UPDATED: Please read this more recent post on the Hillary Victory Fund, which I believe clarifies the issues quite a bit.

A lawyer for the Sanders campaign has formally complained to the DNC about the Hillary Victory Fund and possible violations of campaign finance law. Most news outlets are pooh-poohing this as a stunt. Let’s take a look.

This is what the Sanders campaign is complaining about:

Unlike Clinton’s presidential campaign committee, Hillary for America, the joint committee may accept large donations of up to $356,100. The first $2,700 of this amount is eligible for transfer to the Clinton campaign, $33,400 can be transferred to the DNC, with any remaining amount, up to $10,000, to each participating state party. According to public disclosure reports, however, the joint Clinton-DNC fund, Hillary Victory Fund (HVF), appears to operate in a way that skirts legal limits on federal campaign donations and primarily benefits the Clinton presidential campaign.

The financial disclosure reports on file with the Federal Election Commission indicate that the joint committee invested millions in low-dollar, online fundraising and advertising that solely benefits the Clinton campaign. The Sanders campaign “is particularly concerned that these extremely large-dollar individual contributions have been used by the Hillary Victory Fund to pay for more than $7.8 million in direct mail efforts and over $8.6 million in online advertising” according to the letter to the DNC. Both outlays benefit the Clinton presidential campaign “by generating low-dollar contributions that flow only to HFA [Hillary for America] rather than to the DNC or any of the participating state party committees.”

The questionable outlays “have grown to staggering magnitudes” and “can no longer be ignored,” Deutsch added.

True? This was in Politico last week:

The fund comprises Clinton’s presidential campaign committee, as well as the Democratic National Committee and 32 state party committees. As a result, it can accept checks as large as $358,000 per person — a total determined by the maximum donation to each of its component committees ($5,400 to the Clinton campaign, $33,400 to the DNC and $10,000 to each of the state parties).

…

Yet, during the first three months of the year, the $2 million transferred by the Hillary Victory Fund to various state party committees paled in comparison to the $9.5 million it transferred to Clinton’s campaign committee or the $3.5 million it transferred to the DNC.

Numbers baffle me easily. But if the Clinton campaign can only take the first $2,700 off the top of each donation (and cannot exceed $2,700 from one person in a given year), and the rest of these large donations go to the DNC and the states, how can the Clinton campaign end up with the lion’s share of the Hillary Victory Fund money?

And the Hillary Victory Fund also spent $6.7 million on online ads that mostly looked like Clinton campaign ads, as well as $5.5 million on direct marketing. Both expenses seem intended at least in part to help Clinton build a small donor base, an area in which Sanders has far outpaced her.

Keep in mind that the Victory Fund is managed by Clinton campaign staff, and its treasurer is Clinton’s chief operating officer, according to this Washington Post story from last February.

With the caveat that I’m not an election law attorney — it’s my understanding that the Clinton campaign can only use the first $2,700 of any donation any way it wants. How is it that so much of this money is being spent in ways that appear to benefit only the Clinton campaign? And keep in mind that Hillary’s followers praise her effusively for raising money for “down ticket Democrats.”  A lot of them were outraged today that anyone would question what’s going on with this money.

And why isn’t news media at least taking this seriously?

Yesterday Amanda Marcotte published an article at Salon titled Just like a Bernie Bro, Sanders bullies Clinton: Brooklyn debate confirms Sanders campaign is sticking by sexist “ambition witch” stereotype. As the title suggests, the article is something of a primal scream of outrage at the way the Vermont Senator’s disrespect for Secretary Clinton in their recent debate in Brooklyn just dripped with sexism, although somehow Marcotte was unable to provide a persuasive example.

One example she gave of something the Senator actually said was,

“Does Secretary Clinton have the experience and intelligence to be president? Of course she does,” Sanders replied when asked about it. “But I do question her judgment.”

It wasn’t clear to me why that was sexist, but someone explained in the comments:

What this article is talking about is less about Hillary Clinton and more about historical attitudes and the use of certain phrases to disqualify women from the political sphere. Specifically, the concern and the underscoring of whether or not a candidate has the temperament and judgement. The argument was deployed against women during the suffrage movement…women do not have the temperament or judgement  to vote. It is a phrase that has been employed against women running for governorships, the House, and the Senate.

To which I responded,

OK, so we can’t use the “j” word in regard to Secretary Clinton, because the “j” word is sexist. But what if her j… I mean, her, um, you know, that thing where you make decisions about stuff that has consequences … what if she’s really bad at that thing? I mean Libya, come on. And Honduras. And the Iraq vote, of course. I could go on. But we’re not allowed to say anything about this if we use the “j” word. So how about … perspicacity? There’s a good word. Her record tells us that Clinton falls really short in the perspicacity department. Can we say that?

