Former Rep. Katie Porter launches run for California governor
The Democrat is well known after a run for the Senate last year. But former Vice President Kamala Harris' decision about whether to run looms over the field.
You're viewing a single thread.
Democratic Strategists: the ratfucking will continue until moral improves.
Let's not forget that the DNC poured money into Republican campaigns via Schiff associated super PACs to exclude Porter from Californias open primary system so that Schiff wouldn't lose in November.
She'd have a chance if she ran as an independent, but if she runs as a D, the Dems consulting industry won't have her. I've worked with Porter before on both fundraising and some campaigns outside of elections and I'm confident she could win. However, if she insists on doing it inside the system...
Links on this Schiff bit? Hadn't heard that mentioned before.
This gets you started, but it went far far deeper than this article: https://www.thenation.com/article/politics/adam-schiffs-brazenly-cynical-campaign-strategy-boosts-a-republican/
These ads were paid with donations to Democratic campaigns after getting run through the DNC money blender.
So if you made act blue donations, you may have paid to ratfuck progressives.
Maybe I'm reading the context of your article wrong, but as far as I can tell, there was no funding of Republican campaigns either directly or indirectly through Schiff. They did some advertising which I think is shady to disregard the other candidates and only frame it between Schiff and Garvey, but I can't find any evidence or articles directly stating that DNC or Schiff money was funneled into Republican campaigns. Even Porter didn't make that claim from what I can tell.
Here's the breakdown of the campaign contributions and spending: https://www.opensecrets.org/members-of-congress/adam-schiff/
So what he did was shitty to the other Dems hoping to be on the ticket, and it worked because it edge them out of the race, but there was no direct contributions to the GOP candidate.
The difference between a direct contribution and paying for advertising to boost your campaign are practically nothing. That's the whole problem with SuperPACs.
Campaign money is there to boost the candidate campaign. Not sure what else you'd expect it to be used for, but I digress.
The original comment was saying he funneled money to the GOP side, and all I'm poinint out is that does not seem to be the case.
And I'm pointing out that it doesn't matter. Unless you think SuperPACs aren't funneling money to the campaign they're supporting.
Schiff is a corrupt POS. Bought and paid for.
