haven’t read the below article yet, but the NY Times really got it wrong in its
endorsement article about Hilarity…they started out making so-called
comparisons with Bernie couched to make Hilarity look glorious and Bernie not
so much, then they pulled the old bait and switch and began comparing Hilarity
to the RethugliKKKlans en masse and not mentioning Bernie at all…well compared
to the Repukelicans, Bozo the clown looks pretty good, too…really disingenuous,
to say the very least...
On Jan 31, 2016, at 3:09 PM, Miriam Vieni <miriamvieni@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
"The article leaves the wrong impression by suggesting that pro-Sanders
Super PACs have outpaced outside groups supporting Hillary Clinton."
Senator Bernie Sanders of Vermont, a New Deal-style liberal, at a campaign
event on Sunday at Luther College in Decorah, Iowa. (photo: Max
Whittaker/NYT)
New York Times Gets It Wrong: Bernie Sanders Not "Top Beneficiary of Outside
Money"
By Lee Fang, The Intercept
31 January 16
he New York Times caused a stir by publishing a classic man-bites-dog style
campaign finance story in its Friday editions titled "Bernie Sanders Is Top
Beneficiary of Outside Money." The article charges that despite his fiery
campaign rhetoric against Super PACs and big money in politics, Sanders has
gained much more from Super PAC spending than his Democratic opponents.
"In fact," the Times reports, "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."
While more money has indeed been spent on a certain type of campaign
spending in support of Sanders, the article leaves the wrong impression by
suggesting that pro-Sanders Super PACs have outpaced outside groups
supporting Hillary Clinton. If that sounds confusing, that's because the
Times article hinges on a technicality in campaign finance law.
When total Super PAC spending is measured, Clinton groups are leading the
way.
The newspaper calculated totals using only "independent expenditures" spent
by Super PACs. If the Times had taken into account all pro-Clinton Super PAC
campaign spending from this cycle, outside money spent in support of Clinton
is more than twice the amount spent in support of Sanders.
The National Nurses United, a labor group for nurses and the only
significant group to pour money into a Super PAC supporting Sanders, has
indeed backed the Vermont senator by spending a little more than $1 million
on "independent expenditures," a term used by the Federal Election
Commission to describe communications spent "expressly advocating the
election or defeat of a clearly identified candidate." When you dig into
these filings, some are advertisements, while much of the $1 million
includes a special Bernie Sanders-branded bus, printing costs, and workshops
hosted by the group.
Clinton's campaign has benefited from Super PAC spending that has been
disclosed as both independent expenditures and non-independent expenditures.
In the piece that ran on page A17 on Friday, the Times narrowly considers
pro-Clinton independent expenditures - which total about $847,000 - while
leaving out other spending.
Previous stories by the Times, however, describe in detail how Super PACs
such as Correct the Record operate as a shadow Clinton campaign capable of
receiving unlimited donations. Correct the Record uses its resources to pay
campaign staffers to provide opposition research, communications, and
strategy to elect Clinton, though not all of that spending is disclosed to
the FEC as an independent expenditure.
To debunk the claim that the nurses are outspending all pro-Clinton outside
groups, one merely has to look at six months of spending and limited
independent expenditure disclosures by the primary pro-Clinton Super PACs
Correct the Record and Priorities USA Action. Doing so finds that
pro-Clinton outside organizations have spent well over $2.2 million during
this campaign cycle on staff, consultants, research, advertising,
communications, advocacy, and other campaign-related expenses. If you add in
pro-Clinton independent expenditures from Planned Parenthood, the Service
Employees International Union, the League of Conservation Voters, and the
Human Rights Campaign, the pro-Clinton total rises to more than $2.6
million.
That pro-Clinton outside money number is likely to rise dramatically after
new disclosure reports are released this weekend. The Super PAC disclosures
will reveal the last six months of spending in 2015. And given reports that
Clinton Super PACs are sitting on a war chest that is estimated to be in the
tens of millions of dollars raised from wealthy individuals, corporations,
and unions, the comparison to the nurses union, which raises its cash from
working nurses, may look quite strange in only a few days.
