Sanders Campaign Got a Love Letter From FEC

[Anonymous]

For “excessive” unexplained contributions and widespread “incorrectly reported” reimbursements for travel purposes and other costs

The article includes a link to the FEC report.

http://www.dailynewsbin.com/news/fec-launches-inquiry-into-hundreds-of-excessive-contributions-to-bernie-sanders-campaign/23817/

[Anonymous]

Yes, there's some interesting stuff in there. Not much press coverage of it.

[jsteele]

Anonymous wrote:Yes, there's some interesting stuff in there. Not much press coverage of it.

Not much press coverage because it doesn't really amount to much. The reimbursements are two contributions that total about $1,200. Looking through the list of contributions that are apparently in excess, it appears that the FEC doesn't understand the minus sign (-). In probably half the cases that I looked at, there were multiple charges attributed to a single individual, but also subtractions. If you did the math properly, the contributions weren't excessive. There would still be a couple hundred of contributors (my eyeball estimate) who exceeded the limit, but not a huge number in the scope of contributions Sanders received.

[Anonymous]

Paragraph 2 refers to $23 million of unitemized contributions.

[Anonymous]

Remember the Seinfeld episode where Uncle Leo explains to Jerry that all old people steal and then simply pretend they forgot to pay? That's what popped into my mind when I read this.

It's pretty brilliant, actually.

"I don't accept money from Wall Street or special interests. I don't have a PAC." Instead, I just have special interest groups funnel shitloads of money into my campaign through tons of online donations from the same guy. This guy is smarter than folks think. Maybe he's even sneakier than Cruz (who snl dubbed the sneaky little stinker).

[jsteele]

Anonymous wrote:Paragraph 2 refers to $23 million of unitemized contributions.

Yeah, I guess they reported the total amount contributed by an individual, but need to itemize it. The list of excessive contributions is all itemized, so the campaign must have itemized some and not others. It's just a reporting issue that should be easy to fix.

[Anonymous]

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Paragraph 2 refers to $23 million of unitemized contributions.

Yeah, I guess they reported the total amount contributed by an individual, but need to itemize it. The list of excessive contributions is all itemized, so the campaign must have itemized some and not others. It's just a reporting issue that should be easy to fix.

A bit of an understatement.

[jsteele]

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Paragraph 2 refers to $23 million of unitemized contributions.

Yeah, I guess they reported the total amount contributed by an individual, but need to itemize it. The list of excessive contributions is all itemized, so the campaign must have itemized some and not others. It's just a reporting issue that should be easy to fix.

A bit of an understatement.

If you think my description is inaccurate, please correct it. I think that it is the total amount of contributions from an individual that is important. If each individual contribution from that individual needs to be listed to comply, then the campaign should comply with the law. But, let's not act like there is really more here than that.

[Anonymous]

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.

[jsteele]

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.

I agree with everything except the foreign nationals. Those were contributions from foreign addresses. If the contributors are US citizens the contributions are legal. They just have to do the paperwork on that. I'm also surprised they didn't get this right the first time, but as you suggest, the systems are likely in place to gather the information.

[Anonymous]

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.

[jsteele]

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.

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.

[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.

Yep. I have all sorts of feelings about this

[Anonymous]

jsteele 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.

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.

You forgot to add #feeltheBern ;0)

As Bernie's campaign picks up momentum and folks realize he might be the candidate, special interest groups will be beating down his door...and his handlers will most certainly direct them to his online donation site...where Goldman Sachs secretaries and their nephews will make boatloads of contributions in the maximum amount. And Bernie's handlers will know where the money really came from.

You don't think the NRA is trying to get to Bernie? I do.

[Anonymous]

jsteele 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.

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.

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