2024 Elections

[O Really]

Again, I don't find anything dishonorable about that tactic. Certainly not compared to the average mud-slinging ads where questionable "facts" are distorted and spooky evil music plays over a really bad pic of the opponent. Reverse the polls, and I wouldn't be surprised to see Katie taking the same tactic.

[Vrede too]

Again, I don't find anything dishonorable about that tactic. Certainly not compared to the average mud-slinging ads where questionable "facts" are distorted and spooky evil music plays over a really bad pic of the opponent. Reverse the polls, and I wouldn't be surprised to see Katie taking the same tactic.

Porter calling it dishonorable is good enough for me, and it's sufficient to see Dems divided when Schiff had no reason to go low. That's what gets me - not that it's so evil, but rather that it's unnecessary.

I don't accept speculation that Katie does the same thing in some alternate universe, but you would then have to also posit that Schiff would righteously call her out for it.

[O Really]

Campaign rhetoric is always smoke and mirrors. Some PAC (not Schiff) is bashing Katie for her "no PAC money" ad, saying "She says she doesn't take PAC money - no, she takes money directly from corporations" then listing minor (thou or a couple) contributions by individuals working for "corporations." Who, might I ask, gives a ratzass about that?

[Vrede too]

Campaign rhetoric is always smoke and mirrors. Some PAC (not Schiff) is bashing Katie ...

There is no such thing as an "independent" PAC these days. Schiff could instantly put a stop to the bashing, but he's actually complicit.

[O Really]

Campaign rhetoric is always smoke and mirrors. Some PAC (not Schiff) is bashing Katie ...

There is no such thing as an "independent" PAC these days. Schiff could instantly put a stop to the bashing, but he's actually complicit.

Maybe, but it's not Schiff's PAC. https://www.fairshakepac.com/

More... https://cointelegraph.com/news/winklevo ... -committee

[Vrede too]

Campaign rhetoric is always smoke and mirrors. Some PAC (not Schiff) is bashing Katie ...

There is no such thing as an "independent" PAC these days. Schiff could instantly put a stop to the bashing, but he's actually complicit.

Maybe, but it's not Schiff's PAC. https://www.fairshakepac.com/

More... https://cointelegraph.com/news/winklevo ... -committee

Thanks. As long as Schiff is "silent" he'll end up beholden to a crypto super PAC In reality, his aides are coordinating with the ironically named Fairshake.

Don't get me wrong, for all I know Katie may be just as sketchy. I just needed to rant about how much I hate our politics.

[O Really]

More. (skirted the paywall for you)

Crypto PAC Jumps Into Senate Race, Opposing Katie Porter in California
A group called Fairshake recently revealed that it and two affiliated super PACs had amassed roughly $80 million combined in 2023. Now it’s planning to deploy some of that cash.

The crypto PAC Fairshake is planning a blitz of negative advertising against Representative Katie Porter and had begun booking time in markets statewide on Monday.Credit...Haiyun Jiang for The New York Times

The biggest name and the biggest spender of crypto money in the 2022 election cycle is now awaiting his prison sentence for fraud and conspiracy. But new super PACs have sprouted up as the successors to the collapsed Sam Bankman-Fried empire, and they are making their first big bet of the 2024 election cycle: trying to crush Representative Katie Porter, a Democrat running in next month’s California Senate primary.

The biggest new crypto-focused super PAC, Fairshake, began reserving television and digital advertising across California in a multimillion-dollar buy late on Monday, and it could be a major player in the race’s final three weeks.

Fairshake revealed two weeks ago in federal filings that it and two affiliated super PACs had amassed a combined roughly $80 million in 2023, with most of the money coming from three major cryptocurrency players: Coinbase, Ripple Labs and Andreessen Horowitz.

The California Senate race pits Ms. Porter against Representative Adam Schiff, a Democrat, and Representative Barbara Lee, another Democrat, as well as Steve Garvey, a Republican and a former baseball player. The top two finishers in the March primary will advance to November, even if both are Democrats.

In a statement, Fairshake accused Ms. Porter of taking campaign cash from other industries and misleading the state about her record, saying, “Katie Porter says one thing and does another.”
...
The group is planning a blitz of anti-Porter advertising and had begun booking time in markets statewide on Monday. The ad released on Tuesday begins, “Katie Porter plays us for fools,” and accuses her of accepting some donations from industry executives.

It is not exactly clear what about Ms. Porter has drawn the crypto industry’s ire other than her record as a progressive who favored regulating the industry to better favor consumers and made the grilling of a financial chief executive a viral moment a few years ago.

“Californians aren’t fooled: Shadowy crypto billionaires don’t want a strong voice for consumers in the Senate,” Ms. Porter wrote on X after The New York Times reported on the advertising blitz. “They fear people who call out corporate greed, so they’re spending millions on dishonest dark-money ads against me.”

She also quickly sent out fund-raising emails about the “crypto-billionaires” attacking her.

The crypto financiers behind Fairshake and its two affiliated groups, Protect Progress and Defend American Jobs, are fairly open about their agenda: to ensure a favorable set of regulations as the federal government considers how to regulate the crypto industry and to use political spending to get it.


Jaime King Is on a Journey
Brian Armstrong, the chief executive of Coinbase, who personally gave $1 million in September, told Axios that same month: “Money moves the needle. For better or worse, that’s how our system works.”

Mr. Armstrong said at the time, “If you look at like the oil and gas lobby or the banking lobby — I mean they’re spending, I don’t know, in the order of $100 million a year.” Interestingly, the statement from Fairshake cited some of those same industries as supporting Ms. Porter.

The new crypto mega group and its affiliates have attracted prominent Democratic and Republican consulting firms.

Fairshake has so far paid money to Impact Research, a polling firm that worked for President Biden in 2020, as well as Jamestown Associates, an ad-making firm that produced commercials for former President Donald J. Trump that same year. Records show the group is employing two other prominent polling firms: Schoen Survey Research, which was founded by Doug Schoen, and Global Strategy Group, which works for a wide range of congressional Democrats.

On Capitol Hill, Ms. Porter has been a close ally of Senator Elizabeth Warren, Democrat of Massachusetts, who was once her professor at Harvard Law School. Ms. Warren has been an outspoken critic of the lax regulations around cryptocurrency, and Ms. Porter once signed onto a letter with Ms. Warren to Texas regulators about crypto, according to the crypto news-tracking site Bitcoin.com.

Mr. Schiff, who has been campaigning to elevate Mr. Garvey over Ms. Porter into the general election, has a statement about the crypto industry on his policy page, writing about the need to nurture such innovative industries. “We need to develop comprehensive regulatory frameworks to ensure that these companies and jobs stay here and grow here,” the page reads.

Fairshake and its affiliated groups have already spent relatively small sums on other races, for candidates including Representative Patrick McHenry of North Carolina, the Republican chairman of the House Financial services Committee, last year before he announced he would retire.

The other biggest spending to date, from the affiliated crypto group Protect Progress, has been to aid Shomari Figures, a Democrat running for the House in Alabama. On the issues page of his website, Mr. Figures plays up the importance of supporting crypto, writing that he would work to “embrace the new landscape around digital assets, like cryptocurrency, to stimulate innovation and technological advancement.”

Mr. Figures has benefited from nearly $750,000 in crypto spending since late January — reminiscent of the huge sums that Mr. Bankman-Fried and others poured into congressional contests in 2022.

Mr. Bankman-Fried’s crypto trading firm, FTX, collapsed in late 2022, and he was arrested and charged with fraud following the multibillion-dollar implosion. He was found guilty in November.

[Vrede too]

More. (skirted the paywall for you)

Crypto PAC Jumps Into Senate Race, Opposing Katie Porter in California
A group called Fairshake recently revealed that it and two affiliated super PACs had amassed roughly $80 million combined in 2023. Now it’s planning to deploy some of that cash.

Thanks.

... It is not exactly clear what about Ms. Porter has drawn the crypto industry’s ire other than her record as a progressive who favored regulating the industry to better favor consumers and made the grilling of a financial chief executive a viral moment a few years ago.

That bitch!

... Mr. Schiff, who has been campaigning to elevate Mr. Garvey over Ms. Porter into the general election, has a statement about the crypto industry on his policy page, writing about the need to nurture such innovative industries....

