2016 Postmortem
Related: About this forumThe Atlantic: The Donors Who Love Bernie Sanders A Little Too Much
The Donors Who Love Bernie Sanders A Little Too Much
RUSSELL BERMAN 6:00 AM ET
Bernie Sanders has become known for his legions of diehard supporters, millions of whom have flooded his campaign with small-donor contributions. Yet many of those fans, it turns out, have become a little too supportive of the Vermont senators presidential bid.
For months, the Federal Election Commission has been writing to the Sanders campaign with warnings that hundreds of his donors have exceeded the $2,700 contribution limit and that hundreds more may be foreign nationals illegally giving Sanders money. The most recent, and by far the longest, letter came on Tuesday and flagged more than 1,500 questionable donors.
Other campaigns this year have also struggled to track their donors and make sure they are contributing within federal limits. Ted Cruz and Ben Carson also received multiple letters from the FEC flagging hundreds of potentially excessive donors. And in 2008, so did Barack Obama, who, like Sanders, relied on the grassroots support from millions of small-dollar contributors. But the sheer volume of potential violations by the Sanders campaignthe list flagged by the FEC ran 639 pagesappears to be unprecedented, and it suggests that the campaigns operation has been unable to effectively manage its army of donors.
The notices from the FEC dont necessarily implicate the campaign in illegal activity or suggest that Sanderss presidential bid is built on financial fraud. The number of questionable donors and the amount of excessive or invalid contributions still represent a small fraction of the more than $200 million Sanders has collected from more than 2.4 million people. And the letters are only the first step in a lengthy process. They contain warnings that Sanders could face enforcement actions if the campaign doesnt respond and file amended reports documenting that it has given back excessive or illegal contributions. The campaign has responded to each of the FECs previous letters and has refunded hundreds of donations; it has not been finedalthough because of the lengthy adjudication process, any penalties are usually levied long after elections. As long as Sanders follows that protocol within the required time period, he wouldnt face punishment. Its a challenge for a campaign that builds up to such a size in such a short amount of time, to be able to handle that, said Bob Biersack, senior fellow at the Center for Responsive Politics. Im not sure how you can avoid this. Because if you get money, you have to disclose it.
(interesting graphic, won't paste)
The irony is that Sanders is running as the ethically pure candidate, and yet hes the one who has struggled the most to comply with FEC rules. As anyone who has ever watched a Sanders stump speech can recite from memory, the average donation to his campaign is $27, and his supporters would argue that a candidate who raises $200 million in mostly small donations from average people is demonstrating broad grassroots support and is less likely to be beholden to a handful of wealthy financiers and their pet causes.
Hillary Clinton has waged the more traditional big-money campaign, using experienced bundlers who collect large checks from donors theyve encouraged to max-out to the campaign. The system is built for that kind of fund-raising. Veteran bundlers know FEC rules to the letter and can instruct donors how much to give and when. Fewer checksor online donationsof larger amounts are easier to process and track than a flood of $27 contributions from people who may have little-to-no knowledge of campaign-finance rules. Its just a different animal, said Lisa Gilbert, the director of CongressWatch for Public Citizen and a veteran advocate for campaign-finance reform. Clinton and Sanders have raised almost the same amount of money during the primary race, but Clinton has collected it from half as many people. The FEC hasnt flagged a single questionable donor out of more than 1.2 million to her campaign.
(more.....)
http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2016/05/the-bernie-sanders-donors-who-are-giving-too-much/482418/
bobbobbins01
(1,681 posts)Hillary's FEC violations: http://www.democraticunderground.com/12511956509
George II
(67,782 posts)I looked at a couple of those letters, the longest one was 3 pages, and looks like you went all the way back to 2000 (16 years ago!). You should read the letters, they didn't involve impermissible or illegal contributions, just a few minor errors
Sanders has gotten more than 1,000 pages of "errors" totaling almost 50,000 line items, and that's over a mere four months!
bobbobbins01
(1,681 posts)And she never even responded, which brought on an FEC audit: http://www.fec.gov/audits/Hillary_Clinton_for_President/AuditDivisionRecommendationMemorandum1173026.pdf
Also, she tried to funnel money into the general election before she won the primary. Another red flag.
And your 1000 pages of errors actually only equates to about 1000 donors, since each page lists the same donor multiple times.
BainsBane
(53,032 posts)Where is the actual FEC citation?
George II
(67,782 posts)...was acceptable and resolved.
Of about $250M in contributions, apparently only $21K (or $31K, the "DRAFT" is stamped across the numbers) were found to be impermissible. That's miniscule compared to the overall amount collected and the impermissible amount it the Sanders reports.
It was a routine audit usually done randomly, not an examination of individual monthly or quarterly reports.
My experience over the years has been that these discrepancies compared to the overall total would be handled administratively by the FEC.
BainsBane
(53,032 posts)synergie
(1,901 posts)I'm starting to see just how the BSers manage to not really know what's going on and why Bernie gets away with not providing any actual answers of HOW he plans to do things.
George II
(67,782 posts)....my guess is that he'd delaying until after the last primaries of June 7 when he is mathematically eliminated, and then decide not to do either since he'll no longer be a candidate.
There's a method to this.
BainsBane
(53,032 posts)And four separate letters with thousands of violations for the press to finally start covering this.
Now I want to know if they are going to look into Old Town Media to see who is getting the commissions for $ tens of millions in ad placements.
George II
(67,782 posts)....for filing the Personal Financial Disclosure until after the last primary might have something to do with that?
BainsBane
(53,032 posts)NurseJackie
(42,862 posts)Nobody wants to see their candidate caught with his pants down and around his ankles.
CorkySt.Clair
(1,507 posts)baldguy
(36,649 posts)Surya Gayatri
(15,445 posts)No surprise really, with those grifters he's got on his campaign team. Just a gang of con artists.
R B Garr
(16,950 posts)shaky campaign donation practices. It really exposes him as a hypocrite. His whole campaign schtick is accusing others of corruption, but he can't even answer for his own business and he obviously is trying to avoid complying with the FEC inquiries.
How phony can you get!
Lodestar
(2,388 posts)regarding the sheer volume of support he's gotten.
floppyboo
(2,461 posts)"Due to an unprecedented number of small dollar donations, it is difficult to ensure that each of the senator's 2.4 million donors stay under the $2,700 limit. This happens so often in campaigns that the FECs rules specifically allow 60 days from receipt to remedy the excessive portion of the contribution. The campaign has diligently honored these refund requirements."
So, what's the problem here?
George II
(67,782 posts)floppyboo
(2,461 posts)George II
(67,782 posts)floppyboo
(2,461 posts)-the 12000 pages - but not outside the deadline. Also, what I took away from the article was the fact that reporting for campaigns is set up for bundlers etc. - the status quo. Of course there will be bumps in the road as a new model of citizen participation becomes the new 'status quo' IF and when the issue of money in politics is tackled in a meaningful way that leads to change. No one was ready for this! And it is quite exciting, don't you think? Sort of looks like democracy!
George II
(67,782 posts)....there are many more, let's call them "flaws", in their reporting. Not bumps in the road, serious issues with their campaign finances.
floppyboo
(2,461 posts)with these other flaws as everything seems to get jumbled up in the minds of some. It would be responsible of you, and appreciated by all who want to know the truth.
uponit7771
(90,335 posts)Prism
(5,815 posts)Than the untold millions being poured in via Citizens United.
But I guess that's just fine.
And I love the balance and sympathy here. "Sanders small donors are out of control!" Meanwhile, corporations and rich people? No problem, guys. Citizens United made it legal.
Attack the little guy. Leave the oligarchy alone.
So, a typical day in Camp Clinton, in other words.
And for the record, the article itself (not bolded, obviously) notes that the Sanders campaign has been responsive and has set out to correct problems brought to their attention. The campaign hasn't been punished, and the article provides no current cause for punishment. It merely lays out a hypothetical. If the campaign doesn't make corrections, then it would be punished. But there's no evidence, or apparently any cause whatsoever to believe, that the Sanders campaign won't patch up the problems.
The article might as well say, "If you break a window, you might be fined." Ok, well it's a big if. As long as I haven't done that, why intimate that I have or even might do? The campaign is cooperating. The article admits that. And yet the bolded bits and implication by the author is that some nefariousness is happening that is not.
Let's nail the little guy to the ground and never scrutinize the rich people.
But we're all liberals, people!
Tch.