ass-kissery for the powers-that-be. Reading their whitewash you would never know that Tauscher recruited and pushed a pro-corporate, anti-grassroots shill to run against Democratic grassroots hero Jerry McNerney, only that she's being victimized by some left wing bullies for being a hard-working "moderate." From Eilperin and Grunwald a reader would reasonably conclude that Tauscher had merely "supported McNerney's centrist opponent in his primary, to the disgust of the Net roots." Not a word about the Tauscher-inspired financing that nearly caused McNerney to have to spend all his non-corporate, grassroots money in the primary, endangering his bid to oust the hated Pombo.

And every time Eilperin and Grunwald vomit out "moderate," as though the 135 House Dems with more progressive voting records than her are not moderates, but extreme leftists and dangerous communists, my skin crawls. Only reactionary Democrats have voted more frequently with the Republican extremists on substantive issues than Tauscher has, yet in the Post they phrase it a little differently: "Since 2003 she has voted with her party more than 90 percent of the time. This year, she has marched in lock step with Pelosi. But to Net-roots sites such as Daily Kos, Firedoglake, and Crooks and Liars, she's Lieberman in a pantsuit. 'I don't think it's a fair comparison,' Tauscher said. 'My colleagues look at this and say, "If they're going after Ellen Tauscher, holy moly!'" Yeah, holy moly! What's next? Will someone challenge Jim Marshall or John Barrow or David Scott, 3 Georgia Democrats who spend an awful lot of time voting with Republicans?

…This oversimplification to the point of willful distortion is a perfect example of how the Eilperin and Grunwald have delivered for Tauscher today. The Democratic grassroots' dismay with Tauscher is not about "a vote" in 2002 for Bush's Iraq War. Between October 10, 2002 and May 25, 2005, the House voted on 44 Iraq War bills. Tauscher's Iraq voting record is one of the worst of any Democrat's, and far from being in "lockstep" with Nancy Pelosi's, as Eilperin and Grunwald deceitfully attempt to convey. Starting on October 10, 2002 with Roll Call 454 on H.J. Res. 114, the final resolution authorizing Bush to use force against Iraq, Tauscher didn't vote with Nancy Pelosi and other progressive Democrats-- and the majority of Democrats in the House; she voted with Tom DeLay and Roy Blunt and the worst reactionary, warmongering scum in the Congress to give Bush the authority to do what he's done in Iraq. Bad enough to remove Tauscher? Absolutely. But that was just the beginning. Since then she voted with the right-wingers 13 more times to carry out Bush's war policies.

As one of McNerney’s top campaign staffers in 2006 told me yesterday, "Tauscher’s backing a former Republican against McNerney in 2006 almost saved Pombo's hide." Like me, he’s very wary of her current efforts. A former investment banker at Bear Stearns and Drexel Burnham Lambert, Tauscher is now on a number of corporate boards, like Southern California Edison, and, unfortunately, a few weeks ago Jerry Brown appointed the former Ready For Hillary corporate shill to the University of California Board of Regents. While she served in Congress, she was a virulent anti-progressive on every possible level, including, of course, policy. She worked with the Republicans to gut the estate tax and to screw consumers with a reactionary bankruptcy law written by credit card company lobbyists. She was also a bug proponent of NAFTA and every other unfair trade policy that helped wreck the Democratic Party brand and impoverish working families. A long-time war-monger, she voted against most Democrats to back Bush’s attack on Iraq. But she’s pro-Choice and pro-gay, so she can pass herself off as a "liberal," which is patently absurd... and dangerous to the serious efforts going on to win these seats and swap out conservatives for actual progressives.

When "Good Guys" Do Bad Things

The way they finance their campaigns, Donald Norcross and Patrick Murphy are not just dancing with the devil, they're changing costumes, doing flips and ending the routine with a dip and kiss

We've been writing for almost a year about how the righteous-sounding PAC, End Citizens United is a scam. It was set up and is run by a gaggle of DCCC and DSCC losers to primarily funnel money to their corrupt conservative candidates and campaign finance criminals like Patrick Murphy, Lacy Clay, Ami Bera, Pete Gallego, Monica Vernon, Steny Hoyer, Val Demings, Scott Peters and Lon Johnson. In fact, on Saturday, the Sacramento Bee dug into the campaign finance abuse system Steve Israel thought up that is landing Ami Bera's father in prison and should send Ami Bera, Patrick Murphy, Murphy's parents, Scott Peters and Scott Peters' parents to prison as well. That's specifically the kinds of candidates "End Citizens United" is funding.