I didn’t get an answer. Oh, well.

What Marcotte wrote in this article turns the ideals of second-wave feminism on their head. Back then we knew that we could not demand equal opportunity and gentler treatment at the same time.  Sanders is not criticizing Clinton for her gender, but for her record. Marcotte seems to be saying that because Clinton is a woman, aggressive challenges of her record are out of bounds. Um, no.

But we’ve been through this before. I give you Michelle Goldberg, New Republic, June 25, 2008, 3 A.M. for Feminism.

Hillary Clinton has lost the nomination, but some of her most ardent female backers seem unwilling to accept it. A strange narrative has developed, abetted by Clinton and some of the mainstream feminist organizations. In it, the will of the voters was thwarted by chauvinistic party leaders in concert with a servile media, and Obama’s victory represents a repeat of George W. Bush’s in 2000. It’s a story in which Obama becomes every arrogant young man who has ever edged out a more deserving middle-aged woman, and Clinton, hanging on until the bitter end, is not a spoiler but a feminist martyr.

This conviction, that sexism cost Clinton the nomination, is likely to be one of the more toxic legacies of this primary season. It is leaving her supporters feeling not just disappointed but victimized, many convinced that Obama’s win is illegitimate. Taylor Marsh, a blogger and radio host whose website has become a hub for Clinton fans, says she gets hundreds of e-mails from angry Democrats pledging not to vote for Obama. She’s started running posts from such readers under the headline DEMOCRATIC STORM WARNINGS. “I’m not saying that this is a huge voting bloc,” she says. “I’m just saying that there is a huge amount of talk and I’m convinced it’s a reality that needs to be addressed.”

Goldberg reviewed the 2008 and noted that the notion that Clinton was losing because of sexism became more and more entrenched.

By the spring, the Clinton campaign and the cause of women’s rights were joined in the minds of many. Second-wave activists chided Obama-supporting women for not getting on board and began interpreting any attack on Clinton as a slight against their gender. The seating of delegates from Michigan and Florida started to seem like a feminist cause célèbre.

The movement coalesced in mid-May, when members of Clinton’s finance committee, including Susie Tompkins Buell, sometimes described as one of Clinton’s closest friends, and Allida Black, editor of the Eleanor Roosevelt Papers at George Washington University, formed WomenCount PAC. The group ran full-page advertisements in The New York Times, USA Today, and other newspapers addressing the country on behalf of “the women of this nation.” The ads proclaimed, rather grandly, “Hillary’s voice is OUR voice, and she’s speaking for all us.” Their story was featured on the “Today” show, “Good Morning America,” CNN, and Fox, and they joined other volunteers in organizing the rally at the DNC.

Meanwhile, Clinton, who’d previously avoided presenting herself as the woman’s candidate, brought gender to the forefront of her campaign as never before. On May 19, in a Washington Post interview, she spoke out for the first time about the sexism she’s faced throughout the race, calling it “deeply offensive to millions of women.” The press, she suggested, had failed to decry “incredible vitriol that has been engendered by the comments by people who are nothing but misogynists.” She began injecting feminist and civil rights language into her arguments for seating the Michigan and Florida delegates. Piously invoking Seneca Falls and Selma in a May 21 speech, she pledged to “carry on this legacy and ensure that in our nominating process every voice is heard and every single vote is counted.”

More and more, she was tying her campaign to the grand narrative of women’s emancipation. “I am in this race for all the women in their nineties who’ve told me they were born before women could vote, and they want to live to see a woman in the White House,” she wrote in a letter to superdelegates on May 28. “For all the women who are energized for the first time, and voting for the first time. For the little girls–and little boys–whose parents lift them onto their shoulders at our rallies, and whisper in their ears, ‘See, you can be anything you want to be.’ ”

Mainstream feminist organizations joined calls to seat the two states, with leaders of NOW and the Feminist Majority Foundation participating in the rally at the DNC. Some have suggested that the DNC’s reluctance was in itself a sign of covert sexism. “There’s a strong feeling that this would have been handled differently if Hillary Clinton hadn’t won [those] states,” says Kim Gandy, president of NOW.

Except Clinton really didn’t win the Florida and Michigan delegates. If you don’t remember that sorry episode, click here, then come back.

