This page was last updated on September 10, 2016.
Hypocrisy reigns supreme when it comes to elections; Dan Sainovich; Beaver County Times; August 25, 2016.
Confusion I had dealing with “Dan/Danny Sainovich” letters from Industry/Ohioville is over. After he read an April 2011 critique of one of his letters, Mr. Sainovich was kind enough to clear things up. In an e-mail note, Mr. Sainovich wrote, “I thought I would shed some light on Dan vs Danny Sainovich. Danny is my father and we both live in Ohioville. His name is Danny and mine is Dan - you are correct that we do have opposite views on politics. Actually there is no jr or sr but we have come to an agreement to use jr and sr so that folks don’t get us mixed up.”
Previous critiques of Mr. Sainovich’s letters are here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, and here. Mr. Sainovich is/was an administrative organizer for SEIU District 1199P. According to its 2012 LM-2 report, SEIU National Headquarters spent $113.8 million for “Political Activities and Lobbying.” In 2010, 2008, and 2006, that figure was $55 million, $67 million, and $27 million, respectively.
Below is a detailed critique of the subject letter.
“There have been recent allegations of influence peddling by Hillary Clinton and her association with the Clinton Foundation. There is no question that the Clinton Foundation does good works.”
[RWC] I can neither confirm nor deny “There is no question that the Clinton Foundation does good works.”
“My question to all the people who are bashing her for the potential selling of access or preferential treatment, is that any different than politicians accepting and wooing important donors to their campaign? This letter is not meant to be partisan -- only a look at hypocritical positions. For instance, the NRA writes checks to politicians and you see a politician on an NRA stage holding up a firearm saying, ‘I am with you.’”
[RWC] DS falsely likens campaign contributions to contributions to the Clinton Foundation. There are Federal Election Commission (FEC) rules for direct contributions to campaigns and for Political Action Committees (PAC). For example, “Foreign nationals are prohibited from making any contributions or expenditures in connection with any election in the U.S.” There are also contribution limits, plus candidates and PACs must disclose their contributors. Also, DS failed to mention the speech-giving career of former-President Bill Clinton. There is more on this below.
None of the aforementioned FEC rules apply to the Clinton Foundation because, technically, it’s not a political organization. If you had contributed $5 million to the Clinton Foundation before or while Hillary Clinton (HRC) was Sec. of State, do you think you would have been denied a meeting with either Sec. Clinton or former-President Bill Clinton? The State Dept. and the Clinton Foundation entered into an “ethics agreement” in which the Clinton Foundation pledged not to accept contributions from foreign governments while Mrs. Clinton was in office. One loophole, however, allowed for continued contributions from foreign governments if they had contributed prior to the agreement. Saudi Arabia contributed somewhere from $10 million and $25 million according to the New York Times. The Clinton Foundation resumed accepting foreign contributions after Mrs. Clinton left office. The Clinton Foundation claims it will again stop accepting foreign contributions should Mrs. Clinton become president.
Something I nearly omitted was Mr. Clinton’s speech-giving career. While the Clinton Foundation may have partially stopped accepting foreign contributions while Mrs. Clinton was in office, her husband kept giving big payday speeches to foreign entities. According to PolitiFact, “So in the time Clinton left the White House in January 2001 and when his wife stepped down from secretary of state in February 2013, Clinton indeed gave 13 speeches for which he made more than $500,000. Eleven of those occurred since January 2009, when Hillary Clinton became secretary of state. Only two happened before then.” Further, all 11 of Mr. Clinton’s $500,000+ speeches were given to foreign entities.
I had to laugh when I read, “This letter is not meant to be partisan -- only a look at hypocritical positions.” As noted above, DS’s current or former employer contributes millions of dollars of union-member dues to “Political Activities and Lobbying,” yet DS didn’t mention it.
“You cannot condemn what Clinton is alleged to do but not be outraged at the Supreme Court decision on Citizen’s United whereby businesses can donate to political campaigns. We will never get corruption out of government while businesses and wealthy contributors have such an impact on elections.”
[RWC] Citizens United was about free speech and the right of anyone (including groups of people) to take out their own ads, commercials, etc. expressing their position regarding candidates and issues. As groups of people, the ruling includes corporations – the NAACP, GM, and so on - and labor unions.
