eom

It tells me they are afraid. Afraid he can actually win.

eom

I really think we can do this. I think it can be won even with all of the dirty tricks.

eom

Sorry but they are so well connected through out the Washington Establishment for decades I'm going full "Tin Foil" on this one.

FOB and now FOH

EVERYTHING is Hillary's fault. I would not be surprised to hear that she's the one who sank the Titanic. In fact, I'm positive she did.

Same individual name, different address or e-mail, varied size of small gift, to get it over $2700. If I were David Brock, it'd be what I'd do. Find a core group of people committed to doing this and then alert a buddy at the FEC about it.

Damn the establishment must be really scared.

The contributions just don't make sense. A lot of them seem to be deliberately made in a way to purposely get caught. I mean the personal contribution limit is $2,700. A lot of these have small donations under $100 then a $2,700 contribution is made. Then the small donations start again.

Its so obvious people give small donations under $100 because they cannot afford to give the $2,700 amount. Why would someone give $2,700 then $35, $38, or $50. Or start of with very small donations and then $2,700 then start the small donations again.

It just seems like a deliberate attempt to get the FEC involved and to try and smear Bernie as a hypocrite.

But we have no evidence. Yet.

If you're right, this could be a colossal mistake.

with over 3 million contributors the FEC is asking the campaign to look at 100 for possible over contribution. It is common and the Sanders campaign has said they would examine it.

http://www.nytimes.com/politics/first-draft/2016/02/12/f-e-c-tells-sanders-campaign-that-some-donors-may-have-given-too-much/

trying to cause problems for Bernie ...then maybe not

Not surprised. Bernie is running a great campaign.

The other article from some 'news bin' I think was distorting it a bit.

Just the facts miss, just the facts.

and all of the tweets are either anti Bernie or anti one of the Republican candidates - only sunshine for Hillary. But they swear they are a "real" news organization...

I'm sure this happens a lot during campaigns. It's also not an investigation, it has just asked Sander camp to look into them.

I think some of the questions raised about both candidates are legitimate, but some are to just show them in a negative light. The whole "berniebro", " hillbot" stuff doesn't help either.

About the FEC
In 1975, Congress created the Federal Election Commission (FEC) to administer and enforce the Federal Election Campaign Act (FECA) - the statute that governs the financing of federal elections. The duties of the FEC, which is an independent regulatory agency, are to disclose campaign finance information, to enforce the provisions of the law such as the limits and prohibitions on contributions, and to oversee the public funding of Presidential elections.
The Commission is made up of six members, who are appointed by the President and confirmed by the Senate. Each member serves a six-year term, and two seats are subject to appointment every two years. By law, no more than three Commissioners can be members of the same political party, and at least four votes are required for any official Commission action. This structure was created to encourage nonpartisan decisions. The Chairmanship of the Commission rotates among the members each year, with no member serving as Chairman more than once during his or her term.
http://www.fec.gov/about.shtml

There are an excessive amount of people donating because they are "feeling the Bern"

Operation Chaos back in operation.

Trashing Sanders' civil rights bona fides didn't work, so now implying his huge grass roots support is is actually Operation Chaos - that's what you're going with?

As I said I bet its true... IMHO.

Last I checked opinions were allowed.

From the National Review

I'm confident that the FEC will not find anything nefarious, but I'll leave it to them to do their job.

Nice discussion.

RWingers have attacked her relentlessly but nothing of substance has ever been proven. If only a tenth of the crap the RWingers have claimed about her are true she would be in jail for life. She is a good honest decent person with a very strong ambition to be President.

Bernie has a better chance in the general than Clinton. Independents like him and can't stand her and they vote in the general.

Thanks, Republicans!

Oh, and thanks!

$27 for Bernie.....must be investigated.


Thank you political apparatus for making it so bluntly apparent.

eom

I guarantee at least one state will find it impossible to put Bernie on the ballot. Plus what ever ratfuckerty they can come up with.

eom

You want to make an issue out of people who gave more than $2700, really ?!

