Hillary Clinton follows campaign finance law. Bernie Sanders breaks it

[BainsBane]

Sanders' campaign has accepted over $23 million in ILLEGAL campaign contributions. The FEC cited the campaign for those violations in February, in two separate letters sent to his campaign treasurer, Shelia Jackson. At least one of Jackson's responses has been made public and can be read via links in the final article listed below.

http://www.nytimes.com/politics/first-draft/2016/02/12/f-e-c-tells-sanders-campaign-that-some-donors-may-have-given-too-much/?_r=4
http://docquery.fec.gov/pdf/988/201602110300034988/201602110300034988.pdf
https://gobling.wordpress.com/2016/02/13/fec-hits-bernie2016-with-campaign-finance-violations/
https://gobling.wordpress.com/2016/03/22/bernie-2016-returns-donations-to-remedy-campaign-finance-issues/

The law prohibits candidates from accepting donations that total over $2700 in a single campaign cycle. The letters from the FEC show infractions such as single checks of $5,000 or $12,000, substantially over the legal limit. It also shows multiple donations of $27 on a single day, which isn't illegal if they don't exceed $2700 but in a number of cases they do.

Claims that Clinton is corrupt or more dishonest than Sanders are not supported by evidence. Bernie's announcing something over and over again doesn't make it true. Informed voters--human beings who think critically--do not accept a politician's slogans as fact without examining them. The evidence does not support Bernie's claims that is is better than Clinton on campaign finance because he does not even follow the existing law, meager as it is.

At the very least, the FEC violations, more than any candidate in history, show a stunning level of incompetence. How is it possible to appoint a campaign treasurer who is so lax on following federal law that she would submit listings for single checks that exceed federal limits? How is it possible not to have software that tracks donation limits by individual contributors, particularly when the candidate has a war chest well over a $100 million dollars in size? How can someone who can't run a campaign according to the law be trusted with the federal budget?

The infractions above can be explained as the result of incompetence rather than dishonesty. Yet that doesn't hold for all of his claims. For months now he has been announcing he doesn't have super pacs and doesn't take money from Wall Street. Only that too turns out to be false. http://time.com/4261350/bernie-sanders-super-pac-alaska-millenials/ http://www.wsj.com/articles/sanders-record-filings-show-benefits-from-super-pacs-links-to-wall-street-donors-1455300881

Bernie does not have more integrity than Hillary Clinton, not even close. He has a lower scale of truth telling on Politifact http://www.politifact.com/personalities/hillary-clinton/
http://www.politifact.com/personalities/bernie-s/
While key claims about his relationship to super pacs and funders has been proven false, as the links in the paragraphs above demonstrate.

Rather than asking their own candidate about his the revelations concerning his super pac or FEC violations, they post about "Hillary's scream," demonstrating they think she has no right to challenge false character assassination directed against her. https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2016/04/01/why-hillary-clinton-is-justifiably-annoyed-by-critiques-of-her-big-oil-fundraising/?postshare=8651459544364948&tid=ss_fb
They denounce the majority of Democratic voters as "uninformed" for failing to take Bernie's campaign slogans as fact, while they pointedly refuse to as much as examine any independent or documentary evidence because ultimately is it they who willfully seek to remain misinformed.

Now, I know for a fact very few Sanders supporters will examine the FEC evidence or articles about Bernie's super pac because the sad fact is too many simply don't care. I think that says a great deal about the support for Bernie's candidacy and how little of it has to do with evidence, policy, or actual differences on issues.

A jury can hide this post, fully supported with evidence and sources--including links to primary documents--but that won't make the truth go away. Facts are what they are, and Bernie does not live up to billing.

[Segami]

1. Hillary Clinton Is being INVESTIGATED by the FBI....Bernie is not!

[msongs]

3. not relevant to the OP however. btw if I vote for Bernie will get my own F35? nt

[NWCorona]

5. Probably not

[Agschmid]

17. Trust me you don't even want one of those jalopies.

[Hortensis]

56. Bernie is being investigated by the FEC

for a pattern of repeated felony-level offenses. Now, as said, some was just chalked up to lack of competence early on, but the situation has not improved.

Bernie is accepting illegal campaign donations.

If he doesn't clean up his act, he should be investigated by the FBI. We may have to put up with Citizens United until we can get rid of it, but this, at least, is STILL ILLEGAL and we don't have to put up with it.

[beam me up scottie]

111. Every candidate is being investigated by the FEC and according to crooksandliars the op is WRONG:

No, Social Media Warriors. Bernie Sanders Did Not Get $23M In 'Illegal Contributions'

For weeks now, I've seen social media warriors put out the claim that Bernie Sanders has received $23 million in "illegal campaign contributions" from donors. Another common allegation concerns one contribution from a corporation that the FEC questioned.

These allegations stem from an FEC inquiry into the Sanders campaign's December, 2015 campaign finance report of small donations. In a 43-page letter, the FEC questioned contributions in excess of the legal limits, one contribution from a LLC, and the total contributions shown for individual small donors.

I reviewed the whole report -- all 99,000 pages -- when I first saw the rumors swirling. After looking at it, it seemed to me that there were some fairly egregious errors in the report, but nothing nefarious. At best, it was incompetence and little more than that.

The allegation that he received $23 million in "illegal contributions." He did not. Here's what actually happened. ActBlue transmitted their collections on his behalf to the campaign, along with a report on who made the donations. When the Sanders campaign transferred those ActBlue donations to their report, they reported the entire amount transmitted by ActBlue as the aggregate contribution per donor, instead of each small donor's total contribution to the campaign.

So, if John Q Public made three $25 contributions via ActBlue to the campaign, his report entry showed the $25 contribution with an aggregate for the cycle of $23 million, instead of the correct amount of $75. The same is true for Jane Q Public's $25 contribution, and so on. There wasn't anything illegal about John and Jane Q Public's contributions at all, but it triggered a query because the aggregate contributions for them was over the aggregate limit of $2,700 for the primaries or $5,400 for the primary and the general.

Again. Not illegal, and not dishonest. Just a really bad error that will surely be corrected.

http://crooksandliars.com/2016/03/no-social-media-warriors-bernie-sanders

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=edit&forum=1251&thread=1632167

I'm certain that HCS will stop repeating this lie now, right?

[BainsBane]

24. In other words, Bernie's documented violations of federal law don't concern you at all

You're going to ignore that for the hope, fueled by the right wing media, that a candidate who has failed to earn a majority of votes will be installed as the nominee against the will of the electorate as a result of some hail mary hope for an indictment.

Bernie--proved to have violated the law. And you don't show even the slightest concern. That would require actually caring about campaign finance rather than whatever it is that motivates your antipathy toward Clinton, the Democratic Party and its voters.

And yet you hang on every word from Breitbart and the Daily Caller in the hope that the FBI investigation will result in thwarting the results of popular elections and installing as the nominee Bernie against the will of the Democratic electorate.

So much for concerns about campaign finance reform and the influence of superpacs, or honesty and integrity. Turns out that there isn't a single issue that actually matters.

[fun n serious]

26. His wife is being investigated by DOJ..

http://www.wcax.com/story/30935632/group-calls-for-fraud-investigation-into-jane-sanders-land-deals

[beam me up scottie]

47. Why are you posting falsehoods? She isn't being investigated by the DOJ, do you think we can't read?

A group of Catholic parishioners want the U.S. Attorney for Vermont to investigate Jane Sanders, the wife of Bernie Sanders, for alleged bank fraud stemming from a land deal she secured as President of Burlington College.

"It appears that Ms. Sanders misrepresented confirmed donations in order to get that loan," said Brady Toensing, an attorney and Vice Chair of the Vermont Republican Party.

Toensing is representing a group of Catholic parishioners. He alleges Jane Sanders cost the Diocese between $1.6 and $2 million dollars in 2010 and 2011. He says she misrepresented the amount of money Burlington college could raise to support a land purchase from the Catholic Church. A loan from People's United Bank was contingent upon Sanders and the college coming up with more than $2 million dollars. "The bank understood it as confirmed donations," Toensing said.

[Jim Lane]

58. That's not what your source says

The penultimate paragraph of your linked article expressly states that, although the letter from the Republican Party spokesweasel asks for an investigation, the mere request doesn't mean that the FBI sees anything that actually merits investigation.

The article is from January. Has the FBI immunized any Burlington College staffers? For that matter, has anything happened to indicate that the FBI's reaction to the letter went beyond having a good laugh over it?

One obvious possibility is that you're deliberately lying about the article. I'll charitably assume that it is instead a huge reading comprehension fail on your part. You were desperate to find something negative about Sanders, or failing that something negative about his wife, and in reading this article you saw what you wanted to see, not what was actually there. If you did make an error of that sort, you should either self-delete or post a correction.

[Bill USA]

89. will BS supporters ever stop repeating Rabid Right Propaganda; Clinton is not the target of FBI

...investigation...

FACT: IG Referral To Justice Department Was Not Criminal, And FBI Isn't Targeting Clinton

FACT: IG Referral To Justice Department Was Not Criminal, And FBI Isn't Targeting Clinton

Joint Statement From The Two Inspectors General States That Only One Of Them Made A Referral And That It Was A Security, Not Criminal, Referral. In a joint statement releasedJuly 24, the Inspectors General of the Intelligence Community (IG IC) and the Department of State explained that the IG IC -- not both IGs -- had made "a security referral," not a criminal one:

IC IG made a referral detailing the potential compromise of classified information to security officials within the Executive Branch. The main purpose of the referral was to notify security officials that classified information may exist on at least one private server and thumb drive that are not in the government's possession. An important distinction is that the IC IG did not make a criminal referral- it was a security referral made for counterintelligence purposes. The IC IG is statutorily required to refer potential compromises of national security information to the appropriate IC security officials. [Statement from the Inspectors General of the Intelligence Community and the Department of State Regarding the Review of Former Secretary Clinton's Emails, 7/24/15]

Wash. Post: Officials Say Clinton "Is Not A Target" Of FBI Probe. The Washington Post reported that government officials said Clinton is "not a target" of the FBI's investigation:

[blockquote style="border:1px solid #000000;padding:10px;"]Hillary Rodham Clinton's attorney has agreed to provide the FBI with the private server that housed her e-mail during her four years as secretary of state, Clinton's presidential campaign said Tuesday.

~~
~~

The inquiry by the FBI is considered preliminary and appears to be focused on ensuring the proper handling of classified material. Officials have said that Clinton, the Democratic presidential front-runner, is not a target.
Washington Post
(more)

[CorporatistNation]

93. ABSOLUTEL! So Lets Talk Some History on Hillary, Cause... It Ain't Over Yet!

Here We Go...

&list=RDUcGrzbxRaxs&index=1

[George II]

171. That is entirely false. You may want to look into what the FBI is investigating.

[azmom]

2. Jajajaja

[BainsBane]

28. And to think you actually took time

to leave that post and demonstrate just how little the claims your candidate makes and the issue of campaign finance actually matters to you. I'm left wondering if there is any issue left that actually does matter to you.
Nevermind. Your post answers that question quite clearly.

[azmom]

79. Jajajaja

[PatrickforO]

4. Only one thing to say here: LIS

[pacalo]

6. Yup.

[BainsBane]

31. Someone seems to know what that means

If you have some sort of evidence to refute the documentation of the FEC site, or to somehow explain away the letter from Sanders Campaign Secretary, please feel free to provide it.

[aikoaiko]

7. I'll take Bernie's poor accounting and the FEC asking him to fix it over the HRC machine anyday.

YMMV.

[fun n serious]

27. International donations is an accounting error?

There were over 3000 of them. 3000 errors?

[BainsBane]

32. Your choice, of course

Last edited Sat Apr 2, 2016, 02:49 AM - Edit history (1)

I myself prefer someone in charge of the federal government who demonstrates a certain level of competence.

And the revelations about super pacs? Do you also prefer Bernie's false statements repeatedly thousands of times?

[Mnpaul]

67. certain level of competence?

Are we forgetting 2008?

On August 28, 2007, The Wall Street Journal reported that Hsu may have engaged in improper actions during the collection of "bundled" campaign contribution. The Clinton campaign rose to Hsu's defense, saying "Norman Hsu is a longtime and generous supporter of the Democratic party and its candidates, including Senator Clinton. During Mr. Hsu's many years of active participation in the political process, there has been no question about his integrity or his commitment to playing by the rules, and we have absolutely no reason to call his contributions into question."

The next day, on August 29, The Los Angeles Times reported that Hsu was a longtime fugitive, having failed to appear for sentencing for a 1992 fraud conviction. The Clinton campaign reversed course, saying it would give to charity the $23,000 that Hsu personally contributed to her presidential campaign, her Senate re-election and her political action committee. The campaign said it did not plan to give away funds that Hsu had collected from other donors.

Although Hsu had donated to other Democratic candidates, scrutiny was focused on the Clinton campaign, with mainstream press reports asking why the campaign had been unable to take steps to discover Hsu's past. and speculating that opponents would liken developments to the 1996 United States campaign finance controversy. Some in the conservative media took a harsher tone, with WorldNetDaily founder Joseph Farah stating that Hillary Clinton should be arrested by the FBI. Clinton said the Hsu revelations were "a big surprise to everybody." She added that, "When you have as many contributors as I’m fortunate enough to have, we do the very best job we can based on the information available to us to make appropriate vetting decisions."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hillary_Clinton_presidential_campaign,_2008

Hillary had fugitives from the law funding her campaign.

[riversedge]

65. Not me. I will stick with the woman who is a progressive who gets things done.

[aikoaiko]

71. If only I had confidence in who she would be once in office

and what types of things she would actually get done.

People can say this is just RW propaganda, but I stand with Bell Hooks and Naomi Klein with their distrust of an HRC presidency.

[Seeinghope]

152. Yes, she is good at destroying and threatening to destroy countries using American blood.

Voting for the war in Iraq. Being an allie of the Saudi's who are known to fund terrorism (remember 9/11? How many terrorists came from Saudi Arabia?) to go take agressve action in Syria, she has done the same with Libya with horrible results as well. Add to that look at Hondouras and Haiti. She has experience in Foreign Policy and her decisions have been proven to be disasterous.

You like her because she is "Progressive". I don't like her because she has a history of jumping to using violent solutions which has ended up being a bigger mess costing hundreds of thousands of lives. In the debates she is still talking about aggressive actions to solve problems. She has no sound judgement when it comes to Foreign Policy. So far she has made the world a less safe place.

[Lucinda]

8. This will sink like a stone....but thank you for posting it!

[beam me up scottie]

9. Why are you linking to the blog of a homophobic racist and right wing tool?

From go blindly:

Project fucking Veritas, O'Keefe's corrupt organization that exists soley to smear liberals:

Project Veritas Video Documents Aussies Illegally Working in Sanders’ Campaign
Posted on March 26, 2016 by Grace Laine

Project Veritas, an investigative film project headed up by James O’Keefe, is credited for documenting the illegal use of Australian Labor Party (ALP) workers in the Bernie Sanders’ presidential campaign.

The group first broke the story and its accompanying video about a month ago but it gained traction when a New Hampshire lawmaker filed a complaint against the ALP and Bernie 2016, the principal campaign committee of Sanders.

The Project Veritas video is making the rounds at conservative talk shows such as GrokTALK, with emphasis on the socialist aspect of the ALP (see below).

Using a Republican's bullshit lawsuit to smear Bernie:

NH Legislator Sues Bernie 2016 for Use of Foreign Workers
Posted on March 26, 2016 by Grace Laine

NH Rep. William O’Brien files complaint with the FEC against the Australian Labor Party and the Bernie 2016 Presidential Campaign

Representative William O’Brien of New Hampshire has filed a complaint against the principal campaign committee of Bernie Sanders (Bernie 2016) and the Australian Labor Party (ALP).

The legal complaint was filed with the Federal Election Commission (FEC).

Here are her tweets:

"Does anyone think it *odd that all these white boys are soo in love with Bernie? Time to come out of the closet boys!"

https://twitter.com/TAW3343/status/707792527261245440?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw

Would you rather a President who has worked her life for equal rights, or a President who treats women like sex slaves? Reply at ballot box.

https://twitter.com/TAW3343/status/714512922677014529?s=09

You knew about this because I told you about it the other day but I guess some people don't care where they go to get dirt on Bernie.

[w4rma]

10. Because Clinton supporters aren't very different from the typical Republican.

I can't tell the difference.

[beam me up scottie]

12. I can't either, you should see that blog, it sounds like a Trump supporter.

Disgusting.

[Turn CO Blue]

21. Another rabid example.

@TAW3343
is Ann White.


If you look at who she retweets, and who those people (or fake accounts or robot accounts) retweet...

[beam me up scottie]

23. Jesus Christ. Reading those tweets you would think they were from Trump supporters.

What a disgusting bigot. I can't believe anyone would post her lies here.

[Turn CO Blue]

25. ...

Check out this one
@HunterHRC2016

In particular this one: //twitter.com/HunterHRC2016/status/702963178448281600

[beam me up scottie]

36. That is sick.

I thought the anti-Semitic tweets were the worst until I saw the ones with pics of little girls and accusations of pedophilia.

[BainsBane]

83. How about dealing with the FEC documents instead or random tweets

Entirely unrelated to the subject? What are you so afraid of?

[BainsBane]

48. The links go to the FEC site

that is why I provided it. Go to the FEC site yourself.

I didn't post anything from Project Veritas or James O'Keefe. That a blog reports the existence of a Veritas lawsuit doesn't nullify the fact they link to the FEC. Any number of reputable sources have written about the Project Veritas case. Some of them include: The Union Leader, Australian Newspapers
http://www.unionleader.com/Sanders-pairs-domicile-claims-for-registering-to-vote-under-scrutiny
http://www.smh.com.au/federal-politics/political-news/alp-operatives-on-taxpayerfunded-us-trip-caught-up-in-hidden-camera-campaign-sting-20160227-gn5chk.html
and a series of other publications regular posted by Sanders supporters on DU: https://www.google.com/webhp?sourceid=chrome-instant&ion=1&espv=2&ie=UTF-8#q=veritas+lawsuit+australian+labor+party+sanders

Reporting it doesn't mean they are the same as Veritas. Of course you have to know that, but your point is to distract from the factual evidence that links to the FEC. Here are the documents, one of which I directly linked above and was likewise linked to in the NY Times piece: http://docquery.fec.gov/pdf/988/201602110300034988/201602110300034988.pdf
http://docquery.fec.gov/dcdev/fectxt/1056008.txt
http://docquery.fec.gov/cgi-bin/forms/C00577130/1056008/

If you had bothered to read the articles, you would have seen the links to the source material, but then you aren't interested in knowing the facts at issue, are you?

I'm sorry I didn't rely on Breitbart or the Daily Caller, as in the threads you prefer. People here every day post anti-Clinton stuff straight from the GOP and you never complain.

As for what I already know, I rarely read your posts because you deal entirely in ad hominems and personal attacks. You never engage in any substantive discussion of issues. Lots of links don't make up for the fact you show a willful contempt for evidence. Moreover, your entire argument relies on the claim that because a publication posted an article about Veritas makes them the same. If that claim were applied across the board, it would invalidate New Hampshire's major newspaper and by extension every publication that ever wrote about unsavory groups. Additionally, the evidence doesn't rely on the narrative authority of that blog. The blog simply serves to provide links to the FEC site. Your argument fails completely.

Everything I posted is true, as PRIMARY documents from the FEC reveal. What is also true is you don't care so you engage in your transparent game of distraction. No amount of misdirection changes the fact that the FEC documentation exists, that his campaign acknowledges the violation in their letter of response. (There was another response due on 3/31, which if the Sanders campaign complies should be posted on the FEC site next week). There are also links above from respected sources like the NYTimes, Time and the Wall Street Journal, which again obviously can't compare to the rigor of Michelle Malkin, Anne Coulter, Breitbart, the Daily Caller, the Free Beacon, and the other right-wing sources so popular among Sanders supporters looking to spread specious dirt on the presumptive Democratic nominee.

The time it's taken me to provide links that you will never read is why I seldom read your posts. For you, political discourse is a game of misdirection intended to obfuscate rather than illuminate.

[beam me up scottie]

49. Oh please your history of gish galloping precedes you.

The time it's taken me to provide links that you will never read is why I seldom read your posts. For you, political discourse is a game of misdirection, intended to obfuscate rather than elucidate.

Oh the irony.

You post a fact or two along with a bunch of info from numerous sources and then come to a conclusion that is never based on fact. You use pages of information to make people believe your speculation and wild claims are the truth, betting they'll never read through it all. But I've waded through it before and know how the game is played. And when someone does take the time to refute your claims point by point you ignore them. That's why most of us don't bother anymore.

And when you continue to link to a blog of a known racist and homophobe who lies and uses Project Veritas to smear one of our candidates don't blame me for pointing out that one of your sources is a rodent breeder:

gobling.wordpress.com

It's no different than linking to a right wing source.

[BainsBane]

82. The FEC is not a right wing source

and your complete disregard for the truth is clear. You simply do not care that he violates campaign finance law so intend resort to duplicity to cover that up. I linked to the FEC. You engage in smears. You have nothing else. Your game is transparent and not even remotely convincing.

[beam me up scottie]

87. And your strawman arguments are legendary.

The FEC is not a right wing source

Nice try but everyone can see I was referring to the "homophobic" "racist" "blogger" at "gobling.wordpress.com" since I was very specific:

And when you continue to link to a blog of a known racist and homophobe who lies and uses Project Veritas to smear one of our candidates don't blame me for pointing out that one of your sources is a rodent breeder:

gobling.wordpress.com

It's no different than linking to a right wing source.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1251&pid=1628742

and your complete disregard for the truth is clear.

One of us is disregarding the truth alright but it's obviously not moi.

You simply do not care that he violates campaign finance law so intend resort to duplicity to cover that up. I linked to the FEC.

You also linked to a racist homophobic blogger. What I don't care for is your spin and gish galloping.

You engage in smears. You have nothing else. Your game is transparent and not even remotely convincing.

Says the person who just posted half truths, outright fabrications and cited biased bigoted sources to smear Bernie.

And whose game is over, crooks and liars caught you:

No, Social Media Warriors. Bernie Sanders Did Not Get $23M In 'Illegal Contributions'

[polly7]

99. As is this ...

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=profile&uid=302058&sub=trans

[beam me up scottie]

102. I thought people were supposed to be banned for using sock puppets.

Orwell nailed it:

"Four legs good, two legs better!"*







*note to jury: no one is being called an animal, that's a famous quote from Animal Farm. Thank you for serving.

[polly7]

105. Yep!! nt.

[Warren Stupidity]

73. And the results are in.

AUTOMATED MESSAGE: Results of your Jury Service
On Sat Apr 2, 2016, 08:02 AM an alert was sent on the following post:

Why are you linking to the blog of a homophobic racist and right wing tool?
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1251&pid=1628742

REASON FOR ALERT

This post is disruptive, hurtful, rude, insensitive, over-the-top, or otherwise inappropriate.

ALERTER'S COMMENTS

The OP has a variety of links, none of which match the posters accusations. The tone is
OTT and the accusations not factual, the poster seems to be upset about the content and being unable to address that, goes into a personally abusive rant. Please hide.

You served on a randomly-selected Jury of DU members which reviewed this post. The review was completed at Sat Apr 2, 2016, 08:15 AM, and the Jury voted 1-6 to LEAVE IT.

Juror #1 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #2 voted to HIDE IT
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #3 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #4 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No hide.
Juror #5 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: Another frivolous alert.
Knock it off.
No hide.
Juror #6 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: bullshit alert.
Juror #7 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: While i think this post is BS, that's to be fought out in the thread, and not a reason to hide.

Thank you very much for participating in our Jury system, and we hope you will be able to participate again in the future.

What a bullshit alert.

[beam me up scottie]

80. Thanks!

They've been alerting on me non-stop since yesterday, truth hurts I guess.

[Odin2005]

169. Because Hillary supporters are REPUBLICANS.

[quickesst]

11. "HEY JUNIOR!!!"

" Some Clinton supporter is on here posting facts again. Want to come in here and respond to it for me?"

"Sure Dad"

[Red Oak]

13. Your first sentence out of the chute is total bullshit

The FEC did not say that Bernie has $23M in ILLEGAL (your bold hyperbolic text) donations. It simply asked the campaign to itemize those personal donations that add up to over $200 as anything over that limit needs to be itemized.

Do you even read your own supporting material?

Here, I'll paste it for you again:

http://docquery.fec.gov/pdf/988/201602110300034988/201602110300034988.pdf

Oh, and the list of super megadonations ( ). I count ninety eight (e.g. 98) that the FEC had additional questions about.

That would represent somewhere around a whopping 0.0075 percent of the 1.3 million contributors in total that the FEC had follow up questions on. Not bad Bernie, not bad. Certainly not bad for the candidate with more violations in history!!!!!! (hyperventilate here!!!)

I guess Hillary has a much easier time. She just goes and deposits a few huge checks from a few millionaires and billionaires and calls it a day.

[beam me up scottie]

50. ^^^THIS^^^ She thinks no one will notice.

[Rex]

155. Wow the crap that was rightfully hidden above you, look what the website boasts about.

"Legal Insurrection now is one of the most widely cited and influential conservative websites, with hundreds of thousands of visitors per month. Our work has been highlighted by top conservative radio personalities, such as Rush Limbaugh and Mark Levin, and Professor Jacobson regularly appears as a guest on radio shows across the nation."

[beam me up scottie]

156. That is a horrible website, wall to wall racism and hit pieces on Obama.

Another one downthread linked to the same Free Beacon article cited there.

Some people scour the web looking for hit pieces on both candidates and don't care what they drag back here.

[Rex]

157. It is vile, haven't said anything about it yet but I too have followed a few links from here

by some of our more passionate debaters...yikes. I thought overall DU was better then this. However some of those sites, might be worth looking into for a forum and any familiar names.

The wall to wall hit pieces on Obama are all I needed to see to know it was a RWing site...sad someone claims to be a progressive yet dragged that filth here to stink up the place.

[beam me up scottie]

158. I try to call it out on both sides but I wish juries would just vote to hide the posts.

Since we don't have mods anymore we need to police ourselves.

[Rex]

159. Good to see you not let crap sources get away with slander. Wish everyone in here did that.

I stay out of here mostly, the fakeness of some of these posters reminds me of how fake they were back on DU1 and DU2. Seems they love dem bashing just like they did in the old days...I guess primary season is their favorite time to get away from Stormfront (boy they get touchy when you bring up their home base) and troll DU in full form.

[beam me up scottie]

160. I've seen someone link to Stormfront here, and tomato bubble.

And since amnesty some people know they can do whatever they want, 10, 11, 12, even 13 hides and they're still posting. There are no consequences to bad behaviour.

Welcome to Lord of the Flies: DU Island

[Rex]

161. It is sad that DU has turned into just that.

However this is good, now they are not hiding it anymore and think the admins will not mess with them. We get to see their real face.

[lunamagica]

14. K&R for visibility

[Viva_La_Revolution]

15. yes, everyone please read the whole thread

[Cha]

16. Of course.. purity is for other people.

[Katashi_itto]

18. Poster just shows Clinton supporters aren't much different than Trump Supporters.

[BainsBane]

34. How is that?

I see a lot of responses relying entire on emotion and not one that deals with the evidence provided.

I think the willful decision to ignore evidence is something that has far more in common with Trump supporters, as is the reliance on emotion over reason.

[cosmicone]

19. Bernie is lobbing hail marys all over the place

desperate efforts

$10 million in unmarked donations

121 foreign nationals donating to his campaign

The free stuff revolution is dying and he can't stand it

[Silver_Witch]

20. I read your links

Most are not saying what you portray and others simply are ugly and rude. Your post makes me sad that you are so full of hatred that you would post such ugly links is sad and shocking.

For example, you post a story alleging it will prove Sanders took money from oil and yet the article clearly states "Responsive Politics mostly aggregates contributions by employer. If a guy who runs the commissary at Chevron in California gives $27 to Bernie Sanders, that's counted as "oil and gas industry" money.

Try to stop being so blinded by your hatred that you don't even read the links.

[Recursion]

29. Right, but that's the exact same standard being used for Clinton

Companies and Super PACs can't donate to campaigns, so when people say Clinton took however much from "the fossil fuel industry" they mean "from people working in the fossil fuel industry", including the Chevron cashier.

[radical noodle]

37. +1

[Silver_Witch]

40. And what Oil Pacs are donating to Bernie?

I think I missed that part of the story.

And nothing you posts justifies this line of thinking where the OP has linked to articlel that are not saying at all what he/she thinks.

[Recursion]

42. What PACs are donating to Clinton?

PACs in general can't donate to campaigns at all except in a very limited set of circumstances, and Super PACs absolutely can't donate to campaigns in any circumstances.

[uponit7771]

43. +1

[synergie]

72. THIS. I guess when it's the BS supporters engaging in the blind hatred, it's ok.

[wildeyed]

94. Boom.

Thank you.

[geek tragedy]

33. So you agree Sanders is lying when he uses that exact framing to say

Clinton takes money from that same industry due to individual donations?

[Silver_Witch]

38. Of course not

Where did you read that? My point was that Clinton takes money from corporation (and probably people as well.

[geek tragedy]

39. No, she does not take corporate money

That is illegal

[Silver_Witch]

41. I am sorry try again

What Pacs Donate Support Clinton and which Support Bernie.

There is that better.

[geek tragedy]

44. Support as in donate money or as in independently

running ads?

[Recursion]

164. Of course the poster above doesn't, because 2016 is a fact-free zone

This is why I'm still (with a nose pinched) supporting Sanders. This is not a cycle where honesty will be rewarded, and he's much better at telling people what they want to hear.

[ucrdem]

22. Every time he loses a debate he announces the next day he raised a million dollars.

He gets demolished in SC, and he raises ... a million dollars! He's amazing! But I have to wonder at the accuracy of the accounting.

[Recursion]

165. And that is an actual fact, which is why I'm reluctantly supporting him

He's caught the zeitgeist, and the zeitgeist likes being lied to. It's a shame, but it's the situation we face.

[Perogie]

35. First I would say

when you have millions of people contributing to a campaign mistakes will be made and I'm sure the Bernie team is trying to rectify them as quickly as possible. It's probably a lot easier for Hillary as she is not getting millions of people contributing to her campaign. She just gets YUGE checks from the oil industry.

Second I'd like to say, do you need a waambulance?

[geek tragedy]

45. Obama didn't have these problems.

[uponit7771]

46. 10 of millions of "mistakes"... even half the number mentioned in the OP is either sloppy or corrupt

[DisgustipatedinCA]

51. Fully supported with evidence? I think not. Do please address your claim of "ILLEGALITY".

[beam me up scottie]

52. You should batten down the hatches and be prepared for another gish gallop.

Which won't address your question at all.

[DisgustipatedinCA]

53. Right. That's what I'm expecting, but I thought I'd try just in case.

[dchill]

54. More fucking projection.

Ever hear of "The Portrait of Dorian Gray?"

[Cha]

55. Thank you for this comprehensive report, BB.

[still_one]

57. wow, this isn't good

[Matt_in_STL]

134. Or true, but you knew that

[morningfog]

60. Hillary directly coordinates with a superPAC. She breaks the law.

[wildeyed]

95. Link?

[morningfog]

100. Old old news. She coordinates with correct the record, Brock's superPAC.

[wildeyed]

108. But still no link?

It's also called proof

[morningfog]

113. You do agree, don't you, that Hillary's campaign coordinating with CTR

A superPAC would be a violation of campaign finance law?

[wildeyed]

117. Oh stop. Just show me the link if you have one.

You made the accusation, now you have to prove it. I do not have to play 20 questions first.

[morningfog]

118. Hee hee. I don't lame you for dodging.

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/hillary-clinton-plans-to-coordinate-directly-with-super-pac/

Old fucking news.

[wildeyed]

125. I do blame you for misleading.

"The FEC rules specifically permit some activity - in particular, activity on an organization's website, in email, and on social media - to be legally coordinated with candidates and political parties"

This is also from May, and sounds like it was planning to legally coordinate with a group for the GE agains the GOP. Remember them? The REAL enemy?

This is all you got? Lame AND old fucking news.....

