Skip to main content

Mary Pat Bonner

Second from left: Mary Pat Bonner

Mary Pat Bonner, 49, runs the progressive non-profit and Democratic political fundraising firm The Bonner Group, which currently fundraises for Hillary Clinton’s super PAC Ready for Hillary as well as David Brock’s Media Matters for America and American Bridge 21st Century. She started out fundraising for Al Gore’s unsuccessful 2000 presidential bid and has since built a reputation for attracting high dollar donors for Democratic candidates through aggressive (but respectful) means. The Bonner Group shares offices with Media Matters for America.

In early 2015, Bonner was at the center of a fundraising controversy about commissions paid (in excess of $6 million) to The Bonner Group based on donations they secured for Hillary Clinton’s campaign. While charging commission for fundraising is not illegal, it is considered unethical by the Association of Fundraising Professionals as it can encourage abuses, and the story has attracted negative attention from both Republicans and Democrats. This situation mirrored similar controversies within Clinton’s 2008 presidential campaign.

The Bonner Group

The Bonner Group is a Washington, D.C.-based progressive non-profit and Democratic political fundraising firm. Our clients include some of the most prominent and effective progressive organizations across the country. Over the past 24 years, the Bonner Group has worked for major non-profit organizations, Presidential campaigns, House & Senate campaigns, Gubernatorial campaigns, ballot initiatives, capital campaigns, and ‘527’ organizations.

Established by Mary Pat Bonner, the Bonner Group has distinguished itself as a force in the progressive community through its unparalleled experience in major gifts cultivation and ability to develop and execute successful fundraising strategies for a wide variety of clients. Our services include extensive research and strategic planning, major donor solicitation, capital campaigns, event management, database development and grant writing. We interact regularly with key philanthropists, activists and strategists in Washington and across the nation to bring the highest level of service to our clients’ fundraising campaigns.

Founded: 1991
Company Size: 11 – 50
In the Media:

The Secret World of a Well-Paid ‘Donor Adviser’ in Politics | New York Times | Feb 5, 2015
A constellation of left-leaning nonprofits and “super PACs” are raising tens of millions of dollars to pave the way for Hillary Rodham Clinton’s presidential campaign — and nearly all of them have paid Mary Pat Bonner a cut.

Over the past several years, the groups, which include American Bridge 21st Century, Media Matters for America and the super PAC Ready for Hillary, have paid Ms. Bonner’s consulting firm in excess of $6 million to help them cultivate wealthy donors and raise money, according to tax filings and campaign disclosures.

Ms. Bonner’s contracts give her firm a commission, typically 12.5 percent, on any money she brings in. Her tenacity, ties to wealthy givers and mastery of making donors happy have made Ms. Bonner, 48, among the most successful practitioners of a trade that is virtually invisible to voters but has taken on immense power and influence in the post-Citizens United world.

Almost every candidate for high office must now court ultrarich donors to finance super PACs. And with each party more reliant than ever on networks of outside groups to supplement its advertising and opposition research, fund-raisers like Ms. Bonner hold the keys to the big-money kingdom.

“The Bonner Group gets us the best fund-raising product for the lowest cost,” said David Brock, the founder of the monitoring group Media Matters and the super PAC American Bridge. “In my experience, the commission incentivizes the fund-raiser to meet the ambitious goals we set.”

But the growing influence of paid fund-raisers has angered donors in both parties, who are skeptical of Washington’s consultant class and the secret, often lucrative deals they reach with campaigns.

Some organizations, like Freedom Partners, overseen by the conservative billionaires Charles and David Koch, emphasize their reliance on salaried staff members to raise money.

“I want my money to go to the candidate, to get them elected; I don’t want it to go to middlemen,” said Andrew Sabin, a prominent Republican donor.

Several Republican presidential contenders are now courting Spencer J. Zwick, Mitt Romney’s finance chairman in 2012. But some former donors grumble about the fund-raising fees paid by Mr. Romney’s campaign committees to limited liability companies established by Mr. Zwick: about $34 million, according to campaign disclosure reports.

In an interview, Mr. Zwick declined to describe his own fee. But he said that the bulk of the payments collected by the companies were in turn paid out to more than 50 other fund-raisers employed by the campaign.

“We raised more money than has ever been raised before at a better cost of fund-raising than has ever been done before,” Mr. Zwick said.

But few fund-raisers seem to command commissions as generous as Ms. Bonner’s. Political fund-raisers are typically paid monthly retainers, which can reach $25,000 a month during campaigns. The Bonner Group is paid almost exclusively on commission, a practice that is legal but frowned upon by some fund-raising consultants, who say it leads to fights with clients and other consultants over credit. It is considered unethical by the Association of Fundraising Professionals, partly because it can encourage abuses and, in the charity world, places self-gain over philanthropy.

“I think it’s a breach of fiduciary responsibility to pay fund-raisers on commission,” said Cindy Darrison, a professor at the George H. Heyman Jr. Center for Philanthropy and Fundraising at New York University.

Allies say Ms. Bonner and her 20-member firm are worth the expense. The Bonner Group maintains a database of 70,000 donors and collects detailed information on their past giving, their families and their political relationships. Many praise her energy and personal touch: thank-you notes, for example, or tickets to Broadway shows.

“Without Mary Pat, we would never be where we are today,” said Craig T. Smith, a senior adviser to Ready for Hillary. Mr. Smith said the group had paid Ms. Bonner and some other fund-raisers a single-digit percentage of money raised.

Ms. Bonner, who cut her teeth as a campaign aide and fund-raiser for former Vice President Al Gore, is also known among colleagues for her aggressive tactics. During the 2012 campaign, Ms. Bonner, who was raising money for American Bridge, clashed repeatedly with other Democratic super PACs over joint fund-raising efforts.

Early in the cycle, American Bridge wanted a larger portion of shared fund-raising so it could begin tracking and researching Republican candidates. The other groups thought that Ms. Bonner was seeking to establish her client as a central financial clearinghouse for other Democratic groups.

Several recalled attending a meeting at American Bridge where they glimpsed a half-erased whiteboard diagram, showing money flowing into American Bridge and then back out to their super PACs.

Opacity surrounds political fund-raising. Priorities USA Action, a Democratic super PAC that is now preparing to back Mrs. Clinton, employed several consultants to bolster its fund-raising efforts in 2012. But a scan of the group’s disclosure reports shows mostly regular, round-number payments to them.

