Hillary Clinton

SuperPAC to Spend $1 Million to Target Hillary Haters on Social Media

Claims rules against campaign coordination do not apply here.

|

David Brock
MSNBC

It's fascinating to see anybody supportive of Hillary Clinton complaining about aggressive "Bernie Bros" when hatchet man David Brock is standing around as a very obvious counterpoint.

And those Bernie Bros are finding out right now how aggressive an effort forces connected to Brock may use to push back against them. "Correct the Record," a PAC that was spun off of Brock's American Bridge SuperPAC, has started a project called "Barrier Breakers" to go after anybody who says anything they don't like about their candidate on social media like Reddit and Facebook. They're going to spend $1 million and have put out a press release congratulating themselves for what they've done so far:

The task force currently combats online political harassment, having already addressed more than 5,000 individuals who have personally attacked Secretary Clinton on Twitter. The task force will provide a presence and space online where Clinton supporters can organize and engage with one another and are able to obtain graphics, videos, gifs, and messaging to use in their own social spaces. Additionally, the Barrier Breakers 2016 task force hopes to embrace the creativity of Hillary Clinton's supporters by sharing their efforts and content with other groups.

Ben Collins over at The Daily Beast asks if this counts as coordinating with the Clinton campaign and whether she's, hilariously, violating the spirit of the Citizens United decision that she hates but in a way where these people are actually abusing the limited freedoms of the decision even further than intended:

Due to FEC loopholes, the Sunlight Foundation's Libby Watson found this year that Correct the Record can openly coordinate with Clinton's campaign, despite rules that typically disallow political campaigns from working directly with PACs.

"SuperPACs aren't supposed to coordinate with candidates. The whole reasoning behind (Supreme Court decision) Citizens United rests on (PACs) being independent, but Correct the Record claims it can coordinate," Watson told The Daily Beast. "It's not totally clear what their reasoning is, but it seems to be that material posted on the Internet for free—like, blogs—doesn't count as an 'independent expenditure.'"

I'm not sure how that makes any sense since they're bragging about spending $1 million. It obviously isn't free to do all this. Advertisements posted on the Internet that are "free" to look at still count as expenditures. Collins notes that Correct the Record was accused last fall of undermining campaign regulations in a Time magazine piece.

There shouldn't actually be anything wrong with what Correct the Record is doing here. It's kind of gross and will probably backfire and maybe even push some people even further away from voting for her. But these folks should be perfectly free to participate in the same petty Reddit thread wars as everybody else.

The reason this is worth noting and worth mocking is how much it implicates Clinton's attacks on Citizens United as hypocritical and self-serving. Sanders has attacked Clinton for all the money her campaign has received from corporate donors and her corporate speeches, and she has insisted that this money has not corrupted her positions—which is actually a defense of the Citizens United decision.

She's attacking this Supreme Court decision while she and her supporters take full advantage of it, pushing even what few boundaries it offers as far as they can. Because the Citizens United case was about a documentary that was unflattering to Clinton, the ultimate impression this all leaves is that she doesn't actually have any objection to independent political activities for any principled reasons. Rather, it really, really ends up looking like she only objects to independent expenditures to the extent that they are used to criticize her.

NEXT: Donald Trump Is Exactly Who He Seems to Be

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. I’m beginning to see a pattern with the hair thing here…might be time to go bald…

    1. The combination of genetics and cheap drugs made that decision for me. I strongly recommend that you do your best to avoid going bald.

      1. As long as you’re not replacing your baldness with furry rodents that may or may not be alive.

      2. Those cheap drugs can permanently mess with your…mojo.

    2. Wait… I thought that was Elizabeth Warren in the photo.

    3. What the hell is that on his [?] head? I wonder if it bites and, if so, if he got shots for it?

      1. It’s called a “tribble”. They used to be just an agricultural plague, but they have obviously mutated into a political STD.

      2. Tribbles don’t bite, but they do destroy entire economies and cause famine.

  2. Hillary Clinton sucks ass.

    Now come after me for that comment, bitches!

    1. Hillary Clinton sucks ass.

      She does in my fantasies.

      1. With apologies to Barfman….

        *barf*

  3. Rather, it really, really ends up looking like she only objects to independent expenditures to the extent that they are used to criticize her.

    What a day to leave my shocked face at home!

    1. Any thinking person knew this from day one.

  4. “Rather, it really, really ends up looking like she only objects to independent expenditures to the extent that they are used to criticize her.”

    Could this really be true?

    1. “You won’t believe what happens next.”

    1. Whatever happened to that, anyway?

      I mean, it was doomed to abject failure, but the details might amuse.

  5. “It’s not totally clear what their reasoning is, but it seems to be that material posted on the Internet for free?like, blogs?doesn’t count as an ‘independent expenditure.'”

    No, it counts as an “in-kind contribution”.

  6. Nothing Hillary Clinton ever says or does backfires. I trust this will be no exception.

    1. Those emails are private. Case closed.

      1. What difference, at this point, does it make?

        1. *barks like a dog, cackles like a Hilldog*

  7. Don’t worry, the Correct The Record people won’t dare come here because they knew we’ll chew them up and spit them out, exposing their retarded and stupid arguments for what they are.

