Sanders Campaign Got a Love Letter From FEC

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote: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.

Right, it isn't the scandal that will rock his campaign by any means. But it kinda puts a dent in that $27 contribution narrative

[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?

I do admire your doggedness in trying to turn the least bit of scrutiny of Sanders into an unrelated character attack on Ckinton.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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

Those articles are only talking about one area of spending: TV ads, which is maybe only 10-20% of overall campaign spending thus far. It doesn't speak about all of the other areas where Hillary has been outspending Sanders. Also, sorry, but Republican ads DO NOT count as pro-Sanders. And ironically the Time article you cite additionally got it wrong about "Sanders' spending is to little effect" because Sanders almost beat Hillary in Iowa and did beat her in New Hampshire.

So, no.

[Anonymous]

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 do admire your doggedness in trying to turn the least bit of scrutiny of Sanders into an unrelated character attack on Ckinton.

Goldman Sachs provided the seed money for Clinton's campaign. This is what directly funded her exploratory committee, et cetera.

[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.

Not quite.

I think some of us are just tired of having Hillary put under the microscope 24/7 while the media essentially gives Bernie a free pass. It's like there are teams of people digging for anything (whether real or imagined) they can throw at Hillary---and literally nobody is scrutinizing anything about Bernie.

The man has a love child for F's sake, and yet People magazine did a feature on him as a Family Man.

If Hillary had a love child, she would be crucified.

Note: I personally don't care about the love child. Just used it as an example to underscore the ridiculous difference in coverage fueled by an anti-Clinton bias.

And we already know you disagree. But other Bernie supporters get it. And it's sad. I'm convinced I'll never see a female president in my lifetime.

[Anonymous]

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?

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.

+1

[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?

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.

[Anonymous]

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.

Not quite.

I think some of us are just tired of having Hillary put under the microscope 24/7 while the media essentially gives Bernie a free pass. It's like there are teams of people digging for anything (whether real or imagined) they can throw at Hillary---and literally nobody is scrutinizing anything about Bernie.

The man has a love child for F's sake, and yet People magazine did a feature on him as a Family Man.

If Hillary had a love child, she would be crucified.

Note: I personally don't care about the love child. Just used it as an example to underscore the ridiculous difference in coverage fueled by an anti-Clinton bias.

And we already know you disagree. But other Bernie supporters get it. And it's sad. I'm convinced I'll never see a female president in my lifetime.

In the book Notes From A Cracked Ceiling, I mentioned on another post, the media knew about the Edwards love child and held it, yet attacked Palin on her pregnancy at a pivotal moment. I'm not sure a love child wouldn't matter, if we're shining a spotlight it needs to be on all candidates.

[Anonymous]

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.

[jsteele]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

I knew that you wouldn't mention the amount. Less than $7k. That's what you guys think is a scandal. People accuse me of cheap shots while vaguely talking about "inappropriate spending " without revealing that it is less than $7,000.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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

Those articles are only talking about one area of spending: TV ads, which is maybe only 10-20% of overall campaign spending thus far. It doesn't speak about all of the other areas where Hillary has been outspending Sanders. Also, sorry, but Republican ads DO NOT count as pro-Sanders. And ironically the Time article you cite additionally got it wrong about "Sanders' spending is to little effect" because Sanders almost beat Hillary in Iowa and did beat her in New Hampshire.

So, no.

Sanders has many more paid staff in SC than Clinton does but it doesn't appear they are traditional field organizers. Probably paid canvassers instead.

[Anonymous]

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.

[Anonymous]

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.

[Anonymous]

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?

[jsteele]

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.