Documents Point to Illegal Campaign Coordination Between Trump and the NRA

Stacko

Penultimate Amazing
S
Joined
Sep 3, 2007
Messages
10,837
“It is so blatant that it doesn’t even seem sloppy. Everyone involved probably just thinks there aren’t going to be any consequences.”

The two purchases may have looked coincidental; Red Eagle and AMAG appear at first glance to be separate firms. But each is closely connected to a major conservative media-consulting firm called National Media Research, Planning and Placement. In fact, the three outfits are so intertwined that both the NRA’s and the Trump campaign’s ad buys were authorized by the same person: National Media’s chief financial officer, Jon Ferrell.

“This is very strong evidence, if not proof, of illegal coordination,” said Larry Noble, a former general counsel for the Federal Election Commission. “This is the heat of the general election, and the same person is acting as an agent for the NRA and the Trump campaign.”

Reporting by The Trace, which has teamed up with Mother Jones to investigate the NRA’s political activity, shows that the NRA and the Trump campaign employed the same operation—at times, the exact same people—to craft and execute their advertising strategies for the 2016 presidential election. The investigation, which involved a review of more than 1,000 pages of Federal Communications Commission and Federal Election Commission documents, found multiple instances in which National Media, through its affiliates Red Eagle and AMAG, executed ad buys for Trump and the NRA that seemed coordinated to enhance each other.

Individuals working for National Media or its affiliated companies either signed or were named in FCC documents, demonstrating that they had knowledge of both the NRA and the Trump campaign’s advertising plans.
Experts say the arrangement appears to violate campaign finance laws.

“I don’t think I’ve ever seen a situation where illegal coordination seems more obvious,” said Ann Ravel, a former chair of the Federal Election Commission, who reviewed the records. “It is so blatant that it doesn’t even seem sloppy. Everyone involved probably just thinks there aren’t going to be any consequences.”
Click to expand...
 
Given the dire financial straits the NRA is currently in, the next question is: where did it get money for its campaigning from?
Evidence points to Russia.
 
The Great Zaganza said:
Given the dire financial straits the NRA is currently in, the next question is: where did it get money for its campaigning from?
Evidence points to Russia.
Click to expand...

Well, it's possible to be broke because you spend more than you take in. I doubt they have any difficulty raising money; they just spend more than they rake in.

I'm not discounting possible Russian involvement. Do we still have the little honey pot locked away or has she been released to flee the country? But it will take Russian money to make this into a story that "sticks". The fact that one uber conservative group openly colluded with the Trump campaign is not really surprising. What's surprising is merely that they did it so openly with no effort to cover for themselves.
 
BobTheCoward said:
It eliminates the key reason to illegally coordinate.
Click to expand...
Isn't that like saying "end the problem of mass shootings by making all gun violence legal"?

Campaign finance laws are in place to prevent one party from having an unfair advantage just because they can raise money from a small number of donors.

Sent from my LG-K121 using Tapatalk
 
Segnosaur said:
Isn't that like saying "end the problem of mass shootings by making all gun violence legal"?

Campaign finance laws are in place to prevent one party from having an unfair advantage just because they can raise money from a small number of donors.

Sent from my LG-K121 using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

The equivalent to your statement would be making coordination between groups legal to solve the problem of illegal coordination. I didn't propose stopping those laws.

I said the equivalent if making heroin legal to reduce heroin dealing related violence
 
BobTheCoward said:
The equivalent to your statement would be making coordination between groups legal to solve the problem of illegal coordination. I didn't propose stopping those laws.
Click to expand...
But you're suggesting getting rid of contribution limits. Which would mean that a small number of individuals could influence an election by contributing large sums of money to a single candidate or party.

This is bad because:
- it gives the potential of an unfair advantage to one party over the other
- It increases the possibility that an elected official will be unduly influenced by the demands of a small number of donors

I didn't say make coordination illegal. It can stay illegal.
Click to expand...
So, under your idea, groups like the NRA, instead of illegally coordinating with the republicans when running their own campaigns, would just donate directly to the republican party.

You've made the problem worse, not better.
 
BobTheCoward said:
The problem was coordination. This reduces coordination.
Click to expand...
No, the problem is that a small number of people might have an undue influence over an election and/or elected representatives because of their financial resources.

Laws regarding campaign finance limits and coordination between 3rd parties and candidates were meant to curtail that problem. Your 'solution' does not address the underlying problem; it just makes the problem worse.
 
Segnosaur said:
No, the problem is that a small number of people might have an undue influence over an election and/or elected representatives because of their financial resources.

Laws regarding campaign finance limits and coordination between 3rd parties and candidates were meant to curtail that problem. Your 'solution' does not address the underlying problem; it just makes the problem worse.
Click to expand...

Regardless, I cannot address unspecified problems. It was not specified
 
BobTheCoward said:
It eliminates the key reason to illegally coordinate.
Click to expand...

