From:  Lyn Utrecht <lutrecht@up-law.com>
Sent time:  Mon, 23 May 2016 21:25:42 +0000
To:   Nick Merrill <nmerrill@hillaryclinton.com>
Subject:  Re: HillPAC
 

Hi Nick - my suggestion is that we make the point in your topline quote that "HillPAC was dormant and not active at all when she was a presidential candidate in 2007 and 2008. Thus your premise that HillPAC somehow supported 'the campaign', and your questions 1, 4 and 5 are erroneous, since there was no HillPAC when she was a presidential candidate and she was not a presidential candidate when HillPAC became active again in June 2008."

Even though the following comments are repetitive I would consider adding them:

Re Q1- "HillPAC could not have subsidized 'the campaign' because it did nothing during 2007 and 2008 when she was a presidential candidate."

Re Q3- recommend adding "the list was not rented only for the purpose of raising funds for HillPAC to give to candidates. Having been dormant during 2007 and 2008, HillPAC determined that one of the fastest and most productive ways of using the list to benefit candidates was to email supporters--in many instances urging them to make contributions directly to candidates. This was a much faster and more efficient way to raise larger sums for these candidates."

Re Q4- recommend adding "HillPAC and the presidential campaign only shared office space and employees after the campaign was over. You can see from the FEC reports that the campaign paid its own debts and winding down costs."

Re Q5- recommend adding "HillPAC could not 'benefit' the campaign because it did nothing while she was a candidate."

Lyn


Sent from my iPad

On May 23, 2016, at 3:42 PM, Nick Merrill > wrote:

Hello friends. This story is likely going to run tomorrow despite my efforts to shame Ms. Koop for her lousy reporting. She has an editor now and is running this in The Intercept, which for those of you not familiar is a fairly new online publication whose stated mission is to be provocative, and does so by utilizing looser editorial standards. Glen Greenwald and the other folks who helping Edward Snowden leak what he stole from the USG founded the outlet, to give you an idea of what we're dealing with.

So with that in mind, I have answered every single one of Emily's questions below with the information you shared and by culling old spreadsheets that we used last time this came up in 2009 that help paint a broader picture of the PAC and it's impact. You'll see I'm a little informal with her and challenge her premise throughout, which is not a tactic I'd normally use but I think makes sense in this case. Any of the stated facts and figures are pulled from old emails that Philippe shared with me.

I think the best thing to do would be to give a topline quote that affirmatively states what HillPAC accomplished and reject the premise of the story, following by the answers to Kopp's specific questions on background. I've pasted below and put in the attached in case you want to track changes.

Emily's deadline is this evening so edits would be appreciated.

Nick

_____________

Topline Quote:
“From its inception in 2001 through the 2008 election cycle, HillPAC held nearly 1000 events for candidates up and down the ballot and contributed several million dollars to Democratic candidates and causes. HillPAC held itself to the highest ethical standards, and any implication to the contrary by those with partisan motives is wholly without merit.”

Questions with Draft Answers (On Background)


1. According to a nonpartisan campaign finance expert, Hill PAC appears to have functioned chiefly as a way to subsidize the campaign while sidestepping normal contribution limits. In what way did it not function simply as a slush fund?

I’ve asked you this previously, is that based on anything or just purely conjecture? Regardless, I think that my answers below thoroughly address all of your questions And don’t leave much room for such an accusation.


2. Why shouldn’t people be surprised that a leadership PAC contributed only 11 percent of its donations to other candidates?

This seems to represent a fundamental misunderstanding of how a PAC functions.

Over the course of it’s existence, HillPAC donated several million dollars to candidates up and down the ballot across the election cycles. Additionally, it held almost 1000 events in support of Democratic candidates up and down the ballot. Often, events and other efforts by a PAC do not result in donations to the PAC, but instead donations are made directly to a candidate, committee, or a cause. To give you just one example, If you look at this as you seem to be, HillPAC donated $15,000 to the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee in 2008. But in addition to that, Senator Clinton raised $1,165,000 that went directly to them through events in California, Washington DC, Massachusetts, and North Carolina. This would explain why what you’re saying about percentages is not an accurate reflection of the efforts or the efficacy of the PAC.


3. Why did Hill PAC spend twice as much on an email list than it did on contributions? It seems like an excessive purchase in part because the PAC failed to attract small donors from using the list. In what way was the “list rental” not simply a dodge for making otherwise illegal campaign contributions? Why did payment for the list not occur until January?

Again, I’m concerned that as we go on you seem to be upping the rhetoric and conjecture of your questions without basis in fact or further reporting, particularly since I gave you extensive off the record guidance to assist in this regard you at the outset. That said, I answered the first part of your question above. As to the list rental and the timing of payments, let me lay that out.

You are correct that HillPAC was billed in January of 2009 for it’s use by HillPAC during the 2008 cycle between the time then-Senator Clinton suspended her campaign in June and the general election in November. That’s simply when they were billed, period. HillPAC received an invoice on January 27, 2009 and paid in full on January 28, 2009.

As to costs, in support of its activities, HillPAC, along with dozens of other candidates and causes, rented the 2008 Hillary Clinton for President email list. During 2008, the Hillary Clinton for President (HCFP) list was available for rent for either a one-time rental (at a cost of approximately $274,000) or a rental with multiple uses (at a cost of approximately $822,000). Under FEC rules, HillPAC was required to pay fair market value for its use of the list, which requires validation through commercial list brokers, based on the size and quality of the list.

