Author Topic: #Wikileaks- Motherload Of Criminality- Hillary Camp Directly Paying and Working With PACs in 2007.  (Read 2303 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline ABX

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 900
  • Words full of sound and fury, signifying nothing.
WOW. This one was marked confidential and I see why. They are discussing Hillary's 2007/2008 run and how the PACs are set up in each state. They are discussing coordinating with those PACs and even funding them from the campaign. For anyone else, this would be a major criminal FEC violation.

Quote

            
            
memo and follow-up (confidential)

            

               From:tmatzzie@gmail.com
               To: john.podesta@gmail.com
               Date: 2007-09-29 19:19
               Subject: memo and follow-up (confidential)
            




            

               John,

I read the memo. Good analysis. Here is my confidential--for your eyes
only--review of the memo. It is negative on some things. So, please keep
this as eyes only.

Overall, as I'm sure you are thinking I'd push more on building a campaign
strategy. For example, should we continue to invest in big GOTV efforts in
Pennsylvania? Or Oregon? Winning or losing will ride on that sort of
analysis more than good tactical execution.

This is going to sound like I'm dwelling on the negative side but I just
want to give you my straight due diligence. Here it is. There are a couple
of small factual errors and assumptions about different groups that worry
me. For example, I think we're over-selling the capacity of some of the
America Votes groups. This is, in some ways, the big challenge we face.
Where is the real capacity in expertise for the voter contact work? Figuring
this out and getting it done in 2008 is our biggest challenge as a movement
right now.

One overstatement worries me--USAction. They don't have a voter contact
program, a political director, a voter file manager or the ability to run a
program. I was really surprised to see them listed as a voter contact
delivery vehicle. They certainly could, but they don't have that expertise
right now. I've directed hundreds of thousands of dollars to them for
advocacy work in the field. They are a good partner for advocacy.

I also think that Working America was significantly undersold and that the
Labor movement's political issues are getting in the way. Having Working
America funded at their capacity is probably the single most important voter
contact investment that can be made in my view. This might explain the
USAction issues. Anna is a long-time supporter of USAction. She might be
trying to build their own thing through USAction as a rival to Working
America. I think that would be a huge mistake. I was at the AFL-CIO for the
birth and growing pains of Working America. It wasn't always pretty but
after 8-9 months it was a thing of beauty. This is not something we should
ask another group to figure out in the middle of the 2008 election. But let
me be clear, if they can do it they should be funded. I just think there are
other projects to fund first--like Working America.

I also think the memo was very uneven in how it treated the AFL-CIO. The
work they did in 2006 was critical. SEIU also over-states their 2006
program. They barely showed up and when they did it was very late. I don't
want to deride anybody's work. I'm just surfacing for you the labor politics
I'm seeing develop here. This worries me if it diverts resources from
important efforts. However if everybody has the resources they need, I know
that the staff-level folks across all these organizations will work well
together. But if we short-change the best people in the business, that would
be a mistake.

Another small error, I appreciate the enthusiasm of First Tuesday Media but
they didn't do any big work for VoteVets last year. I know because I
supervised the production and ad buys for VoteVets last year. Their ads were
shot by the MoveOn ad firm. First Tuesday fixed an edit for VoteVets on one
ad. In full disclosure, I screwed up a business deal with First Tuesday
earlier in the year when the second round of financing from Soros didn't
come through. That is a relationship I need to fix. I handled that badly. I
want to figure out a way to work with them. Maybe we can just bring all of
these efforts together. I was enthusiastic to work with them until I didn't
get another check from George.

On the good side of the memo. I think that Catalist and Atlas are well-run
projects doing good work. Catalist is, finally, an important part of the
progressive political architecture. There are some folks grumbling about it
because of the costs. For example, ACORN is a little annoyed about costs.
Donors need to start adding an "overhead charge" to help these groups use
catalist.

Atlas is exciting because we'll have better vote goals and plans for how to
pull them off than in the past. But, again, I worry about who will do the
voter contact work.