That's just dumb. Even with (theoretically) unlimited contributions, it's still advantageous for campaigns to coordinate. Instead your schtick should be that coordination ought to be allowed via freedom of association.
 
Cain said:
That's just dumb. Even with (theoretically) unlimited contributions, it's still advantageous for campaigns to coordinate. Instead your schtick should be that coordination ought to be allowed via freedom of association.
Click to expand...

Even with a legal drug trade and access to courts, it is still advantageous to kill your other dealers. But the point of legalizing the drug trade is to make that a less popular option.
 
That article is a masterpiece of weasel-word use. Let's start with the title: Documents point to

"This is very strong evidence, if not proof...."

...executed ad buys for Trump and the NRA that seemed coordinated to enhance each other.

Experts say the arrangement appears to violate campaign finance laws.

AMAG does not appear to have....
 
Cain said:
That's just dumb. Even with (theoretically) unlimited contributions, it's still advantageous for campaigns to coordinate. Instead your schtick should be that coordination ought to be allowed via freedom of association.
Click to expand...

I'm not sure the math works to the point that it is advantageous to coordinate mostly if there are no contribution limits. A dollar spent by Trump on a coordinated campaign would have to gain more influence from NRA coordination then spent exclusively on a trump campaign
 
Brainster said:
That article is a masterpiece of weasel-word use. Let's start with the title: Documents point to

"This is very strong evidence, if not proof...."

...executed ad buys for Trump and the NRA that seemed coordinated to enhance each other.

Experts say the arrangement appears to violate campaign finance laws.

AMAG does not appear to have....
Click to expand...

You missed one. "Experts" should have also been italicized.
 
BobTheCoward said:
Even with a legal drug trade and access to courts, it is still advantageous to kill your other dealers. But the point of legalizing the drug trade is to make that a less popular option.
Click to expand...

What the hell? No, not necessarily. Wars cost money, and the outcome is not a foregone conclusion.

BobTheCoward said:
I'm not sure the math works to the point that it is advantageous to coordinate mostly if there are no contribution limits. A dollar spent by Trump on a coordinated campaign would have to gain more influence from NRA coordination then spent exclusively on a trump campaign
Click to expand...

Even if unlimited dollars could go directly to Trump, the NRA is going spend to money and participate because it has a brand that resonates with a non-trivial portion of the electorate. Dues paying members expect the organization to play a role.
 
BobTheCoward said:
I'm not sure the math works to the point that it is advantageous to coordinate mostly if there are no contribution limits.
Click to expand...

If coordination works when contribution limits are a thing, removing said limits does not remove the advantages of coordination - it merely gives the parties co-ordinating access to greater sums of money.
 
Cain said:
What the hell? No, not necessarily. Wars cost money, and the outcome is not a foregone conclusion.



Even if unlimited dollars could go directly to Trump, the NRA is going spend to money and participate because it has a brand that resonates with a non-trivial portion of the electorate. Dues paying members expect the organization to play a role.
Click to expand...

And the NRA would benefit the most from not coordinating. The dollars they previously received as an end run around campaign laws would just go to the campaigns. The remaining money is more associated with people who want to emphasize the NRA over eleecting Republicans.
 
Border Reiver said:
If coordination works when contribution limits are a thing, removing said limits does not remove the advantages of coordination - it merely gives the parties co-ordinating access to greater sums of money.
Click to expand...

Because the limit is removed, money going to other group B because they could not go to group A transfers from group B to group A. Group B provides less benefit from coordination to group A. Also, the supporters of group B has shifted, reducing interest in shared benefit rather than selfish focus.

ETA: Even though the pies grow, the group of people in each pie are more enthusiastic about the pie.
 
Last edited:
BobTheCoward said:
Because the limit is removed, money going to other group B because they could not go to group A transfers from group B to group A. Group B provides less benefit from coordination to group A. Also, the supporters of group B has shifted, reducing interest in shared benefit rather than selfish focus.

ETA: Even though the pies grow, the group of people in each pie are more enthusiastic about the pie.
Click to expand...

If and when you can coherently state just what it that you are trying say, then kindly let the rest of us know about it.

Thanks.
 
BobTheCoward said:
Regardless, I cannot address unspecified problems. It was not specified
Click to expand...

Or maybe you should research the background of historical justifications for a law before attempting to naively change it without fully understanding the underlying issues.
 
Brainster said:
That article is a masterpiece of weasel-word use. Let's start with the title: Documents point to

"This is very strong evidence, if not proof...."

...executed ad buys for Trump and the NRA that seemed coordinated to enhance each other.

Experts say the arrangement appears to violate campaign finance laws.

AMAG does not appear to have....
Click to expand...

sir drinks-a-lot said:
You missed one. "Experts" should have also been italicized.
Click to expand...

Those are just 'CYA' language examples. Read the article. Unless all those people just happen to have the same names as the people in the same positions at the same time in those organizations, it is definitive proof.

Barring severe split personality disorder of AT LEAST four people, there was illegal coordination. One cannot NOT coordinate with themselves. Duh.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom