Hillary PAC Spends $1Million on Social Media Astroturfing

[cprise]

Last edited Fri Apr 22, 2016, 04:31 PM - Edit history (1)

Citing “lessons learned from online engagement with ‘Bernie Bros,’” a pro-Hillary Clinton Super PAC is pledging to spend $1 million to “push back against” users on Twitter, Facebook, Reddit and Instagram.

Correct the Record’s “Barrier Breakers” project boasts in a press release that it has already “addressed more than 5,000 people that have personally attacked Hillary Clinton on Twitter.” The PAC released this on Thursday.

snip

“This explains why my inbox turned to cancer on Tuesday,” wrote user OKarizee. “Been a member of reddit for almost 4 years and never experienced anything like it. In fact, in all my years on the internet I’ve never experienced anything like it.”

Correct the Record, which has received $5 million this campaign season and has spent almost $4.5 million of it, according to OpenSecrets.org, outlined its strategy against “swarms of anonymous attackers” in a press release.

snip

“SuperPACs aren’t supposed to coordinate with candidates. The whole reasoning behind (Supreme Court decision) Citizens United rests on (PACs) being independent, but Correct the Record claims it can coordinate,” Watson told The Daily Beast. “It’s not totally clear what their reasoning is, but it seems to be that material posted on the Internet for free—like, blogs—doesn’t count as an ‘independent expenditure.’”

more
http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2016/04/21/hillary-pac-spends-1-million-to-correct-commenters-on-reddit-and-facebook.html?via=mobile&source=twitter

[itsrobert]

1. Great, how do I apply? I like correcting the record of Bernie Supporters postings

thanks.

[cprise]

2. I'm sure the corporate sponsors agree far more.

But, oh, lets now pretend that Citizens United is A-OK.

[abelenkpe]

3. Yeah, I'm sure pushing back is helping turn Sanders supporters into Hillary supporters

[cprise]

4. Its still a propaganda effort funded by the wealthy. If few people want to

speak for Clinton's campaign on their own initiative and time, then maybe Clinton doesn't deserve "push back" with that kind of muscle.

[newthinking]

10. Clinton uses every trick in the Machievellan corporatist playbook

Why am I not surprised by this?

Using companies who troll social media and try to confuse the people is one of the things we are fighting to eventually regulate. It is dirty and undemocratic.

[Kip Humphrey]

5. Tell 'em, for $500,000, I'll STFU.

Not a penny less.

[procon]

6. Why not?

This isn't exactly news. Celebrities and public figures routinely scrub their negatives off the Internet all the time. Politicians have been slow in using social networking, but some of them a finally realizing what an invaluable tool it is for fundraising and advertising, or how they quickly they can manipulate public opinion in their favor, and far cheaper than the cost of traditional media methods.

[cprise]

7. So where are the tweets that say "Paid for by XYZ PAC"?

Paying people to flood channels and topics on venues like Twitter is despicable. Its camouflaging propaganda as genuine public support.

I don't see how anyone can take Hillary and her supporters seriously about her pledge to get money out of politics at this point.

[procon]

8. Product branding is big business.

Obama had 2 million grassroots supporters on his Internet 'Truth Teams' to debunk malicious attacks on his record and hit back against his rivals. I think the reporting website is still active.

As a marketable product, a politician is no different than the brand image of celebrities, entertainers or sports figures who hire companies to do the same thing. There are tens of thousands of politicians across the country, and like Hillary, and Obama before her, many of them are taking an active role in maintaining their public images.

[cprise]

9. So Obama's grassroot supporters are the same as this PACs paid employees...

?

I guess that's what happens when you start to think only using euphemisms that are palatable to DC thinktanks.


More from the article, to clarify:

Campaign Legal Center lawyer Paul Ryan (who bears no relation to the Speaker of the House) told Time magazine in September of last year that Correct The Record is “creating new ways to undermine campaign regulation.” Watson used Ryan’s complaint in the Sunlight Foundation’s report about the most influential organizations working behind the scenes for the Clinton camp.

