WaPo: Payments to company owned by Ocasio-Cortez aide come under scrutiny

[lapucelle]

Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-N.Y.)’s chief of staff helped establish two political action committees [Brand New Congress and Justice Democrats] that paid a company he ran [Brand New Congress LLC} more than $1 million in 2016 and 2017, federal campaign finance records show.

Brand New Congress LLC, the company owned by Saikat Chakrabarti, was also paid $18,880 for strategic consulting by Ocasio-Cortez’s congressional campaign in 2017, records show. The following year, he worked as a volunteer to manage her campaign, according to his LinkedIn profile.

The arrangement, first reported by conservative outlets, left hidden who ultimately profited from the payments — a sharp juxtaposition with Ocasio-Cortez’s calls for transparency in politics. She has called dark money “the enemy to democracy.”

snip========================================================

“There is no violation” of campaign finance law, Ocasio-Cortez told Fox News on Tuesday. It is unclear whether she had knowledge of the payments to Chakrabarti’s company.

snip========================================================

David Mitrani, attorney for the PACs, the LLC and Ocasio-Cortez’s campaign, said in a statement Tuesday that all four entities “fully complied with the law and the highest ethical standards.”

snip===============================

In 2016 and 2017, the two PACs reported paying the LLC $1.07 million, records show.
Campaign finance experts said the relationship between Chakrabarti’s PACs and the limited-liability company obfuscated who received the payments — and raised questions about who benefited.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/payments-to-corporation-owned-by-ocasio-cortez-aide-come-under-scrutiny/2019/03/05/ae5045ee-3f61-11e9-9361-301ffb5bd5e6_story.html?utm_term=.fc8a3ff34144

[EndGOPPropaganda]

1. I don't believe this. GOP media pushed it for a FULL DAY before anyone else.

This is GOP dirty pool. I don't believe ANY story that started on Fox/ZeroHedge. No mattter whether the Post reports it out or not. And the Post didn't report it out - this is incomplete.

[Hortensis]

15. The Washington Post virtually always lags because its

editorial vetting process requires confirmation of all significant information. Same for all reputable investigative journalism sources.

How significant this is, we don't know -- may not be much at all and too early to get excited.

But anyone who's been around a while knows that the more zealous political activists are -- on right or left -- the more likely they are to ignore ethical and legal impediments to their righteous actions. That's just the way radicals and reactionaries tend to roll, and the guys running this little pair of Siamese-twin PACs are unquestionably radicals determined to battle and defeat the evil "establishment" the Democratic Party is a big part of. And of course they don't respect FEC rules.

Btw, these organizations were formed well before Ocasio ran for office and became more heavily involved with them. She did bring two of their leaders to DC with her, but they've caused her trouble more than once. Maybe the guys are having a little problem accepting the transfer of power and authority from them to her, and also feeling a need to act out their principles more than works for Congresswoman Ocasio-Cortez?

It might not be a bad thing if things like this coming out eventually made them feel their important work called them elsewhere.

[EndGOPPropaganda]

19. No. This was created by the GOP.

This is a case of selective amplification by the rightwing press which eventually got the legitimate media to focus on it.

(It may be something real— we will see. But the caravan was real too, but it was just like a caravan a few months before. We only TALKED about this caravan because of selective rightwing amplification.)

[Hortensis]

21. The truth is whatever. it. is.

Last edited Fri Mar 8, 2019, 05:10 AM - Edit history (1)

Sorry, but claiming articles in well regarded journals are all propaganda plants by the GOP sounds like something from down the rabbit hole. Yes, it happens, but actually fairly rarely with journals like the WaPo.

What's now come out about this in a number of them is appropriately objective and uncondemning, mostly pointing out that a right-wing group filed a complaint and that it's found that dispersed funds were reported but not explained in the detail required.

Reminds me that refusing information that doesn't fit already-formed pictures is how trumpster types became no longer able to tell truth from untruth, which you've probably witnessed if you've ever tried to explain to one that Trump is not a wise and honorable man who cares about them and is devoted to their wellbeing.

