Reports: Media Matters Head Coordinates With White House, Builds Super PAC

'Smatter, Elaine? You got your Citizens United ruling. Did you think that the Dems would stand idly by while the Repubs formed super-PACs? Y'all set the rules of engagement. Don't whine when the opposition uses the same tactics.

Actually, if true, the coordination is illegal.

The Daily Caller's investigative super pac report sucks.

I read through those web pages looking for the revealed smoking gun on illegal White House coordination with Media Matters for a super pac and didn't find it.

Based upon the information that Stephen Colbert has exposed about super pacs, Daily Caller has to work really hard to find illegalities because so much is permitted concerning 'non-coordination' of a candidate and any supporting super pac.

Beware Daily Caller: the linkages that you report as coordination is very likely to be true about teapublicon super pacs. Remember Friess, super pac patron of Santorum, on stage with Santorum? http://veracitystew.com/2012/02/08/santorum-shares-stage-with-super-pac-sugar-daddy/

The White House coordination with super pac proof has to go beyond hear-say from disgruntled Media Matters employees.

@ Lee

Actually, if true, the coordination is illegal.

No, it isn't illegal. Notice this from the article:

The head of Media Matters for America -- now out coordinating a new super PAC to help President Obama get reelected -- is operating his nonprofit organization in close coordination with the Obama White House, a new investigative report out Monday says.

The White House can have contact with the nonprofit "Media Matters" all it wants, because "Media Matters" isn't the super PAC. The super PAC is "America Votes" - they can't coordinate with the super PAC.

That's how ridiculous the campaign world post Citizen's United is. It's quite comical actually watching all of the fanboys for Citizens United whom were proclaiming it to be a "ringing endorsement of the 1st amendment" when the ruling was announced now deriding any opposing super PACS and trying to claim some level of wrong doing.

This IS the campaign world that many a FOX News talking head and the Republican Party in general were proclaiming was a beacon of American freedom when the Citizens United ruling was handed down - no need to run from it now.

How many phones were hacked to get this story? And as Colbert and Stewart showed us, even IF this Foxaganda were true, the most that will happen is a fine payable by the Super PAC.

This story states what any thinking person already knew: Media Matters is in the tank for Democrats and always has been.

jumpshot, neither you nor I know if it is true. I repeat, IF TRUE, it is illegal.

This story states what any thinking person already knew: Media Matters is in the tank for Democrats and always has been.

Actually this propaganda doesn't PROVE anything. This is nothing but another attempt to sling mud by the professional mud wrestlers at Fox, proving AGAIN that they are in the tank for the GOP.

Let's assume for a second that this "report" is accurate. How then does it justify the "ties" between Fox, the RNC and American Crossroads, or SarahPAC, or Huckabee's PAC or Gingrich's PAC, or AFP, or any of the others?

Than let them not be tax exempt. Than they can do it and not have a problem.

Under the Internal Revenue Code, all section 501(c)(3) organizations are absolutely prohibited from directly or indirectly participating in, or intervening in, any political campaign on behalf of (or in opposition to) any candidate for elective public office. Contributions to political campaign funds or public statements of position (verbal or written) made on behalf of the organization in favor of or in opposition to any candidate for public office clearly violate the prohibition against political campaign activity. Violating this prohibition may result in denial or revocation of tax-exempt status and the imposition of certain excise taxes.

Certain activities or expenditures may not be prohibited depending on the facts and circumstances. For example, certain voter education activities (including presenting public forums and publishing voter education guides) conducted in a non-partisan manner do not constitute prohibited political campaign activity. In addition, other activities intended to encourage people to participate in the electoral process, such as voter registration and get-out-the-vote drives, would not be prohibited political campaign activity if conducted in a non-partisan manner.

On the other hand, voter education or registration activities with evidence of bias that (a) would favor one candidate over another; (b) oppose a candidate in some manner; or (c) have the effect of favoring a candidate or group of candidates, will constitute prohibited participation or intervention.