Democratic Rep. Ami Bera, whose father is awaiting sentencing on two felony counts of election fraud, for years has engaged in a complex series of campaign donations involving his parents and the families of other congressional candidates, federal records show.

Beginning six years ago, when he unsuccessfully challenged former Republican Rep. Dan Lungren, Bera and his family wrote checks to other Democrats, almost always for the maximum amount allowed under federal law. Those candidates or their families gave similar amounts to Bera, and the contributions often occurred within days of one another.

The practice differs from the reimbursement scheme perpetrated by Babulal “Bob” Bera, 83, in which he repaid donors as a way to direct more money to his son’s campaign committee. Federal officials and Ami Bera maintain the congressman, who has represented a suburban Sacramento County district since defeating Lungren in a 2012 rematch, was unaware of his father’s illegal activities.

The pattern of giving involving other candidates, known as donor swapping, is most often seen among deep-pocketed families. Campaign finance experts said such see-saw contributions generally do not run afoul of federal law, but say they are a way to sidestep individual donation limits and help show fundraising prowess. 
...Larry Noble, general counsel for the Campaign Legal Center, a nonpartisan election reform group, said an argument can be made that coordinated exchanges between candidates’ families evade the law, which prohibits making contributions in the name of another.

Some instances in which Bera’s parents engaged in a pattern of giving with families of other congressional candidates have been reported in the past. Following his father’s guilty plea, the Sacramento Bee reviewed contribution records for four election cycles, finding such a pattern between Bera and his family and at least six other congressional candidates. Nearly $240,000 changed hands. 
Bera’s father, listed in campaign finance records as Babulal, Babulal R., or B.R. Bera, and his wife, Kanta Bera, gave the maximum allowed to their son’s campaigns, and contributed at least $75,000 to candidates whose immediate families gave to Bera.

Candidates can give unlimited amounts to themselves, but donor-swapping makes it appear that they have a larger list of supporters and do not need to rely as much on their own wealth.


...The elder Bera this month admitted to recruiting friends, family and acquaintances to contribute nearly $270,000 to Bera, and then largely reimbursed them with his own money. Prosecutors said as part of the plea bargain the government agreed not to charge Kanta Bera. Ami Bera said he has since given the money to the U.S. Treasury. Babulal Bera faces 10 years in prison, though prosecutors agreed to recommend no more than 2 1/2 years.




...Another series of contributions occurred between Bera and Democratic Rep. Patrick Murphy, now a candidate for the U.S. Senate in Florida.

In 2011, three days after Janine Bera gave $5,000 to the “Friends of Patrick Murphy” committee, Murphy’s father, Thomas P. Murphy, provided $5,000 to “Ami Bera for Congress.” In 2013, the younger Murphy’s mother, Leslie, gave $5,200 to Bera. Babulal and Kanta contributed a total of $10,400 to Murphy two weeks later. Three months later, Janine Bera donated $5,200 to Murphy.

Murphy’s campaign sent $1,000 to Bera in 2014, and Babulal Bera sent $5,000 to Murphy last June.

Murphy spokeswoman Galia Slayen did not respond to specific questions from The Bee, including whether the families coordinated. Instead, Slayen pointed to a recent Treasure Coast Newspapers story quoting an email from her stating Babulal Bera did not arrange an exchange.

Murphy said he recently donated $10,200 he had received from Babulal Bera to a trio of nonprofits: Common Cause Florida, Big Bend Homeless Coalition and Renewal Coalition.

Another "liberal" PAC playing with Dark Money has gone bad-- the Patriot Majority USA SuperPAC and phony 501 (c)(3), which has always targeted Republicans (usually completely ineffectively, having lost nearly every race it got involved in) but is now targeting progressive Berniecrat Alex Law in order to assist the most right-wing Democrat in New Jersey, corrupt Machine candidate Donald Norcross. Patriot Majority USA just spent $67,486 sending several illegally coordinated mailings on behalf of Norcross in South Jersey, using messaging illegally originated from Norcross' congressional staff. Although this is the first time the group involved itself in a primary, PublicIntegrity.org warned about their shady practices in 2013.

A liberal, labor union-backed nonprofit that’s not supposed to be primarily political spent $23.7 million last year in the run-up to national elections-- 46 times what it spent in 2011, a non-election year, according to its new Internal Revenue Service tax return.