Nicholas Confessore, the reporter who wrote the piece, defended it on
Twitter, writing, "[Independent expenditures] are a perfectly reasonable way
to measure political spending in this context."
Error! Hyperlink reference not valid. Error! Hyperlink reference not valid.
Senator Bernie Sanders of Vermont, a New Deal-style liberal, at a campaign
event on Sunday at Luther College in Decorah, Iowa. (photo: Max
Whittaker/NYT)
https://theintercept.com/2016/01/29/nyt-outside-spending/https://theintercep
t.com/2016/01/29/nyt-outside-spending/
New York Times Gets It Wrong: Bernie Sanders Not "Top Beneficiary of Outside
Money"
By Lee Fang, The Intercept
31 January 16
he New York Times caused a stir by publishing a classic man-bites-dog style
campaign finance story in its Friday editions titled "Bernie Sanders Is Top
Beneficiary of Outside Money." The article charges that despite his fiery
campaign rhetoric against Super PACs and big money in politics, Sanders has
gained much more from Super PAC spending than his Democratic opponents.
"In fact," the Times reports, "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."
While more money has indeed been spent on a certain type of campaign
spending in support of Sanders, the article leaves the wrong impression by
suggesting that pro-Sanders Super PACs have outpaced outside groups
supporting Hillary Clinton. If that sounds confusing, that's because the
Times article hinges on a technicality in campaign finance law.
When total Super PAC spending is measured, Clinton groups are leading the
way.
The newspaper calculated totals using only "independent expenditures" spent
by Super PACs. If the Times had taken into account all pro-Clinton Super PAC
campaign spending from this cycle, outside money spent in support of Clinton
is more than twice the amount spent in support of Sanders.
The National Nurses United, a labor group for nurses and the only
significant group to pour money into a Super PAC supporting Sanders, has
indeed backed the Vermont senator by spending a little more than $1 million
on "independent expenditures," a term used by the Federal Election
Commission to describe communications spent "expressly advocating the
election or defeat of a clearly identified candidate." When you dig into
these filings, some are advertisements, while much of the $1 million
includes a special Bernie Sanders-branded bus, printing costs, and workshops
hosted by the group.
Clinton's campaign has benefited from Super PAC spending that has been
disclosed as both independent expenditures and non-independent expenditures.
In the piece that ran on page A17 on Friday, the Times narrowly considers
pro-Clinton independent expenditures - which total about $847,000 - while
leaving out other spending.
Previous stories by the Times, however, describe in detail how Super PACs
such as Correct the Record operate as a shadow Clinton campaign capable of
receiving unlimited donations. Correct the Record uses its resources to pay
campaign staffers to provide opposition research, communications, and
strategy to elect Clinton, though not all of that spending is disclosed to
the FEC as an independent expenditure.
To debunk the claim that the nurses are outspending all pro-Clinton outside
groups, one merely has to look at six months of spending and limited
independent expenditure disclosures by the primary pro-Clinton Super PACs
Correct the Record and Priorities USA Action. Doing so finds that
pro-Clinton outside organizations have spent well over $2.2 million during
this campaign cycle on staff, consultants, research, advertising,
communications, advocacy, and other campaign-related expenses. If you add in
pro-Clinton independent expenditures from Planned Parenthood, the Service
Employees International Union, the League of Conservation Voters, and the
Human Rights Campaign, the pro-Clinton total rises to more than $2.6
million.
That pro-Clinton outside money number is likely to rise dramatically after
new disclosure reports are released this weekend. The Super PAC disclosures
will reveal the last six months of spending in 2015. And given reports that
Clinton Super PACs are sitting on a war chest that is estimated to be in the
tens of millions of dollars raised from wealthy individuals, corporations,
and unions, the comparison to the nurses union, which raises its cash from
working nurses, may look quite strange in only a few days.
Nicholas Confessore, the reporter who wrote the piece, defended it on
Twitter, writing, "[Independent expenditures] are a perfectly reasonable way
to measure political spending in this context."
http://e-max.it/posizionamento-siti-web/socialize
http://e-max.it/posizionamento-siti-web/socialize