Of course, Clinton has encountered straight-up misogyny–lots of it. At the same time, anger at obvious instances of sexism has expanded to encompass every setback she’s faced, every jab thrown her way–the cut and thrust of any normal campaign. Several of her feminist defenders, for example, interpreted calls for Clinton to drop out, lest she cause a party rift, as expressions of condescending gender bias. “The first woman ever to win a presidential primary is supposed to stop competing, to curtsy and exit stage right,” Ellen Malcolm, founder and president of Emily’s List, wrote in The Washington Post on May 10. But that wasn’t anti-woman or even anti-Clinton; it was just Democratic politics. Similar worries were aired about Edward Kennedy in 1980–a Christian Science Monitor story claimed his “to-the-bitter-end candidacy already may be irreparably splitting the Democratic Party”–and about Jerry Brown in 1992, once Bill Clinton came near a mathematical lock on the nomination.

We’ve reached that stage now, even though it’s earlier in the campaign and even though Clinton is still favored to win. Every criticism of her is interpreted as sexism.

But let us go back to 2008. Obama wins the Dem nomination; John McCain wins the GOP nomination. And he picks for his veep — Sarah Palin. And it wasn’t long before every criticism of Palin was being called sexist by the Right.  And given the example of Clinton, I don’t really blame them. It’s hard to tell what’s sexist and what isn’t with those two. I wrote in August 2008,

There’s a lot of talk about what we can and cannot say about Sarah Palin. There are some who seem to think any criticism at all of Palin amounts to sexism, an attitude that strikes me as sexist. It says that women can’t be taken seriously in the political world and treated the same way men are treated. It’s like the high school coach who puts girls on the boy’s varsity team not because he thinks they are good players, but because he thinks the opposing team will hesitate to rough them up. (Which, come to think of it, might explain McCain’s choice of Palin.) …

… There’s a difference between criticizing people professionally and criticizing them personally. Criticizing Palin’s stands on issues, yes. Discussing her record as a mayor and a governor, yes. Pointing out her lack of experience, yes. Ridicule of her appearance, family or personal lifestyle choices, no. I hope we’re clear.

It’s unfortunately the case that a lot of numbskulls can’t express themselves without dragging in ridicule of appearance, etc., and I see that all over social media.  On all sides. No group can claim the moral high ground in this.

I also wrote in 2008,

I said a few weeks ago that if second-wave feminism weren’t already dead, Hillary Clinton’s campaign would have killed it. And may I say it was exactly this sort of self-absorbed whining that strangled feminism lo those many years ago.

Yes, Hillary Clinton got hit by a lot of really ugly sexism, but it wasn’t why she lost the nomination. If anything, the sympathy vote was her biggest asset. And it would be really great if people could just address the sexism issue without wrapping themselves in the gloriously self-indulgent mantle of victimhood. I could also do without the self-pity, the score-settling, and the denial of Clinton’s own bad behavior during the primaries. Thanks much.

I also frequently expressed amazement that these self-absorbed feminists were so completely oblivious to the treatment Barack Obama was receiving as the first potentially viable black presidential candidate.

Now, back to 2016. The social media nasty swarm has been all over itself ridiculing Sanders’s speaking at the Vatican. Jeffrey Feldman wrote,

So, there’s that. I can’t say I picked up on that, but I’m often oblivious to things. Unfortunately I don’t think it would help Bernie to wallow in victimhood as Clinton and her followers are doing.

Of course, Clinton didn’t lose in 2008 because of sexism; she lost because she was a less compelling candidate than Barack Obama. I wrote in June 2008,

As a generic choice I don’t much care whether the First President Who Is Not a White Man turns out to be a black man or a white woman, or for that matter a woman of color were one running this year. When I look at senators Clinton and Obama, my questions are which one of these two gets it? Which one sees the possibility of creating a new political culture friendly to progressivism? Which one is more likely to walk through that door?

And the answer I come up with is Obama. I cannot say whether he will succeed. He is human and imperfect, not political Jesus. But his words and background and the way he has run his campaign tell me he sees the opportunity that I see and will, at least, try.

However, I don’t believe Senator Clinton sees the opportunity. My belief is based in part on her performance in the Senate, which on the whole has been disappointing, and on the way she has run her campaign, which has been the same old “finesse (but don’t challenge) the Right and divide the Left” politics. All her formidable political skills mean nothing if she doesn’t see that open door.

Yes, electing Hillary Clinton would make a grand statement for feminism. But then we’d sweep up the popped balloons and confetti and go back to Old Politics Business as Usual. And nothing substantive would change. Maybe I’m wrong, but that’s how I see it.

That’s still how I see it. And I think that’s how a lot of other people saw it, and that’s why she lost. Gender had nothing to do with it.

