Seamus Campbell

It's been a while I have posted a new one. But, having a good memory and being a YouTube addict (especially for my Nerdfighteria stuff #dftba), I saw the gaping hole with this one from Sainato last week.

I am almost positive that Sainato didn't actually do any research before he posted his latest piece

. I made that clear in my reply.

I find it disturbing that you do not cite a single sentence from the leaked DNC documents. It would lead me to believe that you have not read any of the documents linked to on the page by Guccifer 2.0 to which you linked.

Lucky for you, I did.

While the documents did refer to Hillary Clinton in such a manner that would infer that the DNC considered Clinton to be the inevitable nominee, I cannot honestly say I read through the documents thoroughly, never once did I notice it discussing ways to "rig primaries for Clinton" as your title says. I did not see anything in reference to a primary campaign strategy. The closest I could find are talking points from a rough stump speech (https://guccifer2.files.wordpress.com/2016/06/3.doc).

Further, you claim, "In another internal memo released by the hacker, the DNC feeds reporters stories to perpetuate specific agendas—presumably including the baseless Bernie-Bro attacks manufactured to discredit Bernie Sanders." The only time I saw Sanders' name mentioned in the documents was in reference to attacks Donald Trump made against the Senator.

If I am looking at the wrong documents, please tell me. If you are looking at ones not listed in the blog post to which you linked (https://guccifer2.wordpress.com/2016/06/15/dnc/), I think it is in the best interest of your readers that you provide the proper links to the documents in short order.

It's been awhile, but here is my latest on the first post-defeat post of substance with inaccuracies.

For someone who, according to LinkedIn, majored in English Language and Literature/Letters, you do not seem to have a proper grasp on the English language.

The final sentence of your piece reads "The DNC, run by an overt Hillary Clinton supporter, Debbie Wasserman Schultz, has not surprisingly denied the request."

What exactly did you mean by that sentence? Did you mean that Ms. Wasserman Schultz unsurprisingly did deny the request of Senator Sanders? Or did you mean that she, in a surprise move, she approved the request due to the ambiguity as to where the negation was to apply? Your lack of proper punctuation makes it impossible to tell. No need to clarify because I already know the answer.

Further, I point you to the title of your piece "Co-Chair of Democratic Convention, Daniel Malloy, Likely To Face Ethics Investigation." The title would make it seem that he was co-chair of the whole convention (a position which, to the best of my knowledge, does not exist) rather than co-chair of a the convention's Platform Committee. In fact, you do not clarify until the last sentence of your second to last paragraph.

You fail to mention why Senator Sanders made the request that Governor Malloy be removed from his position which can be summed-up as: "he won't be fair because he endorsed Hillary and attacked me for opposing some gun control proposals." I wonder if you neglected to mention that point due to the groundswell of support for stricter gun control laws in light of what happened in Orlando this past weekend which prompted a 15 hour filibuster (though technically not one) on the Senate floor from which the Junior Senator from Vermont was noticeably absent.

You say "challenging Republican Michigan Governor Rick Snyder for the title of 'most disliked politician in America'" but never mentioned any poll numbers and, in fact, the article to which you link never once mentions Malloy. Instead, the article discusses how Snyder topped a Forbes list of The World's 19 Most Disappointing Leaders which included "Pharma-Bro" Martin Shkreli and Yahoo CEO Marissa Mayer (http://fortune.com/2016/03/30/most-disappointing-leaders).

Again, though, I point you to the title of your piece. In it, you say Governor Malloy is likely to face an ethics investigation but at no time do you say that he will be investigated but only the possibility that for Insurance Commissioner Katherine Wade.

With all of these editorial oversights by you that seem to cause ambiguous statements, contradictory statements, and factual inaccuracies, I almost feel it to be my duty to request that Observer Media do a better job at editing your publications before publishing.

Sainato's latest piece is on how a donor to Ted Cruz hedged his bets by also donating to Hillary. I didn't have to spend much time refuting this one.