After The New York Times asked about payments to several specific fund-raisers, a spokesman confirmed that the payments constituted commissions to three of them. One, Andrew Korge, a Florida fund-raiser, was paid a 10 percent commission on a single million-dollar check. Another, Janet Keller, based in California, was paid a 5 percent commission on checks from a few wealthy donors totaling more than $2 million.

Irwin M. Jacobs, the billionaire co-founder of Qualcomm, said in an email that Ms. Keller had merely helped arrange for him to meet with two Priorities officials. “I was not aware that consultants might be paid a percentage of the political contributions that they raise,” Mr. Jacobs wrote.

In an email, Ms. Bonner said she routinely disclosed to donors that she was being paid on commission. “We charge all of our clients the same way, so there is no incentive for anyone in the firm to focus on one client more than another,” Ms. Bonner said.

But there is little question who her biggest client is. Mr. Brock’s growing empire, now composed of about 10 interlocking PACs and nonprofits, uses the Bonner Group for all of its development efforts.

Two years ago, reflecting her expanding role in Mr. Brock’s enterprises, Ms. Bonner moved her company and staff into his headquarters, though she continues to serve other clients. She and Mr. Brock have adjoining offices and even share a summer rental in the Hamptons.

Mr. Brock credits Ms. Bonner with helping persuade donors that news media monitoring and opposition research deserve large-scale financial support. His groups brought in more than $28 million in 2014, entitling Ms. Bonner’s firm to about $3.5 million in fees. Her commission represented his entire fund-raising overhead, Mr. Brock said, which compared favorably with that of other nonprofit groups.

He also emailed a statement from 40 donors attesting to the value her firm provided.

Not everyone seems convinced. Ms. Bonner’s fees have been a perennial source of controversy in the Democracy Alliance, a club of wealthy progressive donors, each obligated to contribute money to a select roster of liberal research and advocacy organizations.

Ms. Bonner originally worked there as a consultant, helping recruit new members. Later, when she moved to take on some of the funded organizations as clients, the alliance asked that contributions earmarked by its donors be exempt from Ms. Bonner’s commission. Eventually, the Alliance ended her consulting arrangement. But an Alliance official said that there was no formal policy in place and that its staff had no way of tracking Ms. Bonner’s commissions.

Ms. Bonner said in an email that she abided by the request. She continues to attend the alliance’s private donor conferences, however, as an unpaid “donor adviser” to Marcy Carsey, a prominent Hollywood producer. Current and former executives at liberal nonprofits complain about a perception that hiring Ms. Bonner would improve their chances of being included in the Alliance’s investment portfolio.

One Alliance donor, the billionaire Boston investor Vin Ryan, said that he had not been informed of Ms. Bonner’s commission before donating to Media Matters and later demanded a written guarantee from the group that his contributions would be exempt.

“I don’t know what her role in the D.A. is at this point, nor do I know who she actually is a donor adviser to, nor do I know what organizations she represents within the group of organizations who we are supporting,” Mr. Ryan said. “I think it’s outrageous.”

Brock resigns from Hillary Clinton PAC | Politico | Feb 9, 2015
David Brock on Monday abruptly resigned from the board of the super PAC Priorities USA Action, revealing rifts that threaten the big-money juggernaut being built to support Hillary Clinton’s expected presidential campaign.

In a resignation letter obtained by POLITICO, Brock, a close Clinton ally, accused Priorities officials of planting “an orchestrated political hit job” against his own pro-Clinton groups, American Bridge and Media Matters.

Those groups — along with another pro-Clinton group, the super PAC Ready for Hillary — had their fundraising practices called into question last week by a New York Times report. It pointed out that veteran Democratic fundraiser Mary Pat Bonner got a 12.5 percent commission on funds she raised for Brock’s groups and a smaller percentage commission on cash she raised for Ready for Hillary.

In his letter to the co-chairs of Priorities’ board — former Michigan Gov. Jennifer Granholm and former Obama campaign manager Jim Messina — Brock alleged that “current and former Priorities officials were behind this specious and malicious attack on the integrity of these critical organizations.”

The letter — and Brock’s resignation — offer a rare glimpse into a network of groups upon which Democrats are relying to keep the White House and stave off increasingly robust big-money efforts on the right. The public airing of dirty laundry comes as sources say Priorities is struggling to live up to the hopes of some Clinton allies, who had argued it should aim to raise as much as $500 million to eviscerate prospective Clinton rivals in the primary and general elections.

Brock, who spent his early career in Washington as a self-described “right-wing hit man” before experiencing a political awakening and emerging as the leader of an empire of hard-hitting liberal attack groups, contends in his letter that Priorities is trying to damage his groups’ fundraising efforts, “while presumably enhancing Priorities’ own. Frankly, this is the kind of dirty trick I’ve witnessed in the right-wing and would not tolerate then. Our Democratic Presidential nominee deserves better than people who would risk the next election — and our country’s future — for their own personal agendas.”

Brock did not respond to requests for comment about the letter, his group’s relationship with Bonner or with the other big-money groups boosting Clinton.

Craig Smith, a senior adviser to Ready for Hillary, said his group is still working with Bonner, as well as with Priorities and Brock’s groups. “We have worked with them for almost two years. We continue to work with them. We all do very different things, so there’s not a lot of overlap.”

Asked whether he thought rivals on the left were circulating negative information on Bonner, he said, “I would hope not. Not that I’m aware of.”

Priorities spokesman Peter Kauffmann denied that Priorities had anything to do with the Times story, which also noted that his group paid fundraising commissions on at least $2 million worth of checks, including contributions from California tech billionaire Irwin Jacobs. Sources say Jacobs was upset by the revelations.

Kauffmann said Priorities no longer pays fundraising commissions and that it maintains close working relationships with the other groups boosting Clinton.

“Priorities USA Action and allied organizations demonstrated a clear ability to work together effectively in 2012 and we look to replicate that success again in 2016,” he said.

By early evening — hours after POLITICO broke the news of Brock’s resignation — Priorities USA Action issued a conciliatory statement from Granholm saying that the group was “working to address” Brock’s concerns, while Brock issued one saying he was “open to returning to the board.”

Brock in his statement said he’d talked “to several leaders of Priorities USA Action” and was “confident they want to address the situation.” The parties planned to meet “to work on establishing that path and strengthening our relationship and getting back to the important work we need to do in this election cycle,” he said.

