Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

George II

(67,782 posts)
Wed Aug 31, 2016, 02:49 PM Aug 2016

Addicted to Making Campaign Contributions?

Addicted to Making Campaign Contributions?

Bernie Sanders asked donors to give, and his most loyal donors dug deep each time—giving more than some could afford, or the law allowed.

RUSSELL BERMAN AUG 30, 2016 POLITICS

Updated on August 30 at 10:28 a.m.

When Bernie Sanders asked for money to fuel his underdog presidential campaign, Geraldine Bryant didn’t even need to think about it.

“I loved Bernie, and every time he asked for money, I just gave it to him,” Bryant told me in a recent phone interview. A filmmaker in Manhattan, Bryant gave the Sanders campaign 44 separate contributions over a nine-month period between October and June, in amounts ranging from $1 to $2,000. The donations totaled $14,440—more than five times the legal limit that an individual can give to a presidential primary campaign.

Lorraine Grace, an environmentalist and educator who runs a nonprofit organization north of San Francisco, gave the Sanders campaign 17 contributions during the height of the Democratic primary between December and May, in amounts ranging from $15 to $2,000. It added up to $8,625. “I donate almost like automatic,” Grace explained. “Bernie Sanders’ campaign reaches out to me? Bingo. Donation.”

Bryant and Grace epitomize the fund-raising juggernaut that Sanders built virtually from scratch in 2015, allowing a small-state senator with little national following and a non-existent donor base to match Hillary Clinton dollar-for-dollar through much of their hard-fought Democratic primary. Sanders raised $231 million from more than 2.7 million donors, relying on grassroots support rather than the wealthy bundlers who collect large checks for establishment candidates.

But the constant fundraising requests that produced that shower of cash can be troubling in their own way. They’re reminiscent of the marketing strategies used by casinos, tobacco companies, and even “the old Nigerian scams,” said Timothy Fong, co-director of the Gambling Studies Program at UCLA. The solicitations convey “a sense of urgency, the very impulsive, it’s an opportunity that can’t be missed,” he said. “It’s very similar to what drug dealers use or casinos use to get people to continue to play.”


(....more at the link...)

http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2016/08/slot-machine-fundraising/497276/

Turns out that many people who "over-contributed" and were supposed to have received refunds within 60 days in accordance with FEC rules still have not received their refund checks.


10 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies

NurseJackie

(42,862 posts)
1. Wow.
Wed Aug 31, 2016, 02:55 PM
Aug 2016
But the constant fundraising requests that produced that shower of cash can be troubling in their own way. They’re reminiscent of the marketing strategies used by casinos, tobacco companies, and even “the old Nigerian scams,” said Timothy Fong, co-director of the Gambling Studies Program at UCLA. The solicitations convey “a sense of urgency, the very impulsive, it’s an opportunity that can’t be missed,” he said. “It’s very similar to what drug dealers use or casinos use to get people to continue to play.”

MineralMan

(146,192 posts)
2. Those refunds should be automatic.
Wed Aug 31, 2016, 02:56 PM
Aug 2016

There are real potential legal issues for the Sanders campaign if they do not deal with this in a timely way.

When I donate to campaigns, I do it directly, and I always see information about donation limits. I also keep track of my donations, so I'd know if I had over-donated. Sometimes, third-party donation go-betweens don't handle these things properly. Before you donate, if you have donated before, you should see an accounting of your previous donations.

I'm sorry to hear that some people have over-donated and that their refunds have not been forthcoming. They might have donated to other candidates with that money, and may not have it back in time to do so.

Poor handling, I think, of donation accounting.

 

BobbyDrake

(2,542 posts)
3. It's not the donating they're addicted to; it's the rush they feel from having helped avert
Wed Aug 31, 2016, 03:00 PM
Aug 2016

whatever impending "disaster" the fund-raising solicitation made them most afraid of.

NurseJackie

(42,862 posts)
5. I think this principle can also explain (or help to explain) what goes on in the minds of those ...
Wed Aug 31, 2016, 03:20 PM
Aug 2016

... who give money to televangelists.

MADem

(135,425 posts)
4. This is something the FEC needs to wrap their arms around and fix.
Wed Aug 31, 2016, 03:15 PM
Aug 2016

It's not so much the solicitations, it's the limitations--there needs to be a "STOP--NO MORE" mechanism built in to the process that prevents the hyper-enthusiasts from being the fools who are soon parted from their money.

I think Mister Weaver has some answering to do--wasn't he the "genius" responsible for this end of things? Or was it the campaign whiz kid who never brought home a win for any Dem since back in the days of Dukakis?

George II

(67,782 posts)
6. I don't know about the FEC and federal elections, but I know that in Connecticut.....
Wed Aug 31, 2016, 03:48 PM
Aug 2016

....it's unlawful to accept and cash checks that are over the limit. Period. Treasurers are expected to be sophisticated enough and capable enough to know when a contributor reaches the limit and stop accepting contributions. In fact, its an arcane aspect of the law in CT, but if someone gives cash that goes over the limit or is otherwise inappropriate, the treasurer is obligated to return the contribution using the same bills as those given by the contributor (that's idiotic, but its the way the law works!).

Not only are impermissible contributions supposed to be returned, but its illegal to even accept and deposit such a contribution and then return the contribution at a later date via a campaign check.

It boggles my mind that over the last year or so tens of thousands of impermissible (i.e., illegal) contributions have been accepted, deposited, AND reported to the FEC, leaving it up to the FEC to find them.

MADem

(135,425 posts)
7. That's a good start--criminal penalties. It would go a long way towards stopping this.
Wed Aug 31, 2016, 04:25 PM
Aug 2016

If people aren't getting refunds, that could mean the campaign is broke, and in order for people to get their money BACK, there will have to be some fund raising (from people who aren't over that limit--who, by definition, might be the "less enthused&quot to get them their money.

Who's going to want to donate to pay off the debt of an incompetently managed--at least from the treasurer's POV-- campaign?

Cashing the checks and using the money is a case of robbing Peter to pay Paul--and no one is gonna want to loan Paul the money to reimburse Peter...it's a mess.

George II

(67,782 posts)
10. The other side of that is, if they're reporting to the FEC that they made refunds....
Wed Aug 31, 2016, 04:52 PM
Aug 2016

....but never mailed out the checks, that could constitute campaign finance fraud. And your last scenario could be considered a form of check kiting.

Latest Discussions»Retired Forums»2016 Postmortem»Addicted to Making Campai...