When the list was valued for rental, pricing from a handful of commercial vendors was used, along with the most recent past Presidential campaign at the time, which was Kerry ‘04.

Here’s some information from the public record that we put together in case you didn’t have a chance to do this research yourself. As you can see, this pricing is commensurate with that of other similar lists. These are dollar rates per 1000 names:



4. Given Hill PAC shared an office space and most of its staff with the 2008 campaign, were there any firewalls in place to separate duties and expenses related to Hill PAC and duties and expenses related to the campaign as it wound down and settled outstanding debts?

I’m not sure what you’re referring to specifically, but the answer is yes. The PAC was dormant during Senator Clinton’s run for President, with about $5,000 in it’s accounts, and was only brought back up and running after Senator Clinton suspended her campaign in 2008.

Earlier in our exchanges you raised concern about staff being on more than one payroll at a time at various points throughout Senator Clinton’s time in Congress. I would argue that such an arrangement makes my point for me. Everyone had distinct duties, and there is nothing to suggest anything contrary to that. And those paid by HillPAC were compensated as such because they were doing work for HillPAC. Any analysis of the activities of those who worked at HillPAC support this. Those who may have been on more than one payroll were doing so in accordance with the rules that address the very concerns you cite, to make sure that the work they were doing for each entity was being compensated for by that entity. So there is nothing to suggest anyone was not being paid by the appropriate entity and doing work for that entity. It’s a very common arrangement to prevent against exactly what you’re implying, to ensure that lines are clear.


5. A central argument Clinton has made to primary voters is that she has spent a lifetime fundraising for down ballot candidates. Do Hill PAC's finances hurt or strengthen that case? What do you say to people who see parallels between how Hill PAC was used to benefit the campaign and campaign staff, and the criticism that the Hillary Victory Fund appears to spend very little on state parties?

You are referring to HillPAC being “used to benefit the campaign and campaign staff” as if that’s a given, which I’ve yet to see you demonstrate with any evidence that I have not refuted with specifics.

And as a point of fact, I wouldn’t not characterize this as a “central argument” of the campaign.

But To answer your question, Secretary Clinton has always been deeply committed to helping Democrats up and down the ticket. Over the course of it’s existence, HillPAC gave almost $3 million in direct contributions and hosted nearly 1000 events, supporting national committees, state parties, and close to 120 House, Senate, Gubernatorial and Presidential candidates in nearly every state across the country.

In the 2008 election cycle alone, Senator Clinton headlined well over 70 events, fundraisers and calls for the Obama-Biden ticket in nearly 20 states.

Senator Clinton was also a fierce advocate for Congressional candidates in over 30 states.

In addition to her tireless efforts on behalf of Obama-Biden, Senator Clinton headlined over 20 events and fundraisers and taped 16 robo calls for New York candidates in 2008. HillPAC also contributed over $35,000 to New York Democratic local and Congressional candidates.

I’m not sure it gets any more definitive than that.

As for your reference to HVF-


6. It looks like the campaign sold its list of supporters to Friends of Hillary in Jan. 2009 (p. 1214 of this filing). How was the campaign able to earn income from renting out its list in 2011, 2012 and 2013 after it was sold?

I don’t understand this question, but I assume this confusion is allayed by my explaining that HillPAC was billed for their 2008 use of the list in January of 2009, and paid the next day, as I laid out above.


7. About how many people were on staff at No Limits? How many came over from Hill PAC? Did Hill PAC transfer any funds or resources to No Limits?

I’m not going to report this for you. You are welcome to review public records regarding budget and staffing for No Limits, but no improper activity took place, and again, if you have a specific question I’d be happy to answer it.


8. Finally, you had asked about the FEC contacting HillPAC a few times “asking for clarification on expenses related to catering, venues, printing and photography. I also notice Hill PAC paid quite a bit in moving expenses,” and I wanted to make sure I addressed that here as well.

HillPAC was a FEC-registered multi-candidate PAC, and it’s mission was to assist Democratic candidates win election. Like I said, it was dormant during Hillary Clinton’s 2008 candidacy for the Presidency, and it became active after she suspended her campaign in June 2008.

In support of its activities, HillPAC supported efforts to help elect Democrats in the fall of 2008 and incurred expenses carrying out its activities, including for events, event-related items (e.g., venues, catering, photography, printing). And, HillPAC responded to the routine FEC requests for additional information to confirm that the expenditures on HillPAC’s FEC reports were in support of HillPAC’s mission.

HillPAC did not offset campaign expenses or otherwise make a contribution to the 2008 campaign; and, as I said earlier, when Hillary Clinton became Secretary of State in January 2009, HillPAC began the process of winding down.

As to moving expenses, when an office relocates it incurs costs. HillPAC moved from Virginia to Washington DC in November of 2008, so everything from records, furniture, supplies, equipment, copiers, computers etc were moved. If there is a specific reason as to why you are suggesting funds were used for something they should haven’t been please tell me, but otherwise this appears to be conjecture on your part.

But, more broadly, so you have an idea of expenses, during the time between June and November 2008, some of the many HillPAC accomplishments included (1) contributing over $750,000 to candidates, committees and state parties through direct and grassroots online donations, (2) sending out dozens of emails endorsing, raising money, and getting out the vote for Democratic candidates, (3) recruiting thousands of volunteers in a HillPAC grassroots field organizing program called “Hillary Sent Me” from the many supporters of Hillary’s presidential campaign to go door-to-door campaigning across the country in seven targeted states, and (4) supporting Senator Clinton as she traveled cross country in support of the Obama ticket, including 70 events for that ticket alone, as she attended over 100 events jointly with President Clinton to convince her primary supporters and undecided voters to support the Obama ticket, and as she campaigned and fundraised for over 80 other candidates in nearly 30 states, including 16 Senate and 60 House candidates, and, in the process, raising millions of dollars for Democrats.





