Bernie Sanders Campaign Oddly Accuses Clinton and DNC of Troubling, Perhaps Illegal, Fundraising

[geek tragedy]

http://electionlawblog.org/?p=81996

The Deutsch letter cites no authority showing that this use of the JFC is not allowed, and it is hard to see what provision of the law it violates when donors give only small amounts that happen to benefit only Clinton. The letter says that maybe this is like an in-kind contribution from the DNC to the Clinton campaign, but I don’t see how it is that if the money is coming from the JFC not from the committee. The letter even says this means that those giving big checks to the DNC might thereby be giving more than the $2,700 to Clinton, which is not literally true—it is what the JFC is doing with the money, over which the donors have no control.

So legally this seems weak.

And politically, it is quite odd for Sanders, who would need the DNC’s support to win the presidency should be be the Democratic nominee, to be attacking the DNC. (Then again, Trump has relentlessly attacked the RNC, so this must be the celebration of the season.)

It's as if the life-long Independent who's hated the Democratic party for most of his life doesn't have its interests at heart.

[silvershadow]

1. Yeah, I'm going to wait until it hits the MSM. nt

[noretreatnosurrender]

2. Hated Them So Much

he caucused with them. Yeah, that's some real hate.

[geek tragedy]

3. committee seniority. and he's now leveraged that relationship

into making himself the head of a nascient third party movement.

much more clever than Nader, but same basic motivation and agenda.

His goal was to either do a hostile takeover to the Democratic party, or fatally wound it in trying

[JonLeibowitz]

5. "His goal was to either do a hostile takeover to the Democratic party,or fatally wound it in trying"

You forgot to add "in my opinion, with no evidence to support it". It's cool that you hate Bernie, but you have essentially no evidence to support this hyperbolic language.

[randome]

6. Just as Sanders has no evidence of the DNC violating campaign finance laws.

[hr][font color="blue"][center]The truth doesn’t always set you free.
Sometimes it builds a bigger cage around the one you’re already in.[/center][/font][hr]

[JonLeibowitz]

8. Maybe not the letter of the law, but certainly the spirit of it. IANAL.

See post #4 for my thoughts on this issue

[randome]

13. Maybe if Sanders had ever actually joined a party, he might have more clout.

As it is, crashing another political party and then trying to dictate what happens is a sure-fire method to ensure that positions will harden and nothing of any substance will be accomplished.

It's like me telling you, "Why are you so stupid, JonLeibowitz? Huh? Why? What's wrong with you?" And then expecting you to listen to what I have to say.

There is a reason Sanders has the same number of Senate endorsements as Ted Cruz. He does not work well with others. As much as I have tried -painfully at times- to stay neutral, it's become apparent to me that Sanders is not a uniter, he's a complainer. And there are plenty of things to complain about! But it takes much more than that to unite a party.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]The truth doesn’t always set you free.
Sometimes it builds a bigger cage around the one you’re already in.[/center][/font][hr]

[JonLeibowitz]

58. He actually has fewer than Ted Cruz ;-)

I see your point, and it is a good one. I never claimed Sanders' candidacy was without flaws. It has them. No question.

My point about the campaign finance violations stand though.

[geek tragedy]

9. he publicly accused the Democratic party of breaking the law and being corrupt.

he's telling his millions of supporters by email that the DNC is breaking the law, cheating, corrupt, etc.

You shall know your enemy by his acts.


His acts are those of an enemy, not an ally.

His top priority is preventing Hillary Clinton from being the President, even if it means letting Trump win.

[JonLeibowitz]

12. I didn't need Bernie to tell me the DNC is corrupt. I knew that by how they treat ballot access

for 3rd parties.

[geek tragedy]

15. ballot access for third parties is a matter of state law.

and there is nothing corrupt about a private group exercising their first amendment rights to govern themselves.

Third party people like Bernie Sanders don't like that, but then again Bernie hates the Democratic party and he's the best possible argument for a closed primary. We let the enemy in through the gates and this is how he's rewarding us, by trying to throw the election to Trump.

[JonLeibowitz]

20. And yet, they tried to use their influence to delegitimize 3rd parties on the ballot.

Ralph Nader, in the Washington Post a few weeks ago:

I chose to run on the Green Party line in the 2000 presidential election with a pretty clear idea of what I was in for. I had run a limited write-in campaign in New Hampshire in 1992 and had accepted the Green nomination in 1996.