Sources familiar with the events say the statement came after discussions between Brock, Granholm, Priorities board member Charlie Baker and Paul Begala, a Democratic strategist with deep ties to Bill and Hillary Clinton.

Still, the groups — as well as Ready for Hillary — do to some extent compete with one another for big checks from wealthy Clinton backers. At one point, Priorities’ allies tried to force Ready for Hillary to shut down. But the groups — along with Brock’s — eventually entered into a sometimes uneasy alliance to lay the groundwork for the former secretary of state to run for president in 2016. Together, the groups formed an unprecedented shadow campaign that combined to raise millions in 2014. American Bridge’s Correct the Record Project defends Clinton against political attacks, while Ready for Hillary builds files of voters and small donors, and Priorities cultivates relationships with major donors.

The idea was to build an infrastructure that would allow Clinton to hit the ground running if and when she declared her candidacy for the Democratic nomination and to project a financial show of force that would overwhelm any prospective rival in the primary or general elections.

The in-fighting is an ominous sign. It calls to mind the squabbles that helped sink Clinton’s 2008 presidential campaign. It, too, was regarded as an unrivaled cash juggernaut, but feuding among cliques of supporters stymied efforts to launch a planned big-money outside effort in time to neutralize a surprisingly robust insurgent primary challenge from Barack Obama.

This time around, her allies tried to pre-empt the sectarianism by cross-pollinating the various groups to keep everyone on the same page and minimize competition. Granholm is on the boards of both Priorities and Ready for Hillary, while Brock joined the board of Priorities, and longtime Clintonite James Carville has been paid by American Bridge for assistance with fundraising and strategic advice.

But there also are more groups competing for big checks from rich Clinton backers than there were in 2008.

In his resignation letter, Brock asserted a “serious breach of trust between organizations that are supposed to work together toward common ends has created an untenable situation that leaves me no choice but to resign my position.”

Liberal Super PAC Had Secret Bain Ties | Buzzfeed News | May 20, 2013
A top liberal super PAC in the 2012 election had undisclosed financial ties to the private equity firm Bain Capital — something that some people close to the group say interfered with its core mission of attacking Bain veteran Mitt Romney’s business record.

American Bridge 21st Century PAC was launched in 2012 as part of a multi-pronged Democratic effort to define and defeat the Republican nominee, a project of David Brock, a former conservative reporter best known as the founder of the liberal media monitoring group Media Matters. By last January, it had amassed a vast store of opposition research, most of it focused on Romney’s tenure at Bain Capital — and on the hard-edged private equity practices that would help define the Republican as an out-of-touch millionaire.

But in January, as Romney’s nomination — and the line of attack — became clear, American Bridge’s top fundraiser took a stand. In a series of meetings through the first half of 2012, several people close to the group confirmed, fundraiser Mary Pat Bonner demanded that the group avoid any public attacks on Bain. That’s because, two sources said, two top Bain executives are key contributors to the network of organizations maintained by Brock and Bonner, which includes Media Matters and American Bridge. And some familiar with the group’s work say it deliberately pulled public punches against Bain — though not against Romney — through much of the year.

“Anything that was discussed doing publicly in regard to Bain, even if it were just a quote piling on, was either shot down immediately, or there was a question, ‘Could Mary Pat be OK with this?’ And the answer was always no,” said one person privy to the group’s internal conversations. The group’s political staffers were “unhappy” about the conflict — but accepted it and tried to work around it, the source said.

People close to the group’s current leadership do not deny that Bonner fought to keep Bain out of the line of fire — and that she in fact at one point threatened to quit if Bridge put Bain at the center of the Romney story. But while some sources close to the group described her objections as a major drag on Bridge’s ability to attack the Republican nominee, the group’s current leadership describe it as a minor and ultimately insignificant issue that didn’t get in the way of the group’s efforts to spread opposition research behind the scenes.

A review of American Bridge communications paints a nuanced picture of a group struggling to attack Romney without smearing Bain. The group made passing mention of the company in 23 of the more than 200 press releases it sent this reporter in 2012, but generally maintained a just-the-facts-ma’am tone in relation to the company, a sharp contrast with the broad critique of “vulture capitalism” being advanced even by Romney’s Republican opponents. Even as Priorities USA, its most aggressive ally, made Romney and Bain synonymous with predatory finance, Bain made it up to the subject line of just one American Bridge email, a forwarded Huffington Post story on Jan. 17.

“American Bridge was at the forefront of educating the public about Mitt Romney’s record at Bain,” American Bridge president Rodell Mollineau said in an emailed statement. “We spent a year producing more than 2,000 pages of original Bain research and worked with our progressive partners to determine the most strategic way to use it. Our Bain-related content was featured in more than 40 print, television and online stories,” he said.

The group provided BuzzFeed with what it said were 14 instances of its “publically engaging” Romney on his time at Bain, which include a contribution to Politico by Mollineau responding to a question about whether attacks on Bain were legitimate. The response, which is in the affirmative, does not use the word “Bain.”

The group also considered, and rejected, the idea of creating a website to be a hub of research about Romney and Bain. One source said Bonner helped kill it; another person close to the group said that no donor objected to the idea of such a site.

American Bridge officials also argue that those public forays were never their main goal. As a group focused on opposition research, American Bridge was a prolific source of tips on Romney’s record at Bain to news organizations (including BuzzFeed), much of it provided on the condition the group not be credited, some of it provided with credit. It was also a key source of research to other liberal groups, said several progressive leaders prompted by the group to contact BuzzFeed.

It’s impossible for an outsider to arbitrate whether the group’s decision to operate largely behind the scenes was driven by Bonner’s relationship with Bain capital, as some people close to the group charge, or whether it was a purely strategic decision on the merits, as the group’s leaders forcefully argue. There is no dispute, however, that the group produced reams of research, much of which made its way into the slashing attack ads produced by Priorities USA.

“As someone who was an avid daily consumer of their research, I don’t think they pulled any punches,” said Paul Begala, a top adviser to Priorities and one of a few top Democratic figures who contacted BuzzFeed at the prompting of American Bridge to praise its work. Another Priorities USA official, Bill Burton, and Greg Speed, the executive director of America Votes, also contacted BuzzFeed to tout American Bridge’s research on Romney and Bain.

