Sanders Campaign Got a Love Letter From FEC

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:You only need to itemize contributions that aggregate more than $200 from a single source, or any single contribution over $50. If he's collecting money online, he should have systems in place that require collecting the legally required information (name, address, occupation) and also systems that track contributions from individuals so you will know if you meet the itemization threshold for that person. It also looks like he accepted contributions from foreign nationals, which is illegal.

None of this is a huge deal per se, but it makes you wonder who's minding the store. This is the big leagues and you need to get this stuff right. Also, as someone who is constantly criticizing our rigged political system, you'd think he would be filing accurate campaign finance disclosures.

Imagine if it was Hillary's campaign instead of Bernie's.

Since it's Bernie's, this is all just a simple mistake.

Had it been Hillary's, the media would have 24/7 coverage featuring pundits questioning her ethics and judgment.

Obama did the same thing and liberals who supported him also called it a 'simple mistake'.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:You only need to itemize contributions that aggregate more than $200 from a single source, or any single contribution over $50. If he's collecting money online, he should have systems in place that require collecting the legally required information (name, address, occupation) and also systems that track contributions from individuals so you will know if you meet the itemization threshold for that person. It also looks like he accepted contributions from foreign nationals, which is illegal.

None of this is a huge deal per se, but it makes you wonder who's minding the store. This is the big leagues and you need to get this stuff right. Also, as someone who is constantly criticizing our rigged political system, you'd think he would be filing accurate campaign finance disclosures.

Imagine if it was Hillary's campaign instead of Bernie's.

Since it's Bernie's, this is all just a simple mistake.

Had it been Hillary's, the media would have 24/7 coverage featuring pundits questioning her ethics and judgment.

Obama did the same thing and liberals who supported him also called it a 'simple mistake'.

Yes. Character, morals, ethics - they all matter.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:You only need to itemize contributions that aggregate more than $200 from a single source, or any single contribution over $50. If he's collecting money online, he should have systems in place that require collecting the legally required information (name, address, occupation) and also systems that track contributions from individuals so you will know if you meet the itemization threshold for that person. It also looks like he accepted contributions from foreign nationals, which is illegal.

None of this is a huge deal per se, but it makes you wonder who's minding the store. This is the big leagues and you need to get this stuff right. Also, as someone who is constantly criticizing our rigged political system, you'd think he would be filing accurate campaign finance disclosures.

Imagine if it was Hillary's campaign instead of Bernie's.

Since it's Bernie's, this is all just a simple mistake.

Had it been Hillary's, the media would have 24/7 coverage featuring pundits questioning her ethics and judgment.

Bernie supporter here. I agree with you.

[Anonymous]

Most of us probably can acknowledge that if this were HRC's filing, the press would be going to town on it. There is a clear possibility that individuals made multiple donations using different email addresses and slight variations on their names. Bernie is outspending HRC. Reporters ought to look at where the money is coming from.

Waiting to be attacked in 3-2-1....

[jsteele]

Anonymous wrote:Did she have a campaign stop in Mexico? Did either of them comment on the Carrier move to Mexico?

Yes, the Clinton campaign is holding fundraisers in Mexico. At least one of them is hosted by a Walmart lobbyist:

http://thehill.com/blogs/ballot-box/fundraising/268782-clinton-campaign-hosting-fundraisers-in-mexico

It wasn't that long ago that Walmart was involved in a bribery scandal in Mexico:

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/12/18/business/walmart-bribes-teotihuacan.html

But, what really upsets DCUM posters is the lack of press coverage of the handful of contributions to Sanders that exceeded limits by a couple of hundred dollars.

[Anonymous]

jsteele wrote:If Hillary's campaign finance problem was that some contributors gave $3,000 when the limit is $2,700, you are right that it would warrant media coverage. Those amounts are normally Hillary's cab fare on the way to give a speech on Wall Street.

I'm disappointed, Jeff. You should not stoop to this level.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:If Hillary's campaign finance problem was that some contributors gave $3,000 when the limit is $2,700, you are right that it would warrant media coverage. Those amounts are normally Hillary's cab fare on the way to give a speech on Wall Street.

I'm disappointed, Jeff. You should not stoop to this level.

But he will, and he does.

[Anonymous]

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Did she have a campaign stop in Mexico? Did either of them comment on the Carrier move to Mexico?

Yes, the Clinton campaign is holding fundraisers in Mexico. At least one of them is hosted by a Walmart lobbyist:

http://thehill.com/blogs/ballot-box/fundraising/268782-clinton-campaign-hosting-fundraisers-in-mexico

It wasn't that long ago that Walmart was involved in a bribery scandal in Mexico:

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/12/18/business/walmart-bribes-teotihuacan.html

But, what really upsets DCUM posters is the lack of press coverage of the handful of contributions to Sanders that exceeded limits by a couple of hundred dollars.

That is because they created a very high standard for themselves and are holding themselves as being better than everyone else. And BTW, the issue is not just the amount of the contributions, it is also the way they were spent.

Secondly, what is the connection between Zapien (who moved to Mexico in 20015) and the bribery scandal from 2006?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Most of us probably can acknowledge that if this were HRC's filing, the press would be going to town on it. There is a clear possibility that individuals made multiple donations using different email addresses and slight variations on their names. Bernie is outspending HRC. Reporters ought to look at where the money is coming from.

