TAPPER: You issued a statement this week disavowing all super PACs that are out there in your name, requesting that they return all of the donations and calling on all presidential candidates to do the same. Why?It sounds as though Trump, not needing money the way the other candidates do, would like to undercut the power of super PACs to raise money. It's the other candidates who need that money flow.
TRUMP: It's a scam. It's a big, fat scam. These super PACs are a disaster. I have -- I think they said nine or 10 super PACs were set up in my name. I don't even know who these people are. You have all these people raising money, I guess in the name of Trump, that we love Trump. And some of them, I'm sure, do, and probably some of them don't. And I have no idea what they are going to do with the money they are raising. But they are raising all of this money, and they're going to spend it on the campaign. And we have -- you know, the candidates are not supposed to be involved and all this stuff, but they have all this money going. Nobody even knows who the people are. Nobody knows where they are. Nobody knows what they're doing with the money. It's a whole big scam. If you look at Ben Carson, Ben Carson is spending money from super PACs all over the place. Now I hear his super PACs are going to merge. I have heard that his super PACs are essentially running his campaign in Iowa, where they are actually running his campaign, where they are doing all of the ground work and everything. That's not what the purpose of a super PAC was supposed to be. And, by the way, Jeb Bush, the same thing -- he's got one of his best friends that heads up his super PAC. And I'm calling on all candidates to disavow their super PACs. It's a scam. They know it. It's a joke. I mean, it's a joke. They're all laughing about it. I laugh about it.
October 25, 2015
Donald Trump says super PACs are "a big, fat scam."
On "State of the Union" this morning:
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
43 comments:
Trump has recognized the threat that Carson is to his campaign and is acting accordingly.
What a smart move.
He waited for some Trump superPACs to get started (he never disclaimed the concept in the first place). Now he can unilaterally abandon those superPACs (without unduly impoverishing his campaign) while shaming his opponents to do the same (which will impoverish their campaigns and force them to admit that they depend on that money).
Trump must sense that Bush is able to fund Carson in Iowa more or less in secret using anonymous PACs. Then Bush expects Carson to wither away when the Bush directed money is withdrawnon command
So far Trump's instincts have been right.
Who will write about this if and when Trump's campaign flames out?
That's exactly it. He can't precisely say, "Well, I've got more money than God anyway, so let's see you superPACcers have at it."
Trump's instincts have been very good. My husband compared him this morning to one of those instrumental soloists that turn conductor: Sometimes they really do learn on the job, and rapidly. Trump seems to have switched to full campaign mode in no time at all, and with very little effort.
He can't be much worried about Carson, for all that the latter's currently ahead in Iowa. I doubt he's worried about Fiorina, or Bush. Rubio and Cruz, though ...
This is one of the reasons I like Trump. I think he's totally wrong on the Super PAC issue. You shouldn't have to be as wealthy as Trump to run for President.
However, this makes the Republicans defend Super PAC's during the primary. And they should. They should be able to speak out about what we believe in. They shouldn't run from these sorts of issues. They should make sound, logical, freedom based defenses of things like Citizen's United and money in politics. Don't be lazy about it, Republicans! Make the argument, or go home.
Trump flaming out is extreme wishful thinking. He is enjoying himself too much. It is so wrong for a guy like Donald to get promoted to President by using better tactics than we expected. The man does not know his place.
Trump suggests that Carson is spending money from independent PAC's. Which shows he has no idea of what he is talking about. Independent PAC's have to be independent, Carson has no more ability to direct those than Trump has to direct the PAC's he just finished complaining about. Ugh. He is entertaining, and that's about it.
He may have that strategic motivation, but in his particular case, I can see his literal point. People raise money by using his name. They're cashing in on his celebrity, and what does he get out of it? Sure, they have to support him in some way, I suppose, but I see why a guy like him would resent the seeming exploitation of his popularity, outside his control.
"Disaster" is another Trump word.
" Carson has no more ability to direct those than Trump has to direct the PAC's he just finished complaining about."
Excellent point.
1. First Amendment.
2. It is all about "consultants" filming commercials and making money.
3. Is Trump against the constitution and capitalism?
It sounds as though Trump, not needing money the way the other candidates do, would like to undercut the power of super PACs to raise money. It's the other candidates who need that money flow.
