Hillary’s Money Laundering Extended to Massive Campaign Finance Scheme

Elder Patriot – Dan Backer is an expert on campaign finance law.  He successfully litigated his client’s challenge to the Federal Election Commission’s (FEC) “aggregate limits” before the Supreme Court.

Backer argued that the FEC effectively limited the number of candidates a single donor could support.

Liberals immediately recognized the opportunity for wrongdoing and argued that such a ruling held the potential for contributions from mega-donors to be made to a Joint Fundraising Committee (JFC) from where it could be directed the money to state party affiliates that would then pass that money on to the intended recipient.

The High Court ruled in favor of Backer’s client, Shaun McCutcheon, rejecting the anti-speech liberal’s concerns when they ruled that such a scheme would still be illegal.

In defense of the liberals we can’t say they didn’t warn us. 

The Hillary Victory Fund (HVF) apparently did exactly what the Supremes told them they couldn’t do.  Listen to Donna Brazile who earlier this year had pique of conscience and went public with her disgust for Hillary in her book “Hacks”:

“Individuals who had maxed out their $2,700 contribution limit to the campaign could write an additional check for $353,400 to the Hillary Victory Fund—that figure represented $10,000 to each of the 32 states’ parties who were part of the Victory Fund agreement—$320,000—and $33,400 to the DNC,” reads a passage from the book. “The money would be deposited in the states first, and transferred to the DNC shortly after that. Money in the battleground states usually stayed in that state, but all the other states funneled that money directly to the DNC, which quickly transferred the money to [Clinton campaign headquarters in] Brooklyn.”

Backer, who now serves as the legal counsel for the Committee to Defend the President (CDP), recognizes campaign fraud when he sees it but as brazen as Hillary’s scheme was it would’ve been hard to miss for anyone with even a passing knowledge of the law.

The CDP has filed an official complaint with the FEC: 

This Complaint alleges an unprecedented, massive, nationwide multi-million dollar conspiracy among the Democratic National Committee (“DNC”); Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Rodham Clinton’s joint fundraising committee (“JFC”), Hillary Victory Fund (“HVF”); Clinton’s presidential candidate committee, Hillary for America (“HFA”), 40 Democratic state parties, and an undetermined number of individual “super donors” to circumvent federal contribution limits and earmarking restrictions by effectively laundering nearly all contributions received by HVF through the state parties to the DNC, which contributed much of those funds to HFA, made coordinated expenditures with HFA, and otherwise granted control of those funds to HFA resulting in a de facto unlawful contribution. As explained below, this scheme allowed the DNC to receive tens of millions of dollars in contributions far exceeding federal limits.

The total amount of money alleged to have been laundered in this manner is at least $84 million.

Writing for Investor’s Business Daily, Backer explained what is legal and what isn’t when it comes to giving money to a campaign:

“Here’s what you can do, legally. Per election, an individual donor can contribute $2,700 to any candidate, $10,000 to any state party committee, and (during the 2016 cycle) $33,400 to a national party’s main account. These groups can all get together and take a single check from a donor for the sum of those contribution limits — it’s legal because the donor cannot exceed the base limit for any one recipient. And state parties can make unlimited transfers to their national party.

“Here’s what you can’t do, which the Clinton machine appeared to do anyway. As the Supreme Court made clear in McCutcheon v. FEC, the JFC may not solicit or accept contributions to circumvent base limits, through “earmarks” and “straw men” that are ultimately excessive — there are five separate prohibitions here.

Clearly, the Supreme Court’s ruling was intended to prevent the super rich from being able to drown out the arguments of the average folk.  That didn’t matter to Hillary who realized early in her political career that the “average folk” offered little opportunity to line her pockets.

Hillary was so confident of winning that she violated campaign finance laws so brazenly that the proof virtually jumps off the pages of the reports that the HVF filed with the FEC.  There was literally no attempt made to mask the financial transfers as evidenced by the complaint’s supporting documentation.

Democrat mega-donors wrote six-figure checks, 100 times greater than the law allowed, knowing that the money was targeted for Hillary.

Backer writes:

“On top of that, six-figure donations either never actually passed through state party accounts or were never actually under state party control, which adds false FEC reporting by HVF, state parties, and the DNC to the laundry list.

“Finally, as Donna Brazile and others admitted, the DNC placed the funds under the Clinton campaign’s direct control, a massive breach of campaign finance law that ties the conspiracy together.”

They acted in such wanton disregard for the law that they didn’t even try to hide their illegal scheme:

“HVF bundled these mega gifts and, on a single day, reported transferring money to all participating state parties, some of which would then show up on FEC reports filed by the DNC as transferring the exact same dollar amount on the exact same day to the DNC. Yet not all the state parties reported either receiving or transferring those sums.”

Whether these transfers actually took place or they were just paper entries to mask direct transfers to the DNC doesn’t matter.

Backer says he was able to build his entire case for the CDP’s complaint “on the FEC reports filed by Democrats, memos authored by Clinton campaign manager Robbie Mook, and public statements from Donna Brazile and others.”

This is likely to leave major elements of the Democratic machine in tatters.  As much as they effort to cloak themselves in morality and “public service,” they are, after all, nothing more than corporate entities and individuals involved in a criminal conspiracy.

Just like their outrage and contempt for “dirty” cops who violate their oath to protect and defend they should be treated more harshly than others.