Media Matters is in the tank for Democrats...

So what? That's what the CU ruling was all about. You got your corporate personhood. They're now all allowed to "be in the tank" for whomever they choose. Whazzamatter, now that you got the ruling you thought you wanted, you don't like it when the opposition has corporations that support them? Gee, too bad, live with it.

I knew it was some bullshi— to this article before I even read it because there's no way the president would coordinate with anyone on a Pac, we all know that's illegal, which is why Faux No News is the source. Faux No News has no integrity and I'm sure that the Republicanteabaggers is coordinating this hoax with them. Now, if David Brock or whom ever else wants to start a Super PAC to rebut the Republicanteabaggers lies, then I say more power to them!

@ lee

jumpshot, neither you nor I know if it is true. I repeat, IF TRUE, it is illegal.

That's the point though - there is no "it" to speak of. The article very clearly draws a distinction between the entity Media Matters and the entity the super PAC. The article directly mentions the White House coordinating with Media Matters - it says absolutely nothing about the White House coordinating directly with the super PAC.

Media Matters the nonprofit entity can have contact with White House. As a 501(c)3, they can't make political contributions nor can they officially endorse a candidate, but they can have just as much contact with the White House as anyone else can. As a "media" entity, they have a legitimate reason to be in constant contact with the White House, since much of what they 'report' on is in regard to Congressional and/or Executive actions.

Personally, I think the parameters established by the Citizen's United ruling are f'in ridiculous. I have no doubts whatsoever that the head of Media Matters is likely gleaning some of his super PAC direction from what he gets out of his interactions with the White House through Media Matters interests. But, as I've pointed out, that's not illegal. The skits Stephen Colbert and Jon Stewart have been doing on this aren't just slapstick comedy - they're 100% dead on accurate. If you haven't viewed some of them - especially the one where they are literally sitting right next to each other "not coordinating" while obviously coordinating - I would suggest you do. There's a sobering reality to the comedy, and that reality speaks directly to the topic here.

Who cares who has ___— super pac? They all have them now.

The point is that some (ostriches imo) believed Media Matters was "objective".

They aren't.

@ Rational brent

The point is that some (ostriches imo) believed Media Matters was "objective".

Who believed that?

Jarrod, anyone (mostly on the left) that has ever linked or seeded an article by them to use as evidence against the right.

That's a long list. Go for it!

Note I said "as evidence". I have no problem linking opinions as opinions.

@ Rational Brent

Jarrod, anyone (mostly on the left) that has ever linked or seeded an article by them to use as evidence against the right.

That's a pretty faulty definition. Contrary to whether or not a given entity is "in the tank" for a given political party, that entity can still produce fact driven material. Thus, content is key. If Media Matters produces a document outlining the various causes of the current debt, the fact that it came from Media Matters doesn't automatically disqualify the information from being factual..... that goes for any entity.

According to Supreme Court precedent, if it is known that Media Matters is controlling the PAC, and the house is working in coordination with Media Matters, it is in fact against campaign regulation laws to work together. There better be a tight, clear wall between the PAC and MM or else this could lead to investigations.

Likewise, the laws could be interpreted to mean MM is doing work for the Obama campaign if they are working in close coordination. MM would be providing work free of charge, which is also against Campaign Finance rules. Obama would have to cite the costs of work MM provided in coordination with his campaign.

The White House can send out press releases all it wants, it can not coordinate in conjunction with a corporate entity for work performed on a campaign. If they are working together intimately, there will be an investigation.

Hmm interesting...this is not surprising and then coupled with THIS:

The Obama campaign is to “educate” and deploy what it describes as “truth teams” to ensure that any attacks on the president’s record are feverishly countered in the run up to the general election.

ABC News reports that teams of Obamanoids will be launched initially in 13 “swing states,” including Iowa, Michigan, New Hampshire, New Mexico, North Carolina, Wisconsin, Arizona, Colorado, Florida, Minnesota, Nevada, Ohio and Virginia.

