Fred “Only the little people follow FEC rules” Thompson’s Illegal Fundraising
Aug 20
Lane Hudson, the guy who posted the leaked House page scandal e-mails, has filed an official complaint with the Federal Elections Commission regarding Fred Thompson’s fundraising for his undeclared presidential campaign.
Official candidates for president must report their fundraising and donor lists to the FEC for public scrutiny. Candidates are allowed some leeway in the exploratory phase before officially declaring candidacy. Thompson has been manipulating the process, and the media, from the beginning, openly running for the office but refusing to officially declare his candidacy. (He declared his “exploratory campaign”, then declared that he would later declare, then declared that he had decided what to declare.) This has allowed him to raise millions from secret donations, while getting him free nationwide publicity for every one of his non-declaration declarations. Hudson’s complaint forces the SEC to officially investigate; they have an established test for whether a candidate is just “testing the waters” or is really running, and Thompson seems to be over the line by a mile:
11 CFR 100.72(B)(2) — “The individual raises funds in excess of what could reasonably be expected to be used for exploratory activities or undertakes activities designed to amass campaign funds that would be spent after he or she becomes a candidate.”
On July 31, 2007, Matt Mosk of the Washington Post reported on their blog that Mr. Thompson had filed paperwork with the Internal Revenue Service indicating that he had raised a sum of $3,400,000 for his campaign committee.
The Washington Post further reports that this same filing with the IRS indicated that $72,000 of this total was marked for use in the General Election. . . .
11 CFR 100.72(B)(3) — “makes or authorizes written or oral statements that refer to him or her as a candidate for a particular office.”
In a June 26 report by the Associated Press (http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,286820,00.html), Mr. Thompson is quoted as saying “You’re either running or you’re not running. I think the steps we’ve taken are pretty obvious.” . . .
In a July 12, 2007 report by the Washington Post, Thompson adviser Mary Matalin is quoted as saying “He has made up is mind” in reference to his decision about whether to be a candidate for President. . . .
In an August 17, 2007 interview on CNN with John King, Mr. Thompson said, “We are going to be getting in if we get in, and of course, we are in the testing the waters phase,” he said, adding, “we’re going to be making a statement shortly that will cure all of that. But yeah, we’ll be in traditionally when people get in this race” [emphasis added] . . .
11 CFR 100.72(B)(4) — “conducts activities in close proximity to the election or over a protracted period of time.”
In the July 2, 2007 edition of the Washington Post, it was reported that Mr. Thompson’s campaign organization signed a long-term lease on a building that would serve as their national campaign headquarters. This is a blatant example of breaching the ‘testing the waters’ section. In that same article, Mr. Thompson is quoted as saying that he “doesn’t have any big announcement tonight” and further says “I plan on seeing a whole lot more of you, how ’bout that?
[links omitted]
Hudson also notes that the FEC, in the past, fined Al Sharpton a significant sum based on the value of his campaign donation total, and suggests they should be required to do the same to Thompson.
This is just more of the Republicans’ casual disregard for the law and for the public interest. As far as it goes, it isn’t that big a deal; we know he’s running, we know he’s in the tank for right-wing interests, and we know his contributors can only be the usual brand of frothing-mouthed scum. Their individual names are probably of more interest to the other GOP candidates than to anyone else; knowing them isn’t going to change anything.
But this is how he behaves when he’s trying to make a good impression. You can only imagine how a Thompson administration would deal with questions of obedience to laws they don’t like, the public’s right to information, and the security of the electoral process. The FEC should go after him as aggressively as they can, and hit him as hard as they can. (Personally, I think election-law violations should be criminal offenses, and indictments and trials should be expedited before the election.) The more Republicans we can convict, the safer the country is. And it’s not like there’s a shortage of suspects.
#1 by gattsuru at August 20th, 2007
| Quote
When’s tgirsch coming back?
Okay, ignoring for now that poster’s poor legal handiwork, and by your choice of words here, I assume yours as well, the sheer idiocy and hypocrisy is impressive.
It’s not just the relatively unrelated hypocrisy of someone who has no problem supporting Democrats that think “reign of law” is a simple matter of tossing out amnesties or simply calling any enforcement of even the most obvious violations of certain laws something “which you have to have a police state to try to do.”
Hell, let’s just look at your damn candidates. Hillary Clinton’s exploratory committee formed on the 20th of January, with over $10 million dollars from her Senate campaign alone. Her declaration of candidacy? Oops. She’ll get around to it, if only to get the Emily’s list endorsement.