And although it describes itself as a grassroots group, a single $6 million donation from an unnamed source made up one-fourth of Patriot Majority USA’s $23 million in 2012 revenue. More than half of its haul, $12 million, came from anonymous donors that gave more than $1 million each, its tax return indicates.

Patriot Majority USA states on its website that it advocates for “comprehensive campaign finance reform that increases transparency and limits the influence of greedy special interests who ... buy elections.”

Unlike super PACs and traditional political campaign committees, nonprofits such as Patriot Majority USA aren’t required to disclose their donors because they supposedly exist to primarily promote the public good and social welfare. But nebulous Internal Revenue Service rules have led these “dark money” groups to proliferate and spend millions of dollars on politics. The agency proposed tightening the rules last week.

For its part, Patriot Majority USA reported spending $9.3 million on politics-- almost 40 percent of its expenses. It reported the political spending was for “expenditures and grants for issue advocacy to educate voters on candidates’ views.” More than half of its $1.4 million in grants went to groups considered politically active such as American Working Families Action Fund and No on 3 Inc. in Florida, a group that opposed a constitutional amendment changing the way state revenue caps are set.

Patriot Majority USA also fields a super PAC-- Patriot Majority PAC-- that spent just a small fraction of what its nonprofit sister group did during 2012, according to the Center for Responsive Politics.

Patriot Majority USA’s overall expenses are nearly three times that of an arguably better-known liberal nonprofit group Priorities USA, which has ties to President Barack Obama.

And although the group doesn’t disclose its donors, the Huffington Post reported labor unions contributed $2.3 million to Patriot Majority USA last year, based on calculations from Department of Labor filings. The Alliance for Quality Nursing Home Care, a trade association, also gave the group $750,000, according to the Center for Responsive Politics.

Patriot Majority USA was formed in 2008 and technically spun off into a separate entity in 2011. When it applied to do that, it told the IRS it didn’t plan to hire employees and would instead rely on a “large base of volunteers” to developing and disseminating the organization’s message.

This hasn’t proven true. The organization reported no volunteers last year and paid its founder and president, Craig Varoga, $144,053 last year for 25 hours of work per week, according to its 2012 tax return. Other expenses reported include $11.6 million on a “media buy,” $2.5 million for direct mail production and $1.5 million on voter registration efforts.

Varoga, who was national field director for Gen. Wesley Clark’s 2004 presidential campaign, did not respond to questions from the Center for Public Integrity.

Varoga instead emailed a statement that his group “has been recognized by the IRS and has a very well defined, multi-year, bipartisan primary purpose, which is to work on economic solutions and encourage job creation throughout the United States.”

The following year, the same author, Michael Beckel, followed up with an article for Slate called The Dark Arts that featured Patriot Majority USA's shady practices and gross hypocrisy. "Liberals," he wrote, "may blame conservatives for the ongoing surge of political 'dark money' dominating the 2014 midterm elections, but Democrats are now taking full advantage of these secretive, free-wielding political behemoths-- while bemoaning their influence. At the forefront is the nonprofit Patriot Majority USA, which is providing Democrats with a countervailing force against the political machine of conservative billionaires Charles and David Koch. This election cycle, Patriot Majority USA has spent more than $7 million on political advertisements, according to reports filed with the Federal Election Commission. That makes it the largest Democratic-aligned dark money operation in the country."

And now they've turned their guns on one of the most effective grassroots campaign's in the country, Alex Law's, to assist the most corrupt Machine in the Northeast United State, George Norcross'. (By the way, Norcross, who's is panic-stricken over Law's headway and is sending out coordinated mailings smearing Law, had raised $912,186 to Law's $46,380 as of the March 31 FEC reporting deadline.)

Among the newly identified contributors: the Partnership for Quality Home Healthcare ($500,000), the International Longshoremen’s Association PAC ($50,000), the American Health Care Association ($25,000), and the American Association for Justice PAC ($10,000).

Patriot Majority USA’s top known donor is the Alliance for Quality Nursing Home Care, which gave $1.25 million over two years. That health industry trade group-- which last year merged with the American Health Care Association-- was first identified as a contributor to Patriot Majority USA by the Center for Responsive Politics. Greg Crist, a spokesman for the American Health Care Association, declined to comment, saying, “As a general practice, we don’t comment on our political giving strategies.”

Patriot Majority USA has also collected seven-figure sums from at least two labor unions: $1.14 million from the Service Employees International Union, including $280,000 from the SEIU’s state council in Pennsylvania, and $1 million from the American Federation of State, County, and Municipal Employees.

