How did Kamala and the Democrats raise so much money?
We may get to find out.
Watchdog group Americans for Public Trust (APT) has filed a campaign finance complaint against outdoor clothing company Patagonia’s tax-exempt arm for allegedly misrepresenting donations.
According to the complaint filed Thursday with the Federal Election Commission (FEC), a collective of climate-focused tax-exempt groups — which altogether hold 98% of Patagonia’s nonvoting shares worth nearly $1.8 billion — misidentified political contributions made to Democrat political action committees in 2022.
Such a misidentification, the complaint alleges, violates the Federal Election Campaign Act (FECA), which prohibits individuals from making contributions in the name of another and prohibits the use of one’s name to be used to make contributions in the name of another. As a result, APT requested the FEC conduct an investigation to determine, and impose appropriate sanctions for, any and all violations.
“With these tremendous resources, and the subsequent desire to pour this money into American politics, there should come great responsibility and transparency,” the complaint states, pointing to the Patagonia collective’s vast assets.
I doubt Patagonia is alone.
And then there’s a potentially bigger violation:
Steil [House Administration Chairman, a Republican from Wisconsin] disclosed earlier this fall that his committee is investigating whether four foreign powers — China, Russia, Venezuela and Iran — used ActBlue to route illicit foreign money into Democrat coffers.
His committee referred thousands of suspicious donations to state attorneys general in five state, prompting an investigation that has now expanded to 19 states.
In addition, a Wisconsin Republican strategist filed a lawsuit in October alleging his email identity was misused to make Democrat and liberal donations he did not authorize or pay for. The judge in the case recently approved a subpoena compelling ActBlue to disclose certain evidence in the case.
I seem to recall that there were accusations that Obama’s campaign had accepted foreign donations online. Looking it up just now, I see this:
The Government Accountability Institute, which is headed by Stanford University Professor Peter Schweizer, used sophisticated Internet investigative tools — including something called “spidering” software — to determine how the web is being used to raise political funds.
What it found should be of concern, since it suggests that many in Congress and, more importantly, the Obama campaign have systematically exploited loopholes in the law to raise millions of dollars overseas — a big chunk of it in the People’s Republic of China.
How is this done? Through the mundane use of what’s called in the credit-card world the Card Verification Value, or CVV. It’s the three-digit number on the back of a card that helps positively identify that the person using the card has it in his or her possession. It’s a key anti-fraud weapon, used by nearly all legitimate e-commerce businesses and charities.
Obama’s campaign doesn’t use it. Mitt Romney’s does. So why the particular concern over Obama?
As the report notes, letting a flood of money into the political system with no verification of its source is an invitation to fraud — especially from overseas.
Much much more at the link.
BO got away with it, as did Clinton. Nothing happened then, nothing will happen now.
“ letting a flood of money into the political system with no verification of its source is an invitation to fraud “
Duh, that is the entire purpose.
I checked the scam out in 2012. I tried to donated $5 to both campaigns without using the CVV code. Obama took the money but Romney rejected it.
While somebody, anybody, investigates illegal political donations to the demonkrats, perhaps somebody, anybody can also determine which NGOs were actively supporting illegal immigration into the USA and perhaps have them indicted for aiding and abetting the violation of US immigration laws.
OK, just venting.
We all know nothing will happen to anybody or any organization that supported (s) policies supported / initiated by the demonkrat party.
Anyway, when the president of the USA issues an executive order that, for all intents and purposes, violates established US immigration laws, there is no recourse to hold anybody accountable; if there was, joe Bidet and Mayorkas – for starters – would be in prison.
In effect, via the executive order ability, a president can overturn existing laws and unilaterally make new laws that have not been voted upon by the US Congress.
How this is not unconstitutional truly escapes me.
As SHIREHOME mentions above, there was quite a big deal about the Democrats taking money from China during the Clinton administration. There were Investigations which I think were successfully stonewalled.
Please note that Clinton and Obama got away with taking money from foreigners. Meanwhile, federal prosecutors threw the book at Dinesh d’Souza for making use of a straw donor and add to that the bogus ’34 felonies’ conviction of Donald Trump. A critical mass of Democrats in prosecutors and on the bench are malevolent swine.
Malevolent swine, indeed.
The fish rots from the head down.
All Democrats, in my modest opinion.
I’m not sure I understand blockchain transactions, but the key to the scheme appears to be a sort of ironclad traceabilty and rigorous matters of record. How hard would it be to legislate that all political donations above a certain amount – say, $100 – are required to use blockchain, and that records are to be kept live and available to the FEC? This is something that could easily be measured.
As I understand it, most of Kamala’s big money was from Silicon Valley, Hollywood and other elite redoubts.
Those Big Folks were told that the election was razor-thin close and their bucks could make the difference.
After the 2024 Trump landslide those Big Folks want to know where their money went.
And So Say All of Us.
“Big Folks” seem to lack elementary common sense. Are they run by reflexes?
Reflexes, like jerking away from a painful stimulus, do not usually reach the brain at first. They are located and activated in the spinal cord.
@Cicero:Are they run by reflexes?
I’d say “hunches” and “life experience”, since none of them can possibly be expert in everything, they have minions for that. They use those hunches and life experience to gauge which minions they should listen to when, since they can’t of their own knowledge evaluate what they are being told.
Daniel Kahneman’s Thinking Fast and Slow is a good primer on this, I think.
@aggie
Shamus has a great primer on blockchain.
https://www.shamusyoung.com/twentysidedtale/?p=41505
Mark Halperin on 2 Way Tonight recently had a Democrat bundler on the show, Lindy Li, and her take on Harris campaign is instructive. According to Li, she raised millions of dollars for Harris and was told in July that they were winning– something she now acknowledges was a lie.
She focuses on the campaign for the first 20 minutes.
She blames the Obama staff for many of the lies/errors the Harris campaign made.
2WAY TONIGHT | What’s Next for the Democrats? with Mark Halperin | Trump Transition News | 12/13/24
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KO_fSBGFMoQ&list=PLkGGN1RDaWfeb0jy2g8PqydAtxNIk3yaM