100 x $27 from repubs most likely.

but of course there is nothing illegal about Republicans contributing to Democratic campaigns, even if their intentions are to pick their competition. Candidates, however, are required to report the names of all donors who gave a total of over $200. You can give it in $27 or even $5 increments, but if it totals over $200 the name, occupation, and employer has to be reported to the FEC.

Campaign finance regulations are meager. It's not unrealistic to expect candidates to comply with the law as written, though I expect we'll soon be hearing otherwise.

And it's pretty normal.

Why would you be hearing otherwise? All campaigns have to refund donations sometimes, because people often don't keep track, but the campaign does.

You might recall early in the primary contest his authorized pac failed to file the required forms by the deadline. We were told that the FEC was persecuting Sanders by trying to enforce the law.

There is a letter from the FEC attached to the OP. You can reach the document yourself.

You just confirmed my initial point. You don't think following campaign finance law important, well for Bernie anyway, and compare an FEC investigation to a line from from a campaign, and not even the current campaign.

In addition to showing that campaign finance is not in fact a point of concern at all, you revert to the frequent tendency we see here to bring up 2008, as though the only point is not to elect Sanders but to attack Clinton. I suppose when you find yourself supporting a candidate who fails to live up to his own self-generated hype,, it's better to avoid discussions of the current election altogether.

Frankly, I don't remember or much care what was said by campaigns 8 years ago, but I do expect politicians to follow basic campaign finance law, particularly when they insist they are so much more virtuous than any other politician in the federal government.

....that Clinton is accepting "foreign money", which is illegal.

Obviously that hasn't happened.

What the holy flying spaghetti monster are you talking about?

.....Sanders DOES have PAC, and it's illegal for ANY candidate to have a Super PAC.

at all--none, nada, authorized or unauthorized, Brock-run, or not.

There, I Corrected The Record. Your welcome.

....it's illegal for any candidate to have a Super PAC.

In 2008 it was alleged by Clinton supporters that Obama was using the 200 reporting threshold to hide foreign contributions.

Many threads on DU2 about this as well.

wow. some things never change......

if there is a list somewhere - it might be helpful to review it and see what else they might be trying to use against Bernie. Maybe we can stop these before they even start - by exposing them.

It's not a smear. It's an official process initiated by the FEC. That you don't care is entirely a reflection on your own values.

There is no excuse for this kind of baseless attack. The sources and original document are clearly provided. All you need to do is read them, and all that requires is some regard for the truth. I'm sorry you cannot muster it.

... donating $27 dollars a hundred times? Or is that some bull shit you and your pal came up with?

Is that in the letter? I must have missed it.

who love his ideas and his plan for America.

Everything else is just more smear from the smear wing of the Democratic party.

...with just a tinge of jealousy sprinkled in too!

means that Sanders should not have to abide by the $2700 limit? Campaign finance law is just "jealousy"?

.....to the Sanders Campaign from the FEC detailing many many errors and/or inconsistencies. The letter is based on the year end filing of contributions, not even contributions he's gotten since January 1.

It should be required reading for anyone commenting in this discussion.

I read through the first few pages, that year end report is rife with errors, some of which are pretty serious.

touts the anonymous online polls where the voting is limitless, I figured that shenanigans might extend to the small donations. From the campaign email I get, it's easy to see how it could be manipulated. Even sending $1/day, you can rack up the stats in lots of ways.

And, yeah, I think there were some articles out about Repubs donating.

polls where anonymous people can vote multiple times.

That's a mindset that surely doesn't stop at online "polls".

touts online polls where anonymous people can vote multiple times. They pass that off as legitimate.

I saw it in action on Facebook during the first debate, and it was shocking. I wouldn't believe any numbers out of his campaign again after seeing the spamming of polls. That is a mindset of seeking advantage without real merit. I doubt it stops there.

Edit: looks like you just want to spam about Brock. Ridiculous.

And, LOL, I didn't say I didn't "agree" with the Facebook polls, I said I saw the cheating in action. After seeing the cheating in action and how it was bragged about, I wouldn't trust more numbers from his campaign alone.

I also said that is a MINDSET that probably carries over into other parts of the campaign where an advantage is sought but it is without merit.

about Brock, yet cheating and bragging about online polls are all okay in your book. This is the type of thinking that seems to permeate the Sanders campaign. It's why I wouldn't believe any numbers from his campaign. And you said fraud. I said SHENANIGANS.

Surely you wouldn't say that the letter is Brock's doing.

The Bernie coddling is tiresome. He is accountable just like anyone else. Someone posted a brief summary of the irregularities the FEC is questioning. They are along the lines of suspicions I had about how easy it would be to distort the stats for bragging purposes.

either, so this is a waste of time. Look a the FEC letter, and look at what they are questioning. You said nefarious. I said shenanigans. Look at what the FEC is questioning. Brock paranoia has nothing to do with it. It's not a conspiracy.

the polls allow voting one time from each ip.

but i forgot...clickety clickety!

and its a well known fact that clintons supporters are computer illiterate

I just wasn't interested in the silly game.

How naive do you think people are. Lol.

how many times did you have to change your ip address?

poll and then bragging about it.

And NH is a very small, white state and was predicted for months.

ahhhh the nh is white meme, is that why the clinton campaign is trying to paint nevada as a largely white state? people know better.....

LOL.

And, LOL, at you pretendng that the demographics of a small New England state are indicative of anything other than what it is -- a small New England state. President Clinton predicted what would happen there. You should look up what he said.

anything i could add would be redundant.

as to the demos, yeah nevada is a predominately white state like nh

Squirrel!

not to mention the infusion of millions she will get (and not denounce) after this dnc overturn of obama's policy, then we can compare notes, and you can commiserate about how approximately 100 of bernie's donors may have given more than 2700

have a bernie day!

There won't be any "commiserating" necessary. I don't share your petty concerns and one-upmanship games, but that is the MINDSET of the Bernie campaign. Everything is a desperate act of in-your-face phony comparisons, making every single thing about Bernie's campaign related in some irrational way to Hillary.

LOL,

when one candidate gets millions from corporate donors, "speaking fees," superpacs, and now the dnc lobbyists, and another campaign gets sent to the principals office because a few people giving an avg of $27 went a bit over?

wow.

have a bernie day!

Totally unrelated tangents to anything except evening some imaginary scores. FEC sends Bernie a letter means someone needs to bash Hillary. Now!

have a nice day...

And a good Valentines day.

the FEC has really ever DONE MUCH investigation over many years. Perhaps only when Obama was running and NOW Bernie!

Arguing semantics and what they're trying to do here is the REAL STORY! Just the mere fact that THE FEC has come alive and is reporting this is highly suspicious! Do ya think they're looking into WHAT Hillary's campaign might have done??

I DOUBT IT! In fact I'd lay some heavy bets on it! I've been an activist since way back in the late 60's... and HEY I even lived in TEXAS and know all about the CIVIL RIGHTS movement too! I'm sure nobody knew my name either! I lived in Austin when Kennedy got shot and so much turmoil of that time... but this is really UGLY stuff here.

I'm a life long Democrat, who is ready to leave if Hillary is the nominee and I HAVE to vote for her! That's how disgusted I am about THIS DEMOCRATIC PARTY, who sold out and abandoned us a long time ago.

Sorry, there are some very good people up there who are sticking their necks out now, but for the most part... they don't give a good crap about us. And FINALLY, FINALLY they're getting very nervous!

And WE know more is coming, but we also KNOW how low down UGLY this is.

Alive!

.....you can vote more than once.

Last edited Sat Feb 13, 2016, 09:38 AM - Edit history (1)

has now been debunked, so the smear and negativity train must move to its next stop.

"Excessive, Prohibited, and Impermissible Contributions"? From hundreds of contributors?

In fact, there are a number of individual contributions of more than $2700! Who cashed or deposited those checks? People in his campaign should know enough that the limit is $2700.

I could see some multiple contributions from the same person adding up to over $2700 being overlooked, but single contributions over $2700? Those contributions should have been sent back immediately.

There are also dozens of contributions from people with non-US addresses. They should have been questioned immediately, too, and if the response from the contributor was satisfactory, the treasurer is obligated to include details of why those contributions were accepted. Otherwise they should have been returned.

This is very sloppy and inappropriate.

0.0001% could have made a mistake.....

I'm confident that they'll make the proper amendments and not have it drag out like the Clinton campaign of 2008 did.

I've heard that audits really suck. http://www.fec.gov/audits/Hillary_Clinton_for_President/AuditDivisionRecommendationMemorandum1173026.pdf

Their doing their job.

As a Bernie supporter I am glad this will be sorted out.

As the article mentions it is a common occurrence.

What is wrong with this picture?

http://usuncut.com/politics/each-of-the-top-10-corporate-tax-dodgers-donate-to-hillary-clinton/

go-to answer whenever someone questions Bernie. It doesn't really look that strange because maligning Hillary is always the answer whenever Bernie is questioned.

and Clinton the source of everything bad on planet earth, everything that happens is jammed into that framework. It saves having to exercise any critical thinking. It also demonstrates how the issue of campaign finance that is the centerpiece of Bernie's campaign is not important to them at all. I've come to learn that no issue or principle matters. The only thing that is important is reverence for one man. It's the great man view of politics taken to extremes. Not even Kings were treated with such blind reference. This is the result of a population that insists on avoiding information and becomes furious when the rest of the world doesn't accommodate their commitment to not knowing. They could simply trash threads, but that's not enough. They insist everyone else accommodate their demands that no information that doesn't eulogize their candidate be disseminated, published, or even uttered. It's scary to think this is what passes as the left in US politics. There is no version of leftism where one man is elevated above the rest of humanity.
And they wonder why so little changes.

the storyline. It gets more surreal with each day. Conspiracies. Old grudges. Yikes.