Of course, she did get around to filing those records, but it did take her what the FEC site seems to show as nearly a month and a half. Her “exploratory committee” took money as recently as the 29th of June, and it sums up to quite a pretty penny, and she’s made it pretty damned clear she’s running about the same time she formed that exploratory committee.
I personally don’t see that as a violation of the law, nevermind wrong, at least unless she’s using it to take money past the limits (which I can’t see any evidence of, but not can’t vouch the opposite).
Oh, and the Washington Post broke this story earlier and did the footwork as to the answer. Congrats on missing the news train.
#2 by Dan M. at August 20th, 2007
| Quote
I agree that significant violations of campaign finance law should be criminal, and while it is probably fair to say that criminal charges against Republican violators would protect some of our civil rights, that’s just as true of Democrats.
#3 by Kevin T. Keith at August 21st, 2007
| Quote
gattsuru:
My condolences on your Conservative Reading Comprehension Disorder. There’s a lot of that going around.
Hillary Clinton’s official Statement of Candidacy was filed Jan. 20. Like every office-holder, she is entitled to roll over leftover contributions from previous campaigns into a later campaign. As for “late filing”, I don’t know what you’re talking about; she filed for candidacy on Jan 20; the first monthly report would have been due at the end of February, 6 weeks later.
Clinton’s official presidential campaign committee is named “Hillary Clinton for President Exploratory Committee, Inc.”, but the campaign is legally registered. She chose to position her campaign as “exploratory” at first, probably to keep her options open and probably also to milk the publicity of a later “official” announcement. But the campaign became official with the filing of the Statement of Candidacy, as per FEC regulation. Note that Giuliani, Huckabee, McCain, Richardson, Romney, Tancredo, and a bunch of others also have official campaign committees with “Exploratory Committee” in their names.
Fred Thompson is the only major candidate from either party who has not filed a Statement of Candidacy or complied with campaign finance laws.
Note also that Washington Post and AP stories are mentioned 5 times in the above quotes. It’s the FEC complaint that’s new.
Congrats on missing the clue train.
#4 by Ted at August 21st, 2007
| Quote
KTK, by delaying declaration, is Thompson actually avoiding fund raising scrutiny, or is he simply delaying it? In other words, once he declares, will he need to make public all info on donations already received? Depending on the answer to that question (an answer unknown to me), I would judge his actions as either tactical or unscrupulous.
Re Clinton, are you saying she wrapped up her Senate campaign with $10 million unspent? Or is that $10 million money that was raised after she was elected (essentially raised under false pretenses). In either case, while legal, it is a great example of how fucked campaign finance laws are. I can convince people to give me $10 million to be Senator from New York, and then use their money to run for President instead. Or, if I so choose, I can say screw it, I’m tired of politics, not run, and just pocket the $10 million. Pretty sweet deal the politicians have set up for themselves.
#5 by Kevin T. Keith at August 21st, 2007
| Quote
Ted:
You have to reveal your donations and donors if and when you become a candidate. By delaying, Thompson not only gets to evade scrutiny while the other candidates are answering questions about their affiliations, but if he decides not to run his donors are off the hook - he can essentially promise them anonymity unless he is sure he can make a creditable showing, insulating them from blowback from other Republicans.
As for Clinton, yes, she raised vastly more money in her Senate race than she needed (especially after Giuliani dropped out and the GOP fielded a couple of sacrificial candidates against her because they had nothing else). She is free to keep that money for future races, or to donate it to other political campaigns. (After it became obvious she had no real opposition in the Senate race but kept fundraising like mad, it was widely speculated that she was just using that race to stockpile cash for her next election - either to scare off GOP challengers for the Senate seat 6 years later, or to jump-start a Presidential bid now. Looks like they were right.) Many politicians do that, but Clinton stood out for the amount she was able to get by fundraising nationally for a local race. The Democrats were begging her to stop fundraising because she had a fairly safe election and she was drying up their money sources - now it looks like she’ll need every penny.
You are not allowed to take the money home as personal income. I think at one time you could do so, and politicians used that as a retirement fund - just keep fundraising after your last election, and then keep the cash when your term is up. That loophole was plugged; now, if you don’t run again, you have to turn the money over to an equivalent purpose (either your party or another candidate). Something similar is done when a non-profit organization goes out of business - they have to donate their assets to another non-profit.
#6 by Ted at August 21st, 2007
| Quote
KTK, thanks for the info. I was not aware the “keep the warchest” loophole had been plugged.
I’m not sure I see a great advantage for Thompson being able to afford his donors anonymity in case he doesn’t spend their money. An equally effective way for them to achieve that cover would be to simply not make their donations until Thompson actually decided to run. (My understanding is he has not spent much of the money yet.)