We badly need to find somebody to lead the Latino voter piece ASAP. That is
so critical for 2008 and the long-term.

I'm also glad that you are driving the argument that we need the messaging
capacity. If we can put the GOP candidate on defensive right out of the gate
and then again mid-Summer it is a huge advantage.

So, that's my feedback on the memo. Considering it was 16 pages these are
minor quibbles. But I wanted to call out the red flags. Because I am
intimately familiar with all of these groups I can help do due diligence as
needed. I've seen all their work up close and personal.

Next I will turn to the start-up plan and strategic memo for the messaging
campaign. I will try to merge all of the projects mentioned together. My
impression is that Rob McKay will work with whomever. He was in discussions
with Wes and I. The key is that the entrepreneurs--you, me, Susan--need to
make the jump.

Talk to you soon.

-Tom
            



         

https://wikileaks.org/podesta-emails/emailid/14093



Online Lando Lincoln

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 15,477
  • Gender: Male
This big, big stuff. Who has flagged this?  Anyone?
There are some among us who live in rooms of experience we can never enter.
John Steinbeck

Offline ABX

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 900
  • Words full of sound and fury, signifying nothing.
This big, big stuff. Who has flagged this?  Anyone?

I have not found a reference to this yet other than us. This was from the 17th dump. With 50K plus emails, there are a lot to be discovered.

Offline ABX

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 900
  • Words full of sound and fury, signifying nothing.
Does someone know or can someone quickly check if working with Unions like the AFL/CIO is along the same lines of PAC restrictions as they also mention coordinating with them?

Offline ABX

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 900
  • Words full of sound and fury, signifying nothing.
We have a lot of visitors right now, please check the Scandal Watch category for more. We are digging through all 50K plus Podesta Emails that the media is ignoring and finding a lot of criminality.
http://www.gopbriefingroom.com/index.php/board,71.0.html

Offline EC

  • Shanghaied Editor
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 23,804
  • Gender: Male
  • Cats rule. Dogs drool.
Bump for visibility.
The universe doesn't hate you. Unless your name is Tsutomu Yamaguchi

Avatar courtesy of Oceander

I've got a website now: Smoke and Ink

Offline bigheadfred

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 18,516
  • Gender: Male
  • One day Closer
Does someone know or can someone quickly check if working with Unions like the AFL/CIO is along the same lines of PAC restrictions as they also mention coordinating with them?

Maybe this?


Quote
Are different restrictions placed on the groups of individuals who may be solicited by SSFs and nonconnected political committees?

Yes. SSFs may solicit only certain groups of individuals specifically identified in the Act and Commission Regulations, while nonconnected PACs may solicit contributions from the general public. For example, a corporation with capital stock and its SSF may solicit only the corporation’s stockholders, executive and administrative personnel and the families of both groups. 11 CFR 114.5(g)(1). A labor union and its SSF may solicit only union members and their families. 11 CFR 114.5(g)(2). Twice a year, SSFs and their sponsoring organizations may expand their solicitations to include certain individuals outside the normal restrictions; the expanded groups are also specifically limited by the law. 11 CFR 114.6.

http://edocket.access.gpo.gov/cfr_2014/janqtr/11cfr114.5.htm

(2) A labor organization, or a separate segregated fund established by a labor organization is prohibited from soliciting contributions to such a fund from any person other than its members and executive or administrative personnel, and their families.

Quote
Corporate and Union Activity

Although corporations and labor organizations may not make contributions or expenditures in connection with federal elections, they may establish PACs. Corporate and labor PACs raise voluntary contributions from a restricted class of individuals and use those funds to support federal candidates and political committees. Click here to download the Campaign Guide for Corporations and Labor Organizations [PDF].

Apart from supporting PACs, corporations and labor organizations may conduct other activities related to federal elections, within certain guidelines. For more information, call the FEC or consult 11 CFR Part 114.

