Presidential Candidate Hillary Rodham Clinton - Primary PAC Investigation
August: 1, 2, 4, 5, 6, 7, 9, 11, 25, 27, 29, 30, 31
September: 1, 2, 3, 6 7, 8, 9, 10, Close
Let’s start with PAC Investigations related to the campaign of Hillary Rodham Clinton in a gross PAC overview.
First, Senator Clinton has 8 PAC entries donating AGAINST her as a candidate. Four donations each from the Illinois Republican Party, and 4 from the Michigan Republican Party - pretty self-explