• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

How the GOP used Twitter to stretch laws

voyager1

Well-known member
Joined
May 2, 2014
Messages
974
Reaction score
234
Location
Atlanta
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Liberal


Washington (CNN) - Republicans and outside groups used anonymous Twitter accounts to share internal polling data ahead of the midterm elections, CNN has learned, a practice that raises questions about whether they violated campaign finance laws that prohibit coordination.

The Twitter accounts were hidden in plain sight. The profiles were publicly available but meaningless without knowledge of how to find them and decode the information, according to a source with knowledge of the activities.

The practice is the latest effort in the quest by political operatives to exploit the murky world of campaign finance laws at a time when limits on spending in politics are eroding and regulators are being defanged.

The law says that outside groups, such as super PACs and non-profits, can spend freely on political causes as long as they don't coordinate their plans with campaigns. Sharing costly internal polls in private, for instance, could signal to the campaign committees where to focus precious time and resources.

The groups behind the operation had a sense of humor about what they were doing. One Twitter account was named after Bruno Gianelli, a fictional character in The West Wing who pressed his colleagues to use ethically questionable "soft money" to fund campaigns.

A typical tweet read: "CA-40/43-44/49-44/44-50/36-44/49-10/16/14-52-->49/476-10s." The source said posts like that -- which would look like gibberish to most people -- represented polling data for various House races.

Posting the information on Twitter, which is technically public, could provide a convenient loophole to the law — or could run afoul of it.

"It's a line that has not been defined. This is really on the cutting edge," said Paul S. Ryan, senior counsel at the Campaign Legal Center, a nonpartisan organization focused on campaign finance issues. "It might not be legal. It's a cutting edge practice that, to my knowledge, the Federal Election Commission has never before addressed to explicitly determine its legality or permissibility."

At least two outside groups and a Republican campaign committee had access to the information posted to the accounts, according to the source. They include American Crossroads, the super PAC founded by Karl Rove; American Action Network, a nonprofit advocacy group, and the National Republican Congressional Committee, which is the campaign arm for the House GOP.

Accounts deleted

The accounts that CNN reviewed were active in the months ahead of this month's election, which gave Republicans their largest majority in the House since World War II and control of the Senate. They were live until Nov. 3 but deleted minutes after CNN contacted the NRCC with questions.
How the GOP used Twitter to stretch election laws - CNN.com


I guess voter fraud is a real issue. If this actually goes anywhere this could be good ammo for us Dems to use in 2016. If it goes nowhere expect the Dems to use this same strategy. To me deleting the accounts is admission of guilt. If the GOP didn't do anything wrong then those accounts would still be active.
 
"It's a line that has not been defined. This is really on the cutting edge," said Paul S. Ryan, senior counsel at the Campaign Legal Center, a nonpartisan organization focused on campaign finance issues. "It might not be legal. It's a cutting edge practice that, to my knowledge, the Federal Election Commission has never before addressed to explicitly determine its legality or permissibility."

All the more evidence that our election laws are very out of date.
 


Washington (CNN) - Republicans and outside groups used anonymous Twitter accounts to share internal polling data ahead of the midterm elections, CNN has learned, a practice that raises questions about whether they violated campaign finance laws that prohibit coordination.

The Twitter accounts were hidden in plain sight. The profiles were publicly available but meaningless without knowledge of how to find them and decode the information, according to a source with knowledge of the activities.

The practice is the latest effort in the quest by political operatives to exploit the murky world of campaign finance laws at a time when limits on spending in politics are eroding and regulators are being defanged.

The law says that outside groups, such as super PACs and non-profits, can spend freely on political causes as long as they don't coordinate their plans with campaigns. Sharing costly internal polls in private, for instance, could signal to the campaign committees where to focus precious time and resources.

The groups behind the operation had a sense of humor about what they were doing. One Twitter account was named after Bruno Gianelli, a fictional character in The West Wing who pressed his colleagues to use ethically questionable "soft money" to fund campaigns.

A typical tweet read: "CA-40/43-44/49-44/44-50/36-44/49-10/16/14-52-->49/476-10s." The source said posts like that -- which would look like gibberish to most people -- represented polling data for various House races.

Posting the information on Twitter, which is technically public, could provide a convenient loophole to the law — or could run afoul of it.

"It's a line that has not been defined. This is really on the cutting edge," said Paul S. Ryan, senior counsel at the Campaign Legal Center, a nonpartisan organization focused on campaign finance issues. "It might not be legal. It's a cutting edge practice that, to my knowledge, the Federal Election Commission has never before addressed to explicitly determine its legality or permissibility."

At least two outside groups and a Republican campaign committee had access to the information posted to the accounts, according to the source. They include American Crossroads, the super PAC founded by Karl Rove; American Action Network, a nonprofit advocacy group, and the National Republican Congressional Committee, which is the campaign arm for the House GOP.

Accounts deleted

The accounts that CNN reviewed were active in the months ahead of this month's election, which gave Republicans their largest majority in the House since World War II and control of the Senate. They were live until Nov. 3 but deleted minutes after CNN contacted the NRCC with questions.
How the GOP used Twitter to stretch election laws - CNN.com
.
To me deleting the accounts is admission of guilt. If the GOP didn't do anything wrong then those accounts would still be active.

Kinda like IRS hard drives crashing?
 
1. I thought voter fraud doesn't exist

2. Even if you accept it does exist, this isn't "voter fraud"...it's, at best, campaign finance violations. Different things. It helps if your outrage actually makes sense.

3. This is still VERY speculative at this point as to legitimate proof of coordination. We had people screaming to high heavens about "due process" and "innocent until proven guilty" on this forum recently with things like Bowe Bergdahl. Right now we have an anonymous source making claims to CNN...hardly rock solid evidence of law breaking.

4. The FEC should absolutely investigate this. If there's instances where people violated the law they should be prosecuted. If it's found they didn't violate the law on a technicality, I'd suggest it's definitely an unethical move but sadly "unethical" and "politics" go hand in hand (see the most recent uproar over the machavellian means of passaging the ACA)

5. I don't think this will really have much impact on 2016 as I don't think it's something that will resonate much with the average toss up voter, nor significantly fire up the Democratic base or depress the Republican base.
 
All the more evidence that our election laws are very out of date.

Um, no it is saying that our free speech laws must be ignored in order to "update" our election laws. Making saying "vote for Joe Demorat" illegal but allow saying "vote for what Joe Demorat wants" as perfectly legal makes no sense at all. There is no way to allow free speech but not political free speech.
 
Um, no it is saying that our free speech laws must be ignored in order to "update" our election laws. Making saying "vote for Joe Demorat" illegal but allow saying "vote for what Joe Demorat wants" as perfectly legal makes no sense at all. There is no way to allow free speech but not political free speech.

Not necessarily. If one can manipulate the election process to spread information on results before poll closing / or campaign coordination in a manner described by the OP (and I still have some questions on this really being the case) then we have to address it somehow if this is proven to be a problem. To suggest otherwise is to engage in ideological fantasy.
 
Not necessarily. If one can manipulate the election process to spread information on results before poll closing / or campaign coordination in a manner described by the OP (and I still have some questions on this really being the case) then we have to address it somehow if this is proven to be a problem. To suggest otherwise is to engage in ideological fantasy.

These were not election results they were poll results. Many sources released poll results including the MSM.
 
1. I thought voter fraud doesn't exist

2. Even if you accept it does exist, this isn't "voter fraud"...it's, at best, campaign finance violations. Different things. It helps if your outrage actually makes sense.

3. This is still VERY speculative at this point as to legitimate proof of coordination. We had people screaming to high heavens about "due process" and "innocent until proven guilty" on this forum recently with things like Bowe Bergdahl. Right now we have an anonymous source making claims to CNN...hardly rock solid evidence of law breaking.

4. The FEC should absolutely investigate this. If there's instances where people violated the law they should be prosecuted. If it's found they didn't violate the law on a technicality, I'd suggest it's definitely an unethical move but sadly "unethical" and "politics" go hand in hand (see the most recent uproar over the machavellian means of passaging the ACA)

5. I don't think this will really have much impact on 2016 as I don't think it's something that will resonate much with the average toss up voter, nor significantly fire up the Democratic base or depress the Republican base.


Points 1&2: Just shows GOPers have no problem breaking the rules when it suits them.
Point 3: Then why delete the accounts?
Point 4: True.
Point 5: Probably true.
 
Points 1&2: Just shows GOPers have no problem breaking the rules when it suits them.

How does you claiming this is "voter fraud" when it would cleraly be a "campaign finance" issue show that the GOP "as no problem breaking rules when it suits them"?

You saying something factually incorrect somehow shows that? How?

Point 3: Then why delete the accounts?

Possibly to hide evidence. Possibly because they weren't using them any longer. Possibly because it was a rogue individual realizing he was getting attention. Who knows? Does it look shady? Absolutely! Does it "prove guilt"? No more than a lot of the things coming out in the Bergdahl case. Deleting the twitter accounts doesn't change that all we really have as far as hard evidence right now is the reports of anonymous source, that's it. I've been pretty consistent on this forum in the vast majority of these kind of "stories" with a stance of "I'll make a decision once we actually have some more concrete evidence, rather than making a knee jerk reaction". That's generally been my take, from mass murders to stupid backwards B headed ladies to various scandals...its the same here. There's very little concrete to go off of at the moment.
 
Last edited:


Washington (CNN) - Republicans and outside groups used anonymous Twitter accounts to share internal polling data ahead of the midterm elections, CNN has learned, a practice that raises questions about whether they violated campaign finance laws that prohibit coordination.

The Twitter accounts were hidden in plain sight. The profiles were publicly available but meaningless without knowledge of how to find them and decode the information, according to a source with knowledge of the activities.

The practice is the latest effort in the quest by political operatives to exploit the murky world of campaign finance laws at a time when limits on spending in politics are eroding and regulators are being defanged.

The law says that outside groups, such as super PACs and non-profits, can spend freely on political causes as long as they don't coordinate their plans with campaigns. Sharing costly internal polls in private, for instance, could signal to the campaign committees where to focus precious time and resources.

The groups behind the operation had a sense of humor about what they were doing. One Twitter account was named after Bruno Gianelli, a fictional character in The West Wing who pressed his colleagues to use ethically questionable "soft money" to fund campaigns.

A typical tweet read: "CA-40/43-44/49-44/44-50/36-44/49-10/16/14-52-->49/476-10s." The source said posts like that -- which would look like gibberish to most people -- represented polling data for various House races.

Posting the information on Twitter, which is technically public, could provide a convenient loophole to the law — or could run afoul of it.

"It's a line that has not been defined. This is really on the cutting edge," said Paul S. Ryan, senior counsel at the Campaign Legal Center, a nonpartisan organization focused on campaign finance issues. "It might not be legal. It's a cutting edge practice that, to my knowledge, the Federal Election Commission has never before addressed to explicitly determine its legality or permissibility."

At least two outside groups and a Republican campaign committee had access to the information posted to the accounts, according to the source. They include American Crossroads, the super PAC founded by Karl Rove; American Action Network, a nonprofit advocacy group, and the National Republican Congressional Committee, which is the campaign arm for the House GOP.

Accounts deleted

The accounts that CNN reviewed were active in the months ahead of this month's election, which gave Republicans their largest majority in the House since World War II and control of the Senate. They were live until Nov. 3 but deleted minutes after CNN contacted the NRCC with questions.
How the GOP used Twitter to stretch election laws - CNN.com


I guess voter fraud is a real issue. If this actually goes anywhere this could be good ammo for us Dems to use in 2016. If it goes nowhere expect the Dems to use this same strategy. To me deleting the accounts is admission of guilt. If the GOP didn't do anything wrong then those accounts would still be active.

First, there would have to be proof that these accounts exceeded the limitations on coordinated communications, and/or weren't properly reported.
 