And this year? Clinton probably will win it this time. But it’s interesting that Taylor Marsh, who for a time in 2008 was seeing anti-Clinton sexism in every shadow, this year is calling Clinton “the George H.W. Bush of 2016.”

I couldn’t bring myself to watch last night’s Democratic debate, because Wolf Blitzer. I had little hope it would be anything but a disaster.  I mostly followed it on the Guardian live blog, which at least was witty. Also the Brits tend to be a little more objective about our colonial politics. What I read there suggested that both candidates scored points but that Sanders came off a bit better.

Alan Rappeport of The New York Times called the contest a draw, which means Hillary must’ve screwed up somehow.  On the other hand, Josh Marshall’s commentary clearly favored Clinton over Sanders.

Dylan Matthews at Vox called the debate a big win for Sanders.

The whole debate saw Clinton on defense and Sanders on offense. When she did attack, he deflected easily and went back to landing punches.

In terms of topics, the focus was consistently on economic justice, and when it wasn’t, Sanders successfully spun it in his favor. Better than that, he spun it such that his standard economic attack lines still applied. He didn’t just accuse Clinton of being weak on climate change: he accused her of being weak because she’s in hock to billionaires and corporations, a natural extension of his existing narrative.

On Clinton he wrote,

There was a particularly bleak moment in the closing statements, after Sanders concluded, as the audience chanted, “Bernie! Bernie! Bernie!” for a good 15 seconds as Clinton stood quiet, lightly smirking, waiting to speak. Here she is, in a state that elected her to the Senate twice, and she’s very much not on her home turf. The crowd is definitely not with her. And she’s on defense.

Most disturbingly, she was on defense even on issues where she should be dominating. The wrap on Sanders is that he can’t cover issues outside of base economic matters. But he got the better of her on mass incarceration, on Israel, on climate change. Her previous strategy of pivoting to areas where Sanders is weaker doesn’t appear to work anymore.

Isaac Chotiner at Slate:

During CNN’s Democratic debate on Thursday night, while the candidates ricocheted between discussions of global warming as the primary threat to America and whether to raise the minimum wage to $12 or to $15, it was hard not to feel that Sanders had won a battle almost as large as the race to be the 2016 nominee.

“I want white people to recognize that there is systemic racism,” Clinton stated Thursday night in one of many statements that would cause a time-traveler from the 1990s to stare with open-mouthed astonishment. Indeed, the debate functioned as a fascinating window into Democratic politics in 2016. Even a mere eight years ago, Obama and Clinton often struggled to outflank each other on the right. (Think of the skirmishes over the individual mandate.) But on nearly every domestic issue, both candidates went left, strongly so, and from health care to college tuition to Social Security, Clinton played on Sanders’ turf. Even her critiques of Sanders’ spending focused not on the deficit but on Sanders’ general sloppiness with numbers.

More critically,

The irony of his campaign is that the septuagenarian Sanders is probably four or eight years ahead of his time, rather than behind it. In some ways Sanders was lucky in his opponent. He wound up getting paired against someone who happens to be on the wrong end of the prevailing trends in the party—hawkish; friendly to Wall Street; an almost perfect embodiment of that otherwise nebulous term, the establishment.

Jack Mirkinson at Salon wrote that Sanders was wobbly at first but got better as the debate  wore on:

Eventually, though, Sanders hit on a strategy that worked over and over again: He started acting like a hectoring journalist, repeatedly pointing out Clinton’s garbled answers on issues ranging from the minimum wage—where she got completely tied up in knots about whether or not she supported the Fight for $15 movement—to Social Security to climate change.

The most extraordinary part of the night, however, came when the debate shifted to a discussion about Israel and Palestine. This is usually a dispute-free zone in American politics: everyone, on both sides of the aisle, fights about who can pledge fealty to Israel more fervently. Sanders, though, has suddenly morphed from a candidate who seemed not to want to be caught dead talking about the issue to one who actually managed to win an exchange about it in a debate in New York City—and to win it from Clinton’s left. He asked Clinton, over and over again, why she hadn’t mentioned Palestinians during a recent speech before AIPAC. He said that Palestinians should be treated with dignity and respect. He called Israel’s invasion of Gaza in 2014 “disproportionate.” Clinton gave perhaps her most passionately hawkish replies of the night in response to all of this.

Clinton maintains a substantial lead in New York, however, and whether this debate will change anything is questionable. Still, one can hope. New York’s primary is closed to all but registered Democrats, which favors Clinton. However, there’s no early voting here, which may favor Sanders.

