Sanders fined for accepting foreign donations in 2016 election

[TexasTowelie]

WASHINGTON — Sen. Bernie Sanders’ presidential campaign will pay $14,500 as part of an agreement with the Federal Election Commission over allegations that the campaign wrongfully accepted in-kind donations from an Australian political party.

The complaint centered on a group of seven Australians who volunteered for the Vermont independent’s 2016 presidential bid.

The Australian Labor Party paid a total of $24,422 for the volunteers’ flights and stipends, according to the FEC document, provided by the Sanders campaign.

The Sanders campaign did not believe at the time that the money the individuals received from the Australian party would disqualify them from volunteering, according to the campaign.

However, the FEC determined that the money the party paid for the volunteers’ flights and stipend constituted an in-kind donation prohibited by federal campaign regulations and a 1971 law.

Read more: https://vtdigger.org/2018/02/28/sanders-fined-accepting-foreign-donations-2016-election/

[Wwcd]

3. Why not. Besides this was completely innocent, could have happened to anybody, right?

Wait for it......

[NurseJackie]

4. You're reading my mind. And saying out-loud what many are thinking and afraid to say...

1. Maybe he will blame hillary for that also

You're reading my mind. And saying out-loud what many are thinking and afraid to say, for obvious reasons.

[Liberalhammer]

32. Taking responsibility and paying the fine

Is terrible.

Just terrible.

[lapucelle]

141. ...

The Sanders campaign did not admit fault as part of the agreement, which according to the complaint was reached “solely for the purpose of settling this matter expeditiously and to avoid the expense of litigation.”

https://vtdigger.org/2018/02/28/sanders-fined-accepting-foreign-donations-2016-election/

[KitSileya]

2. Gmta!

I'll delete my thread.

[NurseJackie]

9. They often do! (And you're definitely one of them!)

[George II]

112. You DO realize that "GMTA" also stands for Green Mountain Transit Authority...

....in, of all places, Burlington Vermont!!! No joke, REALLY!

(also stands for Georgia Motor Trucking Association) Life can be fun and ironic.

[ProudLib72]

5. Can I invoke the purity clause just this once

and say he shouldn't be allowed to run on the Dem ticket in 2020?

[sarah FAILIN]

8. You will get smacked down

Every time I say anything remotely judgy about him I am hidden and deleted. Just a heads up.

[ProudLib72]

10. I betcha the response will be something along the lines of

"Well, considering what Hillary did....!" The man is Mr. Diviso, and I wish we wouldn't talk about him so much on DU.

[samir.g]

22. Same here.

[Exotica]

15. This is fine by me

[leftynyc]

17. Fine by me

I would let your post stand.

[JCanete]

21. sure, but it doesn't exist, its total bullshit made up by people who want to take issue with

speaking to and campaigning on values. This looks like a campaign fuck up and is small potatoes. The response looks appropriate. I for one would never make up the bullshit claim that the Sanders machine would be as sophisticated and un error-prone as Clinton's. It was fledgling by comparison and it isn't agonizing in any way to say that the talent/or skill level was probably not on par with that of Clinton's. Not the point. Has never been the point.

Does this look like corruption to you? Are there any potentially sordid details suggesting some kind of quid pro-quo?

[sheshe2]

25. Not sure why you say this...

I for one would never make up the bullshit claim that the Sanders machine would be as sophisticated and un error-prone as Clinton's. It was fledgling by comparison and it isn't agonizing in any way to say that the talent/or skill level was probably not on par with that of Clinton's.

Wiki shows all the campaigns he has run over the years, a pretty long history from, mayor, Governor, Congress and Senate, prior to his Presidential run. Seems to me he has a lot of experience. He is hardly new to running important campaigns, he has done so for years. Actually he seems to have run more than Hillary did.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electoral_history_of_Bernie_Sanders

[JCanete]

28. you talking about weaver? I have no cause to defend him and hardly know him other than

he certainly seems to be a controversial choice here. I appreciate that he has experience. The campaign did grow unexpectedly large, unexpectedly quickly though, which I would expect to impact the quality and/or readiness of the expanding staff in general. That doesn't mean it couldn't and shouldn't have been done better. For that matter, I'm willing to separate out whether or not Sanders, who isn't near as sophisticated on the ins and outs of national political races as somebody like Clinton, has or had all it takes to be a frontrunner in our political system(because sloppiness will get you sidelined and maligned easily and with this much at stake, people will certainly help you make a mistake or jump on it when you make one), out from the progressive messaging and the willingness to fight aggressively for those things rather than continuing to try to negotiate from the middle and continually parsing your position.

