Thanks for posting this.

when more than 3 million voters are ready for the Sander's Revolution...

I give all I can, but I will never reach the limit for the primary...

OMG that is funny.

I could be donating a 100 times during the primary and never hit the max.

I wonder if I can find my total so far on one of those itemized lists. I might have hit $200 by now, but I kind of doubt it. But I do keep the receipt emails from ActBlue in a separate 'politics' folder, so I guess I could go add them up.

I donated again this morning. I've been donating since August. My total is close to $300.

But that's to her PAC to help elect down-ticket candidates

How does that work? That doesn't even make sense. It's early, and my brain doesn't seem to be getting this. It sounds absurd. It probably is.

Sanders is just getting so much sheer volume that he's more likely to get people screwing up and donating too much. Especially if, as we saw from one person who donated the night of the NH win, ActBlue accidentally starts hitting their credit card multiple times for a single donation.

Duh.

I forgot he has declined the unlimited part.

If we 3 million donate 300 each, it's a billion. Not going to worry.

Contributions to all campaign have to remain below a certain amount.

Somebody had been feeding you misinformation.

on primary donations put in place in 2004. When you don't have a superPAC and we are making small donations to a candidate we believe in, there has to be a way to stop that. The NYT starts the mudsling to try to make a stick and the FEC makes sure everyone knows they are watching...this time.

In fact, he's the largest recipient of outside money according to FEC records.

Because we are all rich us nurses.

Surely there's some program that can track this info--maybe his data experts should spend their time making sure that is taken care of....

Of course, what's the punishment for this crime? I don't think anyone goes to jail. They have to give the cash back or re-allocate it, is all.

Your post IS telling, though--perhaps in a manner you did not intend.

Gotta keep Hillary's private prison donors happy.

and coordinating with campaigns when that's a (shhhh!) no-no

are no consequences for doing this I do not know how else to make the point.

They happen to every candidate in every Presidential election. They are found and corrected to stay within the law.

I'm sure the Clinton Cabal will be along any moment to announce that Bernie is a criminal of the highest order and needs to serve the rest of his life behind bars awaiting his execution.

That poster said it will be corrected.

I won't be a bit surprised to read about this situation with Clinton as well and I'll have the same reaction. It will be corrected.

These threads have made clear to me that not very many people spend time looking at opensecrets.org.

There's no way to actually stop people from exceeding the $2700 limit. The only way to deal with it is to return the excess.

It's a normal feature of any campaign, but, yes, the Clinton camp in 2008 made similar insinuations that there was something evil going on with the large volume of small donations fueling the Obama campaign.

It's not legal, but Bernie has zero intention of breaking the law. The campaign will correct the mistakes as they are found. If the FEC points out errors, they will be addressed.

Contrasting the little donations, of just us little people...to crap like this,

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10141346965

Super PAC Moves To Ramp Up Financial Firepower For Clinton

Source: Washington Post

By Matea Gold, Tom Hamburger and Paul Kane February 12 at 10:24 PM

Two powerful organizations within the Democratic establishment announced steps Friday that have the potential to provide substantial financial firepower to presidential contender Hillary Clinton by drawing on the support of wealthy donors and corporate interests.

While providing a likely boost to Clinton, both developments also give rival Bernie Sanders fresh fodder to highlight her relationship with Wall Street and other special interests at a time when the two candidates are locked in an intense nomination fight.

Priorities USA Action, the main super PAC supporting Clinton, unleashed a $5 million infusion of spending on her behalf, upending plans to hold its fire until the general election. The move calls attention to growing concern within the party’s leadership that her campaign may be in trouble, and it underscores how crucial several upcoming contests have become in Clinton’s battle with Sanders, a senator from Vermont.

In addition, the Democratic National Committee announced that it had rolled back restrictions introduced by presidential candidate Barack Obama in 2008 that banned donations from federal lobbyists and political action committees.

Link of original story, in thread.

it's astounding disgusting. SEC, FEC and so many organizations that have done a really crappy job for far too many years has FINALLY decided to look into to what Bernie receives?

Astounding! And they THINK we don't see right through this. Love the part where they say "he may choose to refund" nice touch NY TIMES! Anybody wonder WHY this is being done???

THIMMMMK!!

"May" have donated too much?

Looks like somebody threw some mud on the wall.

And at this time I believe it is very difficult to determine even from the F.E C. to correctly audit over 3 million donors.

I really don't trust the accuracy of the New York Times.

it's a less biased take than this article from the dailynewsbin that was posted in GDP

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

to a super PAC. Yup. I totally see how this is fair. It's the law, but it is not fair.

If I give $2,701 I'm breaking the law, but fat cats can funnel millions into the process and it's all legal.

who are funneling the money are doing it via PACs which are different than the campaigns not that I agree with there being PACs as I personally believe they are a pox on our country and should be abolished or at the very least amended so that they have to be 100% transparent on the sources of the money.

the volume of donations being made but then thats why we have an agency like the FEC to monitor these things and catch mistakes.

"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.

This should be his option, since this option will not tie his hands------------------this is the gambit--------------I know what my moola is going for to change this bribery and corruption

My question is where has the FEC been when Rove and his crowd , Alec, Club for Growth where doing what----------------and this is what the corrupt U.S. Supreme Court said was legal--------------was Cruz a law Clerk then---------------------John Roberts and your team should be Impeached

Since Photo-gate has blown up in their faces, and we've established what Rep. John Lewis is along with his price, insinuations of fiscal impropriety is the next round?


rocktivity

"SOME Donors MAY Have Given Too Much" is just as effective at smearing as a lie is.

Even the FEC doesn't know for sure -- so why is NYT marketing this as "hard" news?


rocktivity

you would consider it "hard" news?

That's the anatomy of ALL smears.


rocktivity

anti Hillary posts? Yes or no.

Posts that are critical, negative, or merely derogatory?

If it will cheer you up any, I've criticized Bernie for not taking control of Photo-Gate sooner.


rocktivity

when I think criticism is due. But I also plead guilty to aiming for being as factual and constructive about it as possible. I don't aim for "extremism" -- bashing, innuendo or smearing.


rocktivity

Last edited Sun Feb 14, 2016, 08:09 PM - Edit history (4)

but as a conflict between the New York Times and proper journalism -- as I said, smears have no political affiliation.

In light of that, I can now answer your question properly: It has nothing to do with the question I raised about NYT's decision that the headline, if not the story itself, was fit to print.

is because if you notice when you make a donation through ActBlue there will appear somewhere (I noticed this) your running total to date.
Its something you cant bring the page up to to find running total separately but just when a contribution is made ..I know that I know, I saw this last week on ActBlue for Bernie when I made a contribution there was a area I think was on the left side of the page after the assigned Credit Card choice.

And after all the false accusations the NYT has ran against Bernie on Hillary's behalf I just dont trust the NYT....

How come Goldman Sachs can contribute more than half a million to HRC but Bernie's supporters can't give more than $2,700?

How did that happen?

Both candidates have to abide by that ruling. The difference is that Sanders has declined the corporate donors.
I suppose there are donors that have gone over their amount with Hillary as well. It's a nonissue.

Why aren't corporations limited to $2,700 as well, since they think they're just like people?

Individuals can give more than 2700 to SuperPacs.

And corporations can't give anything directly to a candidate.

This isn't a defense of CU or the current rules -- just a clarification of what appears to be a misunderstanding on your part.

They collect money anonymously and spend it as they choose.

There's no point in delving into the nuances of the rules; Let's look instead at their effects.

Rich donors can launder their donations through SuperPacs, remain anonymous, and support a candidate of choice in amounts far exceeding what they could legally donate to the candidates directly.

Individuals on the other hand have to disclose their identity and are limited to $2,700 per candidate.

Such a sweet deal.

I often take several tries before something sinks in.

And Bernie would hardly know which Smith and Jones it might be anyway.

where are we (DU) collectively donating? I feel like I ask this every few months

But as a smear.... it just points out that more.... many more citizens have, will, and want to donate to Sanders rather than Clinton. Oops!

greater scrutiny than WallStreet® PACs?

This is merely a glaring example.

their ties to campaigns, which they're not supposed to do?

These are the reasons we need Bernie in the White House goddammit!!!!!!

in the establishment of their respective parties. So, they conclude that Bernie2016 Campaign needs a spanking.

to your $2,700 donation limit in the general election.

Have people go in to figure out the excesses, refund it or redirect as mentioned in the article. Put a better system in place for the future. If an investigation into the matter doesn't come up with any solid evidence of intentional deceptiveness, then let it slide and continue to monitor it to ensure their tracking is fixed.