“Campaign finance lawyers are not that impressed with [CTR’s] logic, but they can get away with it because the [Federal Election Commission] is deadlocked and does nothing,” she said.

[procon]

12. Why did you change the headline of the article?

You used the sobriquet, "trolls", editorialising a news article which made no such implication or allegation.

Hillary PAC Spends $1 Million to ‘Correct’ Commenters on Reddit and Facebook
FEC loopholes mean Correct the Record can openly coordinate with Clinton’s campaign.

This whole story notes how Correct the Record is leveraging long existing FEC loopholes. Are you angry that she is taking legal advantage of this, or that the PAC is hitting back at Bernie Sanders supporters who think they can post exotic charges against the Democratic Party's leading candidate without consequences?

[cprise]

13. Ah, those PAC Money People of Consequence

Thanks for the reminder.

As a reminder to you, people often alter headlines to get the point across more succinctly. So I thought about my wording and decided astroturfing was the more applicable term. I guess consequences have consequences.

BTW, I take your pedantry about the headline - changing the topic - as a concession on my point about your idiotic Obama grassroots comment.

[procon]

18. Please factcheck Obama's grassroots 'Truth Teams',

its never an 'idiotic" idea to confront misinformation and deception head on. Or call out someone for using a fake headline to get unwarranted attention.

[cprise]

19. Obama enlisted volunteers without involving SuperPACs.

Have a nice day.

[newthinking]

11. It's immoral and similar to uncontrolled money in elections it is used as a lever of power.

(and control).

It is so prevalent most are not aware of it. It inhibits honest discussion and destroys democracy.

I agree with the other poster: This is easily regulatable with a requirement for a disclaimer. In addition an agency that deals with outright false claims should be created (companies who propagate falseties).

[cprise]

14. There is no greater horror in the minds of corporate marketing/PR today

...than being unappreciated among the denizens of Facebook and Twitter.

hashtag SALE hashtag V6POWER hashtag CONVENIENCE hashtag WALMARTDEALS

When PR peddlers have nightmares about falling, the resulting cries come out sounding "Like us on Facebook! LIKE US ON... Ahhhhhhhhh....!!!"

[newthinking]

15. CounterPunch - Hillary Clinton’s Support Base as Bogus as US Democracy

Hillary Clinton’s Support Base as Bogus as US Democracy

http://www.counterpunch.org/2016/04/22/hillary-clintons-support-base-as-bogus-as-us-democracy/



R. Gino Santa Maria | Shutterstock.com

US elections, despite all the media hype and endless rhetoric about ‘democracy in action,’ are in fact little more than manufactured political theater. The country that ceaselessly trumpets democratic values and transparency practices neither when it comes to its own elections.

As New Yorkers go to the polls in Democratic and Republican primaries this week, it is critical to once again highlight the myriad ways that democracy in the United States is, like most other things, a commodity to be bought and sold. From corporate control of the infrastructure of elections, to the creation of mass bases of support out of whole cloth, the candidates, as well as the system itself, cannot be trusted to be genuine.

Perhaps nothing illustrates this point more clearly than the results of multiple studies on Hillary Clinton’s online following which reveal that the majority of her Twitter fans, and indeed her social media following in general, are completely fake. Consider the implications of these findings from StatusPeople.com, and well-respected analytical tool TwitterAudit, which both found that no more than 44 percent of Clinton’s followers were actually real, active users of Twitter.

This may seem something trivial, but in fact it cuts to the very heart of the notion of democracy, and the legitimacy of a candidate who is perhaps the most obvious embodiment of the political and financial establishment in the US. Indeed, Bernie Sanders, among many others, has correctly noted that Clinton is in many ways the epitome of the ruling elite.


http://www.counterpunch.org/2016/04/22/hillary-clintons-support-base-as-bogus-as-us-democracy/

[cprise]

16. Plenty of party zombies will still turn out in the primaries

for a politician like her, because they're terrified of the weakest Republican candidates in living memory.

Its like some Orwellian trick the media is playing, pumping up Trump's coverage to make him look scary.

[zalinda]

17. Just proves that she has to buy her support

where Bernie's support is real.

Z