I don't expect Sanders to get us there from inside the White House. I didn't then, and I don't in 2020. I expect democrats to appreciate the popularity of his message and to run with it in order to court the voters who are looking for that kind of fight. People here want instead, too often, to take the message down with Sanders. They want to make him a crook and a hypocrite, often with weak evidence.

[sheshe2]

33. No, actually I am talking about Sanders.

He has run in many many national campaigns. He is not a newbie about campaigns and should know how to chose advisors wisely. You again post how naive Sanders is about running a National election. Are House runs and multiple Senate runs not National? I gave you the link to Wiki above.

[JCanete]

60. What I suspect though, given the schedule that Sanders and Clinton would have kept, that attending

to these details would have been left to the people that were put in charge of them. Wouldn't you?

[sheshe2]

70. I agree and as a professional campaigner

That he has done nationally for decades...he is not a naive newbie that you wish to promote. He needs to take responsibility.

[JCanete]

74. Okay, and I said so in my posts, but his campaign, please admit, was nothing

like anything he, or most people for that matter, had dealt with previously, and the growth rate was very very fast. There is no way he could have been hand's on for that. You could certainly point to his choice in campaign managers if you want to. That said, there's probably very little likelihood that those running his campaign wouldn't have been struggling to keep everything in order for those same reasons. This case specifically seems to be an interpretation they had of the law versus what the election commission determined. . They didn't miss it. They didn't fail to report it. In so many ways, its a non-story.

Have they made mistakes? Have they been sloppy? Quite possibly. What does that add up to though? What is the story it tells that you think is so damming?

[Jim Lane]

64. My guess: This was the FIRST Sanders campaign to face this issue...

That is, the issue of an Australian political party that did NOT make a financial contribution to the campaign, but that did cover expenses for some of its members who came to the U.S. to volunteer.

In 2012, Bernie was re-elected with 71% of the vote, over a Republican sacrificial lamb who got 25%. Probably no one from Australia felt a need to fly to Vermont to help out.

[pnwmom]

26. He was subject to the same reporting rules as a Senator. He was no novice. nt

[JCanete]

31. at running an exponentially expanding campaign, yes he was. Yes, of course he was.

That doesn't mean the sloppiness shouldn't be pointed out. It doesn't mean it shouldn't be a knock against him. What it demonstrates versus what people would make it demonstrate though, is significant. It does not demonstrate corruption, or if it does, I would certainly like somebody to connect the dots for me. And it does not demonstrate hypocrisy if it doesn't demonstrate corruption. It has nothing to do with fake purity accusations that don't fit Sanders or most of his supporters.

[pnwmom]

35. This wasn't a donation that was OVERLOOKED due to the expanding campaign.

Last edited Thu Mar 1, 2018, 07:00 PM - Edit history (1)

They deliberately made the decision and it was wrong.

I agree, by itself it doesn't indicate corruption.

I'm more curious about Old Towne Media, who was behind it, and what happened with all that money.

[Wwcd]

40. If Sanders Campaign Mgr was a novice, then sure, things happen.

Who was it again?
Some "novice wannabe electioneer", a guy named Devine. Tad Devine.
Just ask his pal Paul Manafort. They go back a really long way. He'd know.

First Hillarys Voter Data is stolen by some "new hires" & now this .
All these innocent oopsies. All under the watch of a campaign mgr named T.A.D. D.E.V.I.N.E.
In my opinion? Old Town Media is actually a laundromat.

Pure speculation based on 2 years of observation.
We have to wait for Mueller to know how close we all came to hitting the nail on the head.

[R B Garr]

100. Tad Devine! He knows Manafort the felons Russian playbook.

I am so glad to see these posts bringing up Tad Devine and his connections to the Russian hackers.

Interesting theory about Old Towne Media.

[George II]

95. Sanders was elected Mayor and served four terms. Then was elected to the House of Representatives..

...and served eight terms before being elected to the Senate in 2006 and 2012.

Not counting previous losing campaigns, that's FOURTEEN campaigns he's been involved with. Certainly not a neophyte or "fledgling" in organizing and financing election campaigns.

[NurseJackie]

104. That puts things into a realistic perspective.

[ehrnst]

146. Indeed. He's a seasoned, career politician

when it's a good thing to be, of course...