Waiting to be attacked in 3-2-1....

I don't know where you're getting this "Bernie is outspending HRC" nonsense. Provide a citation please.... Every site out there tracking campaign funds disagrees with you. Check OpenSecrets and you will see your assertion to be wrong.

Hillary is vastly outspending Bernie and also has a lot more outside money.

[jsteele]

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Did she have a campaign stop in Mexico? Did either of them comment on the Carrier move to Mexico?

Yes, the Clinton campaign is holding fundraisers in Mexico. At least one of them is hosted by a Walmart lobbyist:

http://thehill.com/blogs/ballot-box/fundraising/268782-clinton-campaign-hosting-fundraisers-in-mexico

It wasn't that long ago that Walmart was involved in a bribery scandal in Mexico:

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/12/18/business/walmart-bribes-teotihuacan.html

But, what really upsets DCUM posters is the lack of press coverage of the handful of contributions to Sanders that exceeded limits by a couple of hundred dollars.

That is because they created a very high standard for themselves and are holding themselves as being better than everyone else. And BTW, the issue is not just the amount of the contributions, it is also the way they were spent.

Secondly, what is the connection between Zapien (who moved to Mexico in 20015) and the bribery scandal from 2006?

Be specific. You have access to the entire FEC report. Tell us exactly what was wrong with "how they were spent". That saying that sort of thing without details makes it sound ominous, but if you show the specifics everyone will see that it is a joke.

[jsteele]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:If Hillary's campaign finance problem was that some contributors gave $3,000 when the limit is $2,700, you are right that it would warrant media coverage. Those amounts are normally Hillary's cab fare on the way to give a speech on Wall Street.

I'm disappointed, Jeff. You should not stoop to this level.

But he will, and he does.

Are you guys serious? You think that failing to itemize the individual contributions of a single contributor while reporting the total is a huge scandal but collecting $275,000 for a single speech to Goldman Sachs is something that is beyond the pale to mention?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Most of us probably can acknowledge that if this were HRC's filing, the press would be going to town on it. There is a clear possibility that individuals made multiple donations using different email addresses and slight variations on their names. Bernie is outspending HRC. Reporters ought to look at where the money is coming from.

Waiting to be attacked in 3-2-1....

I don't know where you're getting this "Bernie is outspending HRC" nonsense. Provide a citation please.... Every site out there tracking campaign funds disagrees with you. Check OpenSecrets and you will see your assertion to be wrong.

Hillary is vastly outspending Bernie and also has a lot more outside money.

It's been widely reported. He spent thirty percent more than him in the first two states. And that doesn't include the republican super pads that have been running anti hrc ads in primary states.

http://time.com/4174574/bernie-sander-campaign-ad-spending/

http://www.politico.com/story/2016/02/bernie-sanders-new-hampshire-218906

[Anonymous]

Maybe it's really not such a big deal. The NYT had the story a day before the OP's news source.

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=0

Such glitches are common in political campaigns, which are required to track small donors and begin itemizing their contributions when their total reaches $200. That can be harder when donors use slightly different variations of their names or contribute from more than one address. Mr. Sanders’s campaign may choose to refund the excess contributions or re-designate the excess for use in a general election campaign, when candidates can accept another $2,700.

[Anonymous]

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:If Hillary's campaign finance problem was that some contributors gave $3,000 when the limit is $2,700, you are right that it would warrant media coverage. Those amounts are normally Hillary's cab fare on the way to give a speech on Wall Street.

I'm disappointed, Jeff. You should not stoop to this level.

But he will, and he does.

Are you guys serious? You think that failing to itemize the individual contributions of a single contributor while reporting the total is a huge scandal but collecting $275,000 for a single speech to Goldman Sachs is something that is beyond the pale to mention?

how much has Bernie raised so far? $23 million is a pretty large chunk to have failed to account for properly. Very possible people are exceeding their max limit, etc..

The Goldman speech was personal income that was properly reported. Doesn't bother me at all.

[Anonymous]

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Did she have a campaign stop in Mexico? Did either of them comment on the Carrier move to Mexico?

Yes, the Clinton campaign is holding fundraisers in Mexico. At least one of them is hosted by a Walmart lobbyist:

http://thehill.com/blogs/ballot-box/fundraising/268782-clinton-campaign-hosting-fundraisers-in-mexico

It wasn't that long ago that Walmart was involved in a bribery scandal in Mexico:

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/12/18/business/walmart-bribes-teotihuacan.html

But, what really upsets DCUM posters is the lack of press coverage of the handful of contributions to Sanders that exceeded limits by a couple of hundred dollars.

That is because they created a very high standard for themselves and are holding themselves as being better than everyone else. And BTW, the issue is not just the amount of the contributions, it is also the way they were spent.

Secondly, what is the connection between Zapien (who moved to Mexico in 20015) and the bribery scandal from 2006?

Be specific. You have access to the entire FEC report. Tell us exactly what was wrong with "how they were spent". That saying that sort of thing without details makes it sound ominous, but if you show the specifics everyone will see that it is a joke.

I should be petty and say I will when you give us specifics about the Walmart and Goldman Sachs "scandals."

But I am going to be nice and direct you to page 37 of the FEC report.