That's the new episode of the "Advisory Opinions" podcast (audio and transcript, here).
Is the legal question too abstruse to think about? I'd say yes, but one thing jumped out at me. I'll put it in boldface:SARAH ISGUR: It definitely won't be resolved until well after the election if it's ever resolved at all... [And Harris either] gets $96 million in the Harris campaign [or]... $96 million in the DNC coffers to help the Harris campaign. And... probably this $96 million is just not make or break for the Harris team or for the Trump team to prevent the Harris team.
LAWPROF DEREK MUELLER: That's, that's probably right. Although I would point out, and this is the slightly cynical take —right? — you know, we, we do have a candidate running who, uh, was, uh, convicted of felonies for intentionally misrepresenting paperwork relating to campaign finance funds. So if the Harris campaign is going in saying, like, we're just gonna sort of ignore the law and do what we think and not seek an advisory opinion and move ahead — not that we're in great precedent to think about those situations — but that there, there are other legal consequences that come down the line. Usually when we think about the FEC levying fines, it's, you know, the Obama campaign accidentally accepted $20,000 from non-citizens. And so therefore it has to figure out a way of dealing with it. You know, this is a, this is a pretty aggressive and large large move. Again, I, I don't think there's an accident.... So I don't, right, again, I don't think there'll be criminal charges, but it's, it's the, the, the one thing that's interesting in the back of my mind to think about, oh, if we're intentionally bringing forward these things, what might happen? But I think you're right, Sarah, at the end of the day, I don't think it's getting resolved before the election is the point. And then we'll see what happens at the end.
So... concentrate on getting elected and worry about the criminal law consequences after the fact. But isn't that what Trump got convicted of?
I made a few corrections in the transcript. Mueller was rattling through his points very quickly! I didn't amend "not that we're in great precedent to think about those situations," but I did listen to it more than 10 times, and the words don't seem right to me. Maybe it should be something like "not that there's any great precedent." I guess the idea is that if you're going to "just... sort of ignore the law and do what [you] think," you ought to have substantial precedent supporting the legal interpretation you're relying on.
Notice the idea that $96 million isn't a big deal. Compare that to the measly amount of money that formed the basis of the criminal case against Trump — $130,000. Even if $96 million in one pot or another isn't a big deal, the principle of properly labeling the money is a big deal... unless it's not.
पोस्ट्स
९६ टिप्पण्या:
This discussion speaks for itself. One rule for thee, another for me.
Harrison Floyd 🇺🇸
@hw_floyd
If Kamala Harris is the Democrat nominee that means she would preside over the counting of the electoral college votes, because she’s the sitting VP.
She would be certifying her own election as president. Could she choose not to if she loses?
Jack Smith & Dems have a problem!
Last edited
11:55 PM · Jul 23, 2024
Given that Biden hadn't been nominated as the Dem candidate yet, does Harris have any official status with the Biden campaign? If she does have real status as his running mate, is that enough to entitle her to move into his position and take the money?
Seems like 96 million ought to be enough money to care about the answer.
But, of course, Amadeus is right--130 G's is enough to go after a Republican but 96 million is not enough to go after a Democrat.
LOL - since when do rules, laws and standards apply to Soviet Democratics?
"the Obama campaign accidentally accepted $20,000 from non-citizens"
No, the Obama campaign turned off verification for small credit card donations, so there's no way to know how much they accepted from non-citizens.
I hope President Trump sues him for defamation. The one thing everyone agrees with in that ridiculous case, is that the funds were personal. Not campaign funds.
Rules. Laws. - NONE apply to the modern Soviet Democrat party.
@tim maguire
That's talked about at some length in the podcast.
Isgur: "The Harris people are arguing though that because [Harris] was always going to be Biden's vice presidential pick, that she can still access this money. There's people, smart people on both sides of this, professor, who are just dead certain that she can get the money and dead certain that she can't. Will you walk us through some of the FEC? Like who can sue? Can you get an injunction and who's right?..."
Mueller: "And so the argument is that if we're amending the filing, we're just moving the names around on the same paperwork that lets us move from one spot to the other. So a couple things in their favor. There's a, there are some FEC opinions, you know, one from, especially in 1992, talking about how for a Lyndon LaRouche candidacy, there's really two names, but they're really treated as a single candidacy for FEC purposes. So that's, that's the Harris campaign's argument. And then you have the Trump campaign, which actually filed a, a complaint in front of the Federal Election Commission yesterday or this morning. I I the the days are running together now saying you can't do that. Right? We can look at the code. The code says money goes to the candidate. The Federal Register says that when you give the money goes to the candidate. If the candidate drops out, like the, that money can't be given to somebody else. There's a very simple, straightforward textual matter to say Biden was the candidate. Biden is no longer the candidate, therefore the money cannot go to another candidate. In this case, Harris...."
So I don't, right, again, I don't think there'll be criminal charges,
With the proper constitution little c a House of Representatives could see what she did as a high crimes and misdemeanors…
…that would be fun: Coming in January- The Impeachment of the Week, exclusively on C-Span…
The 96 million couldn't be cleanly given to the DNC to use as a non-connected campaign source for Kamalaladingdong, either. Individuals are limited in how much they can donate to a given political entity in a campaign year. That 96 million given to the Biden-Harris campaign was almost surely given by a lot of people who also maxed out their donations to the DNC and many, many DNC affiliated PACs. By giving the entire 96 million to the DNC, a good number of donors will have violated the campaign finance limits through no fault of their own and the DNC itself will have directly violated the campaign finance limits if they don't refund the excess donations.
I personally believe the Harris should be able to take the money for her campaign but I wonder if the real issue isn't that she and Biden really did have separate campaign entities on paper as a way to allow people to double their donations to the combined Biden/Harris election team. It would not surprise me to find this is exactly what happened.
"LAWPROF DEREK MUELLER: That's, that's probably right. Although I would point out, and this is the slightly cynical take —right? — you know, we, we do have a candidate running who, uh, was, uh, convicted of felonies for intentionally misrepresenting paperwork relating to campaign finance funds."
Felonies invented from whole cloth based on misdemeanor violations past their expiry date, adjudicated in a kangaroo court using jury instructions that probably violate every form of BAJI (yeah, IANAL, but I know fraud when I see it), don't count. Some law professor he is.
So... concentrate on getting elected and worry about the criminal law consequences after the fact. But isn't that what Trump got convicted of?
They don't care, and why should they? They might get fined, like Hillary did, but nothing more.
But, but, when Democrats do it, it's okay.
Do’h!
Blogger Lance said...
"the Obama campaign accidentally accepted $20,000 from non-citizens"
Ed. I believe it was $20m, not $20k.
No, the Obama campaign turned off verification for small credit card donations, so there's no way to know how much they accepted from non-citizens.
Ed. And the Obama campaign accepted unverifiable donations...
WaPo, via Politifact:
The Washington Post claim, though, wasn't that the Obama campaign refused to disclose the donors. It's that the campaign, by accepting donations via prepaid credit cards, made it impossible to verify whether the person was an American citizen or had exceeded donation limits.
"You don't know," said Doug Heye, a spokesman for the Republican National Committee. "The rhetoric from the Obama campaign (about campaign finance disclosure) never matched the reality."
What I am asking and no one else seems to have asked is this- did Harris already have a separate campaign entity that was taking donations for her VP campaign run? If so, then that 96 million is almost surely contaminated by people who maxed out contributions to Biden and Harris.
I ask this question because my father donated money to Romney in September 2012 and immediately got an e-mail asking if he wanted to donate money to Paul Ryan, too. I thought it was odd at the time (he only donated 100 dollars) but I have no experience with donating money to political candidates.
No, the Obama campaign turned off verification for small credit card donations, so there's no way to know how much they accepted from non-citizens.
I saw something this morning that Act Blue is doing the same thing now.
John Henry
Stupid lawyer gsmes. Amadeus got it right in comment #1.
Kamala karma-la conspires to capitalize on controversial consumption with a coercive convention of cooked consensus.