A millionaire hedging his bets by donating to both parties... shocker. I guess you forget how this happens practically every day. Heck, Facebook is a corporate sponsor of both the Democratic and Republican National Conventions (the company's CEO, when he was registered in his family home of Dobbs Ferry was a member of the Independence Party though he never voted) (http://mashable.com/2016/05/06/facebook-sponsorship-conventions/).

Even the epitome of the Democratic presidents, Josiah Bartlet, took money from wealthy Republican donors (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ma3d-YdLjCs).

You seem to pick and choose which OpenSecrets pages to cite for your reporting, since when I use them to disprove your conspiracy theories about the Hillary Victory Fund, you ignore my comments.

OpenSecrets wrote a blog post 4 years ago about how Renaissance Technologies is notorious for hedging its bets (http://www.opensecrets.org/news/2012/04/hedged-bets-at-renaissance-technology/). For example, it donated to both candidates in the 2014 race for the NY 1st Congressional District: incumbent Rep. Tim Bishop and challenger state Sen. Lee Zeldin (https://www.opensecrets.org/orgs/recips.php?id=D000022219).

So, tell me, what is the story?

I think the last two paragraphs of my latest take-down of his reporting are the best.

I am shocked by this revelation that campaign operatives are not Boy and Girl Scouts with their choice of words because every major political show and movie in the past decade has been G rated. Next, are you going to tell me that reality shows are actually scripted?

You boil the issue of open primaries into a black and white issue when it is much more complex when it comes to New York.

While personally I believe in open primaries, New York's closed primary system has been around for decades and it has seemed to work. What you fail to mention is that it is supplemented by New York's electoral fusion system wherein candidates can run on multiple party lines. Typically, but not always, right-leaning politicians run on the Republican and Conservative Party lines and left-leaning politicians run on the Democratic and Working Families Party lines and the Independence Party (not to be confused with independent -no party affiliation- voters); as of November 2014, the Reform (formerly Stop Common Core) and Women's Equality Parties have been added for those politicians to run on, respectively.

I worked as a poll worker during the New York Presidential Primary. One voter asked for a ballot and said he was a member of the Conservative Party. Under the Help America Vote Act, we were required to hand him an affidavit ballot. He said that all Republicans are Conservatives (big and small "C").

What electoral fusion does is say that while people may not agree with a party, they can agree with a candidate that shares their ideals.

But here is the rub: when candidates from major parties -or allied 3rd parties- run for the Green Party nomination, they are accused of "party raiding" -the exact same reason why changes in party registration must be done before a general election (in this case, October 2015)- because the Green Party in New York does like to ally itself with any major party essentially because it does not want to sell out its ideals.

Political parties are private organizations and make its own rules. They do not like people coming in and deciding they are members out of the clear blue they are now members of the club.

While the politically polarized climate today is breeding ground for more people to not identify with one of two parties, the way the

While there has been a push nationally for open primaries (a buddy of mine works for an organization that is pushing for it), you yourself are from Albany. Do you honestly think any meaningful election reform will come from there?

I would like to finish by saying that you say there is a push for Senator Sanders to run an independent bid for President. What you do not mention is that if he were to do that, he would need to petition his way onto the ballot in each of the 50 states and the District of Columbia. However I have no read of him doing so. If you had done your research, you would see that to get on the ballot in November in Texas, he would need to collect approximately 42,000 signatures in, as of this writing, 10 days (https://ballotpedia.org/Filing_deadlines_and_signature_requirements_for_independent_presidential_candidates,_2016, https://www.texastribune.org/2016/03/01/presidential-race-fuels-large-texas-primary-turnou/). Ergo, he would need to change his campaign strategy from fighting all the way to the Democratic National Convention and laying off field staffers to skipping the convention and having those field organizers collect signatures.

Here we go again.

Perhaps you can shed some light about what you find to be corrupt? Do you forget that the Democratic National Committee is a private organization and, thus, is empowered to set its own rules?

Again, you claimed that the Hillary Victory Fund is a way to buy superdelegate votes. You have yet to prove it since its disbursements to date to not reflect any sort of bribery but rather a way to trickle-down her popularity to other political races which, winner, would become vital to advancing her agenda. Look for yourself (https://www.opensecrets.org/jfc/summary.php?id=C00586537).

