Democrats Lay Groundwork to Expand Use of ‘Super PACs’ (NY TIMES)

[choie]

Democrats are laying the groundwork for an ambitious reorganization of their struggling network of “super PACs” that would exploit the loopholes and legal gray areas that Republicans have already used to raise hundreds of millions of dollars for the 2016 campaign through such groups.

The plans, laid out by the party’s top election lawyers in an emergency request filed with the Federal Election Commission on Friday, would pave the way for the creation of a host of new super PACs tailored to individual House and Senate candidates.

But the filing also indicates that Democrats would, if allowed, seek to use tactics pioneered by Republican presidential candidates this cycle, helping prospective candidates establish and raise money for super PACs before they officially declare their intent to run.

Most strikingly, the lawyers are asking the F.E.C. to clarify how declared candidates, their campaign staff, and their volunteers can help court donors for independent super PACs — even whether a candidate could be the “special guest” at a super PAC “fund-raiser” with as few as two donors. The commission’s answer could have profound ramifications for the 2016 campaign, particularly for Democrats who, like Hillary Rodham Clinton, have been reluctant to engage too closely with super PAC fund-raising.

More at:
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/09/15/us/politics/democrats-seek-to-expand-use-of-super-pacs.html?&targe

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

1. Oh, joy!! More corporate control of our government!!

[choie]

2. ain't it grand?

n/t

[jwirr]

3. Just exactly what we do not need. Corporations win

again. Who's idea was this? The DNC?

[elleng]

4. Yes of course, DNC ptb.

Posted here: http://www.democraticunderground.com/10027169742

[jwirr]

6. They are totally out of touch with the people who are

fed up with politics as usual. Wonder if they are short on money since a lot of us are donating to our candidates outside the system?

[elleng]

7. Yes they are out of touch AND

short on money compared with repugs.

[jwirr]

9. I am totally against this type of funding for candidates

but I will say that if we want to take the Senate back we are going to have to fund them somehow. The problem is who to trust to get the money where it needs to go?

At this point I have real trouble believing that our Democratic system will do it the way we want. They would be smart to let us designate our own candidate we want to support with our donation.

[elleng]

10. Dems should do the kind of organizing repugs have done for YEARS.

Dem party has been MISERABLE in this respect. May be too late to make significant changes for '16.

[jwirr]

11. I know. The only hope we have is the DWS realizes

that she is hurting fund raising and leaves. Then maybe we can get some small changes.

We need a list of progressives like Bernie and Martin who believe what we believe and who will work with them for real progressive legislation. The first one on my list is Russ Feingold from WI.

[elleng]

12. On this one, hrc's leading the band, imo,

and 'small changes' won't happen until after '16.

Would contribute to Russ, of course, if I could.

[jwirr]

13. I haven't got a lot of money either.

[WillyT]

5. Great...

[Avalux]

8. So....what's the difference between the parties then?

I am increasingly thinking it might be best to look at a different way of electing people to REPRESENT US.

[TheKentuckian]

14. One party with a racist, delusional, quasi theocratic wing and then a secular more inclusive one.

They flap them together and everything moves in the same direction.

[mmonk]

15. Well we already know the Democratic Party suffers from the copy cat syndrome.

It's why convictions are hard to find.