Fox News aired November 9, 2017 – One lawyer says the deal between the Clinton campaign and the DNC in August of 2015 – which essentially turned over control of the DNC to the Clinton campaign – was in violation of federal campaign finance law. #Tucker
By Perry Chiaramonte
December 19, 2017
A new legal complaint filed with the Federal Election Commission alleges that the Hillary Clinton campaign and the Democratic National Committee used state chapters as strawmen to circumvent campaign donation limits and laundered the money back to her campaign.
The Committee to Defend the President, a political action committee, filed its complaint with the FEC on Monday with the allegations that the Hillary Victory Fund (HVF) solicited cash from big-name donors, including Calvin Klein and “Family Guy” creator Seth MacFarlane — money that was allegedly sent through state chapters and back to the DNC before ending up with the Clinton campaign.
Officials with the committee said their filing was spurred by their own analysis of FEC reports, where they said they discovered the HVF either never transferred the money to state chapters and back to the DNC, or did so without the state chapters having actual control.
CDP counsel Dan Backer said the scheme was a flagrant violation of a Supreme Court ruling that determined such moves were illegal — and broke FEC campaign contribution rules which state that an individual can contribute only $2,700 directly to a presidential campaign.
“It appears virtually every single disbursement from HVF to a state party resulted in an immediate transfer of the same amount of funds from the state party to the DNC,” reads another passage from the complaint. “Over 99% of funds transferred through HVF to state parties wound up at the DNC.”
In its complaint, the CDP alleges that about $84 million was funneled illegally from the DNC through state party chapters and back into the war chest of the Clinton campaign.
Filed before the FEC on 12/20/17: “An FEC investigation is likely to confirm, however, the existence of an unprecedented scheme, staggering in scale, to solicit and accept tens of millions of dollars in earmarked contributions and launder them through dozens of state parties to the DNC to be used for the benefit, and subject to the control, of Hillary Clinton’s presidential campaign, resulting in vastly excessive contributions to the DNC and HFA.”
Read the complete article HERE.
Interesting isn’t it that with many in the Democrat Party no longer “protecting” Hillary just how much is slowly winding its way out into the open. Apparently, after glancing through some liberal comments, she is no longer in favor with those posting the comments.
Will this go anywhere? I seriously doubt it. Probably like anything else against the Clintons more “nothing burger” than equal justice under the law. This isn’t her first rodeo and she has already gotten away with this. (see below)
February 4, 2010 – Office of General Counsel – Electronic Redesignation of Contributions/Date of Withdrawal – Hillary Clinton for President (C00431569) LRA #726: Clinton attempted to redesignate approximately $6 million in contributions originally designated to the Committee’s general election campaign to Clinton’s Senate committee. For a number of these contributions, Clinton attempted to facilitate the redesignations by sending an email that directed the contributors to a website where they would redesignate their contributions using an online form. Section 110.l(b)(5)(i), however, explicitly requires that such redesignations must be written redesignations. “We would also recommend that the Commission exercise its discretion not to pursue a finding of late redesignations or late refunds based on Clinton’s June 7,2008 withdrawal of her candidacy.
October 10, 2000 Senate Campaign – MUR 4960 – Office of General Counsel – allegations of excessive contributions – the FEC declared “in 4-2 vote to” find no reason to believe” that Hillary Rodham Clinton received excessive contributions rather than the noted OGC recommendation of ” dismissed as not warranting further action.
Once accepted FEC is required by law to review the complaint. If the Commission finds that a violation occurred, possible outcomes can range from a letter reiterating compliance obligations to a conciliation agreement, which may include a monetary civil penalty.
I scanned at least a few articles covering this filing but they made it seem that this was a “court case.” Unless or until the FEC makes the determination though, it does not appear this is a court case filed in a federal court.
Will the laws for federal elections become harder to circumvent? Again I doubt it. As they come across problems some comments about updating are made but I am not sure who or how those administrative or congressional changes get made, if they ever do. Although maybe it is the Senate since Schumer was involved.
What is interesting is that most of the restrictions and parameters in place have been because Chuck Schumer and his Dem buddies put them there. Simply another case of “what is good for the flock never seems to apply to the elite goose.”
SOS but with a new president and mayyyybe a more willing set of congress members things could change? naw that is probably another dream.