Along with trying to claim that Sanders invited himself to the Vatican — debunked by Reuters — now Clinton supporters are claiming that the invitation didn’t even come from the Vatican.

Initial reports said the invitation came from the Pope, but to be accurate it came from the Pontifical Academy of Social Sciences (PASS). But PASS is an office of the Vatican, so it’s not inaccurate to say that the invitation came from the Vatican. Except to Clinton supporters, who have decided PASS is not part of the Vatican but is just a bunch of guys who meet in their parents’ garage.  Yes; you can see this from this group shot from the PASS home page.

Here’s the background: The Pontifical Academy of Social Sciences was established in 1994 by Pope John Paul II. This is one of several academies of the Vatican, with offices in the Casina Pio IV in Vatican City, which also houses the Pontifical Academy of Saint Thomas Aquinas. Officials of PASS are appointed by the Pope.

Yet somehow, in the fevered imagination of Clinton supporters, PASS has no connection to the Vatican. Uh-huh.

The chancellor of the Academy, Monsignor Marcelo Sanchez Sorondo, has spent the past several hours debunking false reports (apparently generated by Bloomberg News) that Sanders had invited himself. No, says the Monsignor; I invited him. It was my idea, he said. He also said it was absolutely not true that Sanders broke any kind of protocol, as Bloomberg News reported.

A Bloomberg report quoted Margaret Archer, president of the Pontifical Academy of Social Sciences, as saying that Sanders had broken with protocol by failing to contact her office first.

“This is not true and she knows it. I invited him with her consensus,” said Sorondo, who is senior to Archer.

Now, why would Bloomberg News generate a phony story like that? I can only imagine.

There is more background on the event The Atlantic.

The New York Times reports that Hillary Clinton is campaigning in upstate New York, a region that helped her win the Senate in 2000.

Hillary Clinton’s political ascent can be traced to the time in 1999 when she expressed her support for dairy farmers in the upstate New York village of Endicott. And the summer that year when she shunned Martha’s Vineyard to vacation in Skaneateles, and promised voters in the depleted industrial city of Schenectady that as a New York senator she would revive the upstate economy.

The strategy helped Mrs. Clinton win her 2000 Senate race by double digits, a victory fueled by the unlikely support of white working-class voters in upstate New York who had previously voted Republican but were won over by the first lady’s attention to their underserved area.

But there’s a problem.

Now, 16 years later, Mrs. Clinton is again promising to bring jobs back to the region as she courts the people who helped secure her first election victory….

…But Mrs. Clinton’s critics say that she failed to deliver on the centerpiece of her 2000 push — a promise to bring 200,000 jobs to New York — and many cities upstate have higher unemployment than when she became a senator. The number of private-sector jobs in upstate New York remained virtually stagnant in the eight years Mrs. Clinton served in the Senate, according to state Department of Labor statistics.

Fool me once, shame on you, etc.

To combat Mr. Sanders’s message, Mrs. Clinton and a lineup of influential New York surrogates, including Senator Kirsten E. Gillibrand and Gov. Andrew M. Cuomo, plan to take voters down a memory lane of proposals, from the quirky to the conventional, that she advanced to spur the upstate economy.

And, you know, she really can list a number of jobs initiatives she brought to the region.  And when you see all these initiatives on a piece of paper, it looks pretty impressive. But her initiatives amount to tweaks when the region needed an overhaul. And Hillary doesn’t do overhauls. She tweaks. Instead of rebuilding broken systems, she works within the limitations of the broken system. Which is why she fights and fights and fights and doesn’t deliver all that much.

Robert Hockett, a professor of law at Cornell who specializes in financial regulation and is supporting Mr. Sanders, said his anti-trade message would resonate as it has in other economically ravaged areas.

“Upstate New York is the classic Rust Belt on the one hand and the classic working-poor rural population on the other hand,” Mr. Hockett said. “The things Bernie wants to do are things this population generally agrees with.”

Christopher Ryan, president of the Communications Workers of America Local 1123, which represents Verizon and American Red Cross workers in Syracuse, said that he backed Mrs. Clinton in 2000 but that the area had been eviscerated by jobs moving overseas. He plans to vote for Mr. Sanders, whom the union has endorsed.

“You see the weeds growing through the parking lots at factories,” he said.

Bottom line, all of Clinton’s heartfelt little tweaks that created a few jobs here and there couldn’t override the damage done by trade deals.  She’s repudiating trade deals, you say? She loved ’em when she wasn’t running for office. And if you think she won’t push for more trade deals once she’s POTUS, you aren’t paying attention.