Begala said, however, that his group had sought the support of the same two left-leaning Bain executives tied to Bonner, Jonathan Lavine and Joshua Bekenstein — and said that they declined to support Priorities USA because of its plans to attack the private equity industry in general and Bain in particular.

“For our PAC it actually made sense for [the Bain executives] not to give, because we were very critical of Romney’s business practices, most of which occurred while he was at Bain,” Begala said.

The battle inside American Bridge offers a rare glimpse behind the curtain of money in politics — and an illustration of how much more complicated the question of political money is in practice than in theory. Even as campaign finance reformers denounce the role of billionaires in politics, fundraisers and operatives struggle to cater to the financiers’ perceived whims — often at great cost to their cause. Even as American Bridge’s political staffers pushed to overcome the fundraiser’s objections to Bain attacks, Republican donors with conflicting strategies and agendas were drowning out Romney’s own attempts to project a clear message.

The fact that Bain executives would double as major liberal donors also complicates the portrait of the group as a conservative bastion of high finance. One person familiar with the internal conversations at American Bridge said Bonner, battling “donor fatigue” from donors being tapped for Media Matters, American Bridge, and other groups, was particularly concerned about two men. The attacks could “ruin her relationship” with two big donors, the person privy to internal conversations said Bonner warned: Lavine, a Bain Capital managing director who was also a major fundraiser for President Obama’s reelection campaign in 2012; and Bekenstein, another top Bain executive who also contributed more modestly to Obama’s campaign. Because American Bridge and Media Matters keep their donors secret, public records do not show either man’s contributions and BuzzFeed was unable to determine who had given to which group, and how much. Neither Bekenstein nor Lavine responded to email inquiries.

There is also no evidence that Bekenstein and Lavine directly participated in internal conversations at American Bridge, though Bonner was taken internally to be their proxy. American Bridge paid her Bonner Group $641,094 in 2012, about 5% of the $12.5 million it raised overall, according to federal filings. Bonner didn’t respond to a voicemail seeking her version of events.

Current and former staffers varied in their characterization of what one referred to as the “shadow” cast by Bain, with some saying it was merely a minor irritant, and others arguing that it distorted the group’s work. Senior aides have also told associates that they successfully worked around the uncomfortable bargain, though they denied to BuzzFeed that there was any discomfort at all.

Two senior aides, communications staffer Ty Matsdorf and a former Democratic National Committee research director, Shauna Daly, also departed American Bridge during the election. Matsdorf said he left solely because he wanted to work on the election’s front line in Nevada; Daly declined to comment in response to several emailed questions.

It’s also unclear what, if any, contact there was between Bonner and American Bridge staffers on one hand and the Bain executives on the other, or what amount they gave to American Bridge.

A source close to the organization, and speaking for the group, declined to disclose the names of its donors, but said that he found it “hard to believe anything Mary Pat said would have stopped a program from moving forward.”

“We have more than 300 donors and raised more than $40 million in the last cycle, and we’ve never had a donor who has ever given us reason to think their donations were in jeopardy based on anything we did or didn’t do. No donor concern has ever led us to compromise the integrity or effectiveness of our work,” the person said.

People close to the group also said that the concern waxed and waned, and that by the end of the cycle, the balance had tilted away from Bonner and toward more aggressive political staffers. On Oct. 28, American Bridge released the sort of searing public attack that many had expected from the start, a Priorities USA Action ad featuring an interview with a worker who begins, “Romney and Bain Capital shut this place down.”

The American Bridge version uses a portion of the interview that does not include the words “Bain Capital.”

HBO’s ‘Confirmation’ film rattles some Washington power players

By HADAS GOLD 02/18/16 12:40 PM EST

A group of former politicians and their aides are bracing themselves for a new HBO movie that dramatizes the 1991 confirmation hearing of Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas, and claims of sexual harassment made by Anita Hill, with some suggesting the possibility of legal action.
The film, titled “Confirmation”, is set to debut in April, but former Sens. Al Simpson and Jack Danforth, as well as at least one former lawyer on Thomas’ team, now are going public with their dismay at early versions of the film script they were given for their input, saying it is a biased portrayal.
Story Continued Below

“Obviously, they were going to go forward with [the film], and obviously there are going to be some repercussions because they’ve opened a hornet’s nest,” said Simpson, who called the script he saw a “seriously distorted” version of the actual confirmation hearings.
Simpson and Danforth both brought up the possibility of legal action if the script they saw is the same one used in the movie when it airs in April, though Simpson acknowledged that as a public figure, it would be a hard case to win. And Mark Paoletta, the former White House lawyer who worked on Thomas’ confirmation, wrote a letter to HBO threatening legal action if certain parts of the script he had seen remained in the film.

“I don’t know what I’ll do but it won’t be fun and games,” Simpson said. “I won’t just sit still. I’ll have a response, I always have. An attack unanswered is an attack believed.”
Sandra Day OConnor_AP.jpg

Simpson, who is played by actor Peter McRobbie in the film, said screenwriter Susannah Grant (a prolific Hollywood screenwriter who wrote the movie “Erin Brockovich” traveled to his home in Cody, Wyoming to conduct research for the film. Simpson said he enjoyed his time with Grant and in his first read of the script, he found minor lines he disagreed with, which Grant told him she would change.
But after he was contacted by Danforth and Paoletta, Simpson said he took another look at the script and realized he objected to its portrayal of others involved. He sent a scathing follow-up letter to the screenwriter, saying it “savaged” Danforth’s reputation and hurt others by putting false words into their mouths with comments about Hill and the confirmation process.
Simpson said some scenes, such as a staffer trying to chase a man through the woods to hand him a subpoena, never happened. Other scenes with Simpson had his character saying that the late Sen. Arlen Specter is “such a belligerent little son of a bitch, you know once he starts on [Hill] he won’t be able to stop himself.”

“I do know she chopped up pretty much everyone. I don’t know anyone who came out very good,” Simpson, who described the hearings as one of the toughest “sons of a bitch” he’s ever been through.
In an interview, Len Amato, president of HBO Films, said the filmmakers had gone through extensive research and that the people protesting are passing judgment on a film they have not yet seen.
“There’s no agenda. There’s no slanting of it. Basically, people are talking about something they haven’t seen and when you see the film, you’ll see it’s quite evenhanded. And that’s because we don’t want to push an agenda. We want to find good stories, tell good stories and let the audience decide for themselves what they feel. If we were to make something that had an agenda we’d be alienating half our audience, so that’s not our purpose here,” Amato said. “Our purpose is to bring a story we think is relevant, bring it to a new generation … who have never heard of it. As we’ve seen in recent events, it’s something that’s part of our historical tradition, the stakes are high and in this particular case, it was really a pivotal cultural moment.”