Per Ms. Wasserman Schultz's statements about the purpose of superdelegates, David Pollak, former Chair of the New York State Democratic Committee, said on NY1's Inside City Hall on April 11th that superdelegates were actually created so notable elected officials would be credentialed to attend the convention (http://www.ny1.com/nyc/all-boroughs/inside-city-hall-shows/2016/04/11/inside-city-hall-4-11-16.html). (If you were reporting from New York City and not Florida, it would have been required watching for you.) Having been a 2012 delegate, I saw how hard it was for my friends to get passes to enter even the convention center in Charlotte. Though I cannot prove Mr. Pollak's claims to be true, knowing him personally, I trust what he says.

Also, I noticed you used a capitalized "I" in "Independent." To which type of "Independent" are you referring? Do you mean unaffiliated voters? Perhaps the Independence Party of New York, since that is your home state. Or is it the American Independent Party, which, advocated right-wing policies akin to the UKIP and, until recently, claimed actresses Emma Stone and Demi Moore as members (http://www.nydailynews.com/entertainment/gossip/emma-sone-demi-moore-registered-wrong-party-article-1.2605247)?

You take issue to corporate interests in the Democratic Party. How do you expect the party to pay its bills unless it appeals to special interests? Do you really expect average people to shell out the necessary millions of dollars needed to operate a major political party in years in which there is not a major election? Are you really that naive?

Today, I went off easy on Mr. Sainato with the latest story.

Though I agree with your premise about Ms. Wasserman Schultz you claim that Trevor Noah's question about the usage of Superdelegate trending on Twitter has no merit. The article from Yahoo! News to which you cite never once uses the words "trending" nor "Twitter." Though I do not doubt that the interview gained traction across social media, I believe it was likely due to an AJ+ video (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qQ2mWrcKjqA), which has a strong following with millennials (the same age group that is more likely to use social media). I should note that since Mr. Noah took control of The Daily Show from Jon Stewart, viewership has decreased with those same millennials (http://www.inquisitr.com/2648491/trevor-noahs-the-daily-show-ratings-turn-dangerously-low/).

Since I started a new job this week, I decided to be a bit lazy this time to Sainato"s piece from Wednesday.

You say "Ms. Clinton has applied condescension in criticizing young people for their enthusiastic support of Mr. Sanders." With the New York Primary coming up, I thought I should dispute that claim.

If you look at the list of delegates (http://www.elections.ny.gov:8080/reports/rwservlet?cmdkey=whofiled) and went through the names (it would require a copy of the NYS voter database, which I doubt you have a copy though it can easily be obtained by filling out a form on the BOE website) you will see more young people have pledged to support Hillary than Bernie.

Prominent members of the New York State Young Democrats that support Hillary include, but are not limited to (in no particular order): Matthew Silverstein, Michael Corbett, Stephanie Hausner, Daniel Torres, Svante Myrick, Kevin Carroll, and Ashley Dittus.

In fact, the only two well-known members of the New York State Young Democrats whom are supporting Bernie are Benjamin Yee (former Downstate Vice President and Young Democrats of America Vice President) and Katherine Brezler (LGBT Caucus Chair). There was another Bernie delegate that is a young democrat that is on that list but that person was deemed "invalid" (since that person is a friend, I will not use his/her name since I do not want to embarrass that person but, in full disclosure, I was going to vote for him/her).

I would like to point out one person from that list: Michael Corbett whom is currently President of the New York State Young Democrats.

I should note that your own colleague, Janaki Chadha, interviewed Mr. Corbett about youth support and reported "Mike Corbett, a delegate candidate in the 12th congressional district for Secretary Clinton, and President of the New York State Young Democrats, agreed, saying he thinks there’s more excitement for Ms. Clinton’s campaign than what is popularly believed. 'I know that the misnomer out there is that young people do not support Hillary Clinton but I think that’s exactly that, a misnomer'" (http://observer.com/2016/03/hillary-for-new-york-launches-organizing-efforts-in-advance-of-primary/).

