Matt Forney
Spread the Word!

Cenk Uygur’s Wolf PAC is a Scam

wolf-pac

Cenk Uygur is a leftist political activist and the main host of the progressive talk show The Young Turks. For the past few years, Uygur has also operated Wolf PAC, a political action committee focused on campaign finance reform. I’ve obtained information that shows that Wolf PAC is a scam that does little to no political work and spends the bulk of its money—in other words, donors’ money—on salaries for its employees. Anyone who donates to Wolf PAC is effectively being ripped off.

A Brief History of Wolf PAC

Cenk Uygur announced the creation of Wolf PAC on October 19, 2011 in a video filmed at the #OccupyWallStreet protests in New York City, though the paperwork to launch the PAC was actually filed in June 2010, in the wake of the Citizens United v. FEC decision. In the Citizens United case, the Supreme Court ruled that it was unconstitutional to restrict independent political expenditures by unions, corporations and other similar entities, which Uygur and The Young Turks found unacceptable:

Uygur billed Wolf PAC as a way to “get money out of politics.” Its initial goal was a campaign to mount pressure on state legislatures to vote for a constitutional convention, in which the following amendment would be added to the Constitution:

Corporations are not people. They have none of the constitutional rights of human beings. Corporations are not allowed to give money to any politician, directly or indirectly. No politician can raise over $100 from any person or entity. All elections must be publicly financed.

Since then, Uygur has repeatedly pushed Wolf PAC via The Young Turks and constantly begs his viewers and fans to donate to the PAC; see examples here, here and here (the last video is from over the weekend).

How Wolf PAC is Scamming People

According to a letter sent to the Federal Election Commission on October 17, 2011 (two days before Cenk Uygur’s announcement), Wolf PAC stated that they “intend[ed] to only make independent expenditures” and did not intend to make direct contributions to federal political candidates. (An independent expenditure is a political campaign communication that advocates for the election or defeat of a political candidate but is not made in cooperation with said candidate or any entity associated with them.)

wolf pac

However, here is a pie chart showing the most recent two-year summary of Wolf PAC’s expenditures, according to a report from the FEC:

wolf pac

As you can see, independent expenditures comprise a whopping zero percent of Wolf PAC’s overall expenditures, despite the fact that they told the FEC that they only intended to make independent expenditures. Operating expenditures comprised 88.6 percent ($378,471) of their overall spending, while other disbursements comprised the remaining 11.4 percent ($48,657).

For comparison, here’s what a real PAC’s expenditure summary looks like. Here is the most recent two-year expenditure summary for the conservative PAC Club for Growth:

wolf-pac-3a

In contrast to Wolf PAC, independent expenditures comprised 94.6 percent ($11,572,502) of the Club for Growth’s overall expenditures, with operating expenditures a mere 5.4 percent ($658,749).

Not only that, according to the FEC, both Wolf PAC and Club for Growth are classified as independent expenditure-only committees:

wolf pac

wolf pac

David Koller, the man listed as the treasurer for Wolf PAC, is the co-founder of The Young Turks and also serves as a producer for the show. The address listed for Wolf PAC is also the same address as The Young Turks’ studio.

Now here is a breakdown of Wolf PAC’s operating expenditures according to their April 2016 quarterly expenditure report and calculated to the best of our ability (the report is 70 pages long):

wolf pac

As you can see, Cenk Uygur’s Wolf PAC has spent the vast majority of its donations on payroll (43.9 percent) and expenses related to it: payroll taxes (17.7 percent), health insurance (9.1 percent), and payroll services. Depending on how you define “salary,” Wolf PAC is spending up to 75 percent of donor money on paying its employees and zero percent on independent expenditures, which are the reason why people are donating to the PAC to begin with.

In a further irony, in their letter to the FEC, Wolf PAC cited the FEC v. Speechnow.org decision as their justification for unlimited fundraising, yet Uygur and The Young Turks have consistently attacked the Speechnow verdict due to the way it strengthened Citizens United. Most recently, Uygur railed against President Obama’s nomination of Merrick Garland to the Supreme Court based on the fact that Garland joined in the Speechnow decision.

It’s worth noting that what Uygur and Wolf PAC are doing is not actually illegal. Federal campaign finance laws allow PACs and Super PACs to spend all of their money on payroll provided they publicly report their expenditures to the FEC. However, what Uygur is doing is extraordinarily unethical and the way in which he promotes Wolf PAC to his fans is dishonest to the core.

Any Young Turks listener who donates to Wolf PAC under the assumption that they’re aiding a political movement is being conned. Cenk Uygur and The Young Turks are deliberately misleading their fans into contributing to a PAC that spends no money on political activities of any kind. Anyone who has been thinking about donating to Wolf PAC should reconsider their decision.

Questions for Cenk Uygur and The Young Turks

  1. Why is Wolf PAC filed as an independent expenditure-only committee when it makes no independent expenditures?
  2. Why did you cite the FEC v. Speechnow.org case in your letter to the FEC as justifications for taking unlimited donations for Wolf PAC when you publicly oppose the Speechnow verdict? Is this not hypocritical?
  3. You claim that you want to push states to call for a constitutional convention in order to pass an amendment to the Constitution amendment that will “get money out of politics.” Why didn’t you just start a regular political organization or non-profit for this purpose, instead of a PAC? Was it just so you could milk your audience for the maximum amount of money?

Thanks to UygurLeaks for providing me with much of this information.

P.S. Cenk Uygur has a reputation for threatening lawsuits against anyone who reports on his political activities. UygurLeaks had previously sent this information to another writer, but that writer backed out when Uygur threatened to sue him for another anti-Young Turks article he had written.

Independent reporting costs money. If you enjoy my work and want to see more of it, click here to donate. I greatly appreciate any and all support you can provide.

Read Next: How Rachel Haywire Scammed Trigger Warning’s Donors and Almost Killed Me

  • John Steele

    Matt, great work on this piece. I expect this article to go viral. Congrats.

  • FlorianUlrich

    Thank you for this! Fascinating. What are the members of that Wolf-PAC DOING? They do get paid and then… check their eMails the whole day? Curate content for the TYT Youtube channel? It fits with Uygur’s pompous persona. Nothing but hot air and make-believe indignation.

  • What a sleeze this guy is.

  • if you dive into Wolf PAC’s quarterly filings, you can see exactly what they’re spending their donors’ money on.

  • too long in london

    Nice journalism ( I used to watch that show). What do you think of campaign finance overall, though?
    I thought it was a necessary evil, since removing money from politics just gives the incumbent party a huge edge and hence doesn’t really make the electoral process that much fairer, but every up has a down etc.

  • Citizens United is a symptom of the bigger problem of corporate personhood. Without abolishing that, corporations are going to exercise an outsized influence on politics.

    Additionally, public financing systems have their own downsides: they give the incumbent party an advantage and allow them to manipulate the system to their benefit (like you said). For example, in Belgium, the left- and right-wing parties in Belgium (both Flemish and Walloon) joined forces to cut public funds for the Flemish nationalist party Vlaams Belang due to the fact that it was an “undemocratic” party, despite its popularity with Flemish voters.

  • Joe Cavanaugh

    Good job, Matt. I normally don’t compliment you, but this time I will. Solid, provable, reporting.

  • Old-school investigative journalism at its finest. In the great scheme of things, a PAC that spends all of its money on internal salaries & benefits will obviously do less harm to the country than a leftist group that actually accomplishes some political work.

  • vincent

    cenk has to be the worst of the liberal media. he has a mouth that never stops spinning everything into a left wing fairytale.

  • bear

    Excellent investigative reporting. !

  • jeff4justice

    Matthew I cited your research in the videos:
    Cenk Uygur On Ending The 2 Party System by No more 2 Party System
    and also
    Cenk Uygur Confronted On Anti Gay Investor & Crowdfunding Practices

    Thanks for the great research.

  • pyrophilia

    Anyone that’s actually WORKED for the Wolf-pac like myself knows they do plenty of actual political work,
    I’ve gone down to the State legislature with volunteers with them,
    I’ve done phone calls for them I’ve done all kinds of work for this and I’m willing to stand up and call this article a Lie written by a liar. The ONLY sleaze here is Matt Forney himself.

  • pyrophilia

    making phone calls? We’ve called Voters all over the state I live in. We’ve asked them to call their legislatures and ask them to support HJM201. You have no idea what goes on on the ground level so you should STFU.

  • FlorianUlrich

    You are an idiot with an inflated ego. Godspeed. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bVAUTFUZUBg

  • pyrophilia

    You have no idea what you’re talking about and your Whole article is a non sequitur, your conclusion doesn’t follow at all from your premise or the data presented here. And yet I have the inflated ego? You’re projecting.

  • pyrophilia

    EVERY Word about the lack of independent expenditures could be entirely true and the wolf-pac would -STILL- be doing real political work in spite of it, and they do.

    If you’d ever shown up to their events you would know that.

  • pyrophilia

    besides because you’ve never shown up f or their events or participated in a wolf-attack you’re not Qualified or fit to judge me. Quiet simply you are so ignorant you lack the skills or knowledge required to recognize your own ignorance.

  • pyrophilia

    besides because you’ve never shown up f or their events or participated in a wolf-attack you’re not Qualified or fit to judge me. Quiet simply you are so ignorant you lack the skills or knowledge required to recognize your own ignorance. 5 states down

  • pyrophilia

  • pyrophilia

    providencejournal DOT com SLASH news SLASH 20160620 SLASH at-ri-state-house-wolf-pac-lobbyists-made-late-push

    REAL POLITICAL work, Which this article falsely accused the wolf-pac of not doing, being done.

  • Pingback: What Difference Does it Make? – Right On()

  • Kurtis Eisenhardt

    As a volunteer I can tell you your claim is absolutely false, @matthewforney:disqus . Almost nobody receives a salary in our group and we spend several hours making phone calls to voters and senators, and doing demonstrations. You are a blatant liar and have no idea what you’re talking about.

  • Pingback: Highlight Of My Year | freewillobjector()

  • What, are you stupid? Wolf PAC is about lobbying state legislatures to pass resolutions calling for an amendment to end big money in politics. The only costs they have are their employees. Unlike other PACs, they don’t go out and buy politicians. They use the money to keep the PAC going and lobby congresses using protests, meetings, and other means rather than money. What’s the problem, here? What would you prefer they spend that money on?

  • Laurelle Bundushathur

    WolfPAC roughly earned 450K and used ≈ 44% (≈190K) of that money to pay wolfPAC employees. Why is this unusual? In California living expenses are high, especially in LA, which is where TYT is based. It wouldn’t surprise me if the people he employs ere being paid anywhere from 40k-80k for working, SoCal is one of the most expensive places to live in the country. They’re paying living wages to 4-6 people tops.
    Are you guys under the impression that everyone works for free or that $10/hr in SoCal is gonna cut it? Hell no, this isn’t freaking Oklahoma. If anything, this is indicative that they’re not receiving enough funding as the wolfPAC also consists of many volunteers who they would likely pay if they had more funding and they would get more work done. You’re grasping at straws.

  • RobertLongman

    Matt Forney is an idiot that doesn’t know what he is talking about. An independent expenditure only committee simply means that money may not be spent in coordination with a campaign. That is what the “only” is in reference to. It does not mean that money is not spent on operating costs. An independent expenditure is defined as expressly advocating for the election or defeat of a clearly identified candidate. Wolf PAC has been spending its money on pressuring state legislators which Wolf PAC makes very clear in THE VERY FIRST LINE of “the plan” on their website. That is not unethical at all. It is exactly what they outlined in their plan.

  • Pingback: TYT: Accountability Is For Suckers! | freewillobjector()

  • Pingback: Why “Get The Money Out Of Politics Is Pointless” | freewillobjector()

  • guy

    I’m noticing a trend.

    Just because you’re not being paid as a volunteer, that doesn’t mean no one gets a salary. They could just as easily keep you in the dark. A good con-artist would certainly be keeping you in the dark.

    I have no dog in this fight and am in the TYT political demographic, so I have no reason to be slandering them. I just hate bad argumentation.

  • Pingback: TYT Carrying On The Clinton/$ander$ Legacy | freewillobjector()

  • thebagman45

    The First Amendment has nothing to do with corporate personhood. It’s a restriction on what Congress can do.

  • Robert Weekes

    I know there are plenty of volunteers doing “Wolf-Attacks” phone calls, but who is getting the 44% salary? Does anyone know? There is no transparency. I’ve been donating $25/mo for a while and I don’t know who’s salary it’s paying for. If there are so many volunteers then what is the paid employee doing. I don’t want to pay for a TYT “reporter” salary I want to pay for results.

  • Robert Weekes

    Thanks for the link, I was about to cancel my monthly Wolf-pac donations but I see the salary is going to real people doing real shit. I feel much better now !

  • Robert Weekes

    I don’t know how busy the paid employees are, but it’s only a handful of ppl and their salaries are not extravagant. According to the providencejournal article two of them are making $40-48k and appeared at the state legislature in June to make a final lobbying push as the vote passed in Rhode Island. If this is standard work for them I am satisfied that my donations are being put to good use (for now)!