Hero!

IMO crypto is a dangerous, tax-dodging scam. Then, it's not a matter of opinion that crypto is an environmental disaster due to its massive energy requirements. This alone would swing me towards Katie. If Schiff is decent he will publicly repudiate "Fair"shake and its money - I crack myself up sometimes.

[O Really]

- I crack myself up sometimes.

"Politician refuses money"

[Vrede too]

- I crack myself up sometimes.

"Politician refuses money"

Since we're discussing this race, though, you've said that Katie is refusing PAC money.

Ftr, I'm not sure the PR advantage is worth the dollar loss. Plus, that refusal includes unions, greenies, feminists, civil libertarians and other heroes. I'd rather see comprehensive reform than pols shooting themselves in the foot.

[O Really]

I said Katie said she refused corporate PAC money. Not verified by anybody as far as I know. I'd be badly surprised if there isn't a good bit of wiggle room, and it may be that she's refusing money that wasn't offered. I still say hardly anybody gives a ratzass about the issue and why her people think it needs to be up front is beyond me.

[Vrede too]

I said Katie said she refused corporate PAC money. Not verified by anybody as far as I know.

Ah, "corporate PAC money". My bad. While I was still confused I went looking.

She runs a Leadership PAC, Truth to Power. About $200K/year.
She takes money from various PACs: Lawyers/Law Firms, Democratic/Liberal, Women's Issues.
https://www.opensecrets.org/members-of- ... =N00040865
No corporate PACs, but execs and employees are free to give and she gets money from the aforementioned groups, plus:
Retired
Education
Food & Beverage
Nurses (Woohoo!)
Recorded Music & music production
Restaurants & drinking establishments
TV production
And so on.
https://www.opensecrets.org/members-of- ... cycle=2024

PAC Contributions* are supposedly 0.24% of campaign income.
"Other" is a large donation source, 39.48%. Idk what that includes.

I'd be badly surprised if there isn't a good bit of wiggle room,

There's a price to getting caught deceiving constituents. That said, so-called "independent" PACs are a big "wiggle" and wouldn't appear in her report, but Idk if there are any supporting her. Plus, any Dem Party support is tainted by filthy corporate PAC money, IF she's getting any.

and it may be that she's refusing money that wasn't offered.

There are ALWAYS corporations that will give to the willing, always.

I still say hardly anybody gives a ratzass about the issue and why her people think it needs to be up front is beyond me.

As I said, I'm not sure the PR advantage is worth the dollar loss. Could be about her personal ethics.

[O Really]

You too can buy her contributors list:

You must act fast:’ Katie Porter is selling her fundraising list — at a discount
The California Democrat is trying to quickly scoop up cash to spend in the final sprint of her U.S. Senate campaign.

https://www.politico.com/news/2024/02/2 ... e-00143018

[GoCubsGo]

You too can buy her contributors list:

You must act fast:’ Katie Porter is selling her fundraising list — at a discount
The California Democrat is trying to quickly scoop up cash to spend in the final sprint of her U.S. Senate campaign.

https://www.politico.com/news/2024/02/2 ... e-00143018

Is it me, or is this really fucking stupid?

[Vrede too]

You too can buy her contributors list:

You must act fast:’ Katie Porter is selling her fundraising list — at a discount
The California Democrat is trying to quickly scoop up cash to spend in the final sprint of her U.S. Senate campaign.

https://www.politico.com/news/2024/02/2 ... e-00143018

Is it me, or is this really fucking stupid?

Not necessarily.

... The latest polling has Porter behind Schiff, battling for second place with Republican Steve Garvey.

Buying a list doesn’t mean officials can just automatically raise the same money from those same donors. It’s hard to say how well Porter’s followers will translate to other candidates, given her distinct brand as an academic-turned-politician who drives a junk-filled minivan and totes around a little whiteboard to excoriate corporate executives who she believes have amassed unchecked power....

She's desperate to get that second place slot. The list is of little use to her if she doesn't.
The offer has gotten her some free media.
As an act of solidarity, she MIGHT have been planning on giving Schiff or other Dems the list if she's out of the running, anyhow. I've done that with lists I compiled for pols. Why not see if she can raise some money with it first?
The list will be of most use to progressives, not so much moderate Dems or RepuQs.
Donors above a certain amount - Is it up to $100 now? - are already publicly available from campaign finance reporting.
Back to the beginning - desperation.

