Journalists are unwittingly helping to make overturning Citizens United that much more difficult by humoring the pretense that Super PACs aren’t part of political campaigns.
The Washington Post (4/28/16), breaking down Bernie Sanders’ and Hillary Clinton’s campaign spending in “Sanders Is Biggest Spender of 2016 So Far—Generating Millions for Consultants,” made a rather glaring omission: Clinton’s Super PAC money. The phrase “Super PAC” isn’t used once in the piece, nor is there any mention of Clinton’s major Super PACs: Priorities USA and Correct the Record. The entire hook of the article—that “Sanders Is the Biggest Spender of 2016”—is only true if you omit this “outside money”:
By the end of March, the self-described democratic socialist senator from Vermont had spent nearly $166 million on his campaign—more than any other 2016 presidential contender, including rival Hillary Clinton.
Attack ad produced by Hillary Clinton Super PAC Correct the Record. The Super PAC maintains it does not have to abide by rules forbidding coordination with its favored candidate because online ads are not “expenditures.”
Setting aside the sneering at the “self-described democratic socialist” (as if Sanders were supposed to campaign by hitchhiking across America handing out hemp flyers), this statement is only true if one accepts the right-wing logic of Citizens United: that somehow Super PAC communications represent only the “free speech” of the billionaires who back them, and are not part of the candidates’ campaigns. If one doesn’t accept that logic, as campaign finance reformers don’t, then Clinton has outspent Sanders by roughly $20 million dollars—due to the $31,746,350 spent by her Super PACs thus far in 2016. (Outside money for Sanders is less than a million dollars.)
This discrepancy also ignores the fact that the Clinton online-messaging machine Correct the Record, which has so far spent almost $5 million dollars, has argued, thus far successfully, that it can legally coordinate directly with the campaign.
Correct the Record, headed by Media Matters’ David Brock, has posted dozens of videos targeting Sanders online, and spent upwards of a million dollars to run a network of Twitter and Reddit personas saying negative things about the Vermont senator on social media. They issue negative press releases, graphics and talking points—some of which the Clinton campaign’s Twitter account tweets out.
Yet according to the Washington Post’s “How a Super PAC Plans to Coordinate Directly With Hillary Clinton’s Campaign” (5/12/15):
Correct the Record believes it can avoid the coordination ban by relying on a 2006 Federal Election Commission regulation that declared that content posted online for free, such as blogs, is off-limits from regulation. The “internet exemption” said that such free postings do not constitute campaign expenditures, allowing independent groups to consult with candidates about the content they post on their sites.
Even those pretending that Super PAC spending in general is “separate” should acknowledge spending from groups that expressly admit to coordinating with a particular campaign.
The omission had already affected coverage. A January article from Bloomberg (1/24/16) with the less-than-subtle headline, “Clinton Refrains From Attacking Sanders. He Doesn’t Reciprocate,” narrowly defined campaign “attacks” as what personally comes out of a candidate’s mouth. That meant a donor-funded Super PAC messaging machine like Correct the Record was ignored.
Indeed, one of the perks of having Super PACs is that they allow candidates to launder their disagreeable messaging through a third party while keeping their hands clean. The media playing along with this shell game is insulting to reader and writer alike.
Over at Slate (5/2/16), Michelle Goldberg (with input from the Clinton campaign) launched a series of meta-attacks on Sanders, or attacks about potential future attacks by the GOP against his “socialist past”—which is really a way of redbaiting while acting as if you’re simply warning about future redbaiting. It’s a played-out way to smear Sanders, and one both she and Slate’s Jamelle Bouie have done before.
Buried in her premise was the idea that the Clinton campaign hasn’t run an attack ad on Sanders:
It is true, as Sanders pointed out, that polls show him doing better than Clinton against Republicans in November. But it is also true that Clinton has not hit Sanders with a single negative ad. Not one.
Again, this is false, as Correct the Record has engaged in constant negative messaging. It’s absurd enough in 2016 to pretend that online ads are somehow not really ads (they are often seen hundreds of thousands, sometimes millions of times), but the idea that Clinton’s campaign hasn’t run coordinated negative attacks on Sanders is a dangerous fiction—and one that props up a key pro-Citizens United argument: By indulging in the fantasy that Clinton’s Super PACs are indeed separate from the campaign, the media props up the literal-minded libertarian notion that what Brock and Co. are doing is simply freely expressing a personally held political belief—rather than engaging in big donor–backed electioneering.
Adam Johnson is a contributing analyst for FAIR.org. Follow him on Twitter at @AdamJohnsonNYC.
NPR made similar omissions, portraying Sanders as the big spender without revealing Clinton’s associated big superPAC spending.
