The Hillary Victory Fund is a joint fundraising entity per the Federal Election Commission, but public concerns raised about the rise of the super delegates and possible “collusion between the Clinton campaign and the DNC” perhaps mean the money-raising entity deserves much more consideration from media, because having honest elections and campaign finance are big worries for many voters in 2016.
A Bernie Sanders press release last April about the Hillary Victory Fund, a big Clinton-DNC joint fundraising effort, shows great concern about the entity being of sole benefit to the Clinton campaign.
“The financial disclosure reports on file with the Federal Election Commission indicate that the joint committee invested millions in low-dollar, online fundraising and advertising that solely benefits the Clinton campaign.”
— TheProgressiveParty (@_Progressives_) October 13, 2016
The Sanders campaign said they were very concerned “that these extremely large-dollar individual contributions have been used by the Hillary Victory Fund to pay for more than $7.8 million in direct mail efforts and over $8.6 million in online advertising.”
Per the Sanders campaign letter to the DNC, the name of Hillary Clinton’s presidential campaign committee is “Hillary for America.” This committee is allowed to accept large donations of up to $356,100, and the first $2,700 of this amount is eligible for transfer to the Clinton campaign, while $33,400 can be transferred to the DNC.
Any remaining amount “up to $10,000” may be given to each participating state party, per the Sanders campaign statement.
“According to public disclosure reports, however, the joint Clinton-DNC fund, Hillary Victory Fund (HVF), appears to operate in a way that skirts legal limits on federal campaign donations and primarily benefits the Clinton presidential campaign.”
A Daily Kos posting noted that while the Clinton-DNC Hillary Victory Fund actually might be legal it sure “smells fishy,” and a reference was made to another website’s posting about the money and politics issue by author and actress Margot Kidder.
The Counterpunch post by Kidder attempts to describe what is seen as “collusion,” which may upset voters this year.
“Collusion between the Clinton campaign and the DNC allowed Hillary Clinton to buy the loyalty of 33 state Democratic parties last summer. Montana was one of those states. It sold itself for $64,100.”
— deplorablecincowgirl (@cincowgirl) September 18, 2016
By exploiting a 2014 Supreme Court ruling, McCutcheon v FEC, Clinton supporters could actually personally donate more to Clinton, Kidder believes.
Kidder asks what a handful of billionaires like Haim Saban, Jon Stryker, J.B Pritzke, Fred Eychaner, Donald Sussman, Susie Buell, and Imaad Zuber all have in common, and the “only” answer she could come up with is that they all have given millions of dollars to Hillary Clinton’s presidential campaign, as well as to her various PACs.
Additionally, they each gave $10,000 to the Montana State Democratic Party in 2015, and that seemed suspicious.
“It is doubtful that many of them have any interest in Montana politics, or that they have even bothered to visit.”
Kidder also adds, “they like their friend Hillary and want her to be the president.”
“And if some of their millions will buy her way into the White House then so be it. None of this is illegal. But it makes a mockery of Ms. Clinton’s pledge to further the cause of campaign finance reform.”
As a WikiLeaks document dump from this year shows voters, a conversation from DNC press staffer Rachel Palermo to DNC communications director Luis Miranda and press assistant Jenna Price underscores the allegations and concerns over campaign finance and “money laundering.” CNN’s Jake Tapper had a conversation with a senior Washington correspondent, Jeff Zeleny.
“Jeff, is there anything to the Sanders charge of money laundering by the Clinton campaign?” Tapper asked.
“Well Jake, the term money laundering is definitely strong,” Jeff Zeleny said. “There is nothing to that exact phrase…. But there are some concerns from state party officials where their money is. This comes from a joint fundraising account, the Hillary Victory Fund, it’s a joint account that she raises money for her campaign, the national party, the state party. Some of the state parties have not seen as much money as they thought they would. Bernie Sanders could be raising money like this as well. He’s decided not to do this. This is just the beginning of this here. Some state parties want their money so they can use it for their own local races.”
Does it all go back to what happened in a 2015 Democratic Party deal and the controversial clout of the “Super Delegates,” per Kidder?
“In August 2015, at the Democratic Party convention in Minneapolis, 33 democratic state parties made deals with the Hillary Clinton campaign and a joint fundraising entity called The Hillary Victory Fund. The deal allowed many of her core billionaire and inner circle individual donors to run the maximum amounts of money allowed through those state parties to the Hillary Victory Fund in New York and the DNC in Washington.”
And what of the Super Delegates?
“The Super Delegates now defying democracy with their insistent refusal to change their votes to Sanders in spite of a handful of overwhelming Clinton primary losses in their own states, were arguably part of that deal.”
— Emil Medellin (@medellinemil) September 26, 2016
The Hillary Victory Fund is administered by Elizabeth Jones, per the FEC information. Kidder states that Elizabeth Jones also is Chief Operating Officer for Hillary Clinton’s campaign.
“Ms. Jones has the exclusive right to decide when transfers of money to and from the Hillary Victory Fund would be made to the state parties.”
A reasonable person might believe there are serious problems regarding the 2016 election year noise on the Hillary Victory Fund and the rise of the super delegates.
[Featured Image by Matt Rourke/AP Images]