Ignoring Campaign Finance Reform: Did Mike Bloomberg and the DNC Just Skirt Election Laws with His Massive Donation?

AP Photo/Patrick Semansky

(AP Photo/Patrick Semansky)

 

The party claiming to despise the influence of cash seems unbothered by their own donations.

For generations now we have endured lectures from the Democrat party about all the supposed evils attached to big-ticket donors. Everything from PACs, dark money and any other reason to demonize the GOP for supposedly being slaves to cash has been brought out over the years. All of those political tropes for some reason have not been as prominent this election cycle, curiously enough.

Seems that the Democrats have a harder time selling that messaging when they had no fewer than three billionaires running for President.

Now that hypocrisy is looming even larger as the last billionaire to bow out has transferred his election campaign war chest over to the Democratic National Committee, a total of $18 million. At one point it was believed Bloomberg would be lending his financial heft behind Joe Biden, as he has verbally endorsed the front-runner. But Bloomberg explained this was being done to streamline the effort to unseat President Trump.

“While we considered creating our own independent entity to support the nominee and hold the President accountable, this race is too important to have many competing groups with good intentions but that are not coordinated and united in strategy and execution,” Bloomberg said in a memo to DNC Chairman Tom Perez.

One thing that has not been explained — how does this sit not only with the party that bemoans big-money donors, but the Federal Election Commission. While it is commonplace for failed campaigns to relinquish remaining funds in this capacity, there is a difference with Bloomberg’s campaign. His was not a campaign backed by public support — the over $600 million he spent on his brief run was entirely self-funded. This could run up against election laws — or at least it should.

It is a more than valid question to ask why is Bloomberg limited in his giving but if he first places his money under a campaign banner it then is transformed to a legal transfer? The practice is barely different from a standard money laundering technique.

If this action is allowed to stand then it could pave the way for future big-ticket donors to sidestep the donation restrictions. Why can no other billionaires arrive with a nominal campaign, build up a trove of personal monies under the campaign, and then legally transfer its unlimited funds to the preferred party? The Democrats, in undertaking this transfer of funds, has completely undermined its decades of efforts to supposedly clean up campaign finance ‘’violations’’.

It is not difficult to factor in why the DNC is accepting this cash. They [party has been lagging behind the GOP in donations for years now. In the month of February, the DNC only managed to collect $ million in donations. In one simple transaction it just managed to triple that figure. Donation ethics be damned, when you are in a desperate fight to unseat a President via other political methods.