• Bernie Sanders Accuses Hillary Clinton And DNC Of Violating Campaign Finance Laws
    20 replies, posted
[QUOTE]In a letter to DNC Chair Debbie Wasserman Schultz, Bernie 2016 claimed the fundraising agreement between the Hillary For America and the DNC is illegal. What the Sanders campaign is accusing the Clinton campaign and the DNC of engaging in is a very serious campaign finance violation. The Sanders campaign is suggesting that Hillary For America is receiving an illegal in-kind benefit from the DNC and participating state Democratic Party committees. [IMG]http://15130-presscdn-0-89.pagely.netdna-cdn.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/04/bernie-letter-dnc-485x307.jpg[/IMG][/QUOTE] [url]http://www.politicususa.com/2016/04/18/bernie-sanders-accuses-hillary-clinton-dnc-violating-campaign-finance-laws.html[/url]
Sanders campaign is getting more ballsy.
technically they do, legally they don't what theyre donating to is all 32 of the DNC parties that have agreements to then donate some (most) of that money to the Hillary Victory Fund. from a practical perspective, ya youre cutting a check for way more than you're supposed to be allowed, but legally you're donating to 32 other funds, what they do with the money is up to them its really a scummy tactic
[QUOTE=Sableye;50157479]technically they do, legally they don't what theyre donating to is all 32 of the DNC parties that have agreements to then donate some (most) of that money to the Hillary Victory Fund. from a practical perspective, ya youre cutting a check for way more than you're supposed to be allowed, but legally you're donating to 32 other funds, what they do with the money is up to them its really a scummy tactic[/QUOTE] Jeff Weaver says that there is evidence of blatantly ignoring the 2700 limit though.
Pretty ironic since he got in trouble for the same thing a few months ago. [URL="http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/onpolitics/2016/02/26/bernie-sanders-campaign-contributions/80999298/"]http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/onpolitics/2016/02/26/bernie-sanders-campaign-contributions/80999298/[/URL] [QUOTE]The letter also cites possible impermissible contributions that exceed the allowed limit per election cycle ($2,700 for individuals) along with donations that come from outside the United States and from unregistered political committees.[/QUOTE] important bit here: [QUOTE]"This happens all the time in campaigns, and the FEC’s rules explicitly allow 60-days from receipt of an over-the-limit contribution for campaigns to remedy the excessive portion of the contribution," Briggs wrote.[/QUOTE]
[QUOTE=Svinnik;50157492]Pretty ironic since he got in trouble for the same thing a few months ago. [URL="http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/onpolitics/2016/02/26/bernie-sanders-campaign-contributions/80999298/"]http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/onpolitics/2016/02/26/bernie-sanders-campaign-contributions/80999298/[/URL] important bit here:[/QUOTE] He didn't get in trouble, both candidates got flagged for people donating over the limit as they do all the time, and the fund were removed. This is talking about consistently spending money from people who are donating 50x the legal limit.
2/3 Going to Hillary instead of 2/3 going for the Democratic Party's future nominee. Somethings wrong here.
Well Hillary may not be charged, The DNC head may though. Debbie Schultz is actually WORSE than Hillary, in fact the Democrats might start to get rid of her, She's an avid defender of Payday Lenders, actually was the CO-sponsors of SOPA, and wants the TPP through.
[QUOTE=Svinnik;50157492]Pretty ironic since he got in trouble for the same thing a few months ago. [URL="http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/onpolitics/2016/02/26/bernie-sanders-campaign-contributions/80999298/"]http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/onpolitics/2016/02/26/bernie-sanders-campaign-contributions/80999298/[/URL] important bit here:[/QUOTE] Yeah except bernie didnt raise those forbidden funds through a party orchestrated money laundering fundraiser, the funds bernie received were just sent to him.
[QUOTE=Svinnik;50157492]Pretty ironic since he got in trouble for the same thing a few months ago. [URL="http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/onpolitics/2016/02/26/bernie-sanders-campaign-contributions/80999298/"]http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/onpolitics/2016/02/26/bernie-sanders-campaign-contributions/80999298/[/URL][/QUOTE] Yeah but Bernie got his funding from actual people who are doing so legitimately, not via big business types trying to protect their future interests with blatant loophole abuses.
It's Hillary the closest thing we have to a modern pirate?
[QUOTE=Axsisel;50160081]It's Hillary the closest thing we have to a modern pirate?[/QUOTE] I am pretty sure pirates had some code of honor or something
[QUOTE=da space core;50160211]I am pretty sure pirates had some code of honor or something[/QUOTE] That's not a nice way to talk about our future president.
[QUOTE=GordonZombie;50159868]Yeah but Bernie got his funding from actual people who are doing so legitimately, not via big business types trying to protect their future interests with blatant loophole abuses.[/QUOTE] Clinton and Sanders both get an overwhelming majority of their money from individuals. In both of their cases, one group has lobbied its individual members to donate the legal maximum to their campaigns. In Clinton's case, her campaign and related PACs donating legal maximum ($2700) make up [url=https://www.opensecrets.org/pres16/candidate.php?id=N00000019]73% of contributions[/url], with individuals making up 91% of donations overall Sanders is the opposite, though he does have a lot of Unions backing him that similarly encourage their employees/workers to donate legal maximum just like with Clinton campaign. [url=https://www.opensecrets.org/politicians/summary.php?cycle=2016&cid=N00000528&type=I]70% of Sanders individual contributions are small[/url], while 97% of his overall contributions are from individuals.
[QUOTE=Canuhearme?;50160285]That's not a nice way to talk about our future president.[/QUOTE] Freedom of speech buddy. We can talk however we want. :terrists:
[QUOTE=Canuhearme?;50160285]That's not a nice way to talk about our future president.[/QUOTE] Is that a threat?
[QUOTE=joshuadim;50160519]Freedom of speech buddy. We can talk however we want. :terrists:[/QUOTE] Unless someone threatens said president on Facepunch.
[QUOTE=Canuhearme?;50160285]That's not a nice way to talk about our future president.[/QUOTE] She doesn't seem like a nice lady.
[QUOTE=27X;50164126]She doesn't seem like a nice lady.[/QUOTE] Well you'll have to get used to her for the next 8 years!
[QUOTE=Canuhearme?;50165172]Well you'll have to get used to her for the next 8 years![/QUOTE] We won't have to get used to anything, you're not obliged to like the president also [quote]8 years[/quote] lmfao
[QUOTE=proboardslol;50160295]Clinton and Sanders both get an overwhelming majority of their money from individuals. In both of their cases, one group has lobbied its individual members to donate the legal maximum to their campaigns. In Clinton's case, her campaign and related PACs donating legal maximum ($2700) make up [url=https://www.opensecrets.org/pres16/candidate.php?id=N00000019]73% of contributions[/url], with individuals making up 91% of donations overall Sanders is the opposite, though he does have a lot of Unions backing him that similarly encourage their employees/workers to donate legal maximum just like with Clinton campaign. [url=https://www.opensecrets.org/politicians/summary.php?cycle=2016&cid=N00000528&type=I]70% of Sanders individual contributions are small[/url], while 97% of his overall contributions are from individuals.[/QUOTE] So, in simpler terms, Clinton has a relative handful of big contributions, but Sanders has a really big number of smaller contributions?
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.