It would appear that Blogger is treading tenuously, tepidly, with trepidation and titillating convention into traditional threading of thoughtful conversational contention.
Bold move, Cotton.
What Act Blue is doing right now is removing all the checks that are supposed to limit the amounts individuals can give to a given candidate. By not verifying identity, Act Blue is making it trivial for large donors to use straw donors without those straw donors consent or knowledge. It is a straight criminal violation of campaign finance law but everyone knows no reasonable prosecutor is ever going to target Democrats.
"They don't care, and why should they? They might get fined, like Hillary did, but nothing more"
Said it yesterday, there are no rules anymore. The DNC is an organized criminal entity. Act accordingly.
https://x.com/claricefeldman7/status/1816478444022030429
Act Blue is doing right now is removing all the checks that are supposed to limit
The audacity of Obamacracy was demonstrated with credit cards without secure validation. The same can be done with welfare where currency and credit are fungible and repurposed to be sustainable.
"Even if $96 million in one pot or another isn't a big deal, the principle of properly labeling the money is a big deal... unless it's not."
It would be a big deal for Republicans but it's not for Democrats.
Everybody knows this.
Take the money and blame Trump for it.
The danger posed by Trump is too great to observe the letter of the law.
It was done in defence of the country.
May it please the court. Trump posed an existential threat, your honours.
Let's not forget Biden was forced out by the people who now want this money. We're being encouraged to think this money is inconsequential, but it isn't. It's one major reason they didn't push Harris aside along with Joe in their pursuit of electability.
Can someone - ANYONE - simply ask precisely what CRIMES Trump was convicted for specifically? Because he wasn't convicted of a felony for mis-labeling a legal expense as a campaign expense - no he was convincted of a felony for mis-labeling a legal expense as a campaign expense to HIDE another crime.
Someone tell me what that other crime was that he was convicted of and that is defined and agreed upon by a jury.
1. The right thing to do is to give it back to the donors and they can properly re-donate.
2. Well, we don't know who they are.
3. OK give it to poor people, or give it to rich kids to pay their college loans.
4. Are you serious? Its ok to be corrupt if we are saving democracy. Its OK to do anything if we are saving democracy. Its not our job to be honest.
It definitely won't be resolved until well after the election if it's ever resolved at all... [And Harris either] gets $96 million in the Harris campaign [or]... $96 million in the DNC coffers to help the Harris campaign. And... probably this $96 million is just not make or break for the Harris team or for the Trump team to prevent the Harris team.
Then the Harris Team shouldn't take the money
That's easy
Look, the solution is simple
The Dems nominate Biden as President
He then chooses Harris as his VP
Then he resigns from the campaign, and she takes over as Presidential candidate, with a legal right to the money.
Now, teh problem with that from the Harris perspective is that anyone else who's picked as Biden's VP could still get them $$$
But the rule of law is more important than one person's convenience, right?
Right?
This is the story of Joey Rob and Kammie Sue
Two politicians with nothin better to do
Than sit around with Hunter gettin high and watching tube
Here’s what happened when they decided to cut loose
Joey had a debate on all the tv channels
That’s where he ran into a great big hassle
Joey got a man shot while livin in his castle
Kammie Sue took the money and run
Go on, take the money and run….
JSM
Well don't we all know it's different when the Dims do it? And bait and switch is the stock in trade of the Biden administration. Joey was sold as normal--when he's not.
And 96 million (and there's probably more) was donated to Joe's campaign--not to Kamala's. But Kamala now has it.
Is Democrazi a kleptocratic redistributive change scheme? Karma's gonna get you.
it's Important, to Always Remember.. THERE IS NO DOUBLE STANDARD..
There is ONLY the SINGLE STANDARD:
'All within the party, nothing outside the party, nothing against the party,'
So Althouse says this Dem dough is like the porn star payoff?
How can a law professor not see the difference between what happened and is happening in these two situations? That's a rhetorical question, btw.
Carry on.