“The goal is to ensure that when Republicans attack President Obama’s record, grassroots supporters can take ownership of the campaign and share the facts with the undecided voters in their lives,” the campaign said in a statement.

“If the other guys are going to run a campaign based on misrepresenting the president’s record – and their own – we have two options: sit back and let these lies go unchallenged, or fight back with the truth,” deputy Obama campaign manager Stephanie Cutter said in an email. ”We’re fighting back.”

http://www.infowars.com/obama-to-unleash-truth-teams-to-counter-negative-coverage/

Guess they missed this WHOPPER by his own Chief of Staff this weekend:

As President Obama prepares to unveil his FY2013 budget Monday, White House chief of staff Jack Lew this morning was asked by CNN to defend the Senate's refusal to pass a budget in more than 1,000 days.

"You can't pass a budget in the Senate of the United States without 60 votes and you can't get 60 votes without bipartisan support," Lew said. "So unless… unless Republicans are willing to work with Democrats in the Senate, [Majority Leader] Harry Reid is not going to be able to get a budget passed."

http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2012/02/wh-chief-of-staff-errs-on-senate-budget-rules/

a budget does NOT have to be filibuster proof (I like how ABC gives him the "he erred" treatment - it was a bald faced lie and if he is so incompetent as to know that, maybe he doesn't need to be in that position) it takes a simple majority vote to pass a budget (and the DEMS have that majority in the Senate - they don't need a single Rep - not one).

Sorry this is a bit off topic but it goes with this in a round about way...I guess.

BTW, I thought Obama was against Superpacs? Humph, I guess he was against it before he was for it then? Just another day in Obamaland.

Don't whine when the opposition uses the same tactics.

Thank you so much for saying this. Make sure you REMEMBER your words and use them for all your colleagues here on Newsvine in the future because after all, turnabout IS fair play according to you.

Thanks again for the ammo!

BTW, I thought Obama was against Superpacs?

For the record, so am I. However, the rules have been set and despite my opposition this is the way the game is played so I will support super-PACs that support the candidates I support.

Media Matters memo reportedly detailed plan to target Fox News staff

OK, so what. None of the alleged actions are illegal. You know, like hacking into people's cell phones or bribing police and officials.

Oh, please, NOW republicans are bitching about superpacs and CU? Cry me an f'n river. Anybody who expects one side to not play by the rules set out by SCOTUS is a fool. You don't like it anymore? Lets change it then.

Anybody who expects one side to not play by the rules set out by SCOTUS is a fool. You don't like it anymore? Lets change it then.

First, lib 50 the SCOTUS doesn't MAKE the rules...("rules set out by the SCOTUS") it just interprets the stupid laws our Congress people make . Secondly, hey I am good with changing it...no argument from me on that...campaign finance was a joke, btw - on the American people.

Dear Elaine,

This article is significant! Wow, I did catch the interview with the author + News Host.

The author was asked numerous questions about his piece, he said that Media Matters employees either saw no problem with sharing their information of the contacts with the White House or other media outlets like msnbc OR they did not know of any questions of legality? LOL

I guess there ARE multiple questions of legality with this information and the White House/endorsement of politician Pres Obama, Media Matters has asked IRS for Tax Exempt status...this action of promoting/endorsing a specific candidate is cause for loss of Tax Exempt status.

The collaboration of the news biz who has promoted their stories without checking their validity is significant too....

Well hell, maybe if the new superpac's could all work together on the economic mess we're in. We can find the best only for campaigns it appears. Indeed, we only need to be smart with money in a campaign.

Oh, and by the way, there is a dramatic difference between a news biz and a Tax Exempt entity.

Dear hvymtl,

Your comment

OK, so what. None of the alleged actions are illegal. You know, like hacking into people's cell phones or bribing police and officials.

I am thinking you are speaking of another article referencing hacking of cell phones?