Otherwise he's a maverick, in the very bestest way.

[sarah FAILIN]

6. First I thought this was a joke

But then I wondered why Australians would be volunteering for anyone.

Now I'm wondering wtf they have been siting on their hands when Trump got all the Russian help.

This is all crazy. All of it.

[Me.]

7. The Disney Calculation Comes Into Play

"It would have been far more expensive to fight it than to just deal with the case", Weaver said Wednesday." Any sign of Russian money...

[peggysue2]

13. Hahaha!

Good one on you, Me!

I've been reading some twitter excuse comments. Amazing that the very people--the purity police--who are all too eager to point fingers at others for anything, everything are so-o-o adverse to criticism. How very thin-skinned. Might I say Trumpian???

As for Jeff Weaver? He deserves a bad karma moment x 1000.

[Me.]

29. Thank You

[George II]

108. Not out of the realm of possibility. And Weaver's campaign partner, Devine...

...most likely will go down with Manafort, another campaign partner of Devine's.

Funny thing, with all the investigations and accusations of Hillary Clinton over 30 years none have come to fruition. Yet all the peripheral people seem to be fraught with corruption or outright criminal behavior.

[peggysue2]

110. Strange, isn't George?

Hillary was subjected to decades of accusations, screeches and faux investigations. The result? Nothing. We were told that if she were ever elected, there would 4 years of investigations and scandals and the country would come to ruin.

The Trumpster came in on a boatload of lies and empty promises. And here we are, standing in the ashes of the worst, most corrupt Administration in American history.

Funny how that worked out.

Said this before: you could not write this daily drama as fiction. No one would ever buy it.

Btw, I wouldn't mind seeing all these enablers and split-the-vote con artists sharing cells with the Trumpkin's crew.

[George II]

111. I love using trump's line "if you vote for Hillary you'll get a president under investigation....

....from day one."

Then I point out that I DID vote for Hillary and I got a president under investigation from day one!!!

[NCTraveler]

16. Weaver is beyond shady. nt.

[Wwcd]

43. K & R to ME

[Me.]

48. So Many Questions

so few answers!

back at you

[ehrnst]

151. ...

[LexVegas]

11. What did Hillary do to stop these illegal donations to the Sanders campaign? THAT is the question.

[leftofcool]

42. You know that is coming!

[Gothmog]

12. K&R

[George II]

14. This is on top of the letters his campaign received every month/quarter regarding upwards of....

....tens of thousands of impermissible contributions:

Exceeding the maximum annual contribution from individuals
Exceeding the maximum annual contribution from married couples
Receiving contributions from foreign nationals
Insufficient documentation of contributions
Outright errors in itemized contributions

As Treasurer of about a dozen candidate and PAC committees, one of the first things I learned is that a Treasurer is required to learn the law. Very little room for "error" as an excuse.

Also, with respect to all the impermissible contributions, a Treasurer is required to confirm that the contribution is legal BEFORE depositing it into the committee's account.

[NurseJackie]

20. Was that unlawful money ever returned? Seems like there would be software...

... that would automatically catch that sort of thing. Or that would DELAY processing the credit card donation (or cashing the check) until the donor's status (and maximum allowed total donation) had been verified. I mean... it is the 21st century after all... technology is much more advance NOW than when these laws and regs were first enacted.

[George II]

46. The FEC told them they had to return the money. The laws are strict, and pretty straightforward.

I went to a few training seminars. At each they actually said that if a Treasurer got, say, $20 cash for a contribution, the deposit into the account HAD to be that very $20 bill, not another one. Stupid, but strict. I don't know how they'd trace that though. On the other hand, if you have a limit you can accept from an individual, $2700, when you reach that limit you simply stop accepting contributions from that person. Easy. Not rocket science.

[JCanete]

23. I agree it sounds sloppy. I don't know what the challenges were here. 10s of 1000's doesn't sound

that high when all added up, compared to the money being dealt with, but certainly any money that should not have been legally accepted should be returned, and I have no problem at all with any fines levied at the campaign for mismanagement.

[George II]

44. In the 10+ years I was a Treasurer (5 Mayoral Campaigns, 2 State Rep Campaigns, 10 years....

.....as Committee Treasurer, and Treasurer for two PACs), I never received a single letter like that, much less one every filing period.