"the principle of properly labeling the money is a big deal... unless it's not"
Who, whom, as a famous political philospher, more ruthless even than our Dems, once put it.
1. The laws are stupid and unconstitutional.
2. The laws only exist so that they can be selectively applied.
3. The laws specifically exist to keep Republicans and Democrats already in power safe from external threats.
Sprezzatura said...
So Althouse says this Dem dough is like the porn star payoff?
How can a law professor not see the difference between what happened and is happening in these two situations? That's a rhetorical question, btw.
Carry on.
She confuses you because you are too stupid to actually understand what they convicted Trump of.
But thank you for letting everyone know how stupid you people are.
Biden was forced out by the people who now want this money
So, the Democratic reform act is a laundering scheme. And we were led to believe it was a Biden health care act. That's Darth Sidious.
The FEC has taken over the job of punishing campaign finance violations? I thought New York State was in charge of that.
Let's not forget Biden was forced out by the people who now want this money. We're being encouraged to think this money is inconsequential, but it isn't. It's one major reason they didn't push Harris aside along with Joe in their pursuit of electability.
With regard to the bolded portion - remember how, as recently as a few weeks ago, some of our resident lefties were still scoffing that the revelations on Hunter Biden's laptop were just inconsequential "dick pics"? Or, in the lockstep media narrative of 2020, that those revelations had "all the hallmarks of a Russian disinformation campaign" and therefore were inconsequential to Biden's presidential run? For exactly the same purpose - in pursuit of electability?
Biden's presidency offered incoherence and incompetence. Harris will add inexperience to the arsenal.
130 G's is enough to go after a Republican but 96 million is not enough to go after a Democrat.
much worse, the $96 million is real money from real donors shifted (stolen) without their intent, the $130k, was Trump money that may not have been reported, if that was required.
the Obama campaign accidentally accepted $20,000 from non-citizens.
No, that was a willful decision to disable the zip code tracking on credit card donations, to facilitate foreign cards
The ActBlue straw donors fraud, is clearly criminal, involves foreign donors, millions and criminal conspiracy
Yeah, the Obama campaign did not collect foreign donations by accident. It was quite intentional. Normally, credit card processing would flag the credit cards as not from the United States. From what was explained by experts at the time, to turn that off required requesting it at an additional fee.
"...the argument is that if we're amending the filing, we're just moving the names around on the same paperwork that lets us move from one spot to the other."
If all you're doing is moving the names around, then Harris should have to pick Joe Biden as her running mate in order to keep money that was donated to him, no?
The point was raised in one of the articles I read yesterday that if Kamala had decided to run against Joe in the primary, it's unlikely she would have been allowed to take any of the money in the "Biden-Harris" campaign coffers to do so.
Lance @ 9:21: "'the Obama campaign accidentally accepted $20,000 from non-citizens'
No, the Obama campaign turned off verification for small credit card donations, so there's no way to know how much they accepted from non-citizens."
I know of somebody who would not lie, who tested the Obama campaign donation website and could attest that it happily took $50 from an obviously contrived fake donor with an obviously fake address and bad zip code. Probably there are many such. This was in 2008. Nobody cared then, it seems nobody cares now. (At least, not anyone in a position to fix the problem).
Carry on!
"By not verifying identity, Act Blue is making it trivial for large donors to use straw donors without those straw donors consent or knowledge. It is a straight criminal violation of campaign finance law but everyone knows no reasonable prosecutor is ever going to target Democrats."
Ask Letitia James.
I think some blogger (catlady?) found there were a whole load of donations to her re-election campaign from little old ladies in the Dakotas who maxxed out their limits to donate to her, bless them.
Correct me if I’m wrong, but didn’t the FEC rule that the money paid to Stormy was not a campaign expense?
Wasn’t that why Munchkin (or whatever his name is) didn’t allow testimony from a former commissioner that Trump wanted to put on the stand?
So Althouse says this Dem dough is like the porn star payoff?
==================
So maybe says Kamala is also like 'porn star' with expertise?