Or the money laundering through the state Dems
Only those who love double speak would say Super Pacs are independent of political campaigns. We even call various Super Pacs by the candidates name, i.e. the Clinton Super Pac etc. We sometimes see campaign workers suddenly leave a campaign to form and “Independent” Pac. Please, the public is not that stupid, these are mostly campaigns by another name and with unlimited contributions!
My political satire, entitled “Washington Money Talk”, is on YouTube. Here is the link; http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=etPwzJvhxyI
Mahalo Richard, your additional points are damming.
..but “Please, the public is not that stupid” – might you mean Sanders supporters (even too, Trump supporters in this case) are not that stupid?
I fear the rest are not only that stupid but more stupid and stupider.
Or – am I wrong ? Is a good % of the corporate-money-bag-candidate supporters aware and patriotically propelled to endorse the historically successful USA system and values of USD purchase power?
My head spins because it’s an uneven playing field defending the immorality and harm of having big hidden money at play on the playing field when big hidden money in the playing field has a strangle hold, immoral and harmful place there.
In speaking of core messaging, Johnson is pushing toward the big domestic issue of this election as played out by action and not so much words – and messaging does not get any stronger than the example – be it subconsciously absorbed – it’s nevertheless impactful.
A huge general mandate to be won of the election is Campaign Reform and this could be decided in the Primary if Sanders is to run off against Trump (provided both these candidates remain resolute and independent of corporate cash).
Otherwise if Clinton vs Trump happens as representing PACs vs Non PACs then the fundamental mandate would not be won until the General Election.
Of course, silly me, talking election and fair elections scenarios in a world of Wall Street and global elites.
Regardless of pontification now in the media and on blog comments, events will be astronomical between now, during or after November.
Adam: you write “as if Sanders were supposed to campaign by hitchhiking across America handing out hemp flyers” in response to the phrase in WaPo that Sanders is a “self-described socialist.” It’s worse that that. It’s an insinuation that gets its message across without having to state it explicitly. What the WaPo insinuates is that Sanders is a hypocrite. He’s a hypocrite because this “self-described socialist” is taking money from the very billionaires he’s supposed to be opposing. My gosh! He’s sleeping with the enemy! Why should I listen to anything he says. That’s the subtle message that is being conveyed. The NY Times and WaPO are masters at this game.
Thank you Adam Johnson and FAIR. This is a profoundly important issue that needs to be shared and addressed.
Unwittingly my ass
“Unwittingly”? No, it’s wittingly. Very wittingly.
Thanks, Adam Johnson, for informative article about Hillary and super Pacs.
She is so effing gross and corrupt. I wish there was something to prevent her from getting the Dem. nomination. We are in for 4 more years of corrupt, corporatist, cronyist garbage from this reprehensible bankster shill. We are well and truly effed no matter who wins in November. Our only chance is if some sort of scandal or misfortune hits her in the next month. I am praying for one.
Jan 29, 2016
Bernie Sanders Tops His Rivals in Use of Outside Money
But the union is not just busing nurses into Iowa. The union’s “super PAC” has spent close to $1 million on ads and other support for Mr. Sanders, the Democratic presidential candidate who has inspired liberal voters with his calls to eradicate such outside groups. In fact, more super PAC money has been spent so far in express support of Mr. Sanders than for either of his Democratic rivals, including Hillary Clinton, according to Federal Election Commission records
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/01/29/us/politics/bernie-sanders-is-democrats-top-beneficiary-of-outside-spending-like-it-or-not.html?_r=1
And the nurses untied super pac spending on sanders has not slowed down since. $50,000 spent in support of sanders just last week. The NU super pac also funds several other pacs, super pacs and lobby groups that all spent money supporting sanders.
National Nurses United
NOTE: This committee is a super PAC
https://www.opensecrets.org/pres16/indexp_indiv.php?cycle=2016&id=N00000528
progressive kick, the super pac that runs all those ‘various people for bernie’ twitter and facebook accounts get funding from the NU super pac. Yeah all those facebook and twitter accounts some believe are just grassroots supporters rising up and supporting sanders are actually funded and run by super pacs:
Progressive Kick
NOTE: This committee is a single-candidate super PAC in support of Bernie Sanders (D).
Contributors, 2016 cycle
NATIONAL NURSES UNITED 10/05/15 $200,000
https://www.opensecrets.org/pacs/pacgave2.php?cycle=2016&cmte=C00492595
Another ‘grassroots’ group funded by NU:
IOWA CITIZENS FOR COMMUNITY IMPROVEMENT ACTION FUND
TOTAL CONTRIBUTIONS – IOWA CITIZENS FOR COMMUNITY IMPROVEMENT ACTION FUND
NATIONAL NURSES UNITED FOR PATIENT PROTECTION 02/10/2016 $18,486
http://docquery.fec.gov/cgi-bin/forms/C90013897/1061282/f56
The list goes on.