Sanders Campaign Got a Love Letter From FEC

[Anonymous]

This doesn't seem like much of a scandal to me. But the $$$ that Corporate America spends on our campaigns--legally--is something that we need to take a stand on. By comparison, this is small beans.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:This doesn't seem like much of a scandal to me. But the $$$ that Corporate America spends on our campaigns--legally--is something that we need to take a stand on. By comparison, this is small beans.

Do you really think corporate America is ignoring Bernie?

Do you think they are foolish enough to not engage the man who very well might be our next president?

They are talking to him and his campaign. They are getting money to him.

[jsteele]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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?

I'm the first PP, who expressed disappointment. I don't mind an open discussion about Clinton's paid speeches or her contributors (or any other candidate's for that matter). What disappointed me is your snarky diversion from the discussion about Sanders. For better or worse, I expect more from you. You were making good points when you reviewed Sanders' filings and commented on what the documents say and don't say. Where you lose me is the cheap shot. I generally enjoy and agree with your take on political issues, in large part because you rarely take cheap shots. So I'm surprised and disappointed here.

He takes cheap shots to deflect criticism of Sanders.

This whole thread is a cheap shot and a good metaphor for our corrupt political system in which selling out to those who wrecked our economy is no big deal but going over the spending limit by $50 is a huge violation.

[Anonymous]

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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?

I'm the first PP, who expressed disappointment. I don't mind an open discussion about Clinton's paid speeches or her contributors (or any other candidate's for that matter). What disappointed me is your snarky diversion from the discussion about Sanders. For better or worse, I expect more from you. You were making good points when you reviewed Sanders' filings and commented on what the documents say and don't say. Where you lose me is the cheap shot. I generally enjoy and agree with your take on political issues, in large part because you rarely take cheap shots. So I'm surprised and disappointed here.

He takes cheap shots to deflect criticism of Sanders.

This whole thread is a cheap shot and a good metaphor for our corrupt political system in which selling out to those who wrecked our economy is no big deal but going over the spending limit by $50 is a huge violation.

We forgot that everything the Sanders campaign does is automatically beyond reproach and that no questions or criticisms are tolerated here.

[jsteele]

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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?

I'm the first PP, who expressed disappointment. I don't mind an open discussion about Clinton's paid speeches or her contributors (or any other candidate's for that matter). What disappointed me is your snarky diversion from the discussion about Sanders. For better or worse, I expect more from you. You were making good points when you reviewed Sanders' filings and commented on what the documents say and don't say. Where you lose me is the cheap shot. I generally enjoy and agree with your take on political issues, in large part because you rarely take cheap shots. So I'm surprised and disappointed here.

He takes cheap shots to deflect criticism of Sanders.

This whole thread is a cheap shot and a good metaphor for our corrupt political system in which selling out to those who wrecked our economy is no big deal but going over the spending limit by $50 is a huge violation.

We forgot that everything the Sanders campaign does is automatically beyond reproach and that no questions or criticisms are tolerated here.

Criticize all you want. Who is stopping you. Sure you would probably prefer to make vague ominously sounding allegations without rebuttal. Sorry, can't promise you that.

[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.

Have any of them mentioned Carrier besides Trump? https://ustr.gov/trade-agreements/free-trade-agreements/north-american-free-trade-agreement-nafta
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2015/06/17/tracking-the-many-hillary-clinton-positions-on-trade/

I despise jobs going overseas. Look at DC and the massive thread on short term family shelters. If any of those parents know how to work a smart phone they could be trained to work in call center now in India etc. Frickin call centers could be providing jobs for our people in DC, Baltimore, Philly etc.

[Anonymous]

I think it's faulty to assume that Hillary supporters don't care about the widening income gap or that campaign finance reform is needed because it is sickening.

While it might be "unfair" I think Bernie does need to be more scrupulous so he doesn't end up being a hypocrite since this is his primary platform. With all the millennials on his campaign surely they can come up with an algorithm the detect similar contributions and recategorize or reject them.

[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.

Have any of them mentioned Carrier besides Trump? https://ustr.gov/trade-agreements/free-trade-agreements/north-american-free-trade-agreement-nafta
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2015/06/17/tracking-the-many-hillary-clinton-positions-on-trade/

I despise jobs going overseas. Look at DC and the massive thread on short term family shelters. If any of those parents know how to work a smart phone they could be trained to work in call center now in India etc. Frickin call centers could be providing jobs for our people in DC, Baltimore, Philly etc.