@ n.n
I didn't say they were motivated by the money to force Biden out. I'm saying they want to get rid of the Biden, but keep money that was donated to him so they can use it for the candidate they prefer. They want to have their cake and eat it too.
It seems to me they're doing essentially the same thing with the primary election votes Biden received, simply pronouncing that Biden votes can be assumed to be votes for Harris and calling her candidacy a "grass-roots, bottom-up" nomination when it was the exact opposite.
There is no reason to believe, if the unpopular Harris had been at the top of the ticket, that the Primary process would have been bypassed by the Party (as it was for Joe Biden) or that Harris would have been chosen if they'd held a normal primary election process.
Did you see this cringe video of Chuck Schumer speaking to the crickets?
https://x.com/i/status/1815797696109908411
I think some blogger (catlady?) found there were a whole load of donations to her re-election campaign from little old ladies in the Dakotas who maxxed out the in the Dakotas who maxxed out their limits to donate to her, bless them.
There is video of them being asked if they donated these sums and they did not know anything about it. Here is the video. It was O'Keefe doing the videos.
"Is that ... Legal?"
"I will MAKE IT legal."
Trumpers always whining!
TIL lawyers don't consider the final disposition of almost $100,000,000 by legal, or illegal, means to be a matter of importance. I shoulda been a lawyer, so I could have enough money to think that way for my clients, too.
Also, initial reports about this stated the fund was at $200,000,000. Then $100,000,000. Now only $96,000,000. This is either really poor reporting (the logical and precedented reason) or there's money leaking from this fund in amounts greater than 7 digits. So I expect the issue of who gets the $17.32 left in the Biden campaign fund will be settled soon.
still dont understand
still
sigh
Trump should focus on not letting the Biden Secret Service get him assassinated or killing him themselves.
Get elected. All these people can be rounded up later. I volunteer to be Donald Trump's Attorney General and will round them all up on Day One of his presidency. They'll be in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba with the rest of the terrorists by Tuesday, January 21, 2025.
The laws specifically exist to keep Republicans and Democrats already in power safe from external threats.
Not all Republicans; just the controlled-opposition Uniparty pets like Romney and Kinzinger. They are applied in draconian fashion to Trump and anyone else who threatens to derail the Beltway gravy train.
3 weeks ago, the cackling incompetent Quemala Harris was the chief reason the media (and much of America) didn’t want Dementia Joe Biden to resign. And now she’s their star!
Biggest freaking liars around.
When the Vice President does it, that means it is not illegal.
$96 million is too big to be illegal.
You guys sound nervous about Kamala's chances. I know what you're thinking: A young, aggressive , tough on crime prosecutor against an aged obese foul mouthed insult comic con man convicted felon. If she can get him to lose his shit during the debates, lots of Independents are going to stay home or vote against Trump.
It's a toss up
Bob Boyd, no one voluntarily goes to listen to Schumer speak. Not even MSM journalists. So they're already in a grim mood, just being there.
Howard, sure. I know, the first words that come to mind when contemplating Harris are "nimble intelligence". Yep.
"No controlling legal authority" will stop her.
Howard said...
$96 million is too big to be illegal.
You guys sound nervous about Kamala's chances. I know what you're thinking: A young, aggressive , tough on crime prosecutor against an aged obese foul mouthed insult comic con man convicted felon. If she can get him to lose his shit during the debates, lots of Independents are going to stay home or vote against Trump.
It's a toss up
I am curious how you think Kamala would get Donald to lose his shit.
Is she going to snag him?
Althouse is 100% correct.
Actually, no one can tell what Trump was convicted of, including the judge who presided over his conviction, the jury that convicted him, and LAWPROF DEREK MUELLER.
Well, actually, they all can, but won't admit it. He was convicted of being Trump. And everyone knows it. Which is why it's a non-issue. But then, it even isn't that. It motivates Trump supporters, because if they, the mysterious they they run the government, an do it to Trump, they can do it to anyone. So ot is an issue, but not in the way LAWPROF DEREK MUELLER thinks.
TreeJoe said...