If dems can blow hard enough to find some tiny spark behind the thin wisp of smoke here, they should go ahead and go for it. But methinks there's only the barest whiff of smoke in the air, let alone a full blown conflagration. Oh, and as others mentioned, none of this twitter nonsense is "voter fraud". Good luck trying to get all the mileage you can out of it without looking like a petty partisan hack in the process.
 
my guess is that both sides cheat their asses off equally.
 
my guess is that both sides cheat their asses off equally.

Agreed. I think the only thing they agree on is to make as many rules to disenfranchise third party candidates and keep their duopoly going at all costs.
 
Agreed. I think the only thing they agree on is to make as many rules to disenfranchise third party candidates and keep their duopoly going at all costs.

agreed. well said.
 
We try to make unlimited anonymous campaign funding acceptable via stipulations like "well they dont directly coordinate" but never seem to stop and ask whether unlimited anonymous donations should exist at all.
 
How does you claiming this is "voter fraud" when it would cleraly be a "campaign finance" issue show that the GOP "as no problem breaking rules when it suits them"?

You saying something factually incorrect somehow shows that? How?



Possibly to hide evidence. Possibly because they weren't using them any longer. Possibly because it was a rogue individual realizing he was getting attention. Who knows? Does it look shady? Absolutely! Does it "prove guilt"? No more than a lot of the things coming out in the Bergdahl case. Deleting the twitter accounts doesn't change that all we really have as far as hard evidence right now is the reports of anonymous source, that's it. I've been pretty consistent on this forum in the vast majority of these kind of "stories" with a stance of "I'll make a decision once we actually have some more concrete evidence, rather than making a knee jerk reaction". That's generally been my take, from mass murders to stupid backwards B headed ladies to various scandals...its the same here. There's very little concrete to go off of at the moment.

Agreed couldn't have said it better myself. So, it's this VS dead people and people voting multiple times for the other side. Also you have the fake allegations of the Libertarians accusing the Republicans of rigging the election in 2012. We'll see which one comes out as real. Despite the fact that neither political party admits that voter fraud exists except on the other side. Who will be the first to step up?
 
Agreed couldn't have said it better myself. So, it's this VS dead people and people voting multiple times for the other side. Also you have the fake allegations of the Libertarians accusing the Republicans of rigging the election in 2012. We'll see which one comes out as real. Despite the fact that neither political party admits that voter fraud exists except on the other side. Who will be the first to step up?

Wait, people voting multiple times "for the other side?" What, you don't think people vote more than once for Republicans?
 
:raises eyebrow: I thought campaigns selectively publicized internal polling data all the time?
 
:raises eyebrow: I thought campaigns selectively put out internal polling data all the time?

But expensive internal polling data from a PAC is now essentially donating that expense to the campaign directly, if they just send it to them.
 
But expensive internal polling data from a PAC is now essentially donating that expense to the campaign directly, if they just send it to them.

:shrug: whereas if they put it on a public forum, then they have publicized it, rather than colluding.
 
:shrug: whereas if they put it on a public forum, then they have publicized it, rather than colluding.

Right. But a coded format using pseudonyms and not advertised to the general public is stretching the definition of "publicized."

I mean, Obamacare was publicized so you have no problems with any supposed deception involved in its creation, right?
 
Wait, people voting multiple times "for the other side?" What, you don't think people vote more than once for Republicans?

I have never heard of these allegations before. If you can find them. I'd love to see it. It's always Republicans claiming that Dead and multiple people are voting for democrats in poorer communities.
 
Right. But a coded format using pseudonyms and not advertised to the general public is stretching the definition of "publicized."

Agree - it seems designed to meet the letter of the law while trying to circumvent it's intent.

I mean, Obamacare was publicized so you have no problems with any supposed deception involved in its creation, right?

Actually they broke a promise on that one - rather than having it up for a period of time early so folks could read through and figure it out, key sections were still being written as it was passed.
 
Agree - it seems designed to meet the letter of the law while trying to circumvent it's intent.



Actually they broke a promise on that one - rather than having it up for a period of time early so folks could read through and figure it out, key sections were still being written as it was passed.

:shrug: I read them, I knew the main points. Don't know why you guys didn't.
 
Back
Top Bottom