[morningfog]

130. It won't fly once challenged. It's a violation of the spirit and letter of the law.

Not surprised you defend it! Clinton the infallible.

Claims she wants citizens united overturned while benefitting and stretching the legal limits even further. Such an untrustworthy hypocrite.

[wildeyed]

166. Mmmmm, speaking of hypocrites....

The Anchorage-based America’s Youth PAC, made up almost entirely of former Bernie 2016 campaign staffers, is the latest unconventional outside group to throw its support behind the Vermont senator. Its leaders broke off from the Sanders campaign last week and have holed up in an old mall on the outskirts of town, just steps away from the official campaign’s office in the same building.

---------

The group also exists in murky legal territory, as federal election law requires a “cooling-off period” that prevents a candidate’s staff from leaving the campaign and doing certain kinds of work for a supporting super PAC within 120 days. America’s Youth PAC disputes it is doing anything illegal, but several independent campaign finance experts said it was pressing the boundaries of election law.

http://time.com/4261350/bernie-sanders-super-pac-alaska-millenials/

[redstateblues]

121. A smear with no proof- That's all Sanders Campaign has got.

Smears with no proof. The Sanders online campaign theme is just say it over and over and over -then it becomes true-no proof needed.There is still no proof of pro quid quo. Bernie is all about insinuation and innuendo. It reminds me of Bernie saying that Obama needed to be primaried but he didn't have the balls to do it himself.

[morningfog]

122. Lol.

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/hillary-clinton-plans-to-coordinate-directly-with-super-pac/

Not a smear, they are proud of their flagrant campaign law violations.

[redstateblues]

141. If there was something illegal going on the Bernie "sue whoever beats me" Sanders campaign

would be filing papers as we speak.

[Cobalt Violet]

61. April Fools' day was yesterday.

[baldguy]

62. "Claims that Clinton is corrupt or more dishonest than Sanders are not supported by evidence."

But Richard Mellon Scaife says she is, so it must be true. And here's some proof from Rupert Murdoch!

[joeybee12]

63. Bernie's criminals on his campaignstaff and the goons he sends out to disrupt

Clearly have a good grasp of trying to change the subject away from his numerous flaws

[Mnpaul]

70. Oh noes, a reporting error

lock'em up and throw away the key

No, Social Media Warriors. Bernie Sanders Did Not Get $23M In 'Illegal Contributions'
http://crooksandliars.com/2016/03/no-social-media-warriors-bernie-sanders

If you want to see real criminals see #67

[noiretextatique]

81. +1000 nt

[Gothmog]

64. Sanders is not complying with the law

[Vinca]

66. Only one of the candidates might be facing a federal indictment soon and it's not Bernie.

As for the donation "scandal," which has been posted on this forum about 20 times, it's a nothingburger. It was found that Bernie has so many donors that some share the same name. They found a few cases where individuals donated too much and money was returned to them. I bet Hillary wishes she had that problem and didn't have to scrape and bow for dollars from her corporate donors.

[99Forever]

68. Another steaming pile of horseshit from the usual provider.

A wannabe Rove without his talent.

[mcar]

74. Excellent, well-sourced post!

[BainsBane]

85. And the responses are sadly predictable

They simply do not care and engage in a insults and distractions to avoid dealing with the reality of Bernie's financial situation.

[mcar]

91. Indeed they are

[polly7]

97. lmfao. You are something. nt.

[NastyRiffraff]

75. There's no way of sugarcoating this

An occasional dodgy donation can slip through; that's normal. This is not normal; as others have said, it's either incompetence or corruption (or both).

[itsrobert]

76. Put the handcuffs on him

Citizen's Arrest, Citizen's Arrest!!!!

[DemonGoddess]

77. K&R!

[LexVegas]

78. The standard for HRC is always higher. nt

[BainsBane]

84. The fact that the responses to this post

from Bernie fans have ranged from distraction to personal insults shows a complete disregard for truth and evidence.
It also draws into question whether some of his supporters even care about the issues they claim to, given that so many go to great lengths to avoid them.

Being rude and ignoring illegalities documented by FEC correspondence revealsl only highlights the character of those who engage in such behavior.

[wildeyed]

96. Can you IMAGINE the hue and cry

if Clinton staffers broke off from her campaign, then set up a PAC office next door?

[BainsBane]

109. Of if they had illegal campaign contributions

But this demonstrates clearly that campaign finance and opposition to super Pacs are entirely irrelevant.

[wildeyed]

115. It has been interesting to watch their allegedly pristine candidate slide down the slippery

slope, into the muck of a difficult political campaign. But somehow they still pretend that he never gets dirty. Or that his compromises and mistakes are justified but Clinton's can never be forgiven. And now they are SO MAD that some of that dirt is sticking. The hypocrisy is galling.

[Number23]

154. I shudder at the thought. But it's so precious to see the desperate attempts to change the subject

and belittle every single person that responds favorably to this OP by folks that so clearly have NOTHING better to do with their lives and time.

You get the sincere impression that they are shocked, genuinely SHOCKED that their efforts to browbeat, chase after and belittle every single person on DU that doesn't share their opinion of Sanders are not paying off. And looking at the latest polls, that appears to be going double for the American populace as a whole. Sanders was actually making alot of headway nationally against Clinton but now, appears to be going backwards. Hmmmm... wonder why that is???

[wildeyed]

168. I have seen a number of friends IRW

who started out strongly pro-Bernie and either flipped or are on the fence, and it always has to do with vicious attacks on Clinton and/or the large volumes of misleading info being posted about her. One woman I know, bright but sweet to the point of naivety, she flipped as soon as she learned that the Monsanto accusations were total BS. A light came on in her head, and after that, she checked EVERYTHING she was reading (I did mention that she was bright) and immediately started posting info debunking the lies. She was a natural fit for Sanders, but she did NOT like being lied to.

They miss the fact that many who might be persuaded to vote for Sanders ALSO like Clinton. I liked Clinton in 2008, but was persuaded to vote for Obama. I might have been persuaded to Sanders, but I do not like divisiveness in my party or browbeating and that is what Sanders seems to inspire.

The other thing they miss, many of us have been doing battle with far mightier political opponents, in some cases longer than they have been alive.

[polly7]

106. Tsk ... tsk

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=profile&uid=302058&sub=trans

[R B Garr]

167. Yes, it does reveal their character. Thanks, Bain for this thread. Bernie's brand

is built on his demonizing the entire campaign finance system and he's done it by slandering Clinton constantly with direct or tangential incriminations, while he, himself, is the one under investigation by the FEC for illegalities.

You are so right! If he cannot even keep his own house in order, he should not be slandering others. That is just basic right and wrong, but the fact that his supporters can do nothing else but continue the slandering shows they absolutely do not take his empty rhetoric seriously. It's only done for the damage they think it can do to other candidates. Really shallow and disgusting, but that's mostly what I see from Bernie himself. Platitudes and little else.

Great thread!

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

86. Well, if what she's doing is legal it must be right.

Legal:

Cluster bombs
Nuclear bombs
Killing civilians
Pharmaceutical pricing
Bailing out banks
Taking money from Super Pacs set up by corporations
Super Delegates
Clear cutting
Death penalty
Poisoning people with pesticides
Denying abortions to women
Solitary confinement
Voter ID


To name a very few "legal" things.

[beam me up scottie]

88. BREAKING: No, Social Media Warriors. Bernie Sanders Did Not Get $23M In 'Illegal Contributions'!

No, Social Media Warriors. Bernie Sanders Did Not Get $23M In 'Illegal Contributions'

For weeks now, I've seen social media warriors put out the claim that Bernie Sanders has received $23 million in "illegal campaign contributions" from donors. Another common allegation concerns one contribution from a corporation that the FEC questioned.

These allegations stem from an FEC inquiry into the Sanders campaign's December, 2015 campaign finance report of small donations. In a 43-page letter, the FEC questioned contributions in excess of the legal limits, one contribution from a LLC, and the total contributions shown for individual small donors.

I reviewed the whole report -- all 99,000 pages -- when I first saw the rumors swirling. After looking at it, it seemed to me that there were some fairly egregious errors in the report, but nothing nefarious. At best, it was incompetence and little more than that.

The allegation that he received $23 million in "illegal contributions." He did not. Here's what actually happened. ActBlue transmitted their collections on his behalf to the campaign, along with a report on who made the donations. When the Sanders campaign transferred those ActBlue donations to their report, they reported the entire amount transmitted by ActBlue as the aggregate contribution per donor, instead of each small donor's total contribution to the campaign.

So, if John Q Public made three $25 contributions via ActBlue to the campaign, his report entry showed the $25 contribution with an aggregate for the cycle of $23 million, instead of the correct amount of $75. The same is true for Jane Q Public's $25 contribution, and so on. There wasn't anything illegal about John and Jane Q Public's contributions at all, but it triggered a query because the aggregate contributions for them was over the aggregate limit of $2,700 for the primaries or $5,400 for the primary and the general.

Again. Not illegal, and not dishonest. Just a really bad error that will surely be corrected.

Note to jury: that is the title of the article, I did not call the op a Social Media Warrior. Thank you for serving.

[opiate69]

116. And... of course.....

[beam me up scottie]

119. Oh hell, man, they're still high fiving her!

[opiate69]

127. Lol

[beam me up scottie]

129. LMAO! And they're linking to MORE right wing sources to cover up for the op.

The irony is delicious.

[opiate69]

138. Not surprising, though...

Many of these same people have no problem citing people like Shelley Lubben and Judith "He restoreth me" Reisman in their crusade against the eeeevils of the pr0n....

[beam me up scottie]

140. Or anti-Semitic sources like Stormfront and tomato bubble.

The tomato bubble op got over a dozen recs.

One must have priorities!

[thesquanderer]

90. re: "He has a lower scale of truth telling on Politifact"

You're mis-reading those pages.

Bernie's total for Mostly False, False, and POF statements = 23
Hillary's total for the same = 50

Not even close.

Note that percentages don't matter, because the percentage figure only tells you what percentage of potentially questionable statements were true or false. Things that are clearly true do not have to be analyzed and rated. If you make fewer questionable statements to begin with--i.e. the vast majority of them are considered true right off the bat, without controversy--then the "percent of lies" figure ends up being way off because the unquestionably true statements aren't counted in the percentage at all! So all that matters is the absolute number.

[Skwmom]

92. My God, what bullshit. n/t

[polly7]

98. Well, what can you expect ....

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=profile&uid=302058&sub=trans

[FlatBaroque]

101. Clinton Foundation tax returns /

[noretreatnosurrender]

103. LOL

Thanks BainsBane. I can always count on you to give me a laugh.

[jfern]

104. $23 million? Next time try to keep your lies believable.

[BainsBane]

107. Read the letters from the FEC yourself

They are linked above.

[jfern]

112. That $23 million number is total bullshit

[DeadLetterOffice]

120. I read them.

The letter nowhere says illegal campaign contributions. The letter simply asks for clarification on $23 million in donations that lack some details required by the FEC:

Please amend your report to provide a Schedule A-P if necessary, or to
clarify that for the contributions in question, the aggregate total for the election
cycle for each contributor does not exceed $200.

You are misrepresenting a communication from the FEC.
Which I'm sure you already know.

[GoneOffShore]

133. There will be crickets.

[DeadLetterOffice]

135. I know. Facts are inconvenient and unworthy of response...

[beam me up scottie]

136. I posted the truth in another op, don't forget to kick and rec!

http://www.democraticunderground.com/12511632167

[GoneOffShore]

142. Thank you I'm going there.

The amount of egregious nonsense that is being pushed is un-freaking-believeable.

But, considering where it's coming from it is hardly surprising.

[Number23]

110. DAYUM, Bain!! You put it out there!

And you didn't even mention the FUNDRAISING off of the failed attempt to improperly access Clinton's campaign records.

the FEC violations, more than any candidate in history,

Holy crap, what an OP. And I'm sure that you are being beseiged with howls about "smear campaigns" even as I type. K&R

[beam me up scottie]

114. Just truth: No, Social Media Warriors. Bernie Sanders Did Not Get $23M In 'Illegal Contributions'

No, Social Media Warriors. Bernie Sanders Did Not Get $23M In 'Illegal Contributions'

For weeks now, I've seen social media warriors put out the claim that Bernie Sanders has received $23 million in "illegal campaign contributions" from donors. Another common allegation concerns one contribution from a corporation that the FEC questioned.

These allegations stem from an FEC inquiry into the Sanders campaign's December, 2015 campaign finance report of small donations. In a 43-page letter, the FEC questioned contributions in excess of the legal limits, one contribution from a LLC, and the total contributions shown for individual small donors.

I reviewed the whole report -- all 99,000 pages -- when I first saw the rumors swirling. After looking at it, it seemed to me that there were some fairly egregious errors in the report, but nothing nefarious. At best, it was incompetence and little more than that.

The allegation that he received $23 million in "illegal contributions." He did not. Here's what actually happened. ActBlue transmitted their collections on his behalf to the campaign, along with a report on who made the donations. When the Sanders campaign transferred those ActBlue donations to their report, they reported the entire amount transmitted by ActBlue as the aggregate contribution per donor, instead of each small donor's total contribution to the campaign.