If delaying his announcement to run puts him in violation of fundraising regulations, then he should be held accountable for that. However, I don’t believe that the reason he is holding off on announcing his candidacy has anything to do with shielding his donors. And based on your clarification above, “This has allowed him to raise millions from secret donations” is a bit of an overstatement. The donations remain secret only if he does not run, in which case who cares. If he does run, they become public.
Relative to candidates accepting large donations and pretending doing so will not leave them beholden to the donors, this seems rather trivial to me. Or raising money under false pretenses, as Clinton - and others before her - did. I’m not arguing legality, I’m arguing morality.
#7 by Dan M. at August 21st, 2007
| Quote
Ted,
Good points.
I’m curious what the reporting requirements are if Thomson doesn’t run and then donates the money back to the RNC or an individual candidate. Then again, even if that does leave the donations secret, it’s still questionable what Thompson actually benefits from such a deal.
#8 by Ted at August 21st, 2007
| Quote
Dan, I don’t know the answer, but I really doubt this is all about raising $3 million for someone else.
#9 by gattsuru at August 22nd, 2007
| Quote
Transferring money from one campaign of one individual is neither unusual or particularly unethical. I mean, do you really think anyone that wanted Hillary in the Senate enough to give her money then wouldn’t want her in the president’s seat?
Dan, individuals can only give 20,000, and groups only 15,000, USD to any single national party committee per year (individuals can only give a total of 25,000 USD to any combination per year, groups are unlimited in that aspect). If Thompson wants to move the money, either he has to spend it or move it into many MANY different political committees. I don’t think he even can move it to the RNC under the names of the original donors, although I’ll admit there may be loopholes I’m unfamiliar with.
KTK, whether you’re stuffing words down my mouth simply because you don’t know the law, or because you have absolutely no idea what you’re talking about, I think you’ve made it clear exactly how far your grasp of this debate goes.
The is a difference between an official statement of candidacy (which Obama has made, while Giuliani, Hillary, and Thompson haven’t) and a filing of candidacy (which Obama, Hillary, and Giuliani have). Both involve different caps and different results with the FEC.
#10 by Kevin T. Keith at August 23rd, 2007
| Quote
gattsuru:
Sadly, your Reading Comprehension Disorder appears to be complicated by Galloping Ignorance, likely contracted from Fox News. The condition will not go away by itself. You are urged to take a strong daily dose of John Stewart, and rent the entire collection of Schoohouse Rock videos.
Regarding “statements of candidacy” and “filings of candidacy”, here’s what the FEC has to say about it:
The above-mentioned Campaign Guide says this:
There is no reference to a “filing of candidacy”, and there is no such form. The form which is filed to register a candidate, FEC Form 2, is named the “Statement of Candidacy”; it says so in big letters right on the form. You file the statement when you become a candidate. You do not have to make any formal announcement of candidacy aside from this “Statement” (which is a form), to become a candidate for FEC purposes (though announcing you are a candidate does make you one). Many candidates do make a formal announcement, but that is for publicity purposes; the FEC test for candidacy does not require a public announcement, and simply making an announcement does not satisy any FEC reporting requirement.
Similarly, there is no two-level hierarchy of status or donation limits (nor could there be, since your two categories of candidate are imaginary). You’re either a candidate or you’re not. There is a $5,000 spending/fundraising trigger that necessitates filing FEC Form 2 once you are a candidate; you are allowed to spend more than that while “testing the waters”, because at that point you’re not a candidate, unless you’re lying about it like Thompson, but anything you spend while testing the waters counts against the $5,000 trigger once you become an candidate. (As an aside, this is also further evidence that “testing the waters” is expected to be a brief temporary phase, since the FEC obviously imagines it will cost less than $5,000 to do so, not $3.4 million.) That $5,000 trigger is only the point at which you are required to file Form 2; it has nothing to do with donation limits or any other “result” of registration. Limits on donations, and the provisions regarding spending personal funds, apply both to testing the waters and to overt campaigning in exactly the same way.
Again, the Campaign Guide explains it all for you:
Every major candidate from both parties has filed FEC Form 2 (the “Statement of Candidacy”) and Form 1 (the committee registration), almost all of them by the end of last January. Thompson, however, has filed nothing, while raising millions in contributions and actively campaigning in numerous states.
Good luck with those Schoolhouse Rock videos.
#11 by Moise at August 26th, 2007
| Quote
If someone hasn’t broken the law, just say that what he is doing should be against the law and them accuse him of breaking what should be the law. You libs are desperate people.
Fred