DS’s assertion “the Supreme Court decision on Citizen’s United whereby businesses can donate to political campaigns” is false. Direct contributions to federal campaigns remain illegal for corporations and labor unions. DS could be taking his cue from President Obama’s (BHO) 2010 state-of-the-union speech in which BHO claimed “the Supreme Court reversed a century of law to open the floodgates for special interests — including foreign corporations — to spend without limit in our elections. Well I don’t think American elections should be bankrolled by America’s most powerful interests, or worse, by foreign entities.” BHO had to know his claim was false, making it a lie. As I noted above, “Foreign nationals are prohibited from making any contributions or expenditures in connection with any election in the U.S.”
The Citizens United v. FEC (CU) syllabus says, “In January 2008, appellant Citizens United, a nonprofit corporation, released a documentary (hereinafter Hillary) critical of then-Senator Hillary Clinton, a candidate for her party’s Presidential nomination. Anticipating that it would make Hillary available on cable television through video-on-demand within 30 days of primary elections, Citizens United produced television ads to run on broadcast and cable television. Concerned about possible civil and criminal penalties for violating §441b, it sought declaratory and injunctive relief, arguing that (1) §441b is unconstitutional as applied to Hillary; and (2) BCRA’s disclaimer, disclosure, and reporting requirements, BCRA §§201 and 311, were unconstitutional as applied to Hillary and the ads.”
As per the FEC website, “the BCRA, and FEC rules, contain provisions related to television and radio ads that refer to a clearly identified federal candidate and are distributed (targeted) to the relevant electorate within a particular time period before an election.” Translation: Political ads perfectly okay the day before “a particular time period” become illegal during that “particular time period.” Details are at the FEC link above. The Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002 (BCRA) added this limitation.
Some among us like to claim the idea of free speech protection for corporations and labor unions is new to CU. That too is false. As per the syllabus, “The Court has recognized that the First Amendment applies to corporations” since at least 1963 [NAACP (a corporation) v. Button].
“This is an issue that should be crossing party lines to work to end.”
[RWC] Blah, blah, blah.
===
Below is an exchange DS and I had on the BCT website beginning with DS’s response to my first comment. My first comment on the BCT website differs somewhat from this review because I added stuff I encountered writing a review for another letter. As of the “last updated” date above, DS had not responded to my comments about his preference for “publicly financed” campaigns.
saino Aug 27, 2016 9:31pm
“I do work for a union, I did not post it on behalf of the union I speak for myself. Yes Unions do donate but the amount of donations union vs employer/business is a small percentage. It would be better if campaigns were publicly financed. An yes, I voted for Obama and Clinton and will vote HRC this time. Trump is a terrible candidate but a good showman. He changes his position as with the wind.”
sdcox Aug 27, 2016 10:01pm (In case you’re wondering about “sdcox,” our household BCT subscription is my brother’s. I “sign” my comments so they’re not mistaken for my brother’s.)
“Mr. Sainovich, you favor publicly (taxpayer) financed campaigns. Why should I be forced to fund your candidates and vice versa?”
sdcox Aug 28, 2016 12:57pm
“For the sake of argument, let’s assume prohibiting private campaign contributions is constitutional. To be ‘fair,’ all contributions would need to be included. For example, a dollar value would need to be assigned to work done by unpaid volunteers, like manning phone banks, ‘door-knocking,’ and a bunch of other campaign activities.
“There would also need to be rules to determine eligible candidates, how much they would get, and so on.
“After dealing with official campaigns, you’d need to address individuals and groups not affiliated with a campaign who want to speak for or against policies and candidates. My guess is you’d need to pass an amendment to modify the First Amendment to allow suppression of ‘the freedom of speech’ and ‘the freedom of the press’ as they pertain to campaigns. Regarding the press, non-news items like editorials and letters-to-the-editor about candidates would need to be eliminated. Who will judge when a ‘news’ item crosses the line into supporting or bashing a candidate? How would the rules deal with an outlet that published only good – but true – news about a favored candidate and published only bad – but true – news about other candidates?
“Finally, how would you keep labor union management, ‘businesses and wealthy contributors’ from crafting these rules in their favor?”
© 2004-2016 Robert W. Cox, all rights reserved.