    So they’ll stay away if they know what’s good for them.

    Plus they’re chicken. B

    Buck-buck-buck buck-KAW! Buck buck buck-KAW!

    1. Look, I am bending my arms and flapping them like wings, to illustrate the concept of a chicken.

      1. Yo, Hillary, I fart in your general direction. Your father was a hampster and your mother smelt of elderberries.

    2. I’d like to think that was the case. More likely, they think we’re irrelevant.

      1. I thought they were just monitoring the boards from time to time to make sure no one is threatening to put judges in woodchippers or send them to hell.

    3. Actually, we aren’t social media.

      Now, if these morons want to get into slapfights on Facebook, Twitter, and (especially) reddit, I’m not going to complain.

      But, I expect that’s not all they plan to do. I expect the real schwerpunkt is going to be corporate/black box barriers to criticizing Hillary in those forums.

      1. Didn’t you pay attention in progressive citizenship class? Any libertarian site is antisocial media, by definition!

  8. So I just watched the second trailer for the Roland Emmerich / Paul Krugman fantasy sequel. I don’t think it’s coincidence that the female President’s voice sounds almost identical to Shrillary.

  9. It’s not totally clear what their reasoning is

    Ooh, ooh, I know! Pick me! Pick me!

    Is it FYTW?

  10. I can’t say I really see these actions as hypocritical, any more than taking advantage of tax breaks that you favor eliminating — we all have to live with the law we have until we can change it. I find allocating funds for the purpose of bullying people to be pretty reprehensible, but to the extent that opposing Citizens United marks one as anti-free speech, this sort of behavior is fully consistent with that.

    1. I actually agree. Hillary is like a third world tin pot dictator. Her behavior isn’t inconsistent at all. It’s perfectly consistent.

  11. Oh, I’m sure they’ll correct you about Citizen’s United: they hate that decision, and look very forward to shutting down people who open their mouths because “CAMPAIGNS ARE TOO SACRED TO LET PEOPLE SAY SHIT THEY THINK!”

  12. I feel bad for the people who will catch hell on social media but I feel much worse for the wet ferret Brock evidently slaughtered and had sewn to his scalp. He may make my skin crawl more than any other political hack piece of shit I’ve ever had the displeasure of seeing.

  13. To be fair, David Brock has done the best job I’ve ever seen of turning a used string mop into a wig.

    1. “That hair is ‘UUUUUUUUUUUUUUUGE.” – The Donald

  14. Ha, ha, ha!
    I’m not on social media.

  15. the ultimate impression this all leaves is that she doesn’t actually have any objection to independent political activities for any principled reasons. Rather, it really, really ends up looking like she only objects to independent expenditures to the extent that they are used to criticize her

    Was this ever in doubt?

  16. T-T-T-T-TIMMEH!

  17. “but it seems to be that material posted on the Internet for free?like, blogs?doesn’t count as an ‘independent expenditure.'”

    And so paying people $1,000,000 to post things on the internet for free must also not count as an ‘inderpendent expenditure’.

  18. I’m starting to think that she would be worse than Sanders. Sure, he’s a commie dipshit that should be no where near any level of political office, but she seems more like the militant dictator at the end of the “road to serfdom”. She is much more open of her desires of ending the constitutional safeguards (name an Amendment she doesn’t want to sink her fangs into) that would allow citizens to stand up to tyrants such as her.

    It pisses me off to no end when progs (rightfully) complain about how bad The Donald would be, yet they put Tweedle Dum and Tweedle Dee on a pedestal, blindly worshiping them and the ground they walk on. #TheyAllSuck

    1. Oh, she would be far worse. She has the will and the connections to “get stuff done”. Bern would just be four years of comic relief.

    2. Bernie’s worse on economics.

      She’s worse on everything else.

      Which one is worse overall comes down what your personal priority hierarchy is.

    3. Its a tough call, but I’d have to agree. She is more evil; he is more of an idiot. He is more about following highly flawed economic principles; she is more about reigning office for herself and her cronies. I think I’ll label them both statist monsters and call it a day.

  19. “”Correct the Record,” a PAC that was spun off of Brock’s American Bridge SuperPAC, has started a project called “Barrier Breakers” to go after anybody who says anything they don’t like about their candidate on social media.”

    Well, there is only one way to respond to this news, isn’t there?

    HEY BROCK! HERE I AM! CLINTON’S A LYING CROOK! COME GET ME! I DOUBLE-DOG DARE YOU!!!

  20. Sometimes dude you jsut have to roll with it thats all man.

    http://www.Web-Privacy.tk

  21. On the plus side, I’ve been trolling the Correct The Record DerpBook page for bit and am gladdened to see that the comments are overwhelmingly anti-Clinton. The few pro-Clinton comments are, hilariously, accusing the pro-Sanders posters of being ‘right-wing teathuglicans’.

    1. the comments are overwhelmingly anti-Clinton.

      Completely predictable. That DerpBook page was going to be a giant, throbbing target for the Clinton-haters no matter what.

  22. Want to meet a girl? Welcome to http://goo.gl/mxiosK
    the Best adult Dating site!

  23. I think Hilary is an evil lying b****. However, taking advantage of the campaign laws and playing by the current rules isn’t hypocrisy.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.