Having been a delegate for President Obama in 2012, I can tell you personally how big a deal that is for a young person.

Methinks that Michael Sainato finally listened to my criticisms. He finally wrote a post that I did not need to fact check. (Well, I don't have to fact-check, but it's a fun mental exercise. I do the same to Facebook friends all the time.) I didn't agree with his thesis, but everything was accurate. To this, I responded:

Mr. Sainato, perhaps I am getting through to you. I will give you credit for actually making a cohesive argument this time about progressivism in the 90s is not what it is today and how her history does not make Secretary Clinton seem to be more liberal.

Frankly, I thought you would have gone into her embracing New York's $15/hour minimum wage since she has not advocated it nationwide since you tweeted this morning "New York and California needs to call out Hillary Clinton on her pretentious support for a $15 hr minimum wage by voting for Bernie." (Even though you blocked me on Twitter, since you still have a public profile.)

In all, nice work.

Though, I would still implore you to stop erroneously linking to your own stories.

For what it's worth, I emailed him (using a burner email address) to inquire why he blocked me. He replied "You creep me out." I decided to not respond, nor doxx him. (It's amazing what you can find online. In Fast and the Furious, when Dom, in refererence to Jesse, says "He can find anything on the web, anything about anyone," he could just have easily been refering to me.)

I guess he is unwilling to engage a person whom critiques and criticizes his reporting.

This is not a strong profile in courage for someone who is ostensibly a Bernie Sanders surrogate in the media.

I am beginning to feel ask if Michael Sainato doesn't read my comments. Here is his latest and my latest:

Mr. Sainato, I feel that you do not read my comments even though I inform you of them on Twitter. I say this because you some of the make the same points I critiqued you on before. If you wanted to write a story about David Brock and his questionable past, that would be worth reading; instead, you make it yet another anti-Clinton rant.

Again, you called the Hillary Victory Fund a "super PAC." I remind you that it is a joint fundraising committee so they can coordinate with campaigns unlike a super PAC (see my comment on http://observer.com/2016/03/hillarys-greatest-influences-will-always-be-her-biggest-donors/).

You fail to mention that Brad Woodhouse was previously DNC Communications Director. So, within Democratic Party circles, he is what Vice President Biden would call a "Big F--king Deal."

Now, you say that the ADLF had the "audacity to file three ethics complaints with the Federal Election Commission alleging Mr. Sanders—who does not have a super PAC—received too much money from individual donors, and accused the National Nurses Union of operating as a super PAC."

Firstly, FEC filings will show that the Sanders campaign received above-the-limit contributions. The FEC itself told Sanders 2016 via letter that it had broken contribution limits and showed whom those donors were (http://docquery.fec.gov/pdf/619/201602250300038619/201602250300038619.pdf).

Secondly, the media has called a group called "People for Bernie" a "super PAC;" this was the group calling for debates in Brooklyn. I happen to know one of the leaders of said group and asked her if they are, in fact, a super PAC. I have yet to get a reply. I have looked on the New York State Board of Elections (where most of the PFB leaders live) and Federal Elections Commission websites and have not found it listed in either. I have no clue what PFB is organized as but with the media calling it a "super PAC," it is worth investigating. Do you not agree?

Thirdly, National United Nurses has not made it a secret that its super PAC supports Sanders. It was featured in a New York Times article from January 28 (see http://www.nytimes.com/2016/01/29/us/politics/bernie-sanders-is-democrats-top-beneficiary-of-outside-spending-like-it-or-not.html). Super PACs can support whomever they wish but they cannot coordinate with the campaign. The article makes it seem that the demarcation line between the union and the super PAC is not clear. Further, it makes it unclear how much coordination (or lack thereof) there is with the Sanders campaign.

Again to Brad Woodhouse. You say "where he simultaneously advises Ms. Clinton’s campaign and helps their super PACs raise millions of dollars from wealthy contributors." Yet, I do not know of any role he plays with Hillary for America. Can you tell me what his title is?