On May 19, 2016, at 4:50 PM, Shelly Moskwa > wrote:

Ok. So you know for background -- No Limits did pay Hillary Clinton for President for both email list rental and office rent (NL sublet office space) but I believe there were no financial transactions between HillPAC and No Limits.

On Thu, May 19, 2016 at 4:25 PM, Lyn Utrecht > wrote:
Ok but let us know if you need something else.
Lyn

Sent from my iPhone

On May 19, 2016, at 4:21 PM, Nick Merrill > wrote:

I think I can make what I've got work in conjunction with our research team. You all have better things to do.



On May 19, 2016, at 12:32 PM, Lyn Utrecht > wrote:

Nick - It seems that a call might be the best way to answer your questions. When would you like to do it, and who wants to be on it?
Lyn
Sent from my iPhone

On May 19, 2016, at 12:49 PM, Nick Merrill > wrote:

While we're at it, one more request from her that came to us because she emailed Sarah Nolan about No Limits. I don't care to help her on the first two, and probably don't need to address at all, but flagging in the event there's anything anyone thinks we should add.

5. About how many people were on staff at No Limits? How many came over from Hill PAC? Did Hill PAC transfer any funds or resources to No Limits?


On May 19, 2016, at 12:28 PM, Nick Merrill > wrote:

Kopp's latest question is about our only donating 25% of what HillPAC took in, which on it's face, to someone with her bias, will look like 75% of the funds are self-serving in some way. What Shelly's note below indicates is that there are some good reasons for the 75/25 breakdown. We sent emails asking people to donate to candidates directly, it was a grassroots operations as much as a finance operation, etc. What I'm looking for is some indication and direction on whether this is a pretty customary arrangement. I can have examples pulled, but as I wasn't around back then I was hoping to get a little more concrete since we need are disproving the hypothesis of someone not inclined to believe us. Hoping for more ammunition. Make sense?

On May 18, 2016, at 10:04 PM, Cheryl Mills > wrote:

Nick

What do you need on this - a call? trying to understand your question

On Wed, May 18, 2016 at 7:48 PM, Nick Merrill > wrote:
Sorry to bug but anyone have any insight on this?



On Wed, May 18, 2016 at 2:40 PM, Nick Merrill > wrote:
Coming next back to this, the below is very helpful, but to add another element, I would assume it's not uncharacteristic for a PAC to be structured this way, for it to appear for a series of good reasons that "only 25%" is going to candidates. Is that correct? Some guidance would be helpful and I can have research dog up some examples.

On May 9, 2016, at 12:22 PM, Shelly Moskwa > wrote:

Adding Capricia and this is making me mad -- HP accomplished so much in such a short time. My thoughts are below.

Why did HillPAC contribute "less than 25%" of its money? HillPAC was a short, four month, full-speed-ahead effort, designed to create maximum impact the for all levels of the dem ticket, which it did in a very tight time frame under unique circumstances. Lets not forget that HP was rekindled on July 1 with NOTHING -- only $5000 in the bank - and after that managed to raise enough funds to accomplish hundreds of events, dozens of emails, hundreds of thousands raised, both directly and indirectly, for others. It could not have done so much in so little time without the valuable resource of the HCFP list, and therefore rented it for a multiple-use contract. In the fall of 2008, that list was fresh, energized, dedicated, etc, probably the best on the market (Obama's list wasn't for rent then). One can not buy or instantly create those attributes -- the organic value of the list, which was sown over many prior months, was invaluable to the effort of HillPAC. HP made direct contributions, which are apparent on the FEC report, but it also helped in other ways - it sent dozens of emails on behalf of other candidates, asking list members to donate directly to those candidates, to walk door-to-door for those candidates, to send emails to their friends and families about those candidates. It was a grass roots operation and effort as much as a financial/contribution effort, and the GR can not always be measured by the figures from an FEC report. Was HP the leanest operation around? Maybe not. But did it accomplish invaluable things for the dem ticket that no other politician was capable of at the time? Yes - no one else had the time, the political capital, and the ability to gather the same level of resources and put them to use.



On Fri, May 6, 2016 at 10:12 PM, Cheryl Mills > wrote:
Thanks

+ lyn, eric and Shelly

On Fri, May 6, 2016 at 8:49 PM, Nick Merrill > wrote:
Widen this chain as you see fit.
Below is my note to her and her response.
She doesn't have anything but it's not going to stop her, although I'll keep at it.

I bolded a portion below that we'll need an answer for.



Begin forwarded message:

From: Emily Kopp >
Date: May 6, 2016 at 8:32:38 PM AST
To: Nick Merrill >
Subject: Re: HillPAC

Thanks for your response. Are you saying you believe the Campaign Legal Center has a partisan bias?

I appreciate the clarification on some of these points. It did occur to me that the list rental could be an invoice issue. Though if HillPAC used the list for the November election, I think it's reasonable to expect the campaign to have made that charge sooner than January. Are you aware of any particular reason that delay might have occurred?