I don't know how to access them anymore, but back in 2016 I reviewed some of the reports. They showed individuals with $4-5,000 total for individuals. It's simple, when anyone reaches $2,700 you stop accepting contributions, you don't deposit the check and hope it's not caught. A simple spreadsheet sort, no matter how many there are, would show anyone over $2,700 or $5,400 for a couple. And any contribution from a person with a foreign address you simply reject.

[JCanete]

77. That is not a fair comparisson though...really, and I think you know this. A federal campaign

almost certainly gets scrutiny far more rigorous than local campaigns. I do agree with you though, that if these cases were as simple as you imply, right on the surface like that, ie obviously foreign contributions, then somebody was absolutely not on the ball, assuming that person just didn't think about it, or even less on the ball, that person thought these could just sail through(and I'm not sure you have any evidence to suggest that the latter was the case?).

Ultimately the cases of this, while frustrating, don't add up to a scandal. Incompetence at some level? Maybe... There seems to be no quid pro quo at work. The monetary value is relatively low in the scheme of the campaign. Nothing was being embezzled or obviously obfuscated.

[Tarheel_Dem]

18. Not surprising. n/t

[leftynyc]

19. I weirdly enough

have a quote from the movie Beckett I can't get out of my head. I wonder why that is.

[mcar]

24. Not cool, Senator

[pnwmom]

27. And places like VICE and Breitbart are framing this as Bernie's "colluding" with Australians.

Of course, Australia is an ally and Russia isn't.

But the law bars contributions from foreign countries, and Bernie should have known that.

[Sophia4]

37. I doubt that his campaign was prepared for the huge number of donations he received.

His donations were small and there were an astounding number of them.

Still, I'm glad that the FEC is watching campaign donations.

This should scare Trump.

Remember. Trump asked Russia to find Hillary's "missing e-mails."

Trump asked for foreign help. Sanders' campaign probably just screwed up.

[Wwcd]

47. Hmm except for the $10 million from the DC area that couldn't have been mathematicaly possible at

$27 a pop, and that's what the campaign gave as a reason for the large amount. It never added up.

There remains a lot of unexplained cash donated from that particular area of the country.

So many unanswered questions.
Unanswered & ignored.

[pnwmom]

58. The huge number wasn't a factor because this one didn't slip through the cracks.

They just made the wrong decision on whether it complied with the law or not.

[GaryCnf]

89. Exactly

In the real world, the one not obsessed with flogging a particular whipping boy for their own failure, this is being covered as an understandable byproduct of the sheer numbers of individual donors.

[Sophia4]

91. Thank you.

[Tarheel_Dem]

134. Wrong! I don't recall this happening with Obama's campaigns, and he broke records, not the law. nt

[GaryCnf]

135. Actually, it did.

And, JUST LIKE BERNIE, it say exactly NOTHING negative about those campaigns EXCEPT to those looking for any reason to trash a candidate they don't like.

[Tarheel_Dem]

136. Obama was fined for accepting illegal donations? Link?

[GaryCnf]

137. As I said, I am 100% with Obama and his campaign

BUT

https://www.politico.com/story/2013/01/obama-2008-campaign-fined-375000-085784

[Tarheel_Dem]

138. I stand corrected, and it was a much bigger fine too. Thanks for the information. n/t

[GaryCnf]

139. What makes me angry

is that we as a party get smacked for imperfectly playing by the rules while Trump has millions and millions of illegal "like kind" Russian donations and it takes a special prosecutor (and thank God we've got one) to get it out in the open.



Take care

[Gothmog]

148. Why is this issue being discussed on the legal blogs?

http://electionlawblog.org/?p=98059

[R B Garr]

115. Remember- Devine worked on a foreign campaign.

He worked with Manafort on a foreign campaign.

[Jim Lane]

71. Note that this was NOT a cash contribution to the campaign from a foreign country

I know the linked article's headline doesn't bother with such nuances, but it's clear from the text.

Some posts in this thread seem to assume that the shady Sanders campaign blithely cashed a check drawn on an Australian Labor Party account at the Bank of Melbourne. No, that's not what happened. Note this, from the OP:

The Sanders campaign did not believe at the time that the money the individuals received from the Australian party would disqualify them from volunteering, according to the campaign. [emphasis added]

Please note that the Sanders campaign did not receive one penny. It received volunteer services from noncitizens -- who are prohibited from making financial contributions but who are permitted to volunteer. (See FEC Outreach page on "Volunteer Activity") The issue was whether the ALP, by helping some of its members get experience in a foreign campaign, was also making an in-kind contribution, which is prohibited.