When you say "Ms. Clinton should distance herself from individuals like Mr. Brock, whose shameless career in bad politics is a liability to her campaign," in the second clause, you link to another one of your stories. That story never mentions David Brock. It seems to be your modus operandi to link to your own stories when they have no relevance to your argument. Those hyperlinks make the average reader think you are citing sources when you are, in fact, linking to your own pieces.

To give another example, you include a hyperlink when you say, in a dependent clause, "while claiming she is not tied to wealthy donors and corporations;" that hyperlink goes into Emailgate. Do you think by crediting only yourself in your reporting makes your argument legitimate? The only logical reason I can think of for this random hyperlinking is to generate more visits and SEO as to enrich yourself. Please tell me if I am incorrect in my assessment.

This is almost getting boring. Here is his latest.

The title of your piece discusses bullying by Clinton supporters to have Sanders supporters change their preference. Yet, you do not discuss the documented bullying by Sanders supporters to have superdelegates committed to Clinton switch their affiliation (http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-election-superdelegates-idUSMTZSAPEC2TAP0RGD).

Speaking personally, an acquaintance of mine switched his affiliation from the Sanders to Clinton after the March 15 primary because he saw no clear path for the junior senator from Vermont to win the nomination and he felt it to be his duty to begin to rally behind the person whom he felt to be the presumptive nominee. He was not bullied or coaxed, he just used his own logic. I should note that he is also a high-ranking official within the Brooklyn Young Democrats and Kings County Democratic Committee. Until March 25th, he was spending his time registering new voters at his alma mater of Brooklyn College, which you claimed was not happening by party officials (http://observer.com/2016/03/the-countless-failings-of-the-dnc/). Since the registration cut-off date of March 25, he has been organizing rallies, phonebanks, and canvasses for Ms. Clinton. I remind you that, as of this writing, 15 days ago, he supported another candidate.

Though you would have to ask him for verification, I have little doubt that he would call himself a party reformer. Yet, for the good of the party, he has no intention of writing in "Bernie Sanders" in November.

You seem to neglect to consider a case such as my acquaintance.

Do you consider it fair to your readers to not provide counter-arguments or alternative ideas? I am not saying you should lack a position, but isn't the old adage that the best thing for a democracy is to have a well-informed electorate? Isn't the job of the 4th estate to be ensuring there is a well-informed electorate?

I find your hyperlinking methodology to be troublesome since many times it is not meant to use as a citation to substantiate your claims, as the average reader would expect. Rather, oftentimes, they are links to your own pieces. As a random example, you made "Democratic Party" a hyperlink. Normally, one would think it was a link to democrats.org; however, it is a link to an unrelated story about how President Obama endorsed Congresswoman and DNC Chairwoman Debbie Wasserman Schultz.

Being a website developer and understanding SEO practices, I would make the assumption that the reason you link to your own pieces is because you wish to increase the page's popularity to generate more revenue. In fact, I count only four external links in this entire piece; all but one of the internally-linked stories are written by you.

If you wish to blog about your own personal leanings, that is your right. But instead of buying a, as Robert Gibbs once put it, "fifteen dollar website," you have chosen to use Observer Media. Is that because you wish to be taken as a serious journalist or is it because you, like your preferred candidate, wish to have more "media coverage," (http://www.politico.com/blogs/2016-dem-primary-live-updates-and-results/2016/03/bernie-sanders-independent-media-coverage-220747) and whatever financial benefits come with that?

UPDATE: I got a reply!

I don't understand your friend switching already. Many states still have not had their primaries. Whether it seems inevitable or not that HRC is the nominee, don't taint the process. If we have to live with this foolish and corrupt super delegate system, it's only fair to allow every state to vote (your friend can vote his own personal choice) and only then should the super delegates officially pledge their support -- and to the winner of their state. The super delegates should represent what the majority of voters want in that state. This is fair and honest. NY has not had their primary yet. What if Bernie wins it by a decent margin? Shouldn't those NY super delegates pledge to him? Otherwise the popular vote is irrelevant. The super delegates pledging so early on only dissuades many people from voting and being engaged. They won't bother if it looks like the other candidate is already running away with it. It's no different than the media calling a primary with only 1% of the vote in -- and thousands still in line at the polls! Why wait in line to vote?! The super delegates pledging so early drastically influences the outcome in many primaries.