I'm aware that the campaign said in 2009 that the prices were determined through appraisals by outside consultants. My confusion is why HillPAC would pay three times as much to rent the list any other client, but contribute less than 25 percent of what it raised to candidates. That's also available via a cursory look at public records. Most leadership PACs devote closer to half their expenditures on contributions. If HillPAC did make greater use of the list, it appears it was not to the benefit of down ballot Democrats.

Let's discuss this further on the record when you have the chance.

Thanks again,
Emily

On Fri, May 6, 2016 at 6:25 PM, Nick Merrill > wrote:
Yes I'd like to talk. But I have to be honest, reading your questions it does not feel like you're coming to this objectively. To that end, let me make a couple of points off the record to demonstrate what I mean and we can go from there.

I've had a chance to look into the questions you sent, and there is nothing to suggest that HillPAC acted in any way but completely within the confines of it's mission and all rules and regulations. I'm happy to outline the details of that for you, but before I do, I'm concerned about what you just sent and your approach to this piece.

So a few points:

So far, your story is premised on the timing of a an invoice, and a series of questions that are answerable by publicly attainable information.

For example, to take your first two questions, if you look at FEC rules, you will see that the price for an email list is determined based on very specific guidelines with regard to assessing fair market value for that list. And that was of course done in this case, which you can see by looking at other rates for other lists out there. Further, the price discrepancy you cite is so because you're comparing an apple to an orange. As is also ascertainable via a cursory look at public records, the amount charged for a list is based on usage. So a one-time use is going to cost a different amount than a rental that includes several usages, both based again on fair market value, and again, demonstrably so if you look at other pricing structures of other lists.

Another example, to address your third and fourth questions, you suggest that staffers working for HillPAC were actually working for the campaign. Your evidence to back that up is that some worked for both entities simultaneously. But that actually confirms that clear lines were drawn. Employees were paid for their work and kept clear lines of responsibility between their different roles, as is common with public officials. And as far as FEC inquiries, I think if you looked you'd find that inquiries about spending are routine, and that both the FEC inquiries, responses to those inquiries, and the fact that no further action was taken is all available on FEC.gov.

Finally, the quote you cite below, is there a reason for those words, or is it just what it looks like, baseless rhetoric from a partisan?

I am happy to work with you, and I know we don't know each other very well, but this seems like trying to twist a series of routine activities by a PAC into something they are not, as I think is evident in the answers to my questions.

Please let me know how you want to proceed.

Nick



On May 6, 2016, at 12:28 PM, Emily Kopp > wrote:

Hi Nick -

Any update on this? Resending the questions I sent to Allison Wright and Capricia Marshall. You may also find it useful to respond to this quote from Brendan Fischer. He's an expert at the Campaign Legal Center.

"I don’t know I would call it a 'scam PAC.' But the evidence does suggest Hill PAC was used as a slush fund to subsidize Clinton’s presidential campaign, using money raised outside of the limits that apply to the campaign itself, rather than as a fund to support other candidates."

Thanks,
Emily



1. It appears that HillPAC paid for the Clinton campaign’s fundraising list on Jan. 28, 2009, but did not contribute to any candidates after that date. Did it use the list? How so?
2. It also appears HillPAC paid about three times as much as most other buyers. The Clinton Foundation, the Democratic National Committee and the Impact Center all paid $274,297.45, while HillPAC paid $822,492.35. Why did HillPAC pay so much more? Do you think it’s possible that payment could be seen as a contribution or debt relief payment?

3. I noticed that nearly all of the staffers of HillPAC were former staffers of the 2008 campaign. Some were even being paid by the campaign at the same time. Did all of the people being paid by Hill PAC have distinct duties related to HillPAC? Is it possible that some people were being paid for duties related to the campaign with HillPAC funds? A common criticism of leadership PACs is that they act as "holding PACs" for a politician’s staffers between gigs. Is that true of HillPAC?

4. The FEC wrote Hill PAC a few times asking for clarification on expenses related to catering, venues, printing and photography. I also notice HillPAC paid quite a bit in moving expenses. Is it possible that some of the campaign’s expenses were taken care of by HillPAC?



On Wed, May 4, 2016 at 10:23 AM, Emily Kopp > wrote:
Hi Nick -

Thanks for your email. Happy to talk when you have the chance. I work freelance and I haven't placed this one yet - maybe The Nation. Sorry I can't be more specific!

On Wed, May 4, 2016 at 10:15 AM, Nick Merrill > wrote:
Hi Emily,

My name is Nick Merrill and I'm Secretary Clinton's press secretary. I'm writing with regard to the inquiries you've sent to some former HillPAC officials, and was hoping to catch up to discuss your questions. Would there be a good time today to talk? I am gathering information to address your questions, but am also hoping to know what outlet you're writing this for. I'm on the road a bit but let me know what works, and what your timing is.

Thanks very much.

Nick



--
Emily Kopp
c: 770-789-4628
@emilyakopp



--
Emily Kopp
c: 770-789-4628
@emilyakopp 



















Hi Nick - my suggestion is that we make the point in your topline quote that "HillPAC was dormant and not active at all when she was a presidential candidate in 2007 and 2008. Thus your premise that HillPAC somehow supported 'the campaign', and your questions

 1, 4 and 5 are erroneous, since there was no HillPAC when she was a presidential candidate and she was not a presidential candidate when HillPAC became active again in June 2008."







Even though the following comments are repetitive I would consider adding them:





Re Q1- "HillPAC could not have subsidized 'the campaign' because it did nothing during 2007 and 2008 when she was a presidential candidate."