[sheshe2]

82. Read more

https://www.democraticunderground.com/100210306594#post14

[Jim Lane]

85. Why don't YOU try reading

My post was about this horrific "scandal" of the Australian infiltration of American politics, as detailed in the OP. Nothing in your link casts the slightest doubt on anything I actually wrote.

I have not undertaken a comprehensive analysis of every major presidential campaign for the last few cycles to produce a report on comparative levels of FEC compliance.

[sheshe2]

87. Umhm.

[dsc]

83. substitute a corporation for the political party

and it is clear why this is illegal. This isn't even a particularly close call. Accepting the labor of these volunteers was a profound mistake and fighting this case for 2 years was an even worse one.

[nini]

30. All $27 at a time I'm sure

[BoneyardDem]

34. not the first time Bernie has been dinged for campaign financial irregularities

https://legalinsurrection.com/2016/02/fec-flags-thousands-of-illegal-donations-to-sanders-campaign/

Thousands of contributions to Democratic presidential candidate Bernie Sanders’ campaign in January violated federal campaign finance laws, election regulators said on Thursday.

The Federal Election Commission sent a letter to the Democratic presidential candidate’s campaign committee on Thursday with a 90-page spreadsheet listing 3,457 “excessive, prohibited, and impermissible contributions.”

The campaign’s January financial disclosure filing listed contributions from foreign nationals and unregistered political committees, the FEC said. Other contributions came from donors who exceeded the $2,700 per-election limit.

https://gobling.wordpress.com/2016/06/18/a-whopping-674-foreign-nationals-illegally-donated-to-bernie-sanders-in-march-2016/

A Whopping 674 Foreign Nationals Illegally Donated to Bernie Sanders in March 2016
June 18, 2016 by Grace Laine, posted in 2016 Primaries, Campaign Finance

The principal campaign committee of U.S. Senator Bernie Sanders identified 674 foreign nationals who contributed to his presidential campaign during a single month.

add to that the missed filing financial disclosures deadlines.....and of course the missing taxes and it sounds like a cluster fuck of financial issues.

[Cha]

67. A "clusterfuck of financial issues" is

right.

Thank you for that report, BoneyardDem

[Sophia4]

36. Wow! What will that mean for Trump?

[left-of-center2012]

38. Blown way out of proportion

"The complaint centered on a group of seven Australians
who volunteered for the Vermont independent’s 2016 presidential bid"

No big deal.

[Major Nikon]

86. ...

[Bradical79]

142. Yeah, don't think most read the article

An Australian party payed for 7 of their people to come here and volunteer for Sanders. That's pretty minimal.

[left-of-center2012]

143. ...

[radliberal]

39. Kennedy gave us Reagan, Nadar gave us Bush and Sanders gave us Trump...stop supporting spoilers

[leftstreet]

45. How did Sanders give us Trump?

You do realize he didn't run as a POTUS candidate, right?

The nomination went to Clinton

[Blue_true]

114. He savaged Clinton and didn't cool his supporters off.

And he barely campaigned for Her in the General.

[Major Nikon]

52. Spoiler doesnt mean what you think it means

[Chakaconcarne]

41. Whatever criticisms one has, Bernie still fights for progressive causes...

Perhaps good to keep in mind?

[Wwcd]

49. No he does not fight for progressive causes. . Magnitsky. NRA..

He talks like it but his Senate record is scattered with some questionable non-progressive bills & votes.

Sierra blanca ,Tx.
The case of the truest progressive who lived up to the name fought hard against Sanders.
That progressive stood for the poorest of people & became their voice against corporate waste dumping, against a Bill introduced by Sanders that would carelessly poison their land & water.

Sanders opposed the true Progressive.

I'm still not sure exactly what Sanders aligns with.
So far he's been an independent, a socialist, a progressive, democrat, democratic socialist, socialist progressive, progressive democrat & after time its hard to know what he is or where he stands. All i see is trying to be all things to all people at any given time.
Its not a bad thing.
Its hard to take him serious.

[Major Nikon]

51. So who exactly would pass such a stringent litmus test?

And please don’t say the nominee.

[Wwcd]

53. When asked why he entered the campaign he replied,

for "Money & Media".

A simple straight answer.