In his January letter to HBO, Paoletta asserted that in a version of the script he read the scenes that include a character with his name are “false and defamatory” and that he would pursue legal action if they remained in the movie. According to his letter, the scenes included the character named after Paoletta making comments about Hill looking “cheap” and another scene where Paoletta is reviewing Thomas’ affidavit and advising Thomas that he offer a “single, categorical denial.”
“Based on the script I reviewed, it’s a dishonest film,” Paoletta said in a statement provided to POLITICO. “It takes some real facts, even some real testimony, and mixes it with lots of made-up dialogue and imaginary people — all with the intent of presenting the hearings in a very one-sided way. It is clearly not a fact-based film. It’s a propaganda piece for Anita Hill and for Hillary Clinton’s run for the White House. It’s unfair to Clarence Thomas, Jack Danforth and, most surprisingly, to Joe Biden.”
HBO responded to Paoletta’s letter last month, disputing that the two scenes defame or portray him in a false light and advising him that the script he read is “quite outdated” and that he is not depicted in the film at all. According to IMDB, the actor originally assigned to portray Paoletta, Daniel Sauli, is now playing a character called Chris Levinthal. A similar character name change occurred for Harriet Grant, who was chief counsel for Biden during the hearing. The actress originally assigned to her role, Zoe Lister-Jones, is now playing a character named Carolyn Hart.

Amato said the allegation that the film had an agenda to support a candidate was “absurd” and noted that just as in other movies, the film has been changed multiple times from script to editing and beyond, while declining to comment on specific characters or scenes.
“People aren’t really familiar with [the] process that goes into making a movie. It’s not a documentary, so yes, some of the words aren’t going to be exact words said. Some characters might be composite characters, some time periods might be compressed,” Amato said. “This is all within the realm of making any movie, but we don’t do it with some kind of agenda, and we always do it with a higher purpose. We just want to get it right. That’s been our mantra from the beginning.”

“Confirmation” is far from the first movie HBO has made dramatizing contentious moments in political history — and complaints from some of the players in the real drama have also complained. Sarah Palin and John McCain both blasted HBO in 2012 over the film about the 2008 election, “Game Change”, based on the book by Bloomberg Politics’ John Heilemann and Mark Halperin (though other high profile McCain/Palin advisers and aides called the movie accurate). The 2008 film “Recount,” about the 2000 election, received similar scrutiny.

Amato said they went through a similar vetting process with “Confirmation” as they did with “Game Change” and “Recount,” going through primary documents, transcripts, books written by the people portrayed in the film, consulting with journalists who covered the events, and speaking with as many of the people portrayed in the film as possible. (Not all of them chose to participate).

“Even though there are sometimes varying points of view, the events are pretty well-documented. When we did come into the situation where people had different points of view in terms of their interpretations, we kind of cross referenced that with all the source research that we did in terms of speaking with various people and cross referenced with our journalistic consultants and came up with what we thought was the most reasonable point of view for a particular scene or sequence. That’s what we did with “Confirmation” and that’s what we did with all the others,” Amato said.

Biden is being played by Greg Kinnear in the film. According to sources familiar with the negotiations, there has been some concern from the Biden team about his portrayal, though both the vice president’s office and HBO declined to comment on what interactions the vice president and HBO may have had.
But both Simpson and Paoletta said Biden is not given a fair treatment in the film.
“It’s unfair to everyone but Anita Hill, including Joe Biden who did a hell of a good job (during the hearings), the best he could,” Simpson said.

In a statement, Danforth, who is portrayed by actor Bill Irwin in the film, said he was sent a draft of the script in August, seeking his feedback. Danforth said he found the script “was full of errors and distortions where I was concerned.”

“What concerned me the most, however, was an error of omission. The script gave the impression that politics motivated my defense of Justice Thomas during the ordeal of the hearings. That was not the case. In fact, what led me to stand by him was our close friendship, which at that time had already stretched over more than 15 years,” Danforth said.

“Specifically, and as I described at length in my book on this subject, “Resurrection,” I visited Justice Thomas in his home shortly after the accusations against him were made public. I found him grief-stricken. He felt he had been humiliated before the world and that his reputation had been permanently destroyed. It was obvious to me as it would have been to anyone: What made his life worth living hung in the balance. So I stood by my friend. None of this was in the script that I saw.”
Danforth acknowledged he hasn’t seen the full film and, therefore, he’s not fully aware of how he and the “terrible events of 25 years ago” will be portrayed.

“All I can say for certain is that what I read last summer severely distorted the situation as I experienced it,” he said.

Amato said the movie will speak for itself and that they had no need to make anything up.
“What we found is no, we don’t have to make it up. All we have to do is just put it out there,” he said. “That’s what’s kind of crazy about these movies. They are all different in their own ways, they all have the kind of built-in eccentricities and absurdism about the process that you don’t really think about unless you see it in a story.”

Hillary Clinton: The vast, right-wing conspiracy” is “even better funded” now

Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton speaks to journalist and CNN anchor Anderson Cooper during a CNN Democratic Town Hall in Derry, New Hampshire February 3, 2016.The “vast, right-wing conspiracy” that Hillary Clinton warned about in the 1990’s still exists, she confirmed on Wednesday evening — but now it’s out in the open and it’s “even better funded,” she said.

Clinton was asked about that infamous quote during a televised town hall hosted by CNN in Derry, New Hampshire.

“At this point it’s probably not correct to say it’s a conspiracy because it’s out in the open,” Clinton said. “There is no doubt about who the players are, what they’re trying to achieve… It’s real, and we’re going to beat it.”

Clinton first used that line in an interview with NBC’s Today Show in 1998 when talking about the political attacks that followed President Bill Clinton’s affair with White House intern Monica Lewinsky. “The great story here, for anybody willing to find it and write about it and explain it, is this vast right-wing conspiracy that has been conspiring against my husband since the day he announced for president,” she said at the time.

On Wednesday night, referencing GOP financiers like the Charles and David Koch, Clinton said the right-wing is now “even better funded.”