What strikes me that it also sounds like some of these organizations have nothing to do with getting the candidate elected and are under no one's purview.
How about a super PAC set up in Ann Althouse's name should she ever decide to run for something. How would that suit her?
So the T-rump doesn't do Super Pacs, but he doesn't back away from donations. The OpenSecrets website lists the Make America Great Again fund-raising site which is run by Trump associates (DonaldTrump.com) as a Super Pac site. Hell, Donnie even attended two of the MAGA functions and took a donation from his daughter's mother-in-law.
But OpenSecrets also lists seven other PACs that support Trump, so they are obviously his targets. But I am perplexed as to exactly how they can use his name without his permission. So he really has to know the principals involved at these organizations.
Trump is the only billionaire in the race. And if he's self funding OF COURSE he doesn't need a super PAC. But how does he expect non billionaires to; compete?
Trump = Sanders.
Third party run: Trump/Sanders or Sanders/Trump
You've enjoyed the shout fest on Fox and MSNBC. now it comes to the White House.
Everyday we could see headlines like "Watch the President annihilate his VEEP on immigration"
TV worth watching.
"I've got all the money I need so let's talk about your sources of money."
Yeah, all the other candidates should just sell off a hotel or some private jets to fund their campaigns.
But at least it's better than Kerry or Pelosi. "Hey, if you need money, go marry some."
Eh, Obama was all about public financing until it would have hurt him, and he paid no political price for that flip-flop.
I don't get some of the objections to PACs, though--I thought liberals were ok with them as long as they DIDN'T coordinate...if they're not coordinating then they're just independent groups expressing their 1st amendment rights, no? Now a candidate complaining that a PAC is using their name and not helping their cause, I get that complaint, but I wonder if (within FEC rules) they're allowed to name PACs they like and those they don't. Probably not.
"Yawn" say the rest of the candidates. This is pretty meaningless to the base, and no Republican need worry about defending money in politics in a general against Clinton.
The Donald is a mudslinging blowhard. Anybody who challenges him gets the treatment. Carson most likely host more non-PAC donors than anyone in the race.
He's also shilling for Hillary, intentionally or unintentionally.
This complaint didn't come out 'til he came in second, did it?
Some people seem to be unable to adjust to honesty. Trump throws them completely. I can understand Trump's issue with Super Pac's. He doesn't really need their money and the fact is that they are using his name to raise money to spend any way they want, including wild and extravagant perks for themselves. If that isn't a scam, what is? Theoretically the candidate's campaign can coordinate through public media but Trump is playing his strategy close to his vest. And he doesn't want to be beholden to huge donors, so he can't feel anything but discomfort by the expectations that will come down the road should he win.
Trump is really a lot dumber than I thought. He's out on the campaign trail, ridiculing Mitch McConnell; and Mitch McConnell has forgotten more about campaigns and campaign law than Trump will ever understand.
First of all, Trump is wrong; no 501(c)(4) can use Trump's name for raising money. Secondly, Donald Trump has got a lot of god damned nerve to be telling other Americans what they can do in terms of raising money and spending it on their own political speech. On campaign finance, Trump is really no different from Bernie Sanders and Lawrence Lessig. And I do mean that in the worst possible way.
When does Trump's remarkably stupid arrogance catch up with him? I hate Hillary and the Democrats much more than I think Trump does; I think I've been a loyal Republican and a movement conservative longer than Trump. I am so over the notion that this guy could possibly be a good Republican nominee.
Blogger Chuck said...
First of all, Trump is wrong; no 501(c)(4) can use Trump's name for raising money.
It's a common expression in American English. When we say someone is doing something "In our name." we don't mean they are claiming to be us or literally using our name.
The IMF says that the Saudis will run out of cash in less than five years. Look for Jeb's campaign and his super PACs to get an infusion of cash from unknown foreign sources who absolutely need gas prices to climb to $5 or $6 or $7 per gallon!
Eric, for somebody who wants to be President of the United States, Donald Trump is amazingly loose with his language.
Trump also called it a "scam." I have no idea what he is talking about. Does he think that people who contribute to a Trump super-PAC being swindled? Are they thinking that their money will go toward something that is owned or operated or coordinated with Trump? Because that's wrong as well.