So, if John Q Public made three $25 contributions via ActBlue to the campaign, his report entry showed the $25 contribution with an aggregate for the cycle of $23 million, instead of the correct amount of $75. The same is true for Jane Q Public's $25 contribution, and so on. There wasn't anything illegal about John and Jane Q Public's contributions at all, but it triggered a query because the aggregate contributions for them was over the aggregate limit of $2,700 for the primaries or $5,400 for the primary and the general.

Again. Not illegal, and not dishonest. Just a really bad error that will surely be corrected.

http://crooksandliars.com/2016/03/no-social-media-warriors-bernie-sanders

http://www.democraticunderground.com/12511632167

Silly HCS, thinking their "facts" can't be fact checked.

[beam me up scottie]

124. You find an article from Free Beacon much more interesting than one from crooksandliars?

Why I'll just bet you do, some folks do love their right wing sources.

[Number23]

126. Every bit as well thought out and important as your thousand other posts in this forum today!

[beam me up scottie]

128. Stalking my posts? Good! Find one where I linked to a right wing source like you just did.

I'll wait.

[Number23]

131. I am the complete ANTITHESIS of a stalker when it comes to you and your posts

I don't think I have read more than four posts of yours in the entire time you've posted on DU. How many times can you read someone sitting in thread after thread after thread for the sole purpose of chasing after and ENDLESSLY arguing over absolutely nothing with every person that posts in it before you lose all interest?

Take your interaction with me in this thread. I respond to Bain, you leap in to respond to me and even though I posted three different sources in my post, you keep harping on the Beacon as if no one can see my other sources, as if you have a valid point to make or that no one can tell that you are just simply itching -- as usual -- to argue over absolutely nothing. It's pretty pathetic, actually.

[beam me up scottie]

132. But you just personally attacked me and commented on my posts in this forum.

Number23

123. Good for you! You found one article that you think refutes the dozens of points in Bain's OP!

You must be incredibly proud. All of your endless, back breaking efforts in this forum have not been all for not!

Number23

126. Every bit as well thought out and important as your thousand other posts in this forum today!

I don't think I have read more than four posts of yours in the entire time you've posted on DU. How many times can you read someone sitting in thread after thread after thread for the sole purpose of chasing after and ENDLESSLY arguing over absolutely nothing with every person that posts in it before you lose all interest?

Which is it? Did you read all of my posts or no more than four? Don't get me wrong I am SUPER flattered that you notice me at all. It is such an honour, really.

And hey, when you link to a right wing source and say you prefer it don't blame me for noticing where you get your info.

[Number23]

137. You know, if your endless squatting and harassing was actually doing something for you or your

candidate I could understand it.

I don't have to fully read all of your 1000+ daily posts in this forum to see what you're doing. It's apparent you don't get how transparent and obvious you are. The subject heading alone is usually good enough to see that you're in a thread -- posting 20 times -- just to argue. What is it about sitting in thread after thread chasing after folks day in and day out that seems to bring you so much joy?

I would find it HELLA boring to just chase after dozens of folks EVERY SINGLE DAY on DU. Most of whom I'm pretty sure have you on ignore. Again, look at your ridiculous interactions with me in this thread. Are you seriously confused why your opinions and posts are ones I have absolutely no interest in?

[beam me up scottie]

139. Aw, I post turtle pics when people post flame bait or personally attack me.

I'm sorry they bother you so much. Really. I will never post another turtle pic. Ever.

How do you feel about wombats?

[Number23]

144. LOL So you, who attacks EVERYONE EVERY DAY, posts turtle pics in response to being attacked?

I am CRYING. You're not really the aggressor, with your endless chasing after everyone and starting shit in every single thread in this forum EVERY SINGLE DAY and the vast majority of the time over absolutely NOTHING. You're actually the victim!

This is the first time I've read the body of your posts in God only knows how long and Lord knows it was totally worth the laugh. I'm as stunned as I am entertained by your "I disrupt and harass because I'm just responding to the attacks on meeee!11one!" mess. Enjoy your next altercation. I'm sure it will be along soon, if it hasn't come already!

[beam me up scottie]

146. Not a fan of wombats? How about Pink Fairy Armadillos?

[GoneOffShore]

163. I love the wombat!

[beam me up scottie]

143. And I checked all three of your sources, nothing about 23 MILLION IN ILLEGAL CONTRIBUTIONS.

Perhaps you didn't read them?

[opiate69]

147. Reading is hard!

[beam me up scottie]

148. "Like I walked into a Klan rally in a Boy George outfit"!

I love Bill!

[opiate69]

149. yup.. another one gone far too soon...

I can only imagine what he would have thought of the last 16+ years.

[beam me up scottie]

150. Right?

Carlin would be amazing now too.

[Number23]

145. Bain, here's another kick! This has been one hell of a well resourced read. You got the folks

panicking and jumping like toads but I'm sure you very wisely have them on ignore and can't even see it.

You're missing nothing. Absolutely NOTHING.

[pantsonfire]

151. This post is rich...

http://www.democraticunderground.com/12511632960
http://www.democraticunderground.com/12511626213

[AgingAmerican]

153. projection FAIL

[DesertRat]

162. Very well documented post!

[Haveadream]

170. Excellent post!

Thank you for such thorough research.

Feel the facts!

[George II]

172. Great post, excellent coverage of these violations.

Having been a treasurer for a number of campaigns, I'm fully aware of the importance of the contribution limits and how serious these can be. It's one of the first things one learns as a treasurer.

It boggles my mind that a campaign treasurer not be aware of these limits or, if she was, ignored them. Was she hoping the FEC wouldn't find them?

For example, the limit for an individual is $2700. How could she NOT know that the SINGLE $3000 contributions she received from several individuals was not permitted? How could she not aggregate the multiple contributions from individuals and stop accepting them from those people once they reached the limit?

And as you point out, there is software available for maintaining campaign contributions, aggregates, and expenditures that would flag any excessive contributions. In fact, a number of states supply the computer resources to allow treasurers to maintain records and submit quarterly reports online - software that prevents such "errors". I wouldn't be surprised if the FEC or other government agency has similar software.

Why does the Sanders campaign maintain their financial records on the cheap? This isn't some small local campaign with income of a hundred thousand dollars, its a national campaign with contributions of over $100 million dollars! Cut Tad Devine's salary a few thousand bucks and get the proper software!

Once again, they prove themselves to be "not ready for primetime", yet they want to run the country?