My interest in moving politics past the two-party duopoly began long before I first ran for president in 1996. Historically, many major reform movements (abolition, women’s suffrage, labor) have come out of smaller parties that never won national elections, starting with the anti-slavery Liberty Party in 1840. Several different parties for women’s suffrage followed. Then came parties representing farmers’ struggles against railroads and banks, a movement that peaked in 1892 with the Populist Party. Labor parties — which fought for fair labor standards, the right to organize and progressive taxation — rose to prominence in the 20th century, along with the Socialist Party of America, formed in 1901. But when the Communist Party got on the national ballot after World War I, it drew widespread venom, and the two major parties began to raise barriers to ballot access and undertake other efforts to prevent these small parties from competing in elections. Admiring these reform movements and critical of the Democratic Party’s decay, I knew what it would mean to run as a third-party candidate.

Just appearing on the ballot is a challenge for independent candidates. While any Democrat or Republican who wins their party’s nomination is guaranteed a place on general-election ballots nationwide, smaller parties must, in many states, petition election officials to be listed. And that is a delicate process, easy for the major parties to disrupt. Their operatives have a number of tools at their disposal to knock third-party candidates off the ballot, render their campaigns broke, and harass and ostracize them.

In 2004, Democratic operatives were especially zealous in their efforts against my campaign. They hired private investigators to harass my campaign’s petition circulators in their homes in Ohio and Oregon and falsely threatened them with criminal prosecution for fake names that saboteurs had signed on their petitions, according to sworn affidavits from the workers and letters containing threats that were presented in court. Our petitions were also disqualified on arbitrary grounds: In Ohio, complaints submitted in court and to the office of the Secretary of State by groups of Democratic voters led officials there to invalidate our petitions. They disqualified hundreds of signatures on one list, for instance, because of a discrepancy involving the petition circulator’s signature. In Oregon, Democratic Secretary of State Bill Bradbury retroactively applied certain rules in a way that suddenly rendered our previously compliant petitions invalid.

Democrats and their allies (some later reimbursed by the DNC, according to both campaign finance reports and a party official in Maine who testified under oath) enlisted more than 90 lawyers from more than 50 law firms to file 29 complaints against my campaign in 18 states and with the Federal Election Commission for the express purpose of using the cost and delay of litigation to drain our resources. “We wanted to neutralize his campaign by forcing him to spend money and resources defending these things,” operative Toby Moffett told The Washington Post in 2004.

Democrats falsely accused my campaign of fraud in state after state. In Pennsylvania, they forced us off the ballot after challenging more than 30,000 signatures on spurious technical grounds. My running mate, Peter Camejo, and I were ordered to pay more than $81,000 in litigation costs the plaintiffs, a group of Democratic voters, said they incurred. In an effort to collect, their law firm, Reed Smith ,which the DNC also hired in that cycle, froze my personal accounts at several banks for eight years. A criminal prosecution by the state attorney general later revealed that Pennsylvania House Democrats had, illegally at taxpayer expense, prepared the complaints against our campaign, and several people were convicted of related felonies. A federal court in Pennsylvania ultimately struck down the state law used against me that had led to the order that I pay the litigation costs. But Reed Smith was still allowed to keep $34,000 it withdrew from my accounts, because state courts wouldn’t let me present evidence that could have permitted me to recover the money.

With the exception of this handful of felony convictions, most of the partisans who fought to keep me from running got away with it.

[geek tragedy]

24. very revealing that you cite Nader to support Sanders's attacks on the Democratic party

People who find Ralph Nader credible are generally the kind who do not have our party's best interests at heart.

Any how, looking forward to voting against Bernader tomorrow.

[JonLeibowitz]

26. No response to the substance or the specific charges leveled against the DNC? Very interesting.

Those who engage in ad hominem attacks on the writer (Nader, not me) generally don't receive much for their arguments from me.

I look forward to voting for against Hillary and for Bernie, June 7.

[geek tragedy]

28. Nader didn't comply with state election laws, and threw himself a pity party when he got busted,

waah waah waah

[JonLeibowitz]

30. Still no substantive reply to very specific charges laid against the DNC. Pity.

[geek tragedy]

32. substantive charges by Ralph Nader, based on the word of Ralph Nader, mean

absolutely nothing to me.

You might as well ask me to believe what Donald Trump has to say.

Get back to me when someone credible backs Nader's claims up.

[JonLeibowitz]

36. You might want to read all the sources backing up Nader's claims.

Check them out: https://www.washingtonpost.com/posteverything/wp/2016/03/25/ralph-nader-why-bernie-sanders-was-right-to-run-as-a-democrat/

Saying "based on the word of Ralph Nader" implies there are no credible sources to back up his points. That is false and a lie.

[geek tragedy]

39. all you produced was a column written by Ralph Nader.

At the risk of repeating myself:

I do not give a cold, wet shit what Ralph Nader has to say about anything. You are wasting pixels posting his words.

[JonLeibowitz]

42. Fine, I'll post his links so you can read what others say:

You'll have to refer back to the WaPo text for the context.

https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/50/842

http://www.ksg.harvard.edu/case/3pt/winger.html

http://www.toledoblade.com/Politics/2004/09/29/Blackwell-orders-removal-of-Nader-from-Ohio-s-Nov-2-ballot.html

http://www.foxnews.com/story/2004/09/24/nader-supporters-ask-supreme-court-for-help.html

http://caselaw.findlaw.com/me-supreme-judicial-court/1632227.html

http://www.opensecrets.org/parties/expend.php?cmte=DPC&cycle=2004&txtname=&page=3

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A26933-2004Aug23.html

http://old.post-gazette.com/pg/10109/1051564-152.stm

http://caselaw.findlaw.com/dc-court-of-appeals/1600662.html

http://www.post-gazette.com/opinion/ruth-ann-dailey/2010/04/26/Nader-nobly-battles-Pa-corruption-cont/stories/201004260195

http://www.post-gazette.com/news/state/2012/02/12/Bonusgate-timeline/stories/201202121884

http://www.leagle.com/decision/In%20FDCO%2020150727958/Constitution%20Party%20of%20Pennsylvania%20v.%20Cortes

http://www.post-gazette.com/business/2014/01/05/Nader-retaliates-for-PNC-Bank-s-handling-of-court-order/stories/201401050164

[bettyellen]

31. Never occurred to you the RNC has just as much to say in the decision to open and close primaries?

Seems like you would prefer to blame Dems instead of thinking it through. Ya think maybe the RNC has just as big of a role in this? Sheesh.

[JonLeibowitz]

33. If Nader is truly a spoiler for Dems, then why would the RNC try to block Nader?

My post about ballot access for general elections, and was not about the primaries. See my posts upthread about DNC shenanigans.

[bettyellen]

49. The RNC is trying to block Dems from voting in Republican primaries. The GOP has been

trying to suppress the vote among minorities for ages. Not sure if they are considering Nader at all- why would they?

[JonLeibowitz]

51. My comments have nothing to do with primaries. They are about corruption in the DNC

and how they abuse the legal process to limit ballot access for other candidates.

[noretreatnosurrender]

7. You're Entitled to Your Opinion

My guess is that your opinion is probably influenced by a bad case of the election season flu that has infected so many here on DU.

[geek tragedy]

11. Accusing their party of breaking the law is something only two

major party candidates have done in recent memory:

Donald Trump and Bernie Sanders.

[JonLeibowitz]

4. This post misses the point.

The problem is the JFC is washing/laundering the big dollar donations (in excess of the contributions allowed to HFA, $2700) to solicit small dollar donations to HFA. Those are outreach dollars that would otherwise have to be spent by HFA, since money is fungible. This is the source of the in-kind donation complaint.

Abusing the spirit certainly, if not the letter (IANAL), of campaign finance regulations is not what I would consider to be the interests of the Democratic Party that I am a member of.

[geek tragedy]

10. Except that's not true, HFA pays the costs of the HVF in direct proportion to the amount of money

it gets from the fund, if it gets 90% of the funds, it pays 90% of the costs.

This is just Bernader revealing his true nature, that of third party saboteur,

[JonLeibowitz]

18. Hmmm

"HFA pays the costs of the HVF in direct proportion to the amount of money it gets from the fund, if it gets 90% of the funds, it pays 90% of the costs."

I'm not sure what you mean by this: if HVF gives $1000 to HFA, then HFA pays $1000 to HVF for their costs? That doesn't actually result in a net transfer of funds.

My understanding is this: HVF is not "giving" money to HFA from the fund. HVF is using that money to run voter outreach to raise dollars for HFA, not the HVF or state committees. That's where the "in kind" accusation comes from. The HVF is using money to raise "clean" money in donations for HFA.

Is that right?

[geek tragedy]

25. if 90% of the money HVF raises goes to HFA, then HFA pays 90% of its expenses.

[JonLeibowitz]

29. But 90% of the money HVF raises doesn't go to HFA

They use substantial sums of that money to raise more money in small $ donations for HFA.

[Jefferson23]

46. I don't think they want to hear it. n/t

[geek tragedy]

47. and the amount that HFA gets from those donations counts for its share of what % of HVF revenue it

gets.

Sanders is bamboozling his supporters in order to (a) hate Hillary; (b) hate the DNC; and (c) separate them from another $27 (maybe so the campaign pays for a trip so he can fly to see the Dalai Lama next).

[JonLeibowitz]

50. That's impossible.

If HVF sends a mailer out with a total cost of $50 (postage + printing + man-hours to produce the card) and the receiver of the direct mailer decides donates $2700, the % is greater than 100.

[geek tragedy]

53. math.

HFV payments to HFA/total HFV payments to HFA/DNC/state parties = HFA payments to cover HFV expenses/total HFV expenses

[JonLeibowitz]

54. Ok, so where does the direct mailer campaign to raise $ for HFA fit in?

Is that in the numerator, the denominator? which side of the equation?

You keep dodging the point about the direct mail campaign raising money for HFA while being a HVF expense.

Oh, and I do math in my job (studied math for my college degree), so please dispense with the condescending snark.

[geek tragedy]

56. that goes into the second denominator--total expenses of HFV

Clinton has the best campaign lawyers in the country working on this.

[JonLeibowitz]

59. And where does the money that HFA raises as a result of the HVF mailer campaign fit in?

denominator, numerator? which side?

(btw, Nixon had some very good lawyers working for him too. What he did was still illegal)

[JonLeibowitz]

62. What's the matter geek tragedy? No answer for post #59?

[geek tragedy]

63. Tired of the sea lioning.

Will let my vote speak for me tomorrow.

[JonLeibowitz]

64. Lol, no response as usual to the obvious money laundering being done.

It's okay.

Enjoy the voting.

[lumberjack_jeff]

43. This doesn't pass a basic giggle test.

If this is to be believed, HVF is doing HFA no favors by forcing HFA to pay the bills.

q) "Hey guys, I have this idea. You're prohibited from taking money from drug dealers, right? How about I spend the drug dealers money on advertisements directed at law abiding folks to get them to buy your stuff instead?"

a) "Isn't that money laundering?"

q) "Yeah, I suppose. How about, to make it legit, you would reimburse me from your legal business for those costs of fundraising?

a) "WTF? What good does that do me?"

I've concluded that Clinton supporters will believe anything and expect that everyone else is as gullible.

[JonLeibowitz]

52. Exactly. The complaint here is very simple. geek tragedy seems to be willfully ignorant.

It's a pity, because it's really a very interesting approach to money laundering. Kudos to their deviant minds for thinking this up.

[Jefferson23]

14. When Clinton supporters dismiss her WS money, no doubt they'll dismiss this too.

As well as her horrific judgment on foreign policy...no biggie.

[geek tragedy]

16. we'll dismiss Bernie Sanders as being any different than Ralph Nader, is what we'll do.

Well, not true, Nader never pretended to be anything other than what he is.

[Jefferson23]

19. No worries, the Clinton supporters have made clear what they'll dismiss and keep their

heads in the sand.

If Bernie were an allegedly true Democrat, he should start taking money from WS,
that way your side would not be so confused.

[geek tragedy]

27. Just like we dismissed Ralph Nader, so we'll dismiss his comrade in arms Bernie Sanders nt

[Jefferson23]

35. You've got a strawman there my friend. n/t

[geek tragedy]

37. we shall see, nt

[CruzinNCrying]

61. Remind me again?...

what dismissing Nader got ya?

[NCTraveler]

17. Bernie Sanders' campaign to clarify misleading fundraising email

http://www.cnn.com/2016/02/23/politics/bernie-sanders-email-fundraising-clarification/

Letter from the FEC to his campaign about donor issues.