Honestly, I just think Trump is dumb. And that he doesn't even understand the most rudimentary fundamentals of campaign finance and election law. I think that the guy just watches cable tv news, and talks to a few people, and decides what he likes and distills it down to his own personal talking points.
He's a complete idiot (and so are his supporters) if he thinks he can win a general election against a Democrat like Hillary Clinton without a war chest including a mix of campaign money and super PAC money in excess of $1 billion with a b. And Trump will not spend anywhere close to that amount of his own money. He doesn't have anything like that anyway. There was $1.125 billion spent on the Obama '12 campaign.
Perhaps Trump is criticizing the idea of SuperPACs to begin with? Is "SuperPAC" in the Bill of Rights are some later amendment?
We know "the law" provides for many different experts to get paid to interpret it in all its forms, perhaps Trump sees these laws by people like McCain and Feingold and says "crooked" like he called Global Warming "expensive bullshit."
The scam is people that believe they are helping the candidate directly by donating to 501(c) entities when they are helping a group claiming to help the candidate, but whom legally can't coordinate with the candidate.
I wish I was an academic and could get paid for writing about "The Trump Phenomenon."
Because... it's a phenomenon.
Somebody will get paid some day. Probably in something with "decline and fall" in the title.
"Honestly, I just think Trump is dumb."
Oh, what's next?!? The emperor is necked?
You've gone too far. Step away from the ledge.
Yeah, yeah, immigration! Blah blah blah.
Cut fucking spending. If you don't, don't worry, they won't come anymore when we're broke.
"Yeah, yeah, immigration! Blah blah blah."
What I mean by "blah blah blah" is that everybody has a plan. Obalma had a plan for health care. Plans schmans.
Fix the accounts, aka "math." Everything else is talk.
Ok, not clear perhaps?
Yes, the immigration thing is a problem. But it's not the problem.
Trump found an issue to milk. But it's not the cash cow. The cash cow is...
Hey! Perfesser!
... Old people's benefits.
BN said...
"... Old people's benefits."
The benefits they steal from young people first.
Trump suggests that Carson is spending money from independent PAC's. Which shows he has no idea of what he is talking about. Independent PAC's have to be independent
Used to be that way, but Scott Walker got the courts to change the rules. Now it is pretty much anything goes, with only a few token restrictions.
Maybe Trump can offer some of his "many billions" into a pool for all the candidates to use if they are willing to disavow PACs. Otherwise, this is like a martial artist telling a crippled old man that they shouldn't use guns in their fight because real men would fight with only their fists.
3. Is Trump against the constitution and capitalism?
Well, he's a big fan of Kelo.
Of course, if you believe the Constitution only means what the Supreme Court says it means at this particular moment in time ...
If anyone thinks that campaigns don't cordinate with super pacs, then they need to look no further than the JEB! campaign which stated that it would outsource much of the campaign to the super pacs. Here in Wisconsin we are setting up the legal structure to allow such teamwork and at some point it will be "legal.". Trump is correct when he says that this is happening now.
The FEC is the body that enforces this law and as such is so gridlocked that even an open admission of collusion brings on yawns. There is no secret relationship between pacs and campaigns, it is common knowledge and widely reported. Trump is only saying the obvious and then decrying it for his own purposes.
As mentioned above, there is no way he could finance a general election for president unless he wants to delete all of his cash. If he is the nominee, you can bet he will take all the help he can get. Right now he is just negotiatiing and trying to gain leverage.
I discovered that Vladimir Putin is supporting Donald Trump - or at least, in his own way, trying to help his campaign (or trying to help xenophobia?)
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-politics/wp/2015/10/26/despite-what-donald-trump-tweeted-ford-is-still-building-a-massive-plant-in-mexico/
Sunday morning: Trump supporters began to circulate an article published over the weekend on the Web site of Printly, which appears to sell business cards, door hangers, postcards and other political campaign materials. The article -- headlined "Trump successfully pressures Ford to move Mexican plant to Ohio" -- states that Ford would move its $2 billion plant to "struggling Youngstown, Ohio." Ford does not have any facilities in Youngstown, a spokeswoman said Sunday.