I wonder if the union members know their dues are going to fund an arch conservative and to try to bury a progressive reformer. If you'd like to contribute to Law's grassroots campaign, you can get to it by tapping the thermometer:

Patrick Murphy Had A Bad 33rd Birthday

Yesterday was Wall Street errand boy Patrick Murphy (New Dem-FL) celebrated his 33rd birthday on daddy's yacht. The sometimes business-partner of Donald Trump had something to celebrate too: he just surpassed the one million dollar mark in direct-- not county his sleazy SuperPACs-- cash from the Finnace Sector. He is the only non-incumbent from wither party running for the Senate, who the banksters have already gone over $1,000,000 for. Florida voters who are unaware of Murphy's shameful record in Congress should ask themselves why he is Wall Street's #1 priority this cycle. Believe me, it isn't because they see him as a friend to Florida seniors or consumers or homeowners or anyone else but themselves.

The sad excuse for a Democrat who backed the GOP plan to allow a so-called "Benghazi Committee" to turn the House into an anti-Hillary witch-hunt had another jolt while he was guzzling Dom Pérignon with his Republican friends. Alex Leary, the Tampa Bay Times DC Bureau chief broke the story that Murphy's hypocrisy on campaign finance rules-- he boasts how the fake reform group, EndCitizensUnited, endorsed him-- was exposed by his quasi-illegal coordination with his daddy's and Chuck Schumer's SuperPAC. Here's how he does it, skirting the law while legalistically avoiding prison for himself, his father and Schumer:

There’s Patrick Murphy strolling on a beach with a young man. They appear to be engaged in serious talk, and Murphy points in the horizon, but the video is silent.

There he is on the same beach holding a child’s hand. And another beach shot, this time with an older man and a woman, her arm locked in Murphy’s.

Now Murphy's in an orange grove with an old guy in a hat. Murphy looks pretty serious. But again, viewers have no idea what he and the man are talking about. The video is silent.

Suddenly we see the same orange grove only Murphy is walking with a different man in a hat. And then another man, hatless. We move on to Murphy at a diner with three older folks.

Murphy traverses hallways, looking busy. Works the phones in a darkened office. Visits a mapping business. Walks the street in friendly conversation with people. Pops into a welding garage.

The 5 minute 42 second video posted on the Democratic U.S. Senate candidate’s campaign website isn’t for the public. It’s “b-roll” to be used by super PACs or another related outside group that wants to make an ad on Murphy’s behalf.

This is how candidates in both parties get around the law barring direct coordination with super PACs and it’s notable given Murphy’s public stance against the super PAC era, calling it “gross.”

As we reported last year:

Murphy has been endorsed by End Citizens United and has sent out fundraising emails slamming the Supreme Court decision. Yet Murphy’s wealthy father has pumped money into a Super PAC supporting his House campaigns and Murphy was propped up by the House Majority PAC.

Murphy of course has a super PAC on his side in the Senate race. We have asked his campaign for a response.

The Senate Leadership Fund and America Rising, two GOP groups, cast Murphy as a hypocrite and used his b-roll to create its own ads.

This is the garbage candidate that Schumer talked Obama into endorsing, although according to an off-the-record discussion from a top Biden operative, financing for the presidential library was tied up with that endorsement as well. Meanwhile one of the most credible independent progressive mainstays in Washington, People for the American Way, endorsed progressive champion Grayson in the primary battle against Murphy. PFAW President Michael Keegan:

As a member of the House of Representatives, Rep. Grayson has stood out as a fiercely independent fighter who can get things done in the face of continued GOP obstruction. He’ll be a strong progressive voice in the U.S. Senate for critical issues like campaign finance reform, protecting Social Security and Medicare, and much more. PFAW is proud to endorse such a progressive champion as Rep. Grayson.

Considering the kind of heavy-handed pressure Schumer is putting on unions, fundraisers, donors and Democratic organizations to not endorse Grayson, PFAW-- like PCCC and DFA-- deserve credit for independence and courage. Grayson has been a member of PFAW for three decades because he believes in their mission. He explained his affinity to the group when he accepted their endorsement: "Starting at the age of 13, I was an avid viewer of All in the Family, Sanford and Son, and the other great Norman Lear TV creations. These shows not only brought photorealism to television, but also depicted and embodied the great dialogue in American politics: privilege vs. equality, power vs. justice. One could say that everything I need to know in life I learned from Norman Lear. And then he founded the first great mass organization in modern American politics, People for the American Way. People for the American Way has carried the torch for justice, equality, compassion and peace for two generations now. I was proud to become a member, three decades ago. I am even more proud to enjoy its endorsement today."

