Subject: Re: Your story isn't balanced...
From: Brendan O'Connor <[email-masked]>
To: "Miranda, Luis" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 3 May 2016 13:40:00 +0000

Hey Luis, thanks for reaching out. Would be happy to get on the phone to
discuss later, but at first blush it doesn't seem like the questions you
raise about our post (or the Politico story) really obtain: I mention (in a
parenthetical, admittedly) that the Sanders campaign also has a joint fund;
the claim isn't that states "only get to keep 1 percent of all money being
raised" but that they have only *gotten* to keep 1 percent of money raised *so
far*; and the criticism isn't a legal one to begin with, so Election Law
Blog's response doesn't really seem relevant, though it is informative. You
are right that I should have mentioned that these funds are for the
general, but I still think the stories hold up.

On Mon, May 2, 2016 at 5:08 PM Miranda, Luis <[email-masked]> wrote:

> Brendan, saw your story on the victory fund and it lacks balance,
> especially since Politico got its math wrong.
>
>
>
> The suggestion there’s anything unusual about our joint victory funds has
> no basis in the law or reality, as recognized by numerous independent
> experts that have looked at this. The fact is both campaigns signed on to
> similar agreements. While only one campaign is currently using their joint
> victory fund we encourage both of our campaigns to identify opportunities
> to support the national and state Democratic parties *now* so that we can
> continue to build the infrastructure to help elect Democrats up and down
> the ballot in November.
>
>
>
> For background, for example, take a look at what the Election Law Blog
> posted: “it is hard to see what provision of the law” is at issue. As the
> blog points out, “legally” the criticism of the fund “seems weak.”
> http://electionlawblog.org/?p=81996
> <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__electionlawblog.org_-3Fp-3D81996&d=CwMFAg&c=XRWvQHnpdBDRh-yzrHjqLpXuHNC_9nanQc6pPG_SpT0&r=ztfeb3sYMwYJc4m6DQzcZ1EDxKmQmE8pe5TrXm4gdCU&m=xosCmCfJlZ5AfIscnIGFPlKd_WqB4JHLY4vSLilK-IE&s=IDZd2_ULQhvZFm33gwH-mCSwcJMtMpjuFI5_FJQQvqk&e=>
>
>
>
> Also on background, the math is wrong on the Politico story. Their claim
> that state parties only get to keep 1 percent of all the money being raised
> is incorrect and comparing apples and oranges. They reference the total
> amount of money that has been raised, but of that, many millions have been
> raised for state parties and just haven’t been distributed to them yet (nor
> has it gone to the DNC or anywhere else). Because this is money for the
> general election, and coordinated campaigns are just now starting to be
> built at state parties, it is perfectly understandable that not all of that
> money that will eventually go to state parties would have been distributed
> yet.
>
> Happy to discuss at greater length.
>
>
>
>
>
>  <http://www.democrats.org/>*Luis Miranda, *Communications
> Director
>
> *Democratic National Committee*
>
> 202-863-8148 – [email-masked] - @MiraLuisDC
> <https://www.twitter.com/MiraLuisDC>
>
>
>
>
>
-- 
Brendan O'Connor
Staff writer, Gawker
732-804-2425