The article is written by Dmitri Volova, whose biography says he he was born in the USSR Russian SFR, moved to the U.S. and "is a proud contributor to Printly with a voice from the former communist empires." The article cites a CNN Money report, but provides no link. A search of CNN Money provided no such report, although there was an article back in August headlined, "Ford shifts truck production from Mexico to Ohio."
It has got to be Vladimir Putin's propaganda machine behind this.
I think I've been a loyal Republican and a movement conservative longer than Trump.
I believe it but where were you and the rest of the conservatives while all the events in the URL below occurred?
http://tinyurl.com/o9dk3lf
I’ll answer the question for the commentor: While all the events outlined in the above URL were occurring you could find the “movement conservatives” sitting in various political corners moaning and groaning but doing nothing much at all.
Finally, Ted Cruz won an election he wasn’t supposed to win and mounted a campaign in the Senate to defund Obamacare. What did the “movement conservatives” do? Well, readers, they all fell in line behind Mitch McConnell and lobbied against Cruz. Why? Because Obama said he would veto it. That ended the debate before it even started. All Obama has to do is threaten veto and the so-called “movement conservatives” roll over and play dead. This is what it means to be a “loyal” Republican.
At least Trump is effectively challenging the establishment, something the “movement conservatives” of the past few years were unable or unwilling to do.
BTW, I agree that Trump is nominally a Republican only for the purpose of running for POTUS. From my viewpoint this is a positive rather than a negative because I’m neither a Republican nor a Democrat. I’m tired of ineffectual rightwing ideologues bitching while simultaneously meekly going along with the progressive agenda.
You’re either on the bus or you are off the bus.
Trump's not spending much of his own money either.
He's relying on the hyperventilated reaction of both the press and the other candidates -- their reaction to him -- to keep him at the forefront of discussion.
Which post like this help him with.
He's relying on the hyperventilated reaction of both the press and the other candidates -- their reaction to him -- to keep him at the forefront of discussion.
I can’t dispute anything in the above statement. It’s obvious.
But a few thoughts:
Keeping both the press and opposing candidates off-balance is not that easy to do, I think.
Trump seems to have a radar for the weaknesses of opponents. Weaknesses that are not obvious but that are lethal once revealed – or invented – depending on your point of view. Think: “low energy.” Before Trump I never heard Jeb Bush described in that way. Then poor Jeb has to respond in some energetic way, which he does not know how to do. The last time I saw him on TV he looked harassed, perplexed and ready to quit. I wonder - is a talent for ferreting out weaknesses in opponents a bad trait for a POTUS to have?
Trump’s also discovered that he’s unlikely get into trouble for certain utterances that are outrageous to the MSM but mirror the non-PC thoughts of ordinary voters, voters that don’t keep up with blogs, voters who have been ignored or derided by the elites at both ends of the political spectrum. It’s a vein that is rich in material that Trump can mine over and over again. The MSM cannot resist the opportunity to display their superior morality.
I believe Hillary would lose against Trump in a general election. I think she would win against any of the others, including my initial first choice, Carly Fiorina. Carly has a lot of HP baggage that has been largely ignored by the MSM. That would change as soon as Fiorina was nominated.
In a debate with Marco Rubio it would look like Mother Clinton admonishing her recalcitrant teenage son.
Carson is a brilliant surgeon and has benefited from being the ultimate “outsider” candidate but I think Trump has just neutralized him with the revelation that Ben Carson is a Jehovah Witness, a fact I believe was not generally known by the so-called “evangelical voters.” As soon as Trump’s religion, or lack of it, became an issue it opened a door that for some was better left closed.
Christie’s niche, the non-PC politician, has been seized by Trump. Other than that, there is no other political persona for Christie. Now he’s just another moderate Republican.
Cruz, another of my initial possibilities, would lose against Hillary. A good mind but does not come off well on TV.
Rand Paul never took off. I like him stirring things up in Congress, raising issues that need to be debated. An irritant is needed to make a pearl but I like him in the Congress, not conducting foreign policy as POTUS.
Kasich: Another moderate Republican. Just like the last two GOP nominees. Loses against Hillary.
If Trump had any baggage that could hurt him it would have surely have come out by now. Trump is the most vetted of all the candidates. There’s probably nothing they can throw at him that he hasn’t already dealt with.
Oops. Psychological typo. Seventh-day Adventist, not Jehovah Witness.
Post a Comment