You can contribute to Grayson's campaign-- and to turning Florida's second Senate seat-- from red to blue (which would be a lot better than from red to purple or pink or whatever describes Murphy) by clicking on the thermometer:

Hillary The Misleader And Her SuperPACs

At the Democratic Party debate in Milwaukee, Hillary, whose every response was meant to mislead, responded to a question from Judy Woodruff about her corrupt approach to politics-- "Nearly half of your financial sector donations come from ... George Soros and Donald Sussman. You said there's no quid pro quo. Is that also true of the donations that wealthy Republicans give to Republican candidates, contributors including the Koch brothers?"-- like this:

You're referring to a super PAC that we don't coordinate with, that was set up to support President Obama, that has now decided they want to support me. They are the ones who should respond to any questions... But the real issue I think the senator is injecting into this is that if you had a super PAC, like President Obama had, which now says it wants to support me, it's not my PAC, if you take donations from Wall Street you can't be independent.

I know some of the donors who gave to Priorities USA and Priorities USA Action, the two major PACs in question, and there should be no doubt that Hillary (as well as Bill) raised the money for the PAC (well over $30 million so far) and surreptitiously-- and as illegally as Jeb, Rubio, Cruz and the rest of them do-- completely controls it. First lets look at the tiny handful of billionaires and multimillionaires who have funded it:

• George Soros- $7,000,000
• Haim & Cheryl Saban (Israeli lobbyists)- $5,000,000
• Donald Sussman- Chairman of Trust Asset Management, founder of Paloma Funds and New China Capital Management- $2,500,000
• Herbert Sandler- founder of Golden West Savings & Loan- $2,500,000
• Laure Woods- $1,835,000
• Pritzker Family- $1,800,000
• Barbara Lee- 1,400,000
• Daniel Abraham- founder of Slim-Fast- $1,000,000
• Bernard Schwartz- ex-CEO of Loral Space and BLS Investments- $1,000,000
• Thomas Tull- $1,000,000
• Steven Spielberg- $1,000,000
• Jeffrey Katzenberg- $1,000,000
• Pat Stryker- $1,000,000
• Kathleen McGrath & JJ Abrams- $1,000,000
• Stephen Silberstein- $800,000
• David Shaw- ex-CEO, Ikaria Pharma and IDEXX Laboratories $750,000

Yesterday, one of Hillary's slimiest and most key operatives-- DNC Chair Debbie Wasserman Schultz, announced that she had taken it on her corrupt self to roll back Obama's restrictions that banned donations from lobbyists and PACs to the DNC. I guess she feels pretty confident that Hillary has the nomination locked up, since it is only presidents and presidential nominees who can make this kind of a rule change.

The decision was viewed with disappointment Friday morning by good government activists who saw it as a step backward in the effort to limit special interest influence in Washington. Some suggested it could provide an advantage to Hillary Clinton’s fundraising efforts.

“It is a major step in the wrong direction,” said longtime reform advocate Fred Wertheimer. “And it is completely out of touch with the clear public rejection of the role of political money in Washington,” expressed during the 2016 campaign.

...The DNC’s recent, more sweeping reversal of the previous ban on donations from lobbyists and political action committees was confirmed by three Democratic lobbyists who said they have already received solicitations from the committee. The lobbyists requested anonymity to speak freely about the committee’s decision, which has been otherwise kept quiet.

For the most part, they said, the DNC has returned to business as usual, pre-2008. The DNC has even named a finance director specifically for PAC donations who has recently emailed prospective donors to let them know that they can now contribute again... The decision could further inflame tensions between the DNC and supporters of Sen. Bernie Sanders, the Vermont independent who has railed against the influence of lobbyists, particularly those representing Wall Street.

Clinton, the Democratic front-runner, has set up a joint fundraising committee with the DNC called the Hillary Victory Fund, which raised $26.9 million through the end of 2015. Sanders has set up a similar joint fundraising committee but Federal Election Commission records show it has not been active, raising a total of just $1,000.