[O Really]

More, for anybody not bored by California politics:

In Senate race, hardball tactics the norm

An ancient proverb is at play in the fight over a U.S. Senate seat held for 30 years by the late Dianne Feinstein.
The proverb: “The enemy of my enemy is my friend.”
Think Roosevelt and Churchill helping dictator Stalin repel Hitler in World War II. Or the Reagan administration backing Iraqi strongman Saddam Hussein in his war against anti-American Iran in the 1980s.
True, a Senate race isn’t the same as a shooting war. Not exactly. But as Prussian military theorist Carl von Clausewitz put it in the early 1800s: “Politics is war without bloodshed while war is politics with bloodshed.”
In war or politics, the old proverb speaks to a similar tactic: Do what’s necessary to remove your biggest threat.
In the race to fill Feinstein’s former seat, the Democratic front-runner’s biggest threat is not the leading Republican contender, but another Democrat. It’s practically impossible for a Republican to win a California Senate seat in a state where Democrats hold a nearly 2-to-1 voter registration advantage and the GOP has imploded.
That’s why Rep. Adam B. Schiff, D-Burbank — the front-runner based on polling and campaign cash — is going full bore to boost Republican former baseball star Steve Garvey in the March 5 primary election. Garvey, who has some name identification among older baseball fans but only pocket change in his campaign kitty and no political experience, would be an easy out in the November general election.
So Schiff is focused on promoting his preferred November opponent, Garvey. It reminds me of gerrymandering — now outlawed in California but still practiced in many states — in which politicians choose their own voters in redrawing legislative and congressional districts.
Politicians helping their weakest opponent — while odorous — makes strategic sense in California. Our open primary system allows everyone to vote on the same ballot, regardless of their party. And the top two vote-getters, regardless of party, advance to the November election. So it opens the door for two Democrats to compete against each other.
Schiff’s biggest political threat is fellow Democratic Rep. Katie Porter of Irvine. She could be a tough competitor in November. Porter currently is in a close fight with Garvey for the No. 2 runoff spot.
That’s why Schiff’s television ads are promoting Garvey among Republican viewers as a two-time Donald Trump supporter who could swing the Senate to GOP control. That’s ostensibly a knock on Garvey, but it’s intended to rally support for him among Republican viewers. Garvey doesn’t have any money to promote himself on TV, so Schiff is doing it for him.
Meanwhile, the way I view Schiff’s latest TV ad, he’s now also subtly promoting Rep. Barbara Lee, D-Oakland, who has been trailing the field in fourth place. It’s another way of helping Garvey.
Schiff is hoping that Lee will draw liberal and female votes away from Porter. Women dominate the Democratic voter base.
Schiff’s new TV spot uses footage from the four candidates’ first debate last month.
A narrator begins: “Democrats agree. Conservative Republican Steve Garvey is the wrong choice for the Senate.”
Then the camera cuts to Lee, who looks and sounds solid: “Our Republican opponent here on this stage has voted for Donald Trump twice.”
Schiff doesn’t spend much time on himself: “Mr. Garvey, you voted for him twice.”
Then comes Porter. Schiff’s ad maker couldn’t have chosen a worse clip of her. She looks agitated and awkward, waving her hand, presumably at Garvey. And she’s not understandable because someone is talking over her.
“It’s a really clever ad,” says Republican consultant Rob Stutzman. “It features Lee prominently. And Porter, you can barely see her face. … It’s three-dimensional chess.”
A Schiff campaign spokesperson denied that helping Lee was part of the plan. Regardless, it might well do that. And it’s likely to hurt Porter.
In the interest of good government and democracy, I’d rather see Porter or Lee run against Schiff in November. Garvey seems to possess little knowledge of national issues or have any policy agenda. He’s floating through the contest on his remaining name ID and GOP brand among Republican voters. Porter or Lee would generate a more interesting face-off and give voters a credible choice.
After Schiff began promoting Garvey on TV, Porter wrote on X: “Adam Schiff knows he will lose to me in November. That’s what this brazenly cynical ad is about — furthering his own political career, boxing out qualified Democratic women candidates. … We need honest leadership, not political games.”
But now Porter has descended from the high road and is playing the same political game she initially castigated Schiff for employing. She’s running an online ad designed to boost virtually unknown GOP candidate Eric Early among Republican voters. Her aim is to help Early draw Republican votes away from Garvey.
“MAGA Republican Eric Early proudly stands with Donald Trump while Steve Garvey refuses to tell us who he supports,” the Porter ad says. “Garvey claimed he might even vote for Joe Biden.”
It’s true that Garvey has dodged answering whom he supports for president this year.
Schiff and Porter are both cleverly playing by the rules. It’s not dirty. But as Porter first said, it’s blatantly cynical.
Gov. Gavin Newsom used the same tactic in 2018 while running against two high-profile Democrats — former Los Angeles Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa and state Treasurer John Chiang — in the gubernatorial primary.
Newsom ran a TV ad promoting obscure Republican John Cox and pushing him into the November runoff. Newsom ostensibly attacked Cox for “standing with Donald Trump.” That sold him to Republican voters.
Republican Garvey is now Democrat Schiff’s best friend — and Early is Porter’s — until both GOP also-rans are dropped cold on March 6.
Skelton is a Sacramento-based columnist for the Los Angeles Times, where this piece first appeared.