[Major Nikon]

57. Looked more like a simple straight dodge

[Wwcd]

61. Money & media . A loaded answer. And a quick dodge.

[Major Nikon]

63. At least he gave an answer

YMMV

[Wwcd]

65. Lol. He gave a lot of answers. Except for that $10 million question

Its ok, Mueller has it.

[Major Nikon]

73. Meanwhile Ive yet to get the one asked

[Blue_true]

117. Sierra Blanco Texas and Assault weapons control are as democrat as one can get.

Bernie activively campaigned to dump radioactive waste need a brutally poor community in Texas and ride roughshod over their representatives that tried to work with him to find better solutions. Anyone who supports the NRA on assault weapon controls deserves a raised eye from any democrat.

[Major Nikon]

50. Kinda stupid to make something out of this

The only reason the FEC knew about it was because the Sanders campaign reported it. Like the tax code, there’s all sorts of grey area in the law and you don’t find out about violations until you get a ruling. The fine represents about .006% of his campaign.

[George II]

56. Yes, the campaign reported it AS REQUIRED BY LAW (not merely an accomodation for the FEC)!

They reported the sources of the contributions, but what they should have done was refuse them and send them back, rather than accept them, report them, and likely hope they didn't get caught.

This wasn't the only incident, there were many. Each filing period the FEC sent letters to the campaign containing hundreds of pages of errors and unlawful contributions.

There is NO "grey area" in the FEC laws/regulations. It's all pretty straightforward. Treasurers should not file reports with bogus contributions and wait for the FEC to rule on them.

[Major Nikon]

62. Sure. A $234 million budget is no different than filling out a 1040 EZ

Audits, fines, and corrections are pretty routine stuff. Obama paid hundreds of thousands in fines. There’s little doubt more discrepancies in HRC’s campaign will start to emerge as the process works itself through and she will pay her own set of fines. Trump will undoubtedly get plenty as well.

http://docquery.fec.gov/pdf/778/201610190300063778/201610190300063778.pdf

[George II]

66. Unless you've been through it yourself, don't pooh pooh it. Your letter above is 15 pages....

February 2016, 270 pages:

http://docquery.fec.gov/pdf/994/201604060300040994/201604060300040994.pdf

May 2016, 645 pages:

http://docquery.fec.gov/pdf/847/201605100300045847/201605100300045847.pdf

Obama paid hundreds of thousands in fines? I don't think so.

[Major Nikon]

72. ...

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/obama-campaign-to-pay-375000-fine-for-omitting-some-donors-names-in-2008/2013/01/04/78973402-56bb-11e2-8b9e-dd8773594efc_story.html

[George II]

88. Okay, so Obama's campaign made mistakes and was fined. To be honest, I'd never heard of them before.

However, most of the "errors" were exactly that, they weren't misrepresentations or improper, they merely had incorrect dates. That's an infraction, but not for accepting improper contributions.

In Obama's campaign, about $750M, the improper contributions totaled $3.3M, or 0.4% (less than half of one %), and his campaign didn't accept at single penny of foreign contributions.

On the other hand, the two letters I posted alone (two of about a half dozen, don't remember the count), totaled $5.5M. If those were the only letters that would be $5.3M of $234M, almost five times the rate of the Obama's campaign. And they included numerous contributions from foreign entities. Who knows what was contained in the other letters.

[Major Nikon]

90. So $375K is no big deal, but $14K is. Got it.

[George II]

93. The $14K represents a fine for only $24K of improper contributions, not all the improper...

...contributions that were accepted. I don't know the disposition of any other actions against their campaign, but there were almost double the value of improper contributions for a campaign that handled less than one third the funds that the Obama campaign handled.

Considering the dates of the actions, the Obama campaign was fined in 2013 for infractions in 2008 (five years earlier). The possible Sanders infractions were in 2016 (less than two years ago). We don't know what the magnitude of any fines might be when the FEC is finished with their investigation a few years from now.

[Jim Lane]

75. Did you even bother to read the OP, past the juicy headline?

You write that the campaign "reported the sources of the contributions, but what they should have done was refuse them and send them back, rather than accept them, report them, and likely hope they didn't get caught."

That's bullshit. The campaign never received a financial contribution to send back. Not one penny went to the Sanders campaign.