The new Clinton Fund collects money from large donors that is then distributed between Clinton’s campaign and 33 state Democratic Party committees. In recent months, a Clinton solicitation asked supporters to give up to $366,100 to the fund. Her campaign then received $2,700 of the total for the primary period, while the rest went to the DNC and 33 state party committees. Federal Election Commission records show that through the end of the year, 56 donors had written checks of $100,000 or more to the Hillary Victory Fund. Most of the contributions came from individuals, but a handful came from corporations or labor unions.

Reformers complain that the new rules have already changed Washington ethics. They provide opportunities for “influence-buying by Washington lobbyists with six-figure contributions to the Hillary Victory Fund,” said Wertheimer, suggesting that lobbyists could also face “political extortion” from those raising the money. He called on Obama to reverse the recent DNC decision to change the rules.

Clinton spokesman Josh Schwerin emphasized the grass-roots nature of Clinton’s campaign and the candidate’s commitment to reform.

Yes, the entirety of the Clinton campaign is built on a tissue of lies-- not the Trump/Cruz genre of made up nonsense lies-- but a careful pattern of what one of her congressional colleagues referred to today in private conversation as "oleaginous" lies. everything she says is meant to confuse and mislead the listener. Not on a Trumpian magnitude of blatancy, but enough of a lie so that no one in the country trusts her or thinks she's honest. That wasn't just created by Republican propaganda. Watch her vile, revolting performance at Thursday's debate-- one slimy, unwarranted attack after another, very much like how Chris Christie defined Rubio's debate technique.

Write for the Washington Post yesterday, Matea Gold reported that her Priorities USA Action is about to start spending big, including $4.5 million in South Carolina radio spots.

The early engagement by Priorities USA Action-- which originally planned to hold its fire for the general election-- marks the first major infusion of super-PAC money on Clinton’s behalf and underscores how crucial South Carolina has become in her battle with Sen. Bernie Sanders of Vermont.

The Priorities group is rolling out the early vote campaign Friday in partnership with the League of Conservation Voters, an environmental advocacy organization, and EMILY’s List, which works to elect Democratic women.

Separately, Priorities USA is spending $500,000 to launch the radio ad in South Carolina beginning Friday, casting Clinton as the candidate to build on President Obama’s legacy.

The burst of activity serves as an acknowledgment of the tough fight Clinton finds herself in against Sanders, who trounced her by more than 20 points in New Hampshire Tuesday. It also could provide fresh ammunition for Sanders, who has repeatedly castigated the former secretary of state for being supported by two big-money super PACs.

...Guy Cecil, chief strategist for Priorities USA, said the new ads will solely focus on positive messages about Clinton. He described the early vote campaign as an effort that will also pay dividends this fall if she is the Democratic nominee.

Her advisers have made it clear that turning out African Americans and Latinos in large numbers is vital.

“For Hillary Clinton and her campaign, the March states represent an opportunity to build a coalition of support that’s as diverse as the Democratic Party itself,” campaign manager Robby Mook wrote in a memo released Tuesday. “Hispanics and African Americans play a critical role in who we are as a party and who we are as a nation. Many of the most delegate-rich states also have some of the largest minority and urban populations-- states like Texas, Georgia, Alabama, Illinois and Florida.”

Meanwhile, in South Carolina, Priorities USA is aiming to mobilize black voters to come out for Clinton with its new radio ad, which is set to remain on the air until the Feb. 27 primary. The spot was produced by FUSE Advertising, an African American media firm based in St. Louis.

“We all worked hard in 2008 and 2012 to elect President Obama,” the commercial begins. “And we’ve seen with our own eyes how Republicans have tried to tear him down every step of the way. We can’t let them hold us back. We need a president who will build on all that President Obama has done. President Obama trusted Hillary Clinton to be America’s secretary of state. And we know Hillary Clinton has the vision and courage to help build an economy to support our communities.”

“Hillary Clinton will always stand strong for us,” the ad concludes.

Hillary Clinton will always stand strong for... Hillary Clinton; that's it! Help save America by tapping on the thermometer:

UPDATE: Define Bribery

Dorothy Reik, president of Progressive Democrats of the Santa Monica Mountains, wrote a simple explanation of how campaign donations work in response to Clinton's misleading statements in the last two debates about how the millions of dollars corporate special interests have given her political career and put into her personal accounts through millions of dollars in "speaking fees" for herself and her husband. I wonder if someone could put it to music and turn it into the chorus of a song:

Arms companies donate and we get war
Health care companies donate and we get the ACA instead of single payer
Big phama donates and we get high drug prices
Fossil fuel companies donate and we get global warming
Hedge funds donate and we get charter schools
Bankers donate and we get deregulation