Sanders discussed it on his Facebook page:

https://m.facebook.com/berniesanders/posts/980810075307330

[Anonymous]

Maybe Sanders should hire a few Wall Street accountants who know how to comply with disclosure requirements.

[Anonymous]

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I am not sure who I am voting for - most likely Clinton- but I really like Sanders and trust that he would not do anything illegal or unethical. He from all accounts is a good and ethical man.

It's not him, nor is it his campaign. It's more likely people using different email addresses and slight variations on their names to contribute multiple times in excess amounts. Could be Republicans, for all we know.

If you look at the report, it is mostly trivial amounts. The first excessive contribution is over by $50. The second by $38.

Except for the $23 million.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I am not sure who I am voting for - most likely Clinton- but I really like Sanders and trust that he would not do anything illegal or unethical. He from all accounts is a good and ethical man.

I'm the pp and just googled it, he lied about the parentage of his first born and his wife quietly resigned from Burlington College before being charged with its bankruptcy in 2011.

So are the candidate lying here? Hillary for something she wasn't involved in, so couldn't be sure. And, are we going to say the candidates are responsible for their spouse's mistakes?

I don't know about that but I still believe someone that has spent his entire life fighting for the indigent and for campaign reform would not knowingly do anything unethical. He has a lot of young volunteers and maybe someone made an error.

[Anonymous]

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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?

I'm the first PP, who expressed disappointment. I don't mind an open discussion about Clinton's paid speeches or her contributors (or any other candidate's for that matter). What disappointed me is your snarky diversion from the discussion about Sanders. For better or worse, I expect more from you. You were making good points when you reviewed Sanders' filings and commented on what the documents say and don't say. Where you lose me is the cheap shot. I generally enjoy and agree with your take on political issues, in large part because you rarely take cheap shots. So I'm surprised and disappointed here.

He takes cheap shots to deflect criticism of Sanders.

This whole thread is a cheap shot and a good metaphor for our corrupt political system in which selling out to those who wrecked our economy is no big deal but going over the spending limit by $50 is a huge violation.

We forgot that everything the Sanders campaign does is automatically beyond reproach and that no questions or criticisms are tolerated here.

Criticize all you want. Who is stopping you. Sure you would probably prefer to make vague ominously sounding allegations without rebuttal. Sorry, can't promise you that.

The problem is, I feel the same about vague ominously sounding allegations about HRC. It goes both ways. See the Walmart lobbyist fundraiser/bribery scandal issue above.

[jsteele]

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I am not sure who I am voting for - most likely Clinton- but I really like Sanders and trust that he would not do anything illegal or unethical. He from all accounts is a good and ethical man.

It's not him, nor is it his campaign. It's more likely people using different email addresses and slight variations on their names to contribute multiple times in excess amounts. Could be Republicans, for all we know.

If you look at the report, it is mostly trivial amounts. The first excessive contribution is over by $50. The second by $38.

Except for the $23 million.

The $23 million consists of contributions that are reported as totals given by an individual rather than as an itemized list of contributions from those individuals. It is nothing more than a reporting issue.

[Anonymous]

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I am not sure who I am voting for - most likely Clinton- but I really like Sanders and trust that he would not do anything illegal or unethical. He from all accounts is a good and ethical man.

It's not him, nor is it his campaign. It's more likely people using different email addresses and slight variations on their names to contribute multiple times in excess amounts. Could be Republicans, for all we know.

If you look at the report, it is mostly trivial amounts. The first excessive contribution is over by $50. The second by $38.

Except for the $23 million.

The $23 million consists of contributions that are reported as totals given by an individual rather than as an itemized list of contributions from those individuals. It is nothing more than a reporting issue.

Can you honestly say that if this had happened to the HRC campaign it wouldn't have been turned into a huge issue?

[jsteele]

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I am not sure who I am voting for - most likely Clinton- but I really like Sanders and trust that he would not do anything illegal or unethical. He from all accounts is a good and ethical man.

It's not him, nor is it his campaign. It's more likely people using different email addresses and slight variations on their names to contribute multiple times in excess amounts. Could be Republicans, for all we know.

If you look at the report, it is mostly trivial amounts. The first excessive contribution is over by $50. The second by $38.

Except for the $23 million.

The $23 million consists of contributions that are reported as totals given by an individual rather than as an itemized list of contributions from those individuals. It is nothing more than a reporting issue.

Can you honestly say that if this had happened to the HRC campaign it wouldn't have been turned into a huge issue?

All I can say is that it wouldn't be an issue with me. I might make some jokes about it, but this is clearly just an issue with how the data was reported.