Can someone - ANYONE - simply ask precisely what CRIMES Trump was convicted for specifically? Because he wasn't convicted of a felony for mis-labeling a legal expense as a campaign expense - no he was convincted of a felony for mis-labeling a legal expense as a campaign expense to HIDE another crime.
Someone tell me what that other crime was that he was convicted of and that is defined and agreed upon by a jury.
7/25/24, 10:06 AM
----
Trump did NOT pay the funds to Cohen (to pay Daniels) from campaign funds. Those moneys were paid from personal funds and listed as a "legal expense". Bragg said the funds should have been paid from campaign funds but all FEC experts say if he had done so then THAT would have been a campaign expense violation. I can't wait until that conviction is finally overturned. Unfortunately, it will be months or years until that happens.
Achilles said...
Howard said...
$96 million is too big to be illegal.
You guys sound nervous about Kamala's chances. I know what you're thinking: A young, aggressive , tough on crime prosecutor against an aged obese foul mouthed insult comic con man convicted felon. If she can get him to lose his shit during the debates, lots of Independents are going to stay home or vote against Trump.
It's a toss up
I am curious how you think Kamala would get Donald to lose his shit.
Me, too.
I would be almost willing to bet the one losing their shit will be Ms Tossed-(word)-Salad. If the Donald could turn Biden's attempt at needling him about his golf game into owning him instead, he should be able to handle any accusations that Harris tries to throw at him.
Christopher B said...
I would be almost willing to bet the one losing their shit will be Ms Tossed-(word)-Salad. If the Donald could turn Biden's attempt at needling him about his golf game into owning him instead, he should be able to handle any accusations that Harris tries to throw at him.
All Trump has to say is:
"When I am President again Ms. Harris is not getting a job in my administration no matter how hard she tries."
What does "legally" have to do with Democrats?
Blogger Howard said...
$96 million is too big to be illegal.
You guys sound nervous about Kamala's chances.
Is that why they buy popcorn futures ? The laughter you hear is the right anticipating that first debate.
Or has Harris been pretending to be an airhead for 3 years?
Her competence aside, I just don't see how a modern Californian plays in Peoria. You know? So much of the country hates California - most of them not knowing what it's like outside the cities; they only know what they see on TV. But what they think they know about it, they don't like.
But Harris is an exemplar of those TV Californians - almost a parody of them.
I understand there are legal ramifications, here, but where is this money right now? Is it sitting in a few duffle bags on a table waiting for someone to legally claim it for use?
Who donated such a large sum in such a short period of time? Is it a few, rich donors, or a lot of poor people - or minorities who can't get valid IDs?
It seems to be played that Kamala has a massive amount of voter support, both using polls and this money as examples.
Perhaps this money doesn't really 'exist' in the legal sense but some rich donors have pledged the money, and it's being treated as donations until they can skirt the legal ramifications.
To me, skewing the reality of donations, and skewing the polls puts you in a position to cheat [bigly] at election time as it demonstrates the amount of 'support' the candidate has.
This would help Trump if he were to campaign about this issue. It highlights the disconnect between what happens to Democrats and Republicans.
"I guess the idea is that if you're going to "just... sort of ignore the law and do what [you] think," you ought to have substantial precedent supporting the legal interpretation you're relying on."
My reading and listening is that he is vaguely implying that if Trump is elected Harris could be subject to criminal prosecution by the new administration as Trump was, and the "precedent" reference is acknowledgement of the weakness of the case brought against Trump.
@Achilles .. I'm betting we'll hear "I really don't know what (s)he said at the end of that sentence and I don't think (s)he does either."
@MadisonMan .. maybe but I don't see it. At issue is a fairly esoteric distinction between donating to the candidate or to the campaign that a lot of people aren't going to understand, and probably think Harris should get the money since Biden ran with and endorsed her. One of Trump's strongest arguments against the bogus Bragg prosecution is the money he paid Cohen is *not* a campaign contribution, and contrasting his conviction with what could be a real violation of campaign finance laws muddies that.