[EndGOPPropaganda]

22. The Post may not have run this without rightwing amplification

This is largely a nothing story for now.

I read the Post daily. It’s a truthful paper. But it does make choices about what to run. AOC’s guy didn’t draw salary from these PACs; it could well have been media buys or similar. The Post would likely NOT have run any story about this without the rightwing press braying about it for 12 hours.

Selective amplification by the rightwing propaganda machine is a real thing.

[Hortensis]

23. You're right that this one's mostly a nothing story so far.

But it was the right that first was trying to turn it into a bonfire; googling turned up dozens of articles rushing to add phony accelerant. It was journals like the WaPo then stepping in to report on what they found that kicked it down to actual size.

The right's lies about the boyfriend aren't going anywhere, so they're busy trying to build another fire out of allegations that Ocasio-Cortez and Chakrabarti had "control" of JD when it was a PAC working to elect her. Two former Republican swamp-creature FEC commissioners, both with histories of supporting voter suppression, have said it'd be very bad if true, which is being turned into is she going to jail-type stuff.

Imo, you should WANT media like the WaPo, AP, NBC, etc., looking into this and reporting what they find. When new right-wing attacks begin on something I care about, I'm always waiting impatiently through that inevitable delay to see what major investigative media will find and report.

[EndGOPPropaganda]

33. Ok fair enough

That’s a fair point.

(Though I wish the legitimate media would report, in their stories, When something they are covering is the target of amplification campaign from the right wing media)

[Hortensis]

34. Make it more emphatic, yes. Supposedly ethically objective

wording can be very misleading for those who don't interpret past the blandness. And back to your first point, it's also sometimes misused to mislead.

[EndGOPPropaganda]

35. This is a really important poont

As someone who grew up in a working class area and then went to a fancy school (and now mostly knows people who read WaPo and the NYT), you’re exactly right.

The communication style that is used by highly educated people is often subtle. Journalists expect their readers to be able to understand hints.

Most of the country doesn’t talk like that and doesn’t enjoy that. Directness is important.

[Hortensis]

36. Agree, though all play an important role. There's a

reason, of course, why responsible direct talkers who set themselves to explain to others all read several papers/journals of NYT stature themselves.

Btw, I saw another post of yours someplace, and I wouldn't bet a nickle that judge doesn't watch Fox, at least sometimes.

[sheshe2]

2. I wish to hear more about this.

I wish to hear all the facts, pro and con.

[gratuitous]

3. More mud flung at the wall

Thank you, Washington Post. You can't even bring yourselves to call Trump a liar, but you can flyspeck a freshman congresswoman's campaign finances.

[sheshe2]

4. Pretty sure it is the FEC and not WAPO that is investigating,

WAPO has a pay wall and I had to look it up elsewhere.

[lapucelle]

7. It's perfectly legal according to the lawyer who represents the two PACs and the LLC

and others like Paul Krugman.

The problem (for those who might have a problem) is with the lack of transparency on the part of the two PACs.

No one is alleging that Ocasio-Cortez did anything wrong or that she even knew about the arrangement. The story in WaPO is not about her. It's about Saikat Chakrabarti.

https://www.followthemoney.org/entity-details?eid=44209287&default=contributor

[WeekiWater]

13. Someone here once told me.....

Right click on the link and select "open in incognito window."

It works on my computer. I have no problem reading WP articles when I do that.

I don't know if there are any draw-backs to doing it like this other than gaming the system a bit.

[sheshe2]

17. Thanks!

[Cha]

25. Wow.. it worked! My option

is "Open in new window".

Mahalo, WikiWater!

[EndGOPPropaganda]

20. FEC is defanged by the GOP.

The FEC head, a Dem, recently resigned because Republicans had corrupted the FEC.

[ehrnst]

9. WAPO "flyspecking?"

Really? If they were wanting to "sling mud" at AOC, why would they have published these articles?