I replied:

I never called this person my friend, hence my word choice. That said, as I stated above, he changed his allegiance for the sake of party unity.

Superdelegates were never meant to represent the people of their respective states within the Democratic National Committee. They were created because of the landslide loss of George McGovern in 1972. The people chose a candidate too liberal to win in a general election so the DNC created an apparatus for party leaders, whom have experience in how to win elections, have a say in whom the party's standard-bearer should be.

However, since their creation, superdelegates have not changed the outcome of a nomination race.

If you want to learn more about the history of superdelegates, I would suggest you read https://pollways.bangordailynews.com/2016/02/11/national/why-democrats-superdelegates/ which also has a link to an even longer version history that was written by a friend of mine as his college thesis.

This morning, Michael Sainato published a new piece for the Observer that seemed to be a rant against the Democratic National Committee and Hillary Clinton and how the DNC -and I am not disputing this- is ostensibly backing Hillary Clinton over Bernie Sanders. Still, I thought it necessary to comment. This time, I had to split my comment reply into 3 parts because it was so long. In fact, it was so long that Chrome's spell-checker didn't work so what I published there I know now had typos.

Again, Mr. Sainato, in all due respect, I find several problems with your reporting.

Your claim that President Clinton broke Massachusetts Election Law has not yet been determined. As Snopes reports (http://www.snopes.com/clinton-campaign-laws-massachusetts/), "Brian McNiff, spokesman for the secretary of the commonwealth of Massachusetts, says shaking hands alone isn't prohibited. Explicit campaigning is what's banned within 150 feet of a polling places. 'Just meeting people doesn't constitute campaigning,' McNiff told CNN. 'We received no information that anything like that happened.' His office said it reached out to the Clinton campaign Tuesday 'just to remind them about the 150 foot rule.'" Your LinkedIn profile does not list any experience in law nor law enforcement, so until there is an indictment, perhaps you should cease accusations of illegal activity.

You claim that Secretary Clinton is buying superdelegate votes by establishing the Hillary Victory Fund. However, the two superdelegate-heavy states are New York and California are not members of the HVF (http://docquery.fec.gov/cgi-bin/forms/C00586537/1024982/). If Secretary Clinton was trying to buy support, logically, wouldn't she want to try to buy it from the states that would have the biggest influence?

Further, you are claiming that the New Hampshire Democratic Party received over $100,000 in donations from HVF. But OpenSecrets is reporting they have only received $74,700 (https://www.opensecrets.org/jfc/summary.php?id=C00586537). If OpenSecrets is wrong, can you please provide me with a link to a primary source to backup your claim?

I must say that I do find your criticism of The New York Times, arguing a pro-Hillary media bias, interesting since they are the journal of record that exposed the Secretary's email server. As for the various television news broadcasts, CBS, NBS, and ABC, in exchange for free use of the public airwaves, by law, must provide informational broadcasting (the news). Are you going to say that Emailgate and Benghazi are not newsworthy? If that "Fueled her Democratic support base," that can only be tangential to those people being interested in the world around them.

With your claim about the activity in Maricopa County, I would like to point out whom the local sheriff is and whom that person endorsed for President (hint: it is not Clinton). If you wish to start a conspiracy theory about the election there (as many have already done) I would start with the local law enforcement since they likely were needed to maintain law and order at each polling location (assuming the election procedures in Arizona are similar to those in New York). If you wish to argue that Maricopa County Recorder Helen Purcell should resign due to obvious incompetence, I would suggest having it be a separate piece.

Your argument "When voter turnout has been high, either Mr. Sanders won or voters were turned away and Ms. Clinton was victorious" does not seem to have a citation. Is this an oversight by you or is this so widely reported it was not worth mentioning. If the later is the case, your aforementioned argument about media bias has merit. I will also note that you do not say if the people you claim they were disenfranchised voted by affidavit ballot, something required by the federal Help America Vote Act. Perhaps you can touch on that?