  • Dawn Sunburst

    This article uses deceptive language and deceptive comparisons. Even the graph is wrong as it should’ve been a bar graph and not a pie chart.

    The Club for Growth made 30x more money than WolfPAC and to quote this article-
    CFG’s operating expenses are a mere 5.4% ($658,749)
    in comparison to wolfPACs operating expenses of 88.6% ($378,471).
    There’s nothing mere about CFG’s operating expenses, it’s double (2x) that of wolfPACs.

    Not to mention that their definition of independent expenditure is- a political campaign communication that advocates for the election or defeat of a political candidate but is not made in cooperation with said candidate or any entity associated with them.

    Opensecrets further clarifies independent expenditures as money used in favor of, or against, Democrats or Republicans.

    As far as we know WolfPAC is not suppose to be using money to politically elect or defeat candidates. Even OpenSecrets has their independent expenditures at zero, rightfully so.

    Matt is taking everyone who’s bad at math for fools.

  • AC Searls

    Matt Forney you are very wrong about Wolfpac. Please shut your lies down.

  • corruptclintons

    Great research. It is especially relevant now that Cenk and Kyle Kulinski have started another pack called Justice Democrats. I hope you will track JD as well. You are performing a valuable public service.

  • Pat

    This clown is all about spreading hatred and violence. Take for example this comment from Forney, “……. I discuss the destructiveness of female gossip and social media, the real reason why women should not be allowed to vote, and the possibility of using the government to keep women from falsely accusing men of rape.”

    Now he attacks progressives who want money out of politics. Why would any American, left or right, be against this? It’s simple…they are corrupt.

  • Pingback: The Sound, The Fury, The Inevitable Result… You With Less Money | freewillobjector()

  • LordStark

    Actually you seem the one to lack intelligence. Is Cenk that stupid as to NOT understand you need both states AND Congress to amend the Constitution? I don’t believe he’s that ignorant, which leads me to believe he is intentionally misleading the people he is grifting. Sounds like Cenk is too much of a p-bag to go after the Feds, and instead is just instructing his minions to contact their state legislators, which alone amounts to fruck-all if you want to amend the Constitution

  • LordStark

    Do you also not know how the Constitution is amended like your boy Chunk? Sorry, just calling state legislators won’t accomplish the stated goals of Wolf-PAC…you’ve been deceived by a corporate lawyer who owns a corporation who makes his earning protesting corporations LOL

  • LordStark

    So why did he set up his PAC in Iowa if TYT is based in California? Probably because the hypocrite wants to save money in taxes by locating it in fly-over country….

  • Steven Geller

    No, Article V of the Constitution says that 2/3 of the states can call for a convention to propose one or more Amendments, which are then ratified by 3/4 of the states. The only thing Congress needs to do is to verify that 2/3 and 3/4 of the states have met these thresholds. Congress has no legislative role in this process. It is only involved in the more common Amendment process where a Congressman or Senator proposes an Amendment, to be voted on by 2/3 of the House and Senate, but that is not the path Wolf-PAC is taking.

  • Steven Geller

    Wolf-PAC has 4 salaried employees and about 36,000 volunteers. The employees work very hard, in part criss-crossing the country to meet with lawmakers, and advocating for a campaign finance reform resolution in each state house. They also organize the efforts of local teams in each state and a “national team” that volunteers various assistance to the local teams on a “most urgent” basis. The volunteers do the bulk of the work, since there are thousands of them. The PAC doesn’t give donations to prospective lawmakers (unlike the Club for Growth), they’re only looking for the current lawmakers to pass their resolution.

    So what is the problem? The money goes mostly to the salaried employees because the volunteers aren’t asking to be paid. There are almost no additional expenditures because the volunteers and their work are enough to pressure the lawmakers. And 5 states have passed resolutions via Wolf-PAC’s work, and in none of those states did they need to fund any of the lawmakers that passed them (and so they only rarely choose to advocate for specific candidates). Where else should the money be going? And how is it a scam?

  • LordStark

    From their website…”To restore true, representative democracy in the United States by pressuring our State Legislators to pass a much needed Free and Fair Elections Amendment to our Constitution. There are only 2 ways to amend our Constitution: (1) Go through Congress (single digit approval rating) or (2) Go through our State Legislators via an amendment proposing convention” Clearly they are saying you can amend the Constitution by only going through the state legislators, which of course is 100% incorrect.

  • Steven Geller

    No, it’s correct. Article 5 of the Constitution:

    “The Congress, whenever two thirds of both houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose amendments to this Constitution, or, on the application of the legislatures of two thirds of the several states, shall call a convention for proposing amendments, which, in either case, shall be valid to all intents and purposes, as part of this Constitution, when ratified by the legislatures of three fourths of the several states, or by conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other mode of ratification may be proposed by the Congress; provided that no amendment which may be made prior to the year one thousand eight hundred and eight shall in any manner affect the first and fourth clauses in the ninth section of the first article; and that no state, without its consent, shall be deprived of its equal suffrage in the Senate.”

    “or, on the application of the legislatures of two thirds of the several states, shall call a convention for proposing amendments,” “when ratified by the legislatures of three fourths of the several states,” So….the legislatures of 2/3 of the states can call a convention, and 3/4 of the states can ratify the Amendment(s) that emerge from the convention. This clearly sounds like the states can do this completely on their own. As I mentioned, the only role for Congress in such a case is to determine that 2/3 of the states have successfully applied for a convention upon deeming it necessary. The Congress calls the convention, but it doesn’t participate in it in any way.

  • LordStark

    Oh that’s cute, you think I’m one of the useful idiots LOL…tell the former corporate attorney and current corporation owner to keep fighting the good fight against corporations lol

  • Steven Geller

    So did you not read my comment about how the Constitution definitely and clearly provides a way to get an Amendment through only the states, or do facts simply not matter to you? I see that you moved the goalposts at the end to make it an ad hominem attack against Cenk’s supposed hypocrisy, which is a silly claim and misses the point of what he seeks to do with Wolf-PAC, but at least those things are based on actual data, rather than claiming that the Constitution must always be amended through Congress (which is not true) or that Wolf-PAC is a scam (which is not true and frankly slanderous).

    I’m not even actually sure what you think the scam is. Is the scam that Cenk wants to pay the salary of people that you (wrongly) don’t think are doing anything productive? What would be the gain for him? Is the scam that Cenk set up a PAC on an arduous, endless timesuck of a path to end corruption so that he can “steal” a few extra $10 donations? That would be about the slowest, most inefficient way to make money that I can imagine–did Cenk turn down a million dollar deal at MSNBC so he could hustle for $230 a week from small donors? Inconceivable.

  • LordStark

    I know all about what the Constitution says about passing an Amendment to the Constitution. First let’s look at some “facts”. In the ENTIRE history of the US, the Constitution has ONLY been amended by a vote of 2/3s of Congress AND 3/4ths of the states. Do you agree so far? Let’s assume you do, and you seem like an intelligent individual so I believe my assumption is correct. So what Cenk is attempting to do has NEVER been done. Now before I continue, please let me know why you think Cenk’s preferred method has been once been achieved as this will relate to my point which you apparently aren’t quite grasping at the moment.

  • Steven Geller

    Yes. The things you have said are all thus far true. There has never been a state-triggered Amendments convention in American history thus far. The Convention in the 1780’s, which is sometimes thought as analogous, is not, since that was in response to a document that had no legal way of being amended, so they ended up overhauling it completely, whereas now the Constitution can clearly be amended as per Article V.

    What Cenk is trying to do has never been done. However, it has directly led to Congressional Amendments, most notably the 17th Amendment (direct election of Senators), which got within somewhere between 1 and 4 states (my research varies) of triggering a convention, and Congress finally threw up their hands and proposed it themselves, ostensibly to save face. If Wolf-PAC’s advocacy leads Congress to propose an Amendment whose language we are happy with, then great–we’ll disband Wolf-PAC as soon as it becomes ratified. If not, we hope to be the first (though we’d probably be the second, since the Balanced Budget Amendment call has about 28 states right now).

    The reason I think that this method has never been done? The above paragraph shows one reason. Another is that we’ve demonstrably had a more receptive Congress to the will of the American public in every previous era, and more people are awoken than any previous era to how much the current (i.e. over the last 20 years) Congress does not serve their interests at all. When we had a more responsive Congress, there wasn’t the need to slog through the states for something like this–women’s suffrage, for example, kept pressuring Congress, and eventually they convinced Congress to champion that movement. We don’t believe that they will ever champion a movement related to regulating their own corruption. So going through the states is among the only options left.

    Also, I have inside information on this, but Cenk has always said it publicly many times. Phil Griffin told him that “Washington didn’t like his tone” (i.e., he was too critical of Democrats), and offered Cenk a larger salary to move to a weekend show, provided that Cenk “recognize that while it’s great to be anti-Establishment, MSNBC represents the Establishment.” I can’t say if Cenk literally quit at that moment or if he simply refused the deal and was fired, but it is stone cold fact that he turned down a richer offer from them.

  • LordStark

    So the irony, of course, is that Cenk is coming at this from a conservative’s perspective…i.e. the states should have more power than the Federal gov’t. Unfortunately the reality is that there’s no way in HELL the Federal gov’t would ever allow the states to amend the Constitution if it’s something they’re against, and obviously they would be against it if they wouldn’t even be willing to take a vote on it. So I consider it a scam because it’s nothing but an exercise in futility as evidenced by the fact it’s NEVER BEEN DONE IN HISTORY! Now is where you tell me Cenk will break records in doing what no man before him ever could…..

    Come on now, let’s apply some common sense. You’re trying to convince me that MSNBC would pay him MORE money even though they are against him and anyone else challenging the establishment. Now that’s some pretzel logic. Why would they pay him MORE to move to a LESS prominent time-slot if “Washington didn’t like his tone”???

  • Steven Geller

    1. I think that calling everything from the states “more Conservative” that something from the Feds is overly simplistic. If the states want to legalize gay marriage , for example, and the Federal government doesn’t have that as a national policy, then those states are being more Liberal than the Feds are. But ok. Yes, I suppose that in the most broad sense of defining federalism, there is theoretically some irony in a Progressive wanting to use the states “against the federal government.” So what? If it’s in the Constitution, then the Founders clearly wanted this to be an option. I don’t understand the problem.
    2. “the reality is that there’s no way in HELL the Federal gov’t would ever allow the states to amend the Constitution” Well, they’d be violating the Constitution in that case. Can/will they do that? They seem to violate it all the time now anyway (we basically have no 4th Amendment left), but that’s a really bad reason not to push for this. If Congress willfully decides to ignore the stated, codified will of 2/3 of the states in a procedure that is supposed to be Constitutionally followed, then we’ll have that fight. Your alternative is just to let them break the law because they can? In such a case, why advocate for any position at all if you’re ok with the government ignoring you, even when you have the law on your side?
    3. “So I consider it a scam because it’s nothing but an exercise in futility” Do you understand the meaning of the word “scam”? If I play a game of Tetris blindfolded, I’m almost surely going to lose–it is an exercise in futility, but there is no scam. The word “scam” implies intentional deceit and theft or fraud, not just “something really hard to succeed at.” The volunteers and donors to Wolf-PAC know that this is not an easy or quick victory, and they are not lied to or tricked into believing otherwise, nor is their money used in deceptive ways. It is a completely genuine group that is genuinely fighting for this policy, even though it is hard to achieve it. I think you really owe people an apology for using the term SCAM. Forney is implying here that the group DOES NO WORK and is thus just a slush fund. That is vastly different (and slanderous) compared to your argument that “oh, they’re trying to do something difficult.” If you don’t think that Wolf-PAC is doing something specifically deceptive, phony or falsified, then you can’t call it a scam. And that very important terminology doesn’t change regardless of whether Cenk is capable of “breaking records” and/or doing something unprecedented or not.
    4. You’d have to go ask MSNBC what their motives were, since I wasn’t in the meetings where they discussed these things. My strong guess is that they knew that Cenk had enough celebrity as an online presence that they wanted him to keep quiet about the Democratic Party and MSNBC’s Establishment leanings. So offering him more money to “fall in line” is basically just hush money–“We’ll give you a nice cozy new job, less work, great benefits, but you have to play ball with MSNBC.” They get to marginalize him to the weekends (it was probably the case that the White House preferred taking the temperature of the prime time lineup, rather than the lesser-viewed weekend lineup), they still keep his vast online audience, and they get to shush one of their critics in the process. To me, this sounds EXACTLY like the DNC making Bernie Sanders their “chairman of outreach” (we’ll give you a position in our leadership, just bring in your throngs of Progressive fans to our platform, and BTW shut up and don’t criticize us anymore), and it sounds EXACTLY like the DNC making Keith Ellison their “vice chair” (You have no power, but please bring your Progressive supporters to us). It also sounds exactly like what they did to Jesse Ventura and Ashleigh Banfield in 2003 (kept paying their salaries but didn’t let them on the air anymore, and also wouldn’t let them out of their contracts so that they could go somewhere else and badmouth MSNBC). What was Jesse and Ashleigh’s crime where they were taken off the air but still paid? They were against the Iraq War, i.e., they rankled the Establishment and “Washington didn’t like their tone.” The pattern fits perfectly.

