Sanders Campaign Got a Love Letter From FEC

[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.

It's a criticial reporting issue. The means by which the FEC and presumably the candidate makes sure that people are giving more than they are permitted under law. And someone who makes campaign finance reform the linchpin of their campaign should have this down.

[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.

It's a criticial reporting issue. The means by which the FEC and presumably the candidate makes sure that people are giving more than they are permitted under law. And someone who makes campaign finance reform the linchpin of their campaign should have this down.

The total of contributions made by each individual was reported. Excess donations would be revealed by that number. I agree that it should have been done correctly and, if for some reason Sanders is unable to provide the itemized data or the itemized contributions don't add up to the reported totals, those are bigger problems. But, at this stage there is no reason to suspect this is anything more than a mistake in how the data was formatted for the report.

[Anonymous]

http://www.politicususa.com/2016/02/01/bernie-sanders-super-pac-money-democratic-rivals.html

Thoughts?

Spin?

[Anonymous]

Bill Maher is on the list in the FEC letter for giving $5,400, twice the $2,700 limit per election.

Maybe Maher is so confident that he intends the second $2,700 to be for the general election.

One person made 50 different contributions of various amounts on the same day and a few other contributions on other days. That looks either an attempt to evade the reporting requirement or to bundle contributions from other people.

[jsteele]

Anonymous wrote:http://www.politicususa.com/2016/02/01/bernie-sanders-super-pac-money-democratic-rivals.html

Thoughts?

Spin?

Sanders really can't do anything about Rove's PACs. Maybe he benefits from them, but you really can't hold him responsible for them. The Nurses PAC is different from those. According to this article:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/fact-checker/wp/2016/02/11/sanderss-claim-that-he-does-not-have-a-super-pac/

"The group filed with the Federal Election Commission as a super PAC in September 2010. Yet it rejects the label, distinguishing itself from allied super PACs."

Clearly, Sanders didn't set up a super pac in 2010 and that is obviously an independent organization not linked to his campaign. But, because it loudly declares its support for Sanders, it is a bit of a special case. Ironically, the Post's Fact Checker (the link above) concludes this:

"Sanders does not have a sanctioned super PAC that acts as an extension of his campaign and is affiliated with wealthy donor networks or corporate industries, in the way that other presidential candidates do."

But, then gave his claim that he doesn't have a super PAC one Pinocchio. It is really strange to that the Fact Checker's conclusion matched Sander's claim, but then he was given a Pinocchio anyway. That makes no sense. I don't really know what Sanders is supposed to do about the Nurses' PAC. If he told them to stop doing what they are doing, wouldn't that be "coordinating" which is prohibited?

[Anonymous]

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:http://www.politicususa.com/2016/02/01/bernie-sanders-super-pac-money-democratic-rivals.html

Thoughts?

Spin?

Sanders really can't do anything about Rove's PACs. Maybe he benefits from them, but you really can't hold him responsible for them. The Nurses PAC is different from those. According to this article:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/fact-checker/wp/2016/02/11/sanderss-claim-that-he-does-not-have-a-super-pac/

"The group filed with the Federal Election Commission as a super PAC in September 2010. Yet it rejects the label, distinguishing itself from allied super PACs."

Clearly, Sanders didn't set up a super pac in 2010 and that is obviously an independent organization not linked to his campaign. But, because it loudly declares its support for Sanders, it is a bit of a special case. Ironically, the Post's Fact Checker (the link above) concludes this:

"Sanders does not have a sanctioned super PAC that acts as an extension of his campaign and is affiliated with wealthy donor networks or corporate industries, in the way that other presidential candidates do."

But, then gave his claim that he doesn't have a super PAC one Pinocchio. It is really strange to that the Fact Checker's conclusion matched Sander's claim, but then he was given a Pinocchio anyway. That makes no sense. I don't really know what Sanders is supposed to do about the Nurses' PAC. If he told them to stop doing what they are doing, wouldn't that be "coordinating" which is prohibited?

Come on. You know the issue is that he says repeatedly that he won't accept the help of a super PAC while accepting the help of a super PAC. The donors to the super PAC are not made public. The claim that it's mostly from nurses' dues seems ludicrous, given that it's a small union and dues must obviously cover many more expenses than just the super PAC.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:http://www.politicususa.com/2016/02/01/bernie-sanders-super-pac-money-democratic-rivals.html

Thoughts?

Spin?

Sanders really can't do anything about Rove's PACs. Maybe he benefits from them, but you really can't hold him responsible for them. The Nurses PAC is different from those. According to this article:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/fact-checker/wp/2016/02/11/sanderss-claim-that-he-does-not-have-a-super-pac/

"The group filed with the Federal Election Commission as a super PAC in September 2010. Yet it rejects the label, distinguishing itself from allied super PACs."

Clearly, Sanders didn't set up a super pac in 2010 and that is obviously an independent organization not linked to his campaign. But, because it loudly declares its support for Sanders, it is a bit of a special case. Ironically, the Post's Fact Checker (the link above) concludes this:

"Sanders does not have a sanctioned super PAC that acts as an extension of his campaign and is affiliated with wealthy donor networks or corporate industries, in the way that other presidential candidates do."

But, then gave his claim that he doesn't have a super PAC one Pinocchio. It is really strange to that the Fact Checker's conclusion matched Sander's claim, but then he was given a Pinocchio anyway. That makes no sense. I don't really know what Sanders is supposed to do about the Nurses' PAC. If he told them to stop doing what they are doing, wouldn't that be "coordinating" which is prohibited?

Come on. You know the issue is that he says repeatedly that he won't accept the help of a super PAC while accepting the help of a super PAC. The donors to the super PAC are not made public. The claim that it's mostly from nurses' dues seems ludicrous, given that it's a small union and dues must obviously cover many more expenses than just the super PAC.

Yep.

[jsteele]

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:http://www.politicususa.com/2016/02/01/bernie-sanders-super-pac-money-democratic-rivals.html

Thoughts?

Spin?

Sanders really can't do anything about Rove's PACs. Maybe he benefits from them, but you really can't hold him responsible for them. The Nurses PAC is different from those. According to this article:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/fact-checker/wp/2016/02/11/sanderss-claim-that-he-does-not-have-a-super-pac/

"The group filed with the Federal Election Commission as a super PAC in September 2010. Yet it rejects the label, distinguishing itself from allied super PACs."

Clearly, Sanders didn't set up a super pac in 2010 and that is obviously an independent organization not linked to his campaign. But, because it loudly declares its support for Sanders, it is a bit of a special case. Ironically, the Post's Fact Checker (the link above) concludes this:

"Sanders does not have a sanctioned super PAC that acts as an extension of his campaign and is affiliated with wealthy donor networks or corporate industries, in the way that other presidential candidates do."

But, then gave his claim that he doesn't have a super PAC one Pinocchio. It is really strange to that the Fact Checker's conclusion matched Sander's claim, but then he was given a Pinocchio anyway. That makes no sense. I don't really know what Sanders is supposed to do about the Nurses' PAC. If he told them to stop doing what they are doing, wouldn't that be "coordinating" which is prohibited?

Come on. You know the issue is that he says repeatedly that he won't accept the help of a super PAC while accepting the help of a super PAC. The donors to the super PAC are not made public. The claim that it's mostly from nurses' dues seems ludicrous, given that it's a small union and dues must obviously cover many more expenses than just the super PAC.

Where has he accepted the help of a super PAC?

[Anonymous]

Iowa. Nurses. RIF.

[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.

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.

Except that you don't have to provide stuff like paid bathroom breaks in India.

[jsteele]

Anonymous wrote:Iowa. Nurses. RIF.

I'm sorry but that is not comprehensible English. Can you show me a source that shows that Sanders accepted the support of a super PAC or not?

[Anonymous]

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Iowa. Nurses. RIF.

I'm sorry but that is not comprehensible English. Can you show me a source that shows that Sanders accepted the support of a super PAC or not?

Isn't that exactly what the linked article alleges and what posters are pointing to?

Sure, it's not concrete. But that's the allegation. With the way our election system works, there's no way of really knowing. Bernie can avoid directly coordinating with PACs set up by people who know the drill. Wink wink. His big donors can funnel money to him using aliases or through other channels (their staff, relatives, etc...remember when that happened in dc recently?).

You must be younger than I am if you aren't familiar with RIF.

[jsteele]

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Iowa. Nurses. RIF.

I'm sorry but that is not comprehensible English. Can you show me a source that shows that Sanders accepted the support of a super PAC or not?

Isn't that exactly what the linked article alleges and what posters are pointing to?

Sure, it's not concrete. But that's the allegation. With the way our election system works, there's no way of really knowing. Bernie can avoid directly coordinating with PACs set up by people who know the drill. Wink wink. His big donors can funnel money to him using aliases or through other channels (their staff, relatives, etc...remember when that happened in dc recently?).

You must be younger than I am if you aren't familiar with RIF.

All sorts of things "can" be done. What we know about what "is" being done is that a PAC that was set up six years ago has been supporting Sanders. There is no evidence that any of the things that you describe are being done.

If you don't like that the Nurses PAC is supporting Sanders, what do you expect him to do about it?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Bill Maher is on the list in the FEC letter for giving $5,400, twice the $2,700 limit per election.

Maybe Maher is so confident that he intends the second $2,700 to be for the general election.

Actually, this is legal as long as the contribution is designated for the general election.

[Anonymous]

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Iowa. Nurses. RIF.

I'm sorry but that is not comprehensible English. Can you show me a source that shows that Sanders accepted the support of a super PAC or not?

Isn't that exactly what the linked article alleges and what posters are pointing to?

Sure, it's not concrete. But that's the allegation. With the way our election system works, there's no way of really knowing. Bernie can avoid directly coordinating with PACs set up by people who know the drill. Wink wink. His big donors can funnel money to him using aliases or through other channels (their staff, relatives, etc...remember when that happened in dc recently?).

You must be younger than I am if you aren't familiar with RIF.

All sorts of things "can" be done. What we know about what "is" being done is that a PAC that was set up six years ago has been supporting Sanders. There is no evidence that any of the things that you describe are being done.

If you don't like that the Nurses PAC is supporting Sanders, what do you expect him to do about it?

The California Nurses Association (rebranded, National Nurses United) SuperPAC is supporting Bernie. By law, he cannot coordinate with the SuperPAC. I don't know if he's made any public statements asking them to stop their activities-- he can certainly do that if he wants to distance himself from their activities. Now, there are certainly SuperPACs that are acting within the letter of the law on coordination while also, wink-wink, coordinating with the candidate. There have been public news articles on this- see Bush and Right to Rise and Carly Fiorina (posted her entire campaign schedule on her website and let superPAC show up with "unauthorized" campaign materials and staff to run the event). I don't think there have been any allegations that the Sanders campaign is doing this kind of activity with the Nurse's SuperPAC-- but who knows?