If your argument is about voter disenfranchisement, why do you choose to not discuss the fact that caucuses have higher potential disenfranchisement rates due to them potentially taking several hours, not getting time off from work to caucus, finding childcare, etc. (and this is excluding the potential peer pressure to support a candidate from a person's loved ones since caucuses are done in public)? With primaries happening for several hours and most people being able to vote absentee, wouldn't a caucus versus primary discussion be more apt? In fact, if Nevada had a primary and not a caucus, would it still have been necessary for Senator Reid to "phone in favors" so members of the Culinary Workers Union would have been able to caucus? If anything, it sounds like the Senate Minority Leader was trying to ensure they were not disenfranchised. And though the Culinary Workers Union did endorse Ms. Clinton, I do believe it is illegal for union officials to even take members to and from the polls (though I do not claim to know Nevada election law).

As I pointed out to a friend a few weeks ago that linked to the same op-ed by Shaun King, what both you and Mr. King do not take into account when discussing voter registration drives at college campuses is that typically many times that is done by the school’s College/Young Democrats (and Republicans) chapters for a variety of reasons namely peer pressure to register and how many college campuses are closed and would not allow party officials on campus nor campaign. Now, while College Democrats of America and Young Democrats of America are technically subsidiaries of the DNC (the College Republican National Committee and Young Republican National Federation are separate organizations), local chapters are so far removed that they are largely autonomous. If you want to say that state and national parties should micro-manage the lives of college kids, while I would disagree, that would be your prerogative. Speaking personally, when I was the Director of New Media for the Fordham University chapter of the College Democrats, on our website, I added a register to vote widget the DNC created which would fill-out a printable voter registration form for whichever state a person chose. I know for a fact it was created with registering young voters in mind since a friend of mine, whom used to be a party official, was given a demonstration at a DNC meeting so she could present it to young and college democrats. Knowing that young people prefer to use digital tools to fill out forms and acting accordingly does not seem like a plan to suppress young people.

You say "The DNC has bent their own rules and regulations to assist Ms. Clinton." Yet, that piece you link to in that sentence, which is your own writing, does not once mention the Democratic National Committee. In fact, it is another opinion piece in which you state your case for why unions should not support Ms. Clinton. Then, you cite a Vice article about the arrangement between Hillary for America and the Carson City Democratic Party but it too contradicts you. The reporter, Pete Voelker, says "As far as I can tell, there aren't any rules against this type of arrangement, at least at the county level—although traditionally even local party chapters (though not individual party officials) have been expected to remain neutral in primary contests." That also contradicts your argument against DNC Finance Chairman Henry R. Muñoz III. Though, to be fair, the Politico article to which you link does state DNC rules which state "The Chairperson shall be responsible for ensuring that the national officers and staff of the Democratic National Committee maintain impartiality and even-handedness during the Democratic Party Presidential nominating process." In which case, it would come down to what "impartiality and even-handedness" would come down to in Mr. Muñoz's employment contract and any internal rules dictate, I doubt you have been privy to either.

I do give you credit for adding citations. However, I find it comical that some say the exact opposite of what you argue. I do find it curious that you never do cite FEC filings or the official DNC rules in your stories since they would be primary sources and are readily available but rather use secondhand reports. Since you seem to enjoy citing your own reporting, it makes me wonder if your freelance contract with Observer Media is a per view arrangement.

There is a freelance reporter for The Observer named Michael Sainato. He has been covering the Presidential election on the Democratic side. After reading a few sentences of any story he writes, you can easily get a sense of whom he supports for President. If you go on his Twitter (@msainat1), it is even more abundantly clear.

I have no issue with journalists having political beliefs. It is when their political beliefs bleed into what is supposed to be independent journalism, I bceome irritated. For example, I happen to know that NY1's Zack Fink is a registered Republican from the 65th Assembly District; however, I never saw any sort of bias when he reported on his Assemblyman, former Democratic Speaker Sheldon Silver.