Re Q3- recommend adding "the list was not rented only for the purpose of raising funds for HillPAC to give to candidates.  Having been dormant during 2007 and 2008, HillPAC determined that one of the fastest and most productive

 ways of using the list to benefit candidates was to email supporters--in many instances urging them to make contributions directly to candidates.  This was a much faster and more efficient way to raise larger sums for these candidates."







Re Q4- recommend adding "HillPAC and the presidential campaign only shared office space and employees after the campaign was over. You can see from the FEC reports that the campaign paid its own debts and winding down costs."







Re Q5- recommend adding "HillPAC could not 'benefit' the campaign because it did nothing while she was a candidate."







Lyn










Sent from my iPad





On May 23, 2016, at 3:42 PM, Nick Merrill <nmerrill@hillaryclinton.com> wrote:













Hello friends.  This story is likely going to run tomorrow despite my efforts to shame Ms. Koop for her lousy reporting.  She has an editor now and is running this in The Intercept, which for those of you not familiar is a fairly new online publication

 whose stated mission is to be provocative, and does so by utilizing looser editorial standards.  Glen Greenwald and the other folks who helping Edward Snowden leak what he stole from the USG founded the outlet, to give you an idea of what we're dealing with.

  







So with that in mind, I have answered every single one of Emily's questions below with the information you shared and by culling old spreadsheets that we used last time this came up in 2009 that help paint a broader picture of the PAC and it's impact. 

 You'll see I'm a little informal with her and challenge her premise throughout, which is not a tactic I'd normally use but I think makes sense in this case.  Any of the stated facts and figures are pulled from old emails that Philippe shared with me.







I think the best thing to do would be to give a topline quote that affirmatively states what HillPAC accomplished and reject the premise of the story, following by the answers to Kopp's specific questions on background.  I've pasted below and put in the

 attached in case you want to track changes.







Emily's deadline is this evening so edits would be appreciated.







Nick







_____________









Topline Quote:


“From its inception in 2001 through the 2008 election cycle, HillPAC held nearly 1000 events for candidates up and down the ballot and contributed several million dollars to Democratic candidates and causes.  HillPAC held itself to the highest ethical

 standards, and any implication to the contrary by those with partisan motives is wholly without merit.”







Questions with Draft Answers (On Background)












1. According to a nonpartisan campaign finance expert, Hill PAC appears to have functioned chiefly as a way to subsidize the campaign while sidestepping normal contribution limits. In what way

 did it not function simply as a slush fund?







I’ve asked you this previously, is that based on anything or just purely conjecture? Regardless, I think that my answers below thoroughly address all of your questions And don’t leave much room for such an accusation. 












2. Why shouldn’t people be surprised that a leadership PAC contributed only 11 percent of its donations to other candidates?







This seems to represent a fundamental misunderstanding of how a PAC functions.  







Over the course of it’s existence, HillPAC donated several million dollars to candidates up and down the ballot across the election cycles.  Additionally, it held almost 1000 events in support of Democratic candidates up and down the ballot. Often, events

 and other efforts by a PAC do not result in donations to the PAC, but instead donations are made directly to a candidate, committee, or a cause.  To give you just one example, If you look at this as you seem to be, HillPAC donated $15,000 to the Democratic

 Senatorial Campaign Committee in 2008.  But in addition to that, Senator Clinton raised $1,165,000 that went directly to them through events in California, Washington DC, Massachusetts, and North Carolina.  This would explain why what you’re saying about percentages

 is not an accurate reflection of the efforts or the efficacy of the PAC.












3. Why did Hill PAC spend twice as much on an email list than it did on contributions? It seems like an excessive purchase in part because the PAC failed to attract small donors from using the

 list. In what way was the “list rental” not simply a dodge for making otherwise illegal campaign contributions? Why did payment for the list not occur until January?







Again, I’m concerned that as we go on you seem to be  upping the rhetoric and conjecture of your questions without basis in fact or further reporting, particularly since I gave you extensive off the record guidance to assist in this regard you at the outset.

 That said, I answered the first part of your question above.  As to the list rental and the timing of payments, let me lay that out.







You are correct that HillPAC was billed in January of 2009 for it’s use by HillPAC during the 2008 cycle between the time then-Senator Clinton suspended her campaign in June and the general election in November. That’s simply when they were billed, period.

 HillPAC received an invoice on January 27, 2009 and paid in full on January 28, 2009. 







As to costs, in support of its activities, HillPAC, along with dozens of other candidates and causes, rented the 2008 Hillary Clinton for President email list.  During 2008, the Hillary Clinton for President (HCFP) list was available for rent for either

 a one-time rental (at a cost of approximately $274,000) or a rental with multiple uses (at a cost of approximately $822,000).  Under FEC rules, HillPAC was required to pay fair market value for its use of the list, which requires validation through commercial

 list brokers, based on the size and quality of the list.  







When the list was valued for rental, pricing from a handful of commercial vendors was used, along with the most recent past Presidential campaign at the time, which was Kerry ‘04. 







Here’s some information from the public record that we put together in case you didn’t have a chance to do this research yourself.  As you can see, this pricing is commensurate with that of other similar lists.  These are dollar rates per 1000 names:

















4. Given Hill PAC shared an office space and most of its staff with the 2008 campaign, were there any firewalls in place to separate duties and expenses related to Hill PAC and duties and expenses

 related to the campaign as it wound down and settled outstanding debts?