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2019/02/16/conservatives-cant-stop-obsessing-over-ocasio-cortez-their-latest-target-her-boyfriend/


https://www.washingtonpost.com/lifestyle/style/the-ravenous-hysteria-over-alexandria-ocasio-cortez-just-reached-a-new-level-of-crazy/2019/03/04/107e176a-3e7b-11e9-922c-64d6b7840b82_story.html

https://www.washingtonpost.com/outlook/2019/03/01/ocasio-cortez-new-house-members-showed-how-do-hearing-right/

[tblue37]

29. WaLl is the paper that has mounted Trump's 9,000 lies in office. nt

[rickford66]

5. Is a Russian or porn star involved ?

[manor321]

6. Why is this bullshit story from yesterday posted here, and why are people reccing it?

Aha -- so that's where the "lock her up" thing about AOC is coming from; some of her campaign funds went to a consulting group, which is ... normal practice and completely legal. But if a progressive does it, it becomes a huge scandal.

Link to tweet

[lapucelle]

8. Everyone agrees that Ocasio-Cortez did nothing wrong and that the arrangement was legal

Brand New Congress and Justice Democrats should have been more transparent.

Campaign finance experts said the relationship between Chakrabarti’s PACs and the limited-liability company obfuscated who received the payments — and raised questions about who benefited.

“In a normal situation, if all you saw was a PAC that disbursed hundreds of thousands of dollars to an affiliated entity to pay the salaries of people who were really working for the PAC, that looks like . . . a PAC that takes in money to engage in political activity but is actually enriching its owners,” said Adav Noti, former Federal Election Commission lawyer who is now chief of staff of the Campaign Legal Center, a group that advocates for greater transparency in campaign finance.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/payments-to-corporation-owned-by-ocasio-cortez-aide-come-under-scrutiny/2019/03/05/ae5045ee-3f61-11e9-9361-301ffb5bd5e6_story.html?utm_term=.fc8a3ff34144

https://campaignlegal.org/about

[ehrnst]

10. This PAC isn't required to be transparent about the recipients of their $$.

In his statement, Mitrani said that the PACs did not disclose information about the ultimate recipients of the money because they were not required to do so by the FEC.

They didn't want to reveal who the recipients of the money were, and they are not required to. Candidates use PACs for various reasons, which are their own, and aren't required to be transparent about all their financial transaction.

Our Revolution lost many of their staffers shortly after it's founding, because they had issues with the lack of required financial transparency in the PAC structure. That is however, legal, and Our Revolution is still around.

[RandiFan1290]

11. Good question

Keep an eye on those 'recs'

[ehrnst]

12. "Keep an eye on those 'recs'

What is that supposed to mean?

[Cha]

27. Ikr.. what's the poster have in mind

for those of us who REC it? Some for Transparency.. at least one because of what looked like a "threat".

[WeekiWater]

14. I gave it a recommend for you.

I wonder if it will make a "list" somewhere. I doubt many are that petty.

[George II]

16. What?

[musicblind]

24. I had no interest in rec'ing this but your threat makes me want to.

I'm generally selective on what I rec, but I'm not fond of Democrats implying threats toward other Democrats because of some purity test.

That's not what this site is about.

[Cha]

26. I REC it for Transparency.. What's you gonna

do about it?

[Inkfreak]

30. Can we get a powerpoint presentation of the Rec List???!!

[hack89]

32. I rec'd because I don't like threats from purity monitors. Nt

[Volaris]

18. Yeah...this kinda smells like a ...well, maybe not a ratfucking, exactly ,

But it sure as hell seems the media wants to do something with the hard-on they have for anything approaching (or in this case not) Crimes by Democrats.

Hey wapo...did you happen to notice that DONALD TRUMP WORKS FOR RUSSIA?

asking for a friend k thnx bye.

[uponit7771]

28. FUD

[spanone]

31. The right is scared shitless of her.....

[melman]

37. Yes they are