Title 11 Federal elections
http://www.ecfr.gov/cgi-bin/retrieveECFR?gp=&SID=2650f48fb9f3c9bfedf5bff0a6143e4f&r=PART&n=11y1.0.1.1.22
She asked me name my foe then. I said the need within some men to fight and kill their brothers without thought of Love or God. Ken Hensley

Offline Free Vulcan

  • Technical
  • *****
  • Posts: 23,686
  • Gender: Male
  • Ah, the air is so much fresher here...
Ab I'm going to piggyback off this with a new thread if that's ok.
The Republic is lost.

Offline Weird Tolkienish Figure

  • Technical
  • *****
  • Posts: 18,136
This is from the party that wants to "repeal Citizens United"! Ha! And here they are disobeying the letter and spirit of the early campaign finance law.

Offline Free Vulcan

  • Technical
  • *****
  • Posts: 23,686
  • Gender: Male
  • Ah, the air is so much fresher here...
Basically this starts with Mary Pat Bonner of the Bonner Group. They were a bundler of sorts that matched wealthy donors with liberal PAC's and campaigns. They basically disbanded when the NYT ran a story that Mary Pat was getting ridiculous fees from these donations for herself. This is recounted in the Politico story linked here:

http://www.politico.com/story/2015/02/david-brock-resigns-priorities-usa-action-115028.html

Mary Pat and a woman name Beth Eagle coordinated conference calls between a number of players both from PAC's and the Clinton '08 campaign. A review of the names:

Rob McKay - Taco Bell heir, McKay Foundation and of Democracy Alliance

Anna Burger - SEIU and Democracy Alliance

Martin Frost - former Congressman and Clinton ally

John Podesta - Clinton admin

Paul Begala - Clinton admin

Tom Mattzie - Moveon.org and now Huffington Post

David Brock - Former right wing journalist who went left, board of USA Action, a liberal PAC that supported Hillary.

The email links are as follows:

The first is a meeting on 11-27-07 that outlines the format and presenters:

https://wikileaks.org/podesta-emails/emailid/7960

They list current commitments and their sources:

Current Commitments and Cash Flow Soros: $5M to $10M -- Prepared to move $2.5M in the next 2 weeks Lewis: $5M -- Prepared to move $5M by January 15 directly to field groups Bing: $5M to $10M -- Prepared to move $5M in the next few weeks SEIU: $5M to $10M -- Determining where they are putting that $$ Abraham: $1M -- How soon can we ask him to move this money Sillerman: $1M -- Will move at least 1/2 before the end of the year Tsakapolis: $1M -- Will move part now Buell: $1M likely -- We need to determine in this first phase which groups count and for how much. I need us to establish goals and cash deadlines in order to do cash flow projections.

This was a meeting right after the Feb 5 Super Tuesday primaries.

https://wikileaks.org/podesta-emails/emailid/26417

https://wikileaks.org/podesta-emails/emailid/28305

 Note this email from Tom Mattzie of Moveon:

From: Tom Matzzie [mailto:tom@zzranch.com]
Sent: Friday, February 08, 2008 2:31 PM
To: Paul Begala; susan@one.org; John Podesta; Zach Schwartz;
tmatzzie@gmail.com; Mary Pat Bonner
Cc: Ryan Duncan
Subject: Re: Fundraising Strategy
Yes. Post Feb 5 is a different environment. Time to raise the alarm. Ryan, I've copied you here to set this up. Mary Pat, Steve, John, Susan and Paul
.

An indirect reference to fundraising for Hillary.

Another describes hit ads on McCain:

https://wikileaks.org/podesta-emails/emailid/15590

These fundraising meetings seem to have gone on after Hillary was defeated, but I can see no connection to Obama. Many more names involved here. Here is a relevant email though:

https://wikileaks.org/podesta-emails/emailid/36758

Possibly more to be dug out there. Search 'Beth Eagle funding' for more emails.

The Republic is lost.