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

Another

http://docquery.fec.gov/pdf/619/201602250300038619/201602250300038619.pdf

This has turned into a fundraising tactic for them. It works.

[Jefferson23]

21. Clinton committee raised $33 million in first quarter

Joint committee helps state parties, but spends most of its cash boosting Clinton.

By Kenneth P. Vogel

04/16/16 12:14 AM EDT

Hillary Clinton in the first three months of the year raised $33 million into a joint account her campaign formed with Democratic Party committees, according to a report filed Friday night with the Federal Election Commission.

The report shows that the joint account, called the Hillary Victory Fund, spent heavily trying to develop a small donor base for Clinton’s presidential campaign, but also took advantage of its unique structure to raise nearly $5 million from just 14 mega-rich donors, including entertainment titans Barry Diller, James Cameron and Haim Saban.

The fund comprises Clinton’s presidential campaign committee, as well as the Democratic National Committee and 32 state party committees. As a result, it can accept checks as large as $358,000 per person — a total determined by the maximum donation to each of its component committees ($5,400 to the Clinton campaign, $33,400 to the DNC and $10,000 to each of the state parties).

The idea is that the committee will help the state parties raise money for their general election efforts, an area where Clinton’s allies argue that her insurgent rival for the Democratic presidential nomination Bernie Sanders has done little. Sanders has a joint fundraising committee, as well, but it has been relatively inactive.

Yet, during the first three months of the year, the $2 million transferred by the Hillary Victory Fund to various state party committees paled in comparison to the $9.5 million it transferred to Clinton’s campaign committee or the $3.5 million it transferred to the DNC.
Read more: http://www.politico.com/story/2016/04/hillary-clinton-committee-raised-33-million-222044#ixzz46Dd5lzR1

snip*Brad Deutsch, the lawyer for the Sanders campaign, wrote an open letter to DNC chairwoman Debbie Wasserman Schultz arguing that the Clinton campaign's Hillary Victory Fund, the joint account between the campaign and various Democratic Party committees, "skirts legal limits on federal campaign donations." The fund is made up of the Clinton campaign, 32 state Democratic committees, and the DNC.

https://berniesanders.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/04/Bernie-2016-Letter-to-DNC-1.pdf

http://www.politico.com/blogs/2016-dem-primary-live-updates-and-results/2016/04/sanders-clinton-dnc-campaign-finance-laws-222102

[Skwmom]

22. He must be tired of the political dirty tricks. n/t

[passiveporcupine]

23. Oddly?

What is 'odd' is the insane hissyfit some members here have had over Bernie campaign errors on donation reports turned into the FEC.

This actually might have legs.

It's a little soon to be posting about it though, because we don't know the outcome...just like we didn't know the outcome of Bernie's campaign reporting errors. Oh wait...he must be going to jail soon. I must have missed it.

[geek tragedy]

34. he's not going to jail soon, he's going back to Vermont nt

[JonLeibowitz]

55. Back to Washington, if anything. He is a U.S. Senator.

[geek tragedy]

57. true that, his two homes are Vermont and DC nt

[JonLeibowitz]

60. He has homes in Vermont and DC. I doubt he would call DC home.

[riversedge]

38. So Sanders camp is throwing out crap on Hillary on the eve of NY primary to see what sticks.

...So legally this seems weak.

And politically, it is quite odd for Sanders, who would need the DNC’s support to win the presidency should be be the Democratic nominee, to be attacking the DNC. (Then again, Trump has relentlessly attacked the RNC, so this must be the celebration of the season.)

[ismnotwasm]

40. I thought it strange personally

Since Sanders had his own FEC, uh, peccadillos, to look after,

[geek tragedy]

41. and his campaign spent $500,000 to send him a trip that was supposedly non-political. nt

[ismnotwasm]

45. Yes indeed

Yet another cluster.

[riversedge]

44. Love Brian Fallons take on the OP....

Brian Fallon ?@brianefallon 2h2 hours ago

Sanders, last month: "We'll win NY!"
Sanders, last wk: "We'll win NY!"
Sanders, on eve of NY: "Hey look at our bogus allegation abt the DNC"

[geek tragedy]

48. the death rattle of a campaign that sees its own doom nt