I’m not sure what you’re referring to specifically, but the answer is yes.  The PAC was dormant during Senator Clinton’s run for President, with about $5,000 in it’s accounts, and was only brought back up and running after Senator Clinton suspended her

 campaign in 2008.  







Earlier in our exchanges you raised concern about staff being on more than one payroll at a time at various points throughout Senator Clinton’s time in Congress.  I would argue that such an arrangement makes my point for me.  Everyone had distinct duties,

 and there is nothing to suggest anything contrary to that.  And those paid by HillPAC were compensated as such because they were doing work for HillPAC.  Any analysis of the activities of those who worked at HillPAC support this. Those who may have been on

 more than one payroll were doing so in accordance with the rules that address the very concerns you cite, to make sure that the work they were doing for each entity was being compensated for by that entity.  So there is nothing to suggest anyone was not being

 paid by the appropriate entity and doing work for that entity. It’s a very common arrangement to prevent against exactly what you’re implying, to ensure that lines are clear.












5. A central argument Clinton has made to primary voters is that she has spent a lifetime fundraising for down ballot candidates. Do Hill PAC's finances hurt or strengthen that case? What do you

 say to people who see parallels between how Hill PAC was used to benefit the campaign and campaign staff, and the criticism that the Hillary Victory Fund appears to spend very little on state parties?







You are referring to HillPAC being “used to benefit the campaign and campaign staff” as if that’s a given, which I’ve yet to see you demonstrate with any evidence that I have not refuted with specifics.  







And as a point of fact, I wouldn’t not characterize this as a “central argument” of the campaign.  







But To answer your question, Secretary Clinton has always been deeply committed to helping Democrats up and down the ticket.  Over the course of it’s existence, HillPAC gave almost $3 million in direct contributions and hosted nearly 1000 events, supporting

 national committees, state parties, and close to 120 House, Senate, Gubernatorial and Presidential candidates in nearly every state across the country. 







In the 2008 election cycle alone, Senator Clinton headlined well over 70 events, fundraisers and calls for the Obama-Biden ticket in nearly 20 states.







Senator Clinton was also a fierce advocate for Congressional candidates in over 30 states.







In addition to her tireless efforts on behalf of Obama-Biden, Senator Clinton headlined over 20 events and fundraisers and taped 16 robo calls for New York candidates in 2008. HillPAC also contributed over $35,000 to New York Democratic local and Congressional

 candidates.







I’m not sure it gets any more definitive than that.  







As for your reference to HVF- 












6. It looks like the campaign sold its list of supporters to Friends of Hillary in Jan. 2009  (p. 1214 of this filing). How was the campaign able to earn income from renting out its list in 2011,

 2012 and 2013 after it was sold?







I don’t understand this question, but I assume this confusion is allayed by my explaining that HillPAC was billed for their 2008 use of the list in January of 2009, and paid the next day, as I laid out above.












7. About how many people were on staff at No Limits? How many came over from Hill PAC? Did Hill PAC transfer any funds or resources to No Limits?







I’m not going to report this for you.  You are welcome to review public records regarding budget and staffing for No Limits, but no improper activity took place, and again, if you have a specific question I’d be happy to answer it.












8. Finally, you had asked about the FEC contacting HillPAC a few times “asking for clarification on expenses related to catering, venues, printing and photography. I also notice Hill PAC paid

 quite a bit in moving expenses,” and I wanted to make sure I addressed that here as well.


 


HillPAC was a FEC-registered multi-candidate PAC, and it’s mission was to assist Democratic candidates win election. Like I said, it was dormant during Hillary Clinton’s 2008 candidacy for the Presidency, and it became active after she suspended her campaign

 in June 2008. 







In support of its activities, HillPAC supported efforts to help elect Democrats in the fall of 2008 and incurred expenses carrying out its activities, including for events, event-related items (e.g., venues, catering, photography, printing).  And, HillPAC

 responded to the routine FEC requests for additional information to confirm that the expenditures on HillPAC’s FEC reports were in support of HillPAC’s mission.







HillPAC did not offset campaign expenses or otherwise make a contribution to the 2008 campaign; and, as I said earlier, when Hillary Clinton became Secretary of State in January 2009, HillPAC began the process of winding down.







As to moving expenses, when an office relocates it incurs costs.  HillPAC moved from Virginia to Washington DC in November of 2008, so everything from records, furniture, supplies, equipment, copiers, computers etc were moved. If there is a specific reason

 as to why you are suggesting funds were used for something they should haven’t been please tell me, but otherwise this appears to be conjecture on your part.







But, more broadly, so you have an idea of expenses, during the time between June and November 2008, some of the many HillPAC accomplishments included (1) contributing over $750,000 to candidates, committees and state parties through direct and grassroots

 online donations, (2) sending out dozens of emails endorsing, raising money, and getting out the vote for Democratic candidates, (3) recruiting thousands of volunteers in a HillPAC grassroots field organizing program called “Hillary Sent Me” from the many

 supporters of Hillary’s presidential campaign to go door-to-door campaigning across the country in seven targeted states, and (4) supporting Senator Clinton as she traveled cross country in support of the Obama ticket, including 70 events for that ticket alone,

 as she attended over 100 events jointly with President Clinton to convince her primary supporters and undecided voters to support the Obama ticket, and as she campaigned and fundraised for over 80 other candidates in nearly 30 states, including 16 Senate and

 60 House candidates, and, in the process, raising millions of dollars for Democrats.





































On May 19, 2016, at 4:50 PM, Shelly Moskwa <shellymoskwa@gmail.com> wrote:











Ok.  So you know for background -- No Limits did pay Hillary Clinton for President for both email list rental and office rent (NL sublet office space) but I believe there were no financial transactions between HillPAC and No Limits. 





