Did the Democratic National Committee violate election law by coordinating with Hillary Clinton?
It now appears as if, according to this story, when the Democratic National Committee coordinated with Hillary Clinton to screw Bernie Sanders out of any chance at winning the nomination election laws were violated–possibly by all involved, including the former Secretary of State.
Here is more:
The June 22 WikiLeaks disclosure of 19,252 hacked emails appears to show a pattern of senior officers of the Democratic National Committee (DNC) scheming and colluding to favor Hillary Clinton and oppose Senator Bernie Sanders (I-VT) during the 2016 Democrat primaries and caucuses. The emails include DNC plans to commit “dirty tricks,” spread false rumors, and coordinate activities directly with the Clinton campaign.
DNC officers earn annual salaries of $91,000 to $98,000 and staff members earn $29,000 and $96,000 a year, according to the Glassdoor website. Such apparent involvement by DNC employees in direct support of Clinton’s political campaign may have represented hundreds of thousands of dollars of value received.
The problem is that Federal election law prohibits a campaign from coordinating with a candidate in certain circumstances. If it is determined that while these people did not donate money to Hillary Clinton’s campaign that they did coordinate with the campaign by providing a service which was valuable could it be interpreted as a donation? I guess that depends on what your definition of is is…
The current federal election campaign laws require strict separation between a political party and a candidate. The party cannot 1) coordinate with candidates and 2) use party soft money funds raised for “party building activities,” such as efforts to “get-out-the-vote” and generic “issue advertising” to promote a particular candidate.
The WikiLeaks disclosures suggest a deep “coordination” between the DNC and the Clinton campaign, but there is no direct evidence in the initial dump of hacked emails that there were any “coordinated expenditures” between the DNC and Clinton. It is possible, however, that the use of DNC staff man-hours and equipment to aid one candidate in the context of a primary election could have violated the soft-money expenditure ban.
Let me be the first to ask the question I know many of you were thinking as you read this: at this point what difference does it make?
We have already seen the FBI is in the bag for Hillary Clinton when James Comey basically said she broke the law but no charges should be filed because she did not intend to break the law, and that will most likely be the defense here as well. Ironically Hillary Clinton could be the first politician to use #TheClintonDefense since it was handed to her by James Comey. Ignorance of the law is bliss–depending on who you are…
malo periculosam libertatem quam quietum servitium