“They’ve brought in some new multibillionaires,” she said. “They want to control our country. They want to rig the economy so they can get richer and richer.

“They salve their consciences by giving money to philanthropy,” Clinton continued, “but make no mistake, they want to destroy unions, they want to go after any economic interest they don’t believe they can control.”

Hillary Clinton Super PAC Gets Big Hollywood Checks from Haim Saban, Thomas Tull

Hillary Clinton Attends Grassroots Campaign Event In Florida

 

Billionaire George Soros donates a whopping $6 million
Hollywood’s heavy hitters are giving Hillary Clinton’s campaign major love in the form of some pretty hefty checks.

Hillary Clinton’s Super PAC, Priorities USA Action, received a $5 million check from longtime friend media mogul Haim Saban and his wife Cheryl, as well as a $1 million check from Legendary Entertainment CEO Thomas Tull.

Billionaire George Soros donated a whopping $6 million. That’s on top of the $1 million he donated earlier this year.

Jeffrey Katzenberg, Steven Spielberg, and the Sabans each gave $1 million to Clinton’s Super PAC in the first half of 2015. J.J. Abrams and Katie McGrath each gave $500,000.

Editor’s note: A previous version of this story stated that Haim Saban had donated $1.5 million to Clinton’s Super PAC. TheWrap regrets the error.

Pro-Clinton super PACs pull in $56.3 million in 2015

The Sanders’ campaign countered Hillary Clinton’s super PAC gains, boasting that “Bernie Sanders’ raised no money last year for a super PAC.”

download

By KENNETH P. VOGEL 01/29/16 09:04 PM EST
Share on Facebook Share on Twitter
A constellation of three super PACs supporting Hillary Clinton’s presidential campaign raised $56.3 million in 2015, POLITICO has learned.
That includes $3.3 million raised by a super PAC called Correct the Record that, in an envelope-pushing arrangement, operates as a messaging arm of Clinton’s campaign.

Another super PAC called American Bridge 21st Century, which does opposition research on Republican candidates and their donors, raised $11.9 million, while an advertising-focused super PAC called Priorities USA Action that coordinates with American Bridge raised $41 million.
Some of the top contributions came from financier George Soros, who gave $1 million to American Bridge, Jim Simons, who gave a major donation to Priorities, and Tim Gill and Scott Miller, who gave $250,000 to Correct the Record, according to a memo from the group.

The groups are required to file reports detailing all their donors and expenses to the Federal Election Commission by midnight Sunday. But they leaked top-line summaries Friday evening in memos that boasted of unprecedented fundraising and readiness to help Clinton win a general election that’s expected to cost billions of dollars.

Republicans are “preparing a billion-dollar campaign to deceive and distort her record for months on end,” wrote Priorities USA chief strategist Guy Cecil in a memo trumpeting the group’s fundraising. “Priorities USA sees it as our responsibility to fight back early and often.”
Priorities has spent relatively little of its cash so far, though, and has $45 million on hand. In fact, liberal outside groups have reported spending only $1 million in so-called “independent expenditures” supporting the former secretary of state, compared with the $6 million spent by conservative outside groups attacking her.

To be sure, that doesn’t include the money that Correct the Record has spent working in hand-in-glove with the Clinton campaign on messaging outreach to reporters and surrogates.

Correct the Record and its founder David Brock have raised questions about the record, affiliations and even the health of Clinton’s unexpectedly strong opponent for the Democratic nomination, Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders.
He has sought to cast Clinton as beholden to the wealthy donors who fund the super PACs devoted to her, and has boasted that he has not blessed any big-money group to support his campaign.
In a bit of gamesmanship, Sanders’ campaign released a statement a couple of hours after Cecil’s memo in which it boasted that “Bernie Sanders’ raised no money last year for a super PAC.”
Sanders “doesn’t want billionaires’ money. He doesn’t have a super PAC. He believes you can’t fix a rigged economy by taking part in the corrupt campaign finance system in which politicians take unlimited sums of money from Wall Street and other powerful special interests and then pretend it doesn’t influence them,” said spokesman Michael Briggs in the statement.
In fact, though, FEC reports show that National Nurses United for Patient Protection, the super PAC connected to the nation’s largest union of registered nurses, has spent more than $1 million on ads, rallies and other voter outreach supporting Sanders. The group is paying for a bus tour that’s been crisscrossing Iowa stumping for Sanders. It’s become such a presence on the trail that Sanders during a Sunday thanked its members “for their support in my campaign” and called National Nurses United “one of the sponsors of my campaign and I appreciate that.”

MIAMI: Homocon Blogger Matt Drudge Gifts $700,000 House To Man He’s Lived With For 11 Years

Drhouses

From the Miami Herald:

Internet aggregator Matt Drudge sure has become a generous man after 20 years as the left’s whipping boy and the conservative right’s digital voice. Drudge last week gave away half of his real estate holdings in the far south Miami suburb of Redland.

Miami-Dade County property records show longtime area dweller Drudge, 49, gifted a 4,600-square-foot house on 4.5 acres of shrubs and woods he bought in January 2013 for $700,000 cash.

If you believe the quitclaim deed that appeared in records Jan. 15, the founder of The Drudge Report surrendered the property that’s adjacent to his $1.45 million homestead to a man with whom he shared the same addresses for the past 11 years.

The lucky new homeowner was identified as Juan Carlos Alvarado, 55. He did have to pay Drudge a grand total of $10, the paperwork shows.

Florida state records show Alvarado once held a real estate license and has lived alongside Drudge in a Collins Avenue condo, a $1.57 million house in the Venetian Isles in Miami Beach and, finally, on Southwest 157th Avenue, where Drudge has been assembling land.

The same author of the above-linked article has written a somewhat different take on the story for Gossip Extra. Thepertinent excerpt:

Conservative Internet aggregator Matt Drudge sure has become a generous man after 20 years as the Left’s whipping boy and the Right’s digital voice. Or is he finally admitting he is as gay as those he’s been bashing for two decades?

Drudge last week gave away half of his real estate holdings in the far west Miami suburb of Redland to a man he is not related to but has lived with since 2004. Drudge has denied repeatedly he is gay, even claiming a few years back he was close from getting married to a woman “with boobs,” and is known to run stories generally portraying gays in a negative light.