  • D. Van Nostrand

    “So I consider it a scam because it’s nothing but an exercise in
    futility as evidenced by the fact it’s NEVER BEEN DONE IN HISTORY!”

    The fact that he’s a liberal/progressive has nothing to do with this huh?

  • D. Van Nostrand

    LOL, that is your response?

  • D. Van Nostrand

    So a handful of these Wolf-pac employees earn a living wage……..straight ballin. These scammers probably can afford Starbucks and shit.

  • LordStark

    Nope, liberals and conservatives are one in the same. They created a left/right paradigm in order to keep us peons fighting among ourselves instead of fighting the crooks in Washington

  • D. Van Nostrand

    Your reply makes me wonder if you even know enough about Cenk Uyger and TYT.

    Cenk Uyger is not an ordinary liberal. He’s more progressive than anything. He’s very anti-establishment. He’s an activist. He VERY OFTEN attacks both Liberals and Conservatives. He attacks the Clintons ALL THE TIME. He attacked Obama MANY times. He’s gone on at great lengths with criticisms of Clinton and Obama because they are too “establishment”. It’s a big reason why MSNBC had issues with Uyger.

    Cenk Uyger was a big supported of Bernie Sanders, another anti-establishment guy that also fights for righteous causes.

    But I am pretty sure you are going to still point fingers at Cenk Uyger and TYT calling them phoney scammers are something for whatever reason.

  • Electricity had never been done before in history until it was. Blacks had never before in history been allowed to vote, until they did. Even if you’re correct that this is nothing but an act of futility, the reality is that it has raised further awareness, and caused many state politicians on both sides of the aisle to champion the cause. That’s not nothing.

    While I didn’t directly work in the news production side, I did work as an tv/film executive for corporations that had news divisions and the way they operated wasn’t that different from the other, and it most certainly defies logic. Cenk’s story seems factual from my experience and from those I’ve conversed with from the news side. Nonetheless, calling this a scam seems foolish, and it would be hardly a scam worth singling out given the degree of and abundance of large-scale political scams that hurt far more people. It seems more like you disagree on the points and principles.

  • LordStark

    Except it’s 2017 and this has nothing to do with social/scientific progress that comes with the evolution of time. The point you’re missing or blind to is that the Feds have all the power and if they don’t want something done only fools would believe politicians at the local/state level could do a thing about changing that. Awareness is a nice little buzzword to make the peons think they matter, so if you want to line the pockets of this scammer for that reason then by all means, whatever makes you feel as though you re making a difference…just know you’re not, nor ever will. There is a shadow govt that decides these things, and they own the same corporations you’re fighting to get out of politics. Make your life easier and look into the truther movement if you want to have ANY chance of making a difference

  • LordStark

    He owns a corporation that makes his bread dealing with politics….you think he’s gonna cut his own throat? Wake up people, the govt is ALWAYS gonna look out for the corporations, including Cenk’s

  • LordStark

    And Bernie sold out when he didn’t fight back against the establishment. He’s a Zionist jew who is playing the role of liberal, same with jill stein, another Zionist. They are the left side of the liberal-conservative Hegelian Dialectic designed to keep Americans fighting with ourselves over imsignifant crap instead of exposing the corrupt and unconstitutional Fed Reserve who is making money by financing our bullshit wars so the bankers make all the money. This shouldn’t have anything to do with liberals or conservatives as Goldman Sachs is rum by both and supported by both sides in govt. I’m sure Bernie and trump are having themselves a good laugh together at our expense behind closed doors

  • LordStark

    Can they violate the Constitution??? Lol please you have to be kidding. The Fed Reserve is an OBVIOUS violation of the Constitution yet they continue to rape us with their usury….no need whatsoever for the most powerful country in the world to have to borrow from a PRIVATE bank like the Fed

  • Shalini Thakur

    An embarrassing attempt by the establishment at barely veiled pro-corruption propaganda. So laughably typical and dim-witted. Aww….how cute, you really tried! Well, sort of…