What does that have to do with a Tax Exempt entity in giving media biz the words + info for news articles; or contacting the White House for the election of candidate Pres Obama, a direct endorsement of a candidate. Yep, pretty much, only Obama is up for election in the White House.

Maybe Media Matters should call themselves Lobbying Matters?

If George Soros is funding them, I wonder how much income is coming from one person like George Soros? You know what percentage?

I think this is curious?

While MMFA raises millions, the DC reports that the organization is in "regular contact with political operatives" in the Obama administration like senior adviser Valerie Jarrett, whom MMFA President Eric Burns and Brock met with in June 2010 at the White House.

The DC also claims Media Matters held weekly strategy calls with former White House deputy communications director Jen Psaki and other groups like the Center for American Progress. Psaki left the administration in October 2011

All of this is being done on who's dime? Isn't this campaigning on the clock, and prohibited?

Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012/02/13/reports-media-matters-head-coordinates-with-white-house-builds-super-pac/?test=latestnews#ixzz1mOJL6tkP

Therese Nelson

Yep, pretty much, only Obama is up for election in the White House.

After close examination of the republican field I vehemently concur.

Well hell, maybe if the new superpac's could all work together on the economic mess we're in. We can find the best only for campaigns it appears. Indeed, we only need to be smart with money in a campaign.

dang, I wish I could vote that up again...

@ Elaine-1503791

In 2003 Bush proposed regulating Fannie and Freddie the same way banks and credit unions are regulated but he could not get cooperation from the Congress and wealthy lobbyist.

Can we stop purporting the myth that Fannie and Freddie caused the economic crisis?:

They've specifically targeted the mortgage finance giants Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, which the federal government seized on Sept. 6, contending that lending to poor and minority Americans caused Fannie's and Freddie's financial problems.

Federal housing data reveal that the charges aren't true, and that the private sector, not the government or government-backed companies, was behind the soaring subprime lending at the core of the crisis.

Subprime lending offered high-cost loans to the weakest borrowers during the housing boom that lasted from 2001 to 2007. Subprime lending was at its height from 2004 to 2006.

Federal Reserve Board data show that:
- More than 84 percent of the subprime mortgages in 2006 were issued by private lending institutions.
- Private firms made nearly 83 percent of the subprime loans to low- and moderate-income borrowers that year.
- Only one of the top 25 subprime lenders in 2006 was directly subject to the housing law that's being lambasted by conservative critics.

Deregulation of the private sector was the problem - that's literally undeniable when the facts are considered. link

@ Elaine-1503791

What was that you were saying jumpshotjarrod?

I was saying Fannie and Freddie didn't cause the financial crisis, because they didn't.

Have you actually read the article you just cited, or did you just look at the title and assume it was good? There are a NUMBER of faulty premises that author Peter Wallinson bases his 'argument' on:

First, Wallinson defines "subprime" in a way that no one else does:

First, central to Wallison's argument that affordable housing policies (including those advocated by Rep. Frank in 1992) caused the mortgage crisis is his claim that the federal government is responsible for 19.2 million "subprime" mortgages (with Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac being responsible for 12 million of those). But what Wallison fails to tell the Atlantic's readers is that he is using his own made-up definition of "subprime," a definition that no one outside of his think tank, the American Enterprise Institute, uses. By way of comparison, the non-partisan Government Accountability Office has estimated that there were only 4.58 million subprime and other high risk loans outstanding, with very few of these attributable to the federal government.

Wallison also omits the fact that most of the "subprime" mortgages he attributes to federal affordable housing policies could not have been motivated by these policies, either because the loans were ineligible (typically because they were made to higher-income borrowers) or because the lenders were not subject to these policies (such as in the case of the non-bank lenders, which did not have any applicable federal affordable housing requirements; non-bank lenders made up 24 of the top 25 subprime lenders in 2006).

And the comical part is that even with a made up definition, Wallinson STILL never actually mentions what the default rate was for the GSE loans:

Overall, loans originated for private-label securitization have defaulted at about six times the rate of Fannie and Freddie loans.

