Re: Money Laundering DRAFT Response

It starts now. DWS > On May 2, 2016, at 4:16 PM, Miranda, Luis <MirandaL@dnc.org> wrote: > > Oh and one final clarification. You said in prior email that the coordinated campaigns are just now starting to get stood up. So we can say that process is now beginning, correct? Or does it start later in the summer? > > > > <image001.png>Luis Miranda, Communications Director > Democratic National Committee > 202-863-8148 – MirandaL@dnc.org - @MiraLuisDC > > > From: Wilson, Graham M. (Perkins Coie) [mailto:GWilson@perkinscoie.com] > Sent: Monday, May 02, 2016 4:14 PM > To: Miranda, Luis; Debbie Wasserman Schultz; Brad Marshall; Lindsey Reynolds; Dacey, Amy; Tracie Pough > Cc: Kate Houghton; Paustenbach, Mark; Banfill, Ryan; Walker, Eric > Subject: RE: Money Laundering DRAFT Response > > Just one additional tweak to try to make it more clear that the “many millions” is money that is allocated to the state parties. > > Graham M. Wilson | Perkins Coie LLP > Direct. +1.202.434.1638 > > From: Miranda, Luis [mailto:MirandaL@dnc.org] > Sent: Monday, May 02, 2016 4:07 PM > To: Wilson, Graham M. (Perkins Coie); Debbie Wasserman Schultz; Brad Marshall; Lindsey Reynolds; Dacey, Amy; Tracie Pough > Cc: Kate Houghton; Paustenbach, Mark; Banfill, Ryan; Walker, Eric > Subject: RE: Money Laundering DRAFT Response > > Perfect. Here it is revised with Graham and Brad’s feedback. Any further edits before I use the quote? > > “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 HASN’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 > > · 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. > > > > > <image001.png>Luis Miranda, Communications Director > Democratic National Committee > 202-863-8148 – MirandaL@dnc.org - @MiraLuisDC > > > From: Wilson, Graham M. (Perkins Coie) [mailto:GWilson@perkinscoie.com] > Sent: Monday, May 02, 2016 3:40 PM > To: Miranda, Luis; Debbie Wasserman Schultz; Brad Marshall; Lindsey Reynolds; Dacey, Amy; Tracie Pough > Cc: Kate Houghton; Paustenbach, Mark; Banfill, Ryan > Subject: RE: Money Laundering DRAFT Response > > Just a few thoughts here: > > - I think that is really worthwhile to continue to push back on the Politico story’s numbers being wrong. In the sub-headline that say that state parties only get to keep 1 percent of all the money being raised, but that is really incorrect and comparing apples and oranges. They reference the total amount of money that has been raised, but of that, many millions haven’t yet been moved from HVF to state parties, but it also hasn’t 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. > - I would lean so heavily on Hasen specifically in our on the record quote, as he could always come out and say something different. I think it is worth keeping that in the background materials, but given that others, when asked, also said there wasn’t really anything to this, maybe we just keep the on the record quote more general? Something like 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. > > Graham M. Wilson | Perkins Coie LLP > Direct. +1.202.434.1638 > > From: Miranda, Luis [mailto:MirandaL@dnc.org] > Sent: Monday, May 02, 2016 3:12 PM > To: Debbie Wasserman Schultz; Brad Marshall; Lindsey Reynolds; Dacey, Amy; Tracie Pough > Cc: Kate Houghton; Paustenbach, Mark; Banfill, Ryan; Wilson, Graham M. (Perkins Coie) > Subject: Money Laundering DRAFT Response > > 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 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 > > · 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. > > > > > > <image001.png>Luis Miranda, Communications Director > Democratic National Committee > 202-863-8148 – MirandaL@dnc.org - @MiraLuisDC > > > > > NOTICE: This communication may contain privileged or other confidential information. If you have received it in error, please advise the sender by reply email and immediately delete the message and any attachments without copying or disclosing the contents. Thank you. > > > NOTICE: This communication may contain privileged or other confidential information. If you have received it in error, please advise the sender by reply email and immediately delete the message and any attachments without copying or disclosing the contents. Thank you.