The FEC argument was that, when the Australian Labor Party defrayed some of the expenses of its members who came to the U.S. and then volunteered on the campaign, that was an in-kind contribution by the ALP. (That position itself isn't clearly correct. If the Sydney Morning Herald pays to send a reporter here, and he writes an article that helps the Sanders campaign, is that illegal?)

I don't know whether you're correct in saying that the campaign was "REQUIRED BY LAW" to make any kind of report. If a volunteer walks into headquarters and offers to help out, is a campaign required to grill him or her about the source of travel expenses? Must a campaign make that inquiry as to every volunteer, or only the ones with Australian accents?

[George II]

92. Yes I did read the article, and the campaign had a history of accepting improper contributions...

....tens of thousands of them.

I posted only two of several letters from the FEC, 270 pages and 645 pages. Those two letters alone contained more than 37,000 improper contributions worth more than $5,300,000. That's quite a batch of improper contributions.

This situation with the Australians appears to be just the top of the iceberg ($24,000). Now, each monthly or quarterly filing has a section regarding in-kind contributions, and detail the source of such contributions. Yes, they are required by law to document in-kind contributions, and this was deemed by the FEC to be in-kind contributions.

[R B Garr]

97. Exactly, and it could have been millionaires and billionaires

sending in $27 at a time to drum up media hype. We don’t know, and transparency was not a priority. Even for the many FEC requests.

[George II]

99. I didn't even think about that $10M in "small" donations reportedly received on a single day....

.... and not itemized. That's another whole can of worms.

The limit for contributions requiring itemization is $200. If each were just $199 they wouldn't have to be itemized. That's more than 50,000 contributions received in one day. Very interesting.

[R B Garr]

116. Yes, still unaccounted for...I guess.

It is very interesting.

[Wwcd]

69. His flame is now just a flicker & Mueller will put that out with one little puff

Burn out.

[LexVegas]

80. Like more guns. nt

[GaryCnf]

54. Oh no

Those damn Australian labor unions . . . what a scandal

[GaryCnf]

59. Seriously

Are we comparing young union workers to banking millionaires? When we have politicians like Trump feeding on the big banks' teet, this is a problem?

[shenmue]

101. Yes

[GaryCnf]

105. I forgot

Banks are people too

[shenmue]

106. Not what I said, but keep bullshitting

[GaryCnf]

109. I don't know what to say.

There were two questions and you gave one answer to both . . . "yes." The first one was whether we are now comparing union workers to the billionaire bankers. I think "yes" to that question fits the response.

Thanks for your concern.

[TheSmarterDog]

68. So, Bernie is *NOT* pure as the driven snow?

I'm shocked! Shocked, I tell you!

[Turbineguy]

76. Oh dear.

That's going to be expensive for the GOP.

[R B Garr]

78. WOW! More noticeable drip drip drip

💧 💧 💧

It’s not like we didn’t have suspicions based on the numerous FEC noncompliance letters.

I have so many questions......

[LexVegas]

81. ...

[left-of-center2012]

94. Bernie hating posts ...

... sure sow a lot of dissension on DU.
I wonder at times if they are Russian bots.

Stirs the pot and distracts from beating the GOP in 2018 and 2020.
In my humble opinion.

[GaryCnf]

102. Your opinion is well taken

There are a few people in this party that will sacrifice 2018 and 2020 to keep our party from moving to the left.

Whether throwing former favorites like Kamala Harris under the bus for supporting single payer, or Kirsten Gillibrand for calling out our 20 year old blind spot, or ANY one for supporting criminal justice reform or standing against systemic police murder of black youth, or anyone who ever supported Sanders, they will purge the left no matter the cost.

[Hassin Bin Sober]

107. Nah. More like cranky bingo hall ladies and shut ins.

[betsuni]

125. Who's smarter and more sober than the idiots over at JPR who hate Democrats.

Last edited Fri Mar 2, 2018, 09:54 AM - Edit history (2)

[KTM]

126. Nice edit history there.

[betsuni]

127. I learned that from the trolls.

[NurseJackie]

128. :-D

[KTM]

129. Well, I'll take you at your word on where you got your online education.

But it's a pretty shitty - and cowardly - way of calling another DU'er an "asshole" and getting away with it. Nice to see you are proud of that.

[R B Garr]

130. Your priorities are amusing. The post she responded to calls

people old bingo ladies and shut-ins, but that is okay. Just the edits in a response are inappropriate.