Private sector loans were defaulting at a rate of 6 TIMES greater than that of Fannie and Freddie. Whoops.

Wallinson's argument is so very flawed that the Republicans vested with the responsibility to investigate the causes of the crisis don't agree with him:

In short, there are many reasons, of which I've provided just a few, why Peter Wallison's argument has been rejected by his fellow Republican-appointed FCIC commissioners.

So, we're left with this:

Unfortunately, some people will, for ideological and other reasons, always believe that any market failures must necessarily be the fault of government intervention, no matter how convincing and overwhelming the evidence is against this proposition.

Dare I say, that last piece may be directed at individuals on this very seed.... maybe someone you know ;)

Anyhow, what was that you were saying Elaine-1503791?

@ Elaine-1503791

Do some research jumpshotjarrod

By "do some research", do you mean citing articles that have been wholly discredited? LOL

I noticed that you completely skipped that part in order to continue to parrot the same tripe that was just proven as discredited.

Well played :)

@ Elaine

You're not adding anything of substance to your posts. It doesn't matter what % of subprimes Fannie and Freddie held in 2008. First, the damage was already done by then - it wasn't as if the housing crisis developed in a few months. That was very directly addressed in the links I provided.

Second, Fannie and Freddie's loans weren't the ones that were blowing up. I already pointed you to the fact that the rate of default for private loans was 6 times greater than that of Fannie and Freddie.

Fannie and Freddie certainly had their issues, but they weren't of the variety that led to financial disaster. Peter Wallinson's about the only one who hasn't accepted that fact (and you apparently). Even the Republicans on the FCIC Commission don't agree with you or him. The fact that Wallinson had to start making up his own definitions in order to try to prove his point is very telling in regard to the weakness of his argument.

I've specifically pointed to detailed dismantling of your premise - restating the premise doesn't make it "fact" ;)

jarrod - all due respect (I have been in the mortgage business for 17 years now), the INDUSTRY definition of substandard is quite different than you would like us to believe. Basically, there are three types of loans, Conforming, Conventional and Subprime. A Conforming loan is one which meets GSE guidelines. A Conventional loan is one which is not guaranteed by the government. Subprime is for people with blemished credit.

HOWEVER, you can have a conforming loan which (because Fannie/Freddie set the standards) includes bad credit in its underwriting. Fannie/Freddie don't even have a minimum credit score in their guidelines.

So, you see, the mortgage crisis was NOT caused solely by Sub-prime lending - but since ALL Fannie/Freddie were "conforming" loans, those are rarely figured into the mix - because "conforming" loans are considered to be "safe" loans.

@ Boudicea

All of the things you mentioned are covered in the links I've provided - there's no new information being presented here.

So you AGREE then that some of the "conforming" loans absolutely should have been included as "sub-prime?" If you DON'T then you miss the point of the whole explanation.

@ Boudicea

So you AGREE then that some of the "conforming" loans absolutely should have been included as "sub-prime?" If you DON'T then you miss the point of the whole explanation.

The nuanced definition details you're talking about don't appear to be what Wallinson was talking about in his piece. His "definition" of subprime lead him to calculate a number of subprimes that was 4X times greater than what the non-partisan Government Accountability Office was coming up with. And again, even with the faulty count, the vast majority of the loans which actually defaulted weren't issued by Government entities. That's the piece that some folks seem to want to continue to ignore.

And then there's the whole timing issue - Fannie and Freddie weren't major players in the subprime game until right before the collapse, when the damage was already done. It didn't really matter if Fannie and Freddie got involved in subprime mortgages in 2008, because the market had been completely saturated with them from 2001-2006 and into 2007. And, as was already mentioned, Fannie and Freddie's loans defaulted at a rate that was 6 times less than the rate of the private sector.