In the shadow of Citizens United and $153 million in revenue from selling Wall St access to HRC, you're delighted that the little people can't have more than $2700 worth of free speech. This frames a real contrast with the Clinton campaign:

...this is America. There are people from all over the world living here. Just go work in a school district for a year and you'll see all kinds of "unusual names". Just because the name is Goldman or Sachs doesn't mean it's not real.

First two "don't worry about the super delegates" threads, and now Bernie getting investigated.

Why am I thinking "here comes the shaft"

"It's an attack!"
"It's a conspiracy!"
"The Establishment!"

It's none of the above, it's pretty routine accounting woes when a campaign deals with millions of dollars from tens of thousands of supporters. The only salient point to be taken from it is the Sanders campaign is not perfect, which is sacrilegious to the apostles, I suppose.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]"There is a crack in everything. That's how the light gets in."
Leonard Cohen, Anthem (1992)[/center][/font][hr]

eom

To make the grassroots blame the establishment. LOL

I wonder if I'll get busted by the FEC.

Thanks for sharing this!

aimed at Bernie Sanders (average contribution $27, PAC dollars=$0) can change the fact that she's sold her soul to some purely evil bastards who spend every waking minute subjugating the weak and powerless of this country.

it is a matter of public record. No BS pdf file created by HRC's minions needed.

Good to see the fec wake up now lets look into coordination with superpacs which i may be mistaken but is/was illegal

A Google search shows that there are thousands of them on the FEC's docquery website.

https://www.google.com/search?hl=en&as_q=pdf&as_epq=This+notice+requests+information+essential+to+full+public+disclosure&as_oq=&as_eq=&as_nlo=&as_nhi=&lr=&cr=&as_qdr=all&as_sitesearch=docquery.fec.gov&as_occt=any&safe=images&as_filetype=&as_rights=

Most of the itemized receipts in that $23 million figure are very likely legitimate contributions by contributors that have not exceeded $200. Except for a small number of individuals, there is no evidence to the contrary. They are asking for an affirmation of this.

There are some questions about a small number of individuals. Those individuals may have been careless, or even dishonest, when they made their contributions, or they may be different individuals with similar names.

Probably what will happen is that the campaign will seek the necessary information from those individuals, and will return the contributions to those they cannot get that information from.

Considering the record breaking number of individual donations received by the campaign, some discrepancies are probably unavoidable.

Hillary Clinton's campaign has very likely received similar requests, for similarly innocent reasons.

I wouldn't have been too surprised if this was one too but knowing it's just standard procedure puts my mind at ease.

and yet they have admitted that they are no longer able to really control what is happening with the election contribution corruption.

Hmmm, me thinks the establishment is having a sad so they are going to make it hard on Bernie.

Set an example.

Gawd

I think. Newsbin isn't really the best of sources, since they often inject all sorts of bias into what they run. This sounds like a problem many campaigns have with people making multiple donations that end up adding up to more than is allowed. It's hard to track, but has to be tracked to prevent problems with the FEC.

I hope the Sanders campaign has the technical expertise to find a way to monitor small donations from the same donor. That can be a complex challenge, as the NYT article makes clear.

would have made up my mind. In face of the many, many millions in donations to Clinton, they aren't investigating her.

This makes me sick. (By the way, after years in public office, Bernie's last net worth Report showed about 350,000.)

It made me feel "sick" that Hillary has been racking in millions for her services with no investigations. And now Bernie is being investigated for some contributions exceeding $2,700. That is sad and at the same time ludicrous.

In your opinion, why do you think that big companies have paid her $250,000 and often more to speak?

this is just a matter of not being able to keep up with the paperwork on the Sander's campaign part. You can see where they have refunded some people who have over-donated.

"If you read the articles on Daily News Bin, it's clear the site is a poorly written pro-Hillary Clinton site. It does nothing but promote Hillary Clinton. It talks as if Hillary Clinton already won the Democratic nomination for president. Now, Daily News Bin pretends to have Tech, Music, and Entertainment sections. But if you go to them, you discover them either empty or full of pro-Hillary Clinton articles."


http://beingbutmen.blogspot.com/2015/11/today-tim-martyn-from-web-site-daily.html

$258 so far.