Mr. Sainato I will say is a fine journalist. He blew the horn about how Democratic National Committee Chairwoman Debbie Wasserman-Shultz is abusing her power by preventing a primary challenger from having access to the Florida Democratic voter file. However, his postings are full of false equivelences.

He has accused Hillary for America of buying DNC superdelegates votes by establishing a joint fundraising committee with the DNC and several state parties. But if one looks at when the committee was established and when the superdelegates would have endorsed, it does not add-up since many unpledged delegates announced their choice before the committee was established in the 4th quarter of 2015. If he provided links to Federal Elections Commission filings and OpenSecrets, that would be clear. Instead, he links to other news stories that back-up his claim (using a secondary source instead of a primary source). Further, keeping with this superdelegate buying, it would make sense to have a JFC with the two most superdelegate-heavy states of New York and California, yet, those state parties are not members.

To be fair, his posts are listed as "opinion" pieces but are placed in the Observer's politics news section.

But, today, after he incorrectly reported that the Hillary Victory Fund is a super PAC, I finally had it and published this comment:

The Hillary Victory Fund is NOT a Super PAC, as your own linked reporting explains, it is a joint fundraising committee. A Super PAC is legally classified as a "independent expenditure committee" and cannot coordinate with candidates or party committees. Thus, you just contradicted yourself.

As defined by OpenSecrets a "joint fundraising committees can be created by two or more candidates, PACs or party committees to share the costs of fundraising, and split the proceeds. Participants in the JFC can't take any more money from a donor than they could if the money was given directly, but this vehicle allows a donor to write one very large check. Before the 2014 McCutcheon v. FEC decision, the checks donors wrote to JFCs were subject to overall aggregate limits. Following the decision, those limits were removed, opening up the possibility of JFCs that involve many candidates or committees, which can then solicit one donor for a mega-contribution." Thus, HVF, by definition, is coordinating with both state parties

If you look at the OpenSecrets page for HVF (https://www.opensecrets.org/jfc/summary.php?id=C00586537), you will see that each state party is getting a roughly equal amount. This reality seems to contradict your previous reporting that "the Clinton campaign controls the money and decides which states receive it after the campaign and the DNC get their cut" because it implys favoritism when the numbers do not seem to back that up.

If you wish to debate the ethics of a state and/or national party joining a JFC, that is your perogative. But, do you not think it is in a party's best interest to raise as much as possible as help ensure as many national and state level political campaign wins as possible? At sheer face value, that is what is happening. Hillary for America is working to win as many Democratic races as possible.

Senator Sanders, according to OpenSecrets, has raised roughly $20,000,000 less than Secretary Clinton and without creating a joint fundraisng committee. If he had established one, would you honestly give the same level of scruitny to him as you do to her? To pass his progressive agenda, Senator Sanders would need a Democratic Congress, so wouldn't it be in his best interest to try to raise money for Democratic candidates across the nation? This seems reminsicent of how he had no issue taking DSCC funds but, yet, I do not recall receiving a DSCC email or letter donation soilitation from him.

If you wish to discuss who is donating to whom, that is fair reporting. But, if you are going to mention her 2000 Senate campaign, for example, in the sake of fairness, shouldn't you also say that her contributions from the investment and securities industry was smaller than that of her opponent, then-Rep. Rick Lazio? Also, shouldn't you maybe consider the most profitable and common industries in the liberal haven of New York City (hint: Senator Ted Cruz has denounced them) and how that it makes it more likely she would have donors from such industries? Perhaps you should consider comparing and contrasting the most common professions in New York versus Vermont. Unless you are a fortune teller (in which case, why haven't you yet struck it rich?), perhaps you should cease using such predictive declarative statements as "if she [Ms. Clinton] is elected president, all remaining shreds of democracy in America will digress deeper into an oligarchy." This all comes as constructive cricism.

Mr. Sainato, I understand that you support Senator Sanders (your Twitter account has made that abundantly clear) but do you think it fair to use Observer Media as your own personal blog to promote your preferred candidate and not maintain the level of impartiality that is expected of journalists?