On Thu, May 19, 2016 at 4:25 PM, Lyn Utrecht 

<lutrecht@up-law.com> wrote:






Ok but let us know if you need something else. 


Lyn





Sent from my iPhone





On May 19, 2016, at 4:21 PM, Nick Merrill <nmerrill@hillaryclinton.com> wrote:













I think I can make what I've got work in conjunction with our research team.  You all have better things to do.















On May 19, 2016, at 12:32 PM, Lyn Utrecht <lutrecht@up-law.com> wrote:









Nick - It seems that a call might be the best way to answer your questions. When would you like to do it, and who wants to be on it?


Lyn


Sent from my iPhone





On May 19, 2016, at 12:49 PM, Nick Merrill <nmerrill@hillaryclinton.com> wrote:













While we're at it, one more request from her that came to us because she emailed Sarah Nolan about No Limits. I don't care to help her on the first two, and probably don't need to address at all, but flagging in the event there's anything anyone thinks

 we should add.  













5. About how many people were on staff at No Limits? How many came over from Hill PAC? Did Hill PAC transfer any funds or resources to No Limits?
















On May 19, 2016, at 12:28 PM, Nick Merrill <nmerrill@hillaryclinton.com> wrote:













Kopp's latest question is about our only donating 25% of what HillPAC took in, which on it's face, to someone with her bias, will look like 75% of the funds are self-serving in some way.  What Shelly's note below indicates is that there are some good reasons

 for the 75/25 breakdown.  We sent emails asking people to donate to candidates directly, it was a grassroots operations as much as a finance operation, etc.  What I'm looking for is some indication and direction on whether this is a pretty customary arrangement. 

 I can have examples pulled, but as I wasn't around back then I was hoping to get a little more concrete since we need are disproving the hypothesis of someone not inclined to believe us.  Hoping for more ammunition.  Make sense?





On May 18, 2016, at 10:04 PM, Cheryl Mills <cheryl.mills@gmail.com> wrote:











Nick






What do you need on this - a call? trying to understand your question







On Wed, May 18, 2016 at 7:48 PM, Nick Merrill 

<nmerrill@hillaryclinton.com> wrote:




Sorry to bug but anyone have any insight on this?




















On Wed, May 18, 2016 at 2:40 PM, Nick Merrill 

<nmerrill@hillaryclinton.com> wrote:








Coming next back to this, the below is very helpful, but to add another element, I would assume it's not uncharacteristic for a PAC to be structured this way, for it to appear for a series of good reasons that "only 25%" is going to candidates.  Is that

 correct?  Some guidance would be helpful and I can have research dog up some examples.







On May 9, 2016, at 12:22 PM, Shelly Moskwa <shellymoskwa@gmail.com> wrote:















Adding Capricia and this is making me mad -- HP accomplished so much in such a short time.  My thoughts are below. 






Why did HillPAC contribute "less than 25%" of its money?  HillPAC was a short, four month, full-speed-ahead effort, designed to create maximum impact the for all levels of the dem ticket, which it did in a very tight time frame under unique circumstances. 

 Lets not forget that HP was rekindled on July 1 with NOTHING  -- only $5000 in the bank - and after that managed to raise enough funds to accomplish hundreds of events, dozens of emails, hundreds of thousands raised, both directly and indirectly, for others. 

 It could not have done so much in so little time without the valuable resource of the HCFP list, and therefore rented it for a multiple-use contract.  In the fall of 2008, that list was fresh, energized, dedicated, etc, probably the best on the market (Obama's

 list wasn't for rent then). One can not buy or instantly create those attributes -- the organic value of the list, which was sown over many prior months, was invaluable to the effort of HillPAC.  HP made direct contributions, which are apparent on the FEC

 report, but it also helped in other ways - it sent dozens of emails on behalf of other candidates, asking list members to donate directly to those candidates, to walk door-to-door for those candidates, to send emails to their friends and families about those

 candidates.  It was a grass roots operation and effort as much as a financial/contribution effort, and the GR can not always be measured by the figures from an FEC report.  Was HP the leanest operation around? Maybe not. But did it accomplish invaluable things

 for the dem ticket that no other politician was capable of at the time?  Yes - no one else had the time, the political capital, and the ability to gather the same level of resources and put them to use. 

















On Fri, May 6, 2016 at 10:12 PM, Cheryl Mills 

<cheryl.mills@gmail.com> wrote:




Thanks






+ lyn, eric and Shelly







On Fri, May 6, 2016 at 8:49 PM, Nick Merrill 

<nmerrill@hillaryclinton.com> wrote:








Widen this chain as you see fit.


Below is my note to her and her response.


She doesn't have anything but it's not going to stop her, although I'll keep at it.







I bolded a portion below that we'll need an answer for.











Begin forwarded message:







From: Emily Kopp <emily.anne.kopp@gmail.com>


Date: May 6, 2016 at 8:32:38 PM AST


To: Nick Merrill <nmerrill@hillaryclinton.com>


Subject: Re: HillPAC











Thanks for your response. Are you saying you believe the Campaign Legal Center has a partisan bias?







I appreciate the clarification on some of these points. It did occur to me that the list rental could be an invoice issue. Though if HillPAC used the list for the November election, I think it's reasonable to expect the campaign to have made that charge

 sooner than January. Are you aware of any particular reason that delay might have occurred?