Both stories note that tax-saving quitclaim deeds typically result from divorces or to transfer property between family members. In the top photo is Drudge’s main $1.6M house on the property. The inset is the gifted house. As noted above, Drudge owns other homes, including a $2M Arizona mansion purchased last year.Quitclaim

The Bill Clinton scandal machine revs back up and takes aim at his wife

The ghosts of the 1990s have returned to confront Hillary Clinton, released from the vault by Donald Trump and revved up by a 21st-century version of the scandal machine that almost destroyed her husband’s presidency.

This is a moment that her campaign has long expected. What remains to be seen is whether a reminder of allegations of sexual impropriety against Bill Clinton — which were deemed to have varying levels of credibility when they were first aired — can gain new traction in a different context.

The fresher case being made is that Hillary Clinton has been, at a minimum, hypocritical about her husband’s treatment of women, and possibly even complicit in discrediting his accusers.

And it is being pressed at a time when there is a new sensitivity toward victims of unwanted sexual contact, and when one of the biggest news stories is the prosecution of once-beloved comedian Bill Cosby on charges that he drugged and assaulted a woman 12 years ago — one of dozens who have accused him of similar behavior.

In November, Hillary Clinton tweeted: “Every survivor of sexual assault deserves to be heard, believed, and supported.” She has made women’s issues a central focus of her campaign and is counting on a swell of support for the historic prospect of the first female president.

Hillary Clinton’s new weapon on the campaign trail: Bill

Play Video2:20
Former president Bill Clinton spoke in New Hampshire on Jan. 4, his first speech in support of his wife, Democratic front-runner Hillary Clinton, in 2016. (The Washington Post)

Clinton’s campaign appears confident that Americans will see all of this as old news, and that her husband will remain an asset to her efforts to get his old job. It is happening early in the campaign season, and Trump himself has come under heavy criticism for his many boorish comments about women.

Trump started hammering on Bill Clinton’s behavior in retaliation for Hillary Clinton’s assertion, during a pre-Christmas interview with the Des Moines Register, that Trump has demonstrated a “penchant for sexism.”

Trump and the Clintons: A relationship turned sour

Play Video1:57
In recent months Donald Trump has been trading insults with the Clintons. But before the presidential race began, they enjoyed a much more cordial relationship. (Peter Stevenson,Deirdra O’Regan/The Washington Post)

“Hillary Clinton has announced that she is letting her husband out to campaign but HE’S DEMONSTRATED A PENCHANT FOR SEXISM, so inappropriate!” Trump tweeted on Dec. 26.

In an interview Monday on CNN, Trump amped up his rhetoric, calling Bill Clinton “one of the great women abusers of all time” and saying Hillary Clinton was his “enabler.”

Both Clintons have declined to comment on Trump’s latest barrages against them.

Until Trump turned his outsized media spotlight to Bill Clinton’s past sexual behavior, the issue had largely receded to the darker corners of the Internet, although it had continued to percolate.

Last month, a woman in the audience at a Clinton campaign event in New Hampshire asked her: “You say that all rape victims should be believed. But would you say that about Juanita Broaddrick, Kathleen Willey and/or Paula Jones?”

Clinton responded: “Well, I would say that everyone should be believed at first until they are disbelieved based on evidence.”

It was not a spontaneous question. The woman read from a card and mispronounced the first two names she mentioned.

But to anyone who followed the sagas of the Clinton presidency, they were familiar ones:

●Broaddrick had accused Bill Clinton of raping her in 1978, when she was working on his Arkansas gubernatorial campaign.

●Willey, a former White House volunteer, said he had attempted to kiss and grope her in a private hallway leading to the Oval Office.

●Jones, a onetime Arkansas state employee, sued Clinton in 1994 for sexual harassment, saying he had three years earlier exposed his erect penis to her and asked her to kiss it.

And, of course, the biggest of all was the scandal over Clinton’s extramarital affair with Monica Lewinsky, who was a White House intern at the time. Diane Blair, a close friend of Hillary Clinton, wrote in her journal unearthed in 2014 that the then-first lady had privately called Lewinsky a “narcissistic loony toon.”

Publicly, Clinton’s defenders were at times brutal in their characterizations of the women who made sexual allegations against him. “If you drag a hundred-dollar bill through a trailer park, you never know what you’ll find,” James Carville, Bill Clinton’s former strategist, once said.

Yet Bill Clinton settled Jones’s lawsuit in November 1998 for $850,000, acknowledging no wrongdoing and offering no apology. Just under a month later, he was impeached by the House on charges of perjury and obstruction of justice that stemmed from Jones’s lawsuit; he was acquitted by the Senate.

He also denied both Willey and Broaddrick’s allegations.

But all of these past accusations are being stirred up again, including by some who claim they were his victims.

Broaddrick, now a Trump supporter, tweeted Wednesday: “I was 35 years old when Bill Clinton, Ark. Attorney General raped me and Hillary tried to silence me. I am now 73. . . .it never goes away.”

In an interview, she said she had watched Bill Clinton’s first solo campaign appearance on his wife’s behalf on television Monday.

“He looked so beaten, and he looked like everything in his past was catching up to him. He looked so downtrodden. It made my heart sing,” Broaddrick said.

And she is not the only one.

Tom Watson, owner of Maverick Investigations, an Arizona-based private investigative agency, built a website — “A Scandal a Day” — for Willey last spring, shortly after Hillary Clinton declared she was running for president. It aims to bring forward new allegations.

The site went live in June, Watson said, and in the first two hours it received 100,000 hits.

“Kathleen is going to be very popular this year,” Watson predicted.

Last month, Aaron Klein, a writer for such right-of-center publications as World Net Daily and host of a weekly radio talk show, wrote an article on Breitbart.com headlined “In Their Own Words: Why Bill’s ‘Bimbos’ Fear a Hillary Presidency.”

In it, Klein described how his radio program had become “a support center of sorts” for Bill Clinton’s female accusers — “a safe-space for these women to sound off about the way they were allegedly treated by both Bill and Hillary.”

In the article, Klein quotes Broaddrick, Willey and Gennifer Flowers, an actress who had an affair with Clinton when he was governor.

In what Klein described as Flowers’s only interview since Clinton announced her candidacy, Flowers accused Hillary of being “an enabler that has encouraged [Bill] to go out and do whatever he does with women.”

“I think it’s a joke,” Klein quotes Flowers as saying, “that she would run on women’s issues.”

