It seems Her Imperial Majesty Hillary I, Dowager Empress of Chappaqua, was flouting the rules last election cycle. Surprise! Excerpt:
Here’s what we know. Campaign finance law is incredibly complex and infamous for its lack of clarity. As I’ve explained before, its complexity is a feature, not a bug. Major political players with the resources to hire the very few attorneys who practice campaign finance law benefit from the complexity that keeps others out. Perhaps HVF’s architects thought so too, and assumed that if no one understands what’s happening, no one would complain.
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.
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.
Democratic donors, knowing the funds would end up with Clinton’s campaign, wrote six-figure checks to influence the election — 100 times larger than allowed.
HVF bundled these megagifts 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.
It’s well established that Her Imperial Majesty doesn’t bother with rules that were, after all, written for mere peasants. Her Brobdingnagian sense of entitlement did enable her to keep a straight face while running a Presidential campaign based on the two planks “I have a vagina” and “it’s my turn, peasants!”
Still, there may be some level of justice in the world. Now even the reliably-leftist HuffPo has turned against Her Imperial Majesty. And the DNC’s machinations to hand the primary over to the Dowager Empress over the daffy old socialist from Vermont hasn’t been forgotten, either.
Here’s the interesting bit: Even as the HuffPo begs Her Imperial Majesty not to run again, nobody much seems to be considering the question of who, exactly, the Dems will run against President Trump in 2020?