You nailed it, it's clear the campaign finance is only a talking point weapon. Legitimacy is not the issue at all.

clintons following the rules, how quaint........

I'm probably about half way there now.

If I'd donated every time the Clinton Campaign launched a phony, underhanded smear, I'd be in Leavenworth by now.

11 contributions, $113 dollars

I won't probably meet the reporting threshold by the time I'm done donating to Bernie.

Every little dollar counts for Bernie.

Is that what you call campaign finance law?

I guess money in politics and campaign finance reform doesn't matter after all. You don't even care if the existing law is followed. What a shock.

but certain, um, rules,...seem to be getting selectively applied, as is always the case when the clintons are involved.

They will come after you for allowing your donors to exceed the $2700 aggregate, but they are powerless to stop a super PAC from spending as much as it wants. We live in interesting times.

More than 100 out of 3.5 million?

vs. how many threads on photograph from the 1960s? Yes, I most certainly do believe it worth discussing.

The last dozen or so pages show the ones the FEC are concerned about. Some that jump out to me are the same amount multiple times a day (dozens of the same amount in a row on the same date?). Then there are two or three named person aggregated under a single person. Could be different people. You also see debits on some when the person started to exceed the limits.

I of course don't see anything suggesting nefarious deeds or intent. So why post this doc at all?

manipulate the stats. Multiple ways to inflate and distort.

So, for example, every time Clinton said "Me" during the debate, you donate $3 to Bernie. Since Clinton says "me" so many times during the debate, you see dozens and dozens of donations, all on the same date.

to Mr. Sanders for the Democratic primary that eventually totaled more than the $2,700 limit' really?

more than 100 donors on the FEC list gave several contributions that eventually exceeded the $2,700 limit.

Thought it needed some editing.

I'm confident that they'll make the proper amendments and not have it drag out like the Clinton campaign of 2008 did.

I've heard that audits really suck. http://www.fec.gov/audits/Hillary_Clinton_for_President/AuditDivisionRecommendationMemorandum1173026.pdf

Had to return the $$$ to the donors, but there was some confusion in Camp Hillary....

Interesting link, pugertres. Thanks

spinning shit out of strawmen.

Returning donations of over $2700 is pretty common.

And I have no doubt the campaign has been vigilant in it's accounting and is prepared for any sort of audit.

So glad Super PACs don't have to do that. Then HRC would really be fucked.

Same shit, different election.

I cannot believe my what i am reading Like just last week i was calculating just with some crazy logic they might try attack people that donated to Bernie's campaign. Then i reassured myself nobody would be that stupid

But, lets only single one out to talk about and complain about and to use as a smear.

Lots of fishy accounting

Because that is clearly illegal.

That just makes sense. I hope that Bernie's and Hillary's campaigns (or any other campaign for that matter) will all comply.

....the same person over and over again. It's okay to accept small undocumented contributions, but onc the AGGREGATE reaches a certain point (in this case it looks like $200), ALL of the contributions must be documented, even those before the aggregate reached that $200.

So, a person who gives a number of small contributions totalling less than $200 is okay. Once he or she gives that additional small contribution, then ALL of those contributions must be documented, not just the one that puts the person over $200.

They've been saying they have all these contributions (somewhere in the order of 3.5M) from, as he said on Thursday, "a little over 1 million donors". So simple math says that he's got lots of donors who have given multiple contributions. Any of those contributions who put donors over $200 in aggregate must have all of his/her contributions documented with a minimum of:

Name
Address
Employer
Occupation

"Glitches" like that noted above are "common" in campaigns, but generally in local or state-wide campaigns, not national Presidential campaigns.

the fact that the FEC has NEGLECTED to much of anything, or anything close to what they were formed to do for YEARS! They've looked away and given excuse after excuse anytime they've been questioned. And NOBODY in Congress ever seemed to care!

Have you given any THOUGHT about WHY they've decided to come alive AGAINST BERNIE??? OH, guess it's just another "sink" they found to throw his way! And then, there's that rag called the NEW YORK TIMES!!

FEC has had NO record of credibility for many. many years. They've been window dressing with a name!

Don't get me started on the SEC!!

PA-THE-TIC! SHHHHH, people are listening and we're not ALL DUMB!

I hear it is around a hundred out of well over a million donations.

Careful record-keeping and contribution tracking is required to prevent over-donations past the $2700 limit for total donations from any individual. It can be a difficult thing to keep track of.

....more than $23 MILLION in "unitemized receipts from individuals/persons"!

There was a second letter sent out on 2/25 with another list of violations. That one has a required response date of 3/31.
http://www.burlingtonfreepress.com/story/news/politics/2016/02/26/feds-flag-bernie-sanders-campaign-contributions/80985898/

There hasn't been anything in the news about any resolution as of last night.