[GoCubsGo]

Guess you can't blame any of them for playing the game and playing it well.

It's the game that sucks.

BTW, what could Steve Garvey possibly be thinking?

Trying to be Oz or Herschel in an open primary, in California?

C'mon man.

[O Really]

Yeah, it's not like he was involved in politics before. Maybe Schiff just put him up as a straw man. (not really, but that makes as much sense as his thinking - whatever it is)

[billy.pilgrim]

More, for anybody not bored by California politics:

In Senate race, hardball tactics the norm

An ancient proverb is at play in the fight over a U.S. Senate seat held for 30 years by the late Dianne Feinstein.
The proverb: “The enemy of my enemy is my friend.”
Think Roosevelt and Churchill helping dictator Stalin repel Hitler in World War II. Or the Reagan administration backing Iraqi strongman Saddam Hussein in his war against anti-American Iran in the 1980s.
True, a Senate race isn’t the same as a shooting war. Not exactly. But as Prussian military theorist Carl von Clausewitz put it in the early 1800s: “Politics is war without bloodshed while war is politics with bloodshed.”
In war or politics, the old proverb speaks to a similar tactic: Do what’s necessary to remove your biggest threat.
In the race to fill Feinstein’s former seat, the Democratic front-runner’s biggest threat is not the leading Republican contender, but another Democrat. It’s practically impossible for a Republican to win a California Senate seat in a state where Democrats hold a nearly 2-to-1 voter registration advantage and the GOP has imploded.
That’s why Rep. Adam B. Schiff, D-Burbank — the front-runner based on polling and campaign cash — is going full bore to boost Republican former baseball star Steve Garvey in the March 5 primary election. Garvey, who has some name identification among older baseball fans but only pocket change in his campaign kitty and no political experience, would be an easy out in the November general election.
So Schiff is focused on promoting his preferred November opponent, Garvey. It reminds me of gerrymandering — now outlawed in California but still practiced in many states — in which politicians choose their own voters in redrawing legislative and congressional districts.
Politicians helping their weakest opponent — while odorous — makes strategic sense in California. Our open primary system allows everyone to vote on the same ballot, regardless of their party. And the top two vote-getters, regardless of party, advance to the November election. So it opens the door for two Democrats to compete against each other.
Schiff’s biggest political threat is fellow Democratic Rep. Katie Porter of Irvine. She could be a tough competitor in November. Porter currently is in a close fight with Garvey for the No. 2 runoff spot.
That’s why Schiff’s television ads are promoting Garvey among Republican viewers as a two-time Donald Trump supporter who could swing the Senate to GOP control. That’s ostensibly a knock on Garvey, but it’s intended to rally support for him among Republican viewers. Garvey doesn’t have any money to promote himself on TV, so Schiff is doing it for him.
Meanwhile, the way I view Schiff’s latest TV ad, he’s now also subtly promoting Rep. Barbara Lee, D-Oakland, who has been trailing the field in fourth place. It’s another way of helping Garvey.
Schiff is hoping that Lee will draw liberal and female votes away from Porter. Women dominate the Democratic voter base.
Schiff’s new TV spot uses footage from the four candidates’ first debate last month.
A narrator begins: “Democrats agree. Conservative Republican Steve Garvey is the wrong choice for the Senate.”
Then the camera cuts to Lee, who looks and sounds solid: “Our Republican opponent here on this stage has voted for Donald Trump twice.”
Schiff doesn’t spend much time on himself: “Mr. Garvey, you voted for him twice.”
Then comes Porter. Schiff’s ad maker couldn’t have chosen a worse clip of her. She looks agitated and awkward, waving her hand, presumably at Garvey. And she’s not understandable because someone is talking over her.
“It’s a really clever ad,” says Republican consultant Rob Stutzman. “It features Lee prominently. And Porter, you can barely see her face. … It’s three-dimensional chess.”
A Schiff campaign spokesperson denied that helping Lee was part of the plan. Regardless, it might well do that. And it’s likely to hurt Porter.
In the interest of good government and democracy, I’d rather see Porter or Lee run against Schiff in November. Garvey seems to possess little knowledge of national issues or have any policy agenda. He’s floating through the contest on his remaining name ID and GOP brand among Republican voters. Porter or Lee would generate a more interesting face-off and give voters a credible choice.
After Schiff began promoting Garvey on TV, Porter wrote on X: “Adam Schiff knows he will lose to me in November. That’s what this brazenly cynical ad is about — furthering his own political career, boxing out qualified Democratic women candidates. … We need honest leadership, not political games.”
But now Porter has descended from the high road and is playing the same political game she initially castigated Schiff for employing. She’s running an online ad designed to boost virtually unknown GOP candidate Eric Early among Republican voters. Her aim is to help Early draw Republican votes away from Garvey.
“MAGA Republican Eric Early proudly stands with Donald Trump while Steve Garvey refuses to tell us who he supports,” the Porter ad says. “Garvey claimed he might even vote for Joe Biden.”
It’s true that Garvey has dodged answering whom he supports for president this year.
Schiff and Porter are both cleverly playing by the rules. It’s not dirty. But as Porter first said, it’s blatantly cynical.
Gov. Gavin Newsom used the same tactic in 2018 while running against two high-profile Democrats — former Los Angeles Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa and state Treasurer John Chiang — in the gubernatorial primary.
Newsom ran a TV ad promoting obscure Republican John Cox and pushing him into the November runoff. Newsom ostensibly attacked Cox for “standing with Donald Trump.” That sold him to Republican voters.
Republican Garvey is now Democrat Schiff’s best friend — and Early is Porter’s — until both GOP also-rans are dropped cold on March 6.
Skelton is a Sacramento-based columnist for the Los Angeles Times, where this piece first appeared.

Roosevelt and Churchill helping dictator Stalin repel Hitler in World War II is a good example .

I strongly disagree about Iran. Iran was one of many clear examples of Americas and British anti-democratic powers aligning with some strongman to exploit people and resources for personal profits.

The Iranian people had every right to hate the powers that overthrew their democracy, stole their oil, polluted their environment and installed a brutal dictator.

[Vrede too]

Guess you can't blame any of them for playing the game and playing it well.

I can blame them for playing it dirty. I get the whole war analogy, but I think Schiff is fighting a battle he has won while sparking resentment among Dems for years and cynicism among average voters. He is bad for democracy and that's a war loss.

It's the game that sucks.

In many ways, but the game does not force front runners to be sleazy

BTW, what could Steve Garvey possibly be thinking?

Trying to be Oz or Herschel in an open primary, in California?

C'mon man.

He was recruited, offered something to make being a loser worthwhile, perhaps even gaining name recognition for a wannabe-pol child or somehow boosting their business interests. A lot of people are learning of him for the first time or are being reminded after decades of obscurity.

Maybe the feds are closing in on him and he's hoping to earn a TRE45QN pardon