Highlighting how anti-abortion protestors are treated vs the HamaNazis on the rampage in DC just yesterday would be a better illustration. Make it less about Republican vs Democrat and more about peaceful freedom of speech.
Christopher B said...
@Achilles .. I'm betting we'll hear "I really don't know what (s)he said at the end of that sentence and I don't think (s)he does either."
"I really don't know what she said there...
It sounded like she had something in her mouth."
John Mosbey: +1 for the Steve Miller!
If this is the relevant statute, subsection a seems broad enough and section b narrow enough that they’ll be able to get the money out one way or another:
“52 USC §30114. Use of contributed amounts for certain purposes
(a) Permitted uses
A contribution accepted by a candidate, and any other donation received by an individual as support for activities of the individual as a holder of Federal office, may be used by the candidate or individual-
(1) for otherwise authorized expenditures in connection with the campaign for Federal office of the candidate or individual;
(2) for ordinary and necessary expenses incurred in connection with duties of the individual as a holder of Federal office;
(3) for contributions to an organization described in section 170(c) of title 26;
(4) for transfers, without limitation, to a national, State, or local committee of a political party;
(5) for donations to State and local candidates subject to the provisions of State law; or
(6) for any other lawful purpose unless prohibited by subsection (b) of this section.
(b) Prohibited use
(1) In general
A contribution or donation described in subsection (a) shall not be converted by any person to personal use.
(2) Conversion
For the purposes of paragraph (1), a contribution or donation shall be considered to be converted to personal use if the contribution or amount is used to fulfill any commitment, obligation, or expense of a person that would exist irrespective of the candidate's election campaign or individual's duties as a holder of Federal office, including-
(A) a home mortgage, rent, or utility payment;
(B) a clothing purchase;
(C) a noncampaign-related automobile expense;
(D) a country club membership;
(E) a vacation or other noncampaign-related trip;
(F) a household food item;
(G) a tuition payment;
(H) admission to a sporting event, concert, theater, or other form of entertainment not associated with an election campaign; and
(I) dues, fees, and other payments to a health club or recreational facility.”
For one example, under subsection a(2), they could use the money to run ads on how great a job the Biden-Harris administration is doing on various issues. For another example, under subsection a(4), they can give the whole $96 million to national, state or local committees of the Democratic Party.
Sue her to death and tie up the money until after the election.
That’s how it works, right?
96 million buys a lot of "gift cards".
There's certainly a whole pile of Obamacare Ambassadors needing refreshments.
Can Kamala Take the Money … Legally?
LOL, that is some seriously funny sh*t right there!
When has "legally" ever stopped a (D) from doing anything they wanted to do? She needs the money, she will get the money. So what if they have to wash it a time or two? She will still wind up with the lion's share.
isn't it more like who, [where, when and how] can make her disgorge after she takes it?
Look, like Biden, Harris, and all good Democrats, I'm in favor of fair and honest funding of elections, so that BIG MONEY INTERESTS don't have excessive influence over Federal Government actions and policies. So it's very simple. The Biden-Harris Campaign notifies ALL contributors of the $96k (if they don't have addresses for some of the donors, they can notify them by publication) and ask them if they want their money returned, or contributed to the Harris-[NAME INSERTED HERE] Campaign. Responses must be received within 60 days.
“ Amadeus 48 said...
This discussion speaks for itself. One rule for thee, another for me.”
This case is (D)ifferent.
A young, aggressive , tough on crime prosecutor ...
Since when is 59 'young?'
"Since when is 59 'young?'"
It's not. Fun fact- Donald Trump and Kamala Harris are both Baby Boomers.
Kamala Harris was tough on crime when it was politically profitable, and lax on bail and police funding whn it was also politically profitable. The old "For it before I was against it. "
Left Bank of the Charles said...
For one example, under subsection a(2), they could use the money to run ads on how great a job the Biden-Harris administration is doing on various issues. For another example, under subsection a(4), they can give the whole $96 million to national, state or local committees of the Democratic Party.
There might be limitations soon State / Local, but yes WRT National.
The think is, that's not any different for any other candidate
टिप्पणी पोस्ट करा