[KTM]

131. If you think that's over the line, alert on it.

Pretty sure calling Hassin an asshole is a clear violation of our rules - which we all KNOW should and would have earned a hide - and worse yet, it was done it in the middle of three edits in one minute as a cowardly way to sneak that in and try to dodge the consequences.

But hey, if she wants to hide under that bridge, let her - an honest and upstanding member would have never posted it, and a decent member would have self-deleted. This wasnt a mistake, it was an intentional attempt to call another DU'er an asshole and avoid the hide.

It's pathetic and infantile. In my circles, defending someone nominally on your side no matter what they do or say (or deflecting with a "but HE said" argument) is something seen amongst children and Republicans, but hey, you do you.

[R B Garr]

132. Your priorities are amusing. It never occurred to me to

look at the edits. I notice you have no concerns about a post that didn’t get hidden —- calling people cranky bingo ladies and shut-ins. That’s apparently okay with you, so the hypocrisy is amusing.

[KTM]

144. So, you agree with me then...

That is, you call me hypocritical for not calling out the use of the term "bingo ladies" as equally insulting as "asshole."

Presumably, you intend that to be disparaging, and are revolted by hypocrisy... and of course, are completely NON-hypocritical yourself.

So logically, it follows that you believe calling someone an asshole is bad and against our community rules, and you would criticize someone who did so.

Get to work.

[R B Garr]

145. You are the one digging through edits to explain and excuse

your umbrage, and it’s funny because you don’t care what is in the original post. That is the hypocrisy.

Neither of those posts had anything to do with you or me, lol. So, no, I don’t agree with your logic.

[betsuni]

122. ...

[GaryCnf]

96. What does it say about

ANY segment of our party that would complain about union workers helping in a campaign?

What it tells me is that segment doesn't care about winning, or know how to win, elections.

[Devil Child]

98. Sanders should've got help from Russians not Australians

They are much more effective at election meddling than these Australians.

[melman]

120. Well

the whole point of this thread is to accuse him of doing just that. You can see all the usual suspects hinting at that in their usual (not so) clever way.

[Hekate]

113. Before judging: How. Many. Republicans. Have. Been. Charged?

This sounds pretty damned innocent on Bernie Sanders' part.

[Jamaal510]

118. K&R

[lunamagica]

119. K&R.

[A-Schwarzenegger]

121. One Firing Squad, Please.

[betsuni]

123. Someone shoots at you, why shouldn't you shoot back?

[A-Schwarzenegger]

140. May you be the last one standing.

[theaocp]

124. Let's all use project veritas

https://m.

[KG]

133. I lulz'd

again.

[Gothmog]

147. Prof. Hasen's Election law blog is covering this issue

“Criminal Investigation Sought into Sanders Campaign for Collusion During a Federal Election With a Foreign Entity” http://electionlawblog.org/?p=98059

[George II]

149. Wow, I never expected this to get to the formal criminal investigation stage....

I'm not a lawyer, but I wonder if its even legal for a foreign national to work on a US politician's campaign, even if there wasn't any money exchanged or accepted?

The original fine was assessed by the FEC, which concentrates primarily on campaign finance infractions. This is more a matter for the DOJ.

[sl8]

150. Foreign national volunteer activity

From https://www.fec.gov/updates/foreign-nationals/

Volunteer activity

Generally, an individual (including a foreign national) may volunteer personal services to a federal candidate or federal political committee without making a contribution. The Act provides this volunteer "exemption" as long as the individual performing the service is not compensated by anyone. The Commission has addressed applicability of this exemption to several situations involving volunteer activity by a foreign national, as explained below.

...

More at link.

[George II]

154. Thanks. I'd actually never even thought about this before. Even though I've been a Treasurer...

....for about a dozen candidate/ party committees, they were all for state or local candidates.

So it could possibly be extrapolated to this case because the volunteers in question were "compensated" for their travel and expenses.

[Hassin Bin Sober]

157. Lol. Project Fucking Veritas

Project Veritas Action Fund has requested a criminal investigation by the US Department of Justice into the Bernie Sanders 2016 presidential campaign to determine if the Sanders campaign and the Australian Labor Party conspired to “defraud the U.S. government” and allowed “foreign national interference with U.S. elections.”

[George II]

158. And...........................................?

[tammywammy]

152. I wouldnt put a lot of stock into a James OKeefe complaint. n/t

[Gothmog]

153. I do not trust O'Keefe but this FEC will have to review this complaint

[InAbLuEsTaTe]

155. BFD!