Subject: RE: FW: FLAG: NEWS: Politico Exposes Clinton Campaign ‘Money-Laundering’ Scheme
From: "Miranda, Luis" <[email-masked]>
To: Zac Petkanas <[email-masked]>, Josh Schwerin <[email-masked]>
Cc: "Paustenbach, Mark" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 2 May 2016 14:00:15 -0700

Here’s our updated guidance and the quote I’m using:

On the record:

On the Record:
“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.” – DNC Communications Director
On Background:

·         The money raised by the joint victory funds, even when the money goes to the DNC, still helps state parties. The funds help strengthen, for example, our national voter file and communications, research and digital support for state parties and down ballot candidates. That includes training across a variety of areas, for example, and access to media monitoring and rapid response support. This is helping the Party right NOW build the infrastructure we need for the general election.

·         Politico got it wrong. 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 the HVF money owed to state parties would have been distributed yet.

·         We had JFA’ s with the Obama campaigns in 2008 and 2012, and the Kerry campaign in 2004. And while the funds are going to the DNC right now to build tools and capacity for the general election, there will be a point when the funds stay in the states to fund coordinated campaigns that are now beginning to get organized.

·         That’s why experts have agreed there’s nothing unusual about the victory funds. Rick Hasen, an influential academic on campaign finance, posted an analysis on the Election Law Blog that addressed this issue. Hasen states in the article that “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=>

·         We welcome any effort by our candidates to help raise money for the DNC and state parties.

·         Similar agreements were set up with both the Clinton campaign and the Sanders campaign early in the cycle, precisely because of the urgency to build a strong national infrastructure now that will help elect Democrats up and down the ballot in November. The Sanders campaign has not used theirs.

·         These arrangements are not new or unusual. Similar joint fundraising committees were established with our Democratic candidate in both 2008 and 2012. And again, both campaigns have signed on and have the option of using joint victory funds.

·         And let’s be clear, neither the DNC nor state parties are subsidizing fundraising through these committees for either campaign. For whatever each campaign raises under the agreement that then goes to their campaign, that campaign pays a directly proportional amount for the cost of that fundraising.

[SigDems]<http://www.democrats.org/>Luis Miranda, Communications Director
Democratic National Committee
202-863-8148 – [email-masked]<mailto:[email-masked]> - @MiraLuisDC<https://www.twitter.com/MiraLuisDC>

From: Zac Petkanas [mailto:[email-masked]]
Sent: Monday, May 02, 2016 4:59 PM
To: Miranda, Luis; Josh Schwerin
Cc: Paustenbach, Mark
Subject: Re: FW: FLAG: NEWS: Politico Exposes Clinton Campaign ‘Money-Laundering’ Scheme

Wow. This slipped through my email. Looping Josh, who is handling on our end.

On Mon, May 2, 2016 at 1:53 PM, Miranda, Luis <[email-masked]<mailto:[email-masked]>> wrote:
Hi Christina and Zac. It was great to see you both this weekend. I’m sure you already saw the Sanders release calling the HVF money laundering and want to make sure we’re in touch. How are you guys responding? We’re going to focus on our talking points (see below):

•         We welcome any effort by our candidates to help raise money for the DNC and state parties.

•         Similar agreements were set up with both the Clinton campaign and the Sanders campaign early in the cycle, precisely because of the urgency to build a strong national infrastructure now that will help elect Democrats up and down the ballot in November. The Sanders campaign has not used theirs.

•         It’s important to note, the funds that the DNC and state parties get through the joint victory funds help strengthen, for example, our national voter file and communications, research and digital support for state parties and down ballot candidates. That includes training across a variety of areas, for example, and access to media monitoring and rapid response support. This is helping us NOW to build infrastructure for the general election.

These arrangements are not new or unusual. Similar joint fundraising committees were established with our Democratic candidate in both 2008 and 2012. And again, both campaigns have signed on and have the option of using joint victory funds.

And let’s be clear, neither the DNC nor state parties are subsidizing fundraising through these committees for either campaign. For whatever each campaign raises under the agreement that then goes to their campaign, that campaign pays a directly proportional amount for the cost of that fundraising.

•         Rick Hasen, an influential academic on campaign finance, posted an analysis on the Election Law Blog that addressed this issue. Hasen states in the article that “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=>

From: Brinster, Jeremy
Sent: Monday, May 02, 2016 12:09 PM
To: Comm_D
Subject: FLAG: NEWS: Politico Exposes Clinton Campaign ‘Money-Laundering’ Scheme

Weaver calls Joint Fundraising Committee “money-laundering” scheme

From: Michael Briggs [mailto:[email-masked]]
Sent: Monday, May 02, 2016 12:07 PM
To: Brinster, Jeremy
Subject: NEWS: Politico Exposes Clinton Campaign ‘Money-Laundering’ Scheme

[Image removed by sender. Bernie 2016]

Politico Exposes Clinton Campaign ‘Money-Laundering’ Scheme

May 2, 2016
Contact: Michael Briggs (802) 233-8653<tel:%28802%29%20233-8653>

BURLINGTON, Vt. – U.S. Sen. Bernie Sanders’ campaign manager, Jeff Weaver, on Monday criticized a Hillary Clinton campaign fundraising scheme that state party leaders told Politico<http://sendy.berniesanders.com/l/DfrPBYJWWKIFXgZ763cGcMqQ/oGBNof3UBoDBjaNQNa6h0w/uYvdKjbV7632vO892kpilqumBw> has been used as a self-serving “money-laundering" conduit.

Despite Clinton’s pledges to rebuild state parties, Politico found that less than 1 percent of the $61 million raised by the Victory Fund has stayed in the state parties’ coffers.

“Secretary Clinton is looting funds meant for the state parties to skirt fundraising limits on her presidential campaign,” Weaver said. “We think the Clinton campaign should let the state parties keep their fair share of the cash.”

Sanders’ and Clinton’s primary campaigns both raised about $26 million in April, but Politico documented how the Hillary Victory Fund, a supposedly joint fundraising committee, has been exploited to inflate her presidential primary campaign.

“Secretary Clinton has exploited the rules in ways that let her high-dollar donors like Alice Walton of Wal-Mart fame and the actor George Clooney and his super-rich Hollywood friends skirt legal limits on campaign contributions,” Weaver added. “If Secretary Clinton can't raise the funds needed to run in a competitive primary without resorting to laundering, how will she compete against Donald Trump in a general election?”

The Sanders campaign first raised questions about the arrangement in an April 18 letter from Brad Deutsch, the attorney for Sanders’ campaign, to U.S. Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz, the chair of the DNC.

"Hillary Clinton says that campaign finance reform is one of the most important issues facing our country but her campaign's use of the Victory Fund to essentially launder money proves otherwise," Weaver said. "You cannot exploit a broken campaign finance system one day and vow to get big money out of politics the next."

Sanders last month raised money for three progressive Democratic candidates for the House of Representatives. Unlike the Hillary Victory Fund, every dollar went directly to helping the candidates. The senator has also raised significant sums for the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee.
###

Paid for by Bernie 2016

[Image removed by sender. (not the billionaires)]

PO Box 905 - Burlington, Vermont 05402, United States

[Image removed by sender.]