A guide to the allegations of Bill Clinton’s womanizing

On Twitter, Donald Trump, the GOP presidential front-runner, lashed out at Hillary Clinton, directly attacking her husband, the former president, for what Trump called “his terrible record of women abuse.”

Trump is obviously referring to the sexual allegations that have long swirled around Clinton, even before he became president. We’d earlier explored this question in 2014 when Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.) wrongly claimed that a half dozen women had called Clinton a “sexual predator.” But for younger voters who may be wondering what the fuss is about, here again is a guide to the various claims made about Clinton’s sex life.

We will divide the stories into two parts: consensual liaisons admitted by the women in question and allegations of an unwanted sexual encounter.

Consensual affairs

Gennifer Flowers — a model and actress whose claims of a long-term affair nearly wrecked Clinton’s first run for the presidency in 1992. (Clinton denied her claims at the time, but under oath in 1998 he acknowledged a sexual encounter with her.)

Monica Lewinsky — intern at the White House, whose affair with Clinton fueled impeachment charges. This was a consensual affair, in which Lewinsky was an eager participant; she was 22 when the affair started and Clinton was her boss.

Dolly Kyle Browning — A high school friend who said in a sworn declaration that she had had a 22-year off-and-on sexual relationship with Clinton.

Elizabeth Ward Gracen — a former Miss America who said she had a one-night stand with Clinton while he was governor — and she was married. She went public to specifically deny reports he had forced himself on her.

Myra Belle “Sally” Miller — the 1958 Miss Arkansas who said in 1992 that she had had an affair with Clinton in 1983. She claimed that she had been warned not to go public by a Democratic Party official: “They knew that I went jogging by myself and he couldn’t guarantee what would happen to my pretty little legs.”

 Some might argue that because Lewinsky and Gracen had relations when Clinton was in a position of executive authority, Clinton engaged in sexual harassment.

Allegations of an unwanted sexual encounter

Paula Jones — A former Arkansas state employee who alleged that in 1991 Clinton, while governor, propositioned her and exposed himself. She later filed a sexual harassment suit, and it was during a deposition in that suit that Clinton initially denied having sexual relations with Lewinsky. Clinton in 1998 settled the suit for $850,000, with no apology or admission of guilt. All but $200,000 was directed to pay legal fees.

Juanita Broaddrick — The nursing home administrator emerged after the impeachment trial to allege that 21 years earlier Clinton had raped her. Clinton flatly denied the claim, and there were inconsistencies in her story. No charges were ever brought.

Kathleen Willey — The former White House aide claimed Clinton groped her in his office in 1993, on the same day when her husband, facing embezzlement charges, died in an apparent suicide. (Her story changed over time. During a deposition in the Paula Jones matter, she initially said she had no recollection about whether Clinton kissed her and insisted he did not fondle her.) Clinton denied her account, and the independent prosecutor concluded “there is insufficient evidence to prove to a jury beyond a reasonable doubt that President Clinton’s testimony regarding Kathleen Willey was false.” Willey later began to claim Clinton had a hand in her husband’s death, even though her husband left behind a suicide note.

Note that no court of law ever found Clinton guilty of the accusations.

Peter Baker, in “The Breach,” the definitive account of the impeachment saga, reported that House investigators later found in the files of the independent prosecutor that Jones’s lawyers had collected the names of 21 different women they suspected had had a sexual relationship with Clinton. Baker described the files as “wild allegations, sometimes based on nothing more than hearsay claims of third-party witnesses.” But there were some allegations (page 138) that suggested unwelcome advances:

“One woman was alleged to have been asked by Clinton to give him oral sex in a car while he was the state attorney general (a claim she denied). A former Arkansas state employee said that during a presentation, then-Governor Clinton walked behind her and rubbed his pelvis up against her repeatedly. A woman identified as a third cousin of Clinton’s supposedly told her drug counselor during treatment in Arkansas that she was abused by Clinton when she was baby-sitting at the Governor’s Mansion in Little Rock.”

Update: We were focused on stories that emerged during Clinton’s presidency. But many readers have also urged us to include a reference to Clinton’s post-presidential travels on aircraft owned by convicted pedophile Jeffery Epstein. Gawker reported that flight logs show that Clinton, among others, traveled through Africa in 2002 on a jet with “an actress in softcore porn movies whose name appears in Epstein’s address book under an entry for ‘massages.’”  Chauntae Davies, the actress, declined to discuss why she was on the flight. Clinton has not commented.

The Bottom Line

Trump’s claim is a bit too vague for a fact check. In any case, we imagine readers will have widely divergent reactions to this list of admitted affairs and unproven allegations of unwanted sexual encounters. But at least you now know the specific cases that Trump is referencing.

Trump is right: Bill Clinton’s sordid sexual history is fair game

Trump is right: Bill Clinton’s sordid sexual history is fair game

Morgan Spurlock’s Warrior Poets Promotes Jeremy Chilnick To COO

EXCLUSIVEMorgan Spurlock’s Gotham-based production label Warrior Poets has promoted Jeremy Chilnick to Chief Operating Officer. Chilnick has been with Warrior Poets since its creation in 2004, working his way up from assistant. He has produced numerous award-winning films, digital series and television programs. He also helped create and grow the company’s digital division. Chilnick had been a partner at Warrior Poets and its head of production. Now, he’ll have oversight of all aspects of film, television and digital development, all internal productions, and content delivery.

Said Spurlock: “This is an exciting time for the company. Jeremy is one of the most talented and multi-faceted producers in the industry. The company has benefited immensely by his leadership as a partner, and as Chief Operating Officer I believe he will be instrumental in continuing to shape the future growth of Warrior Poets. Jeremy’s passion, strategic thinking and creativity are unmatched. I can’t imagine a better person to help drive our rapidly expanding company.”

Image (1) MorganSpurlock__140422203653.jpg for post 718247Chilnick’s production work began with the Shopocalypse-chronicling documentary What Would Jesus Buy? and the  Cannes selection The Third Wave. He co-wrote and served as produce or exec producer of Where in the World is Osama Bin Laden?, The Simpsons 20th Anniversary Special: In 3-D! on Ice!, the documentary adaptation of The New York Times best-selling book Freakonomics, POM Wonderful Presents: The Greatest Movie Ever Sold, Comic Con Episode IV: A Fan’s Hope, Mansome, and the 3D concert documentary, One Direction: This Is Us.