As I said above, I agree 100% with the notion that Fannie and Freddie had serious problems; transparency being the most obvious. Earlier in the 2000's, Fannie and Freddie had some very ugly accounting scandals that they absolutely should be held accountable for. But, the bottomline fact is that the vast majority of the loans which ended up crippling the market weren't theirs. And, at a time when the housing market bubble was being created, Fannie and Freddie's marketshare was decreasing. Not to mention, in part due to the previously mentioned scandals, they weren't allowed to participate. Economist Mark Zandi very recently did a piece on this:

It wasn't that Fannie and Freddie made a prescient strategic decision to stay clear of the housing frenzy. They couldn't have participated even if they had wanted to. The two agencies had committed various accounting irregularities earlier in the decade, and their regulator forced them to rein in their growth.

Moreover, Fannie and Freddie couldn't compete with rapaciously expanding private lenders. Securitization was in full swing, enabling private lenders to offer low rates and increasingly aggressive terms to borrowers. In 2006, almost half the loans made by private lenders required no down payment and no documentation. Fannie and Freddie simply couldn't play in that league, even though Congress had given them aggressive lending targets to help boost homeownership among lower-income and minority households. link

The facts are the facts. There's enough to criticize Fannie and Freddie for that we don't need to create new reasons out of thin air.

I have a real problem with the fact that your facts include information from the GAO. As we have seen over and over, it should actually be the Government Un-Accountability Office

I have a real problem with the fact that your facts include information from the GAO. As we have seen over and over, it should actually be the Government Un-Accountability Office

And getting hung up on that one acronym is a quintessential example of linear thought processes. That was ONE comparison regarding the definition of subprimes and Alt-A loans. And again, it's really meaningless when considering ALL of the other data presented which had nothing to do with the GAO.

Feel free to dismiss everything else though because you don't like the GAO (you never actually attempted to dispute the information either, just flamed the source) - that's your prerogative.

Whatever. Can't anybody on this website make a comment without being jumped on and accused of being stupid?

OK, fine. I'm stupid. does that make you feel more important? Better than me? Whatever.

@ Boudicea

You told me you "had a real problem" with what I posted - when I responded with a less vitriolic version of essentially the same thing, you start complaining about being called stupid. Go figure........

And for what it's worth: I didn't call you stupid - I simply pointed out that arbitrarily dismissing all of the data presented due to not liking one particular agency was, in my opinion, not a good approach.

I guess the take away is that you're the only person who can question someone else's post? Because if someone tells you they have "a real problem" with what you post, they get attacked for calling you "stupid", even though no such thing was ever said.

Fair enough.

Here's what I don't understand - I am someone who has actually been ON the front lines of the mortgage crisis since before it began. I was simply explaining my position - what I actually SAW rather than what the GAO said.

Now, I ask you - WHY would you believe someone who said "Yeah, we audited ourselves and we didn't do anything wrong - it was everyone else's fault". Really? Isn't that being a bit naive?

@ Boudicea

Here's what I don't understand - I am someone who has actually been ON the front lines of the mortgage crisis since before it began. I was simply explaining my position - what I actually SAW rather than what the GAO said.

Anecdotal evidence has it's purpose, but shouldn't be used to dismiss the breadth of the information regarding a given topic.

Now, I ask you - WHY would you believe someone who said "Yeah, we audited ourselves and we didn't do anything wrong - it was everyone else's fault". Really? Isn't that being a bit naive?

That's not at all the information I'm citing. Again, as I've stated numerous times, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac had serious internal issues. But, the bottomline is that the vast majority of the loans which ended up crippling the market weren't theirs. And, at a time when the housing market bubble was being created, Fannie and Freddie's marketshare was decreasing. Lastly, they weren't allowed to participate in the market busting practices at a time when the bubble was created because of the regulations placed upon them stemming from their previous accounting problems. Those facts weren't derived from any Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac internal audit; they were derived from a comprehensive review of the crisis from numerous non partisan experts.

To this point, NO ONE has provided ANYTHING which actually substantively disputes those facts.

the some people say source? lol