I'm aware that the campaign said in 2009 that the prices were determined through appraisals by outside consultants. My confusion is why HillPAC would pay three times as much to rent the list any other client, but contribute

less than 25 percent of what it raised to candidates. That's also available via a cursory look at public records. Most leadership PACs devote closer to half their expenditures on contributions. If HillPAC did make greater use of the list, it appears

 it was not to the benefit of down ballot Democrats. 







Let's discuss this further on the record when you have the chance. 







Thanks again,


Emily





On Fri, May 6, 2016 at 6:25 PM, Nick Merrill 

<nmerrill@hillaryclinton.com> wrote:
















Yes I'd like to talk.  But I have to be honest, reading your questions it does not feel like you're coming to this objectively.  To that end, let me make a couple of points

off the record to demonstrate what I mean and we can go from there.







I've had a chance to look into the questions you sent, and there is nothing to suggest that HillPAC acted in any way but completely within the confines of it's mission and all rules and regulations.  I'm happy to outline the details of that for you, but

 before I do, I'm concerned about what you just sent and your approach to this piece.







So a few points:







So far, your story is premised on the timing of a an invoice, and a series of questions that are answerable by publicly attainable information.  







For example, to take your first two questions, if you look at FEC rules, you will see that the price for an email list is determined based on very specific guidelines with regard to assessing fair market value for that list.  And that was of course done

 in this case, which you can see by looking at other rates for other lists out there.  Further, the price discrepancy you cite is so because you're comparing an apple to an orange.  As is also ascertainable via a cursory look at public records, the amount charged

 for a list is based on usage.  So a one-time use is going to cost a different amount than a rental that includes several usages, both based again on fair market value, and again, demonstrably so if you look at other pricing structures of other lists.







Another example, to address your third and fourth questions, you suggest that staffers working for HillPAC were actually working for the campaign.  Your evidence to back that up is that some worked for both entities simultaneously.  But that actually confirms

 that clear lines were drawn.  Employees were paid for their work and kept clear lines of responsibility between their different roles, as is common with public officials.  And as far as FEC inquiries, I think if you looked you'd find that inquiries about spending

 are routine, and that both the FEC inquiries, responses to those inquiries, and the fact that no further action was taken is all available on

FEC.gov.







Finally, the quote you cite below, is there a reason for those words, or is it just what it looks like, baseless rhetoric from a partisan?







I am happy to work with you, and I know we don't know each other very well, but this seems like trying to twist a series of routine activities by a PAC into something they are not, as I think is evident in the answers to my questions.  







Please let me know how you want to proceed.









Nick





















On May 6, 2016, at 12:28 PM, Emily Kopp <emily.anne.kopp@gmail.com> wrote:













Hi Nick -







Any update on this? Resending the questions I sent to Allison Wright and Capricia Marshall. You may also find it useful to respond to this quote from Brendan Fischer. He's an expert at the Campaign Legal Center.








"I don’t know I would call it a 'scam PAC.' But the evidence does suggest Hill PAC was used as a slush fund to subsidize Clinton’s presidential

 campaign, using money raised outside of the limits that apply to the campaign itself, rather than as a fund to support other candidates."








Thanks,


Emily












    

  1. It appears that HillPAC paid for the Clinton campaign’s

     fundraising list on Jan. 28, 2009, but did not contribute to any candidates after that date. Did it use the list? How so?
  2. 

    It

     also appears HillPAC paid about three times as much as most other buyers. The Clinton Foundation, the Democratic National Committee and the Impact Center all paid    

     $274,297.45, while HillPAC paid $822,492.35.    

     Why did HillPAC pay so much more? Do you think it’s possible that payment could be seen as a contribution or debt relief payment?
    

  3. 

    I

     noticed that nearly all of the staffers of HillPAC were former staffers of the 2008 campaign. Some were even being paid by the campaign at the same time. Did all of the people being paid by Hill PAC have distinct duties related to HillPAC? Is it possible that

     some people were being paid for duties related to the campaign with HillPAC funds? A common criticism of leadership PACs is that they act as "holding PACs" for a politician’s staffers between gigs. Is that true of HillPAC?

    

  4. 

    The

     FEC wrote Hill PAC a few times asking for clarification on expenses related to catering, venues, printing and photography. I also notice HillPAC paid quite a bit in moving expenses. Is it possible that some of the campaign’s expenses were taken care of by

     HillPAC?
    
















On Wed, May 4, 2016 at 10:23 AM, Emily Kopp 

<emily.anne.kopp@gmail.com> wrote:




Hi Nick -






Thanks for your email. Happy to talk when you have the chance. I work freelance and I haven't placed this one yet - maybe The Nation. Sorry I can't be more specific!









On Wed, May 4, 2016 at 10:15 AM, Nick Merrill 

<nmerrill@hillaryclinton.com> wrote:




Hi Emily,






My name is Nick Merrill and I'm Secretary Clinton's press secretary.  I'm writing with regard to the inquiries you've sent to some former HillPAC officials, and was hoping to catch up to discuss your questions.  Would there be a good time today to talk? 

 I am gathering information to address your questions, but am also hoping to know what outlet you're writing this for.  I'm on the road a bit but let me know what works, and what your timing is.







Thanks very much.









Nick

























--











































-- 














































































































































































<HillPAC Story Responses The Intercept (Emily Kopp).docx>