Subject: Money Laundering DRAFT Response
From: "Miranda, Luis" <[email-masked]>
To: Debbie Wasserman Schultz <[email-masked]>, Brad Marshall <[email-masked]>, Lindsey Reynolds <[email-masked]>, "Dacey, Amy" <[email-masked]>, Tracie Pough <[email-masked]>
Cc: Kate Houghton <[email-masked]>, "Paustenbach, Mark" <[email-masked]>, "Banfill, Ryan" <[email-masked]>, Graham Wilson <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 2 May 2016 12:11:34 -0700

Here's a draft quote and background points to use in pushing back on the Sanders claim that we're using the HVF for "money laundering." Thoughts?

Quote:
"The suggestion there's anything unusual about our joint victory funds has no basis in the law or reality. Independent experts like the Election Law Blog<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=81996> have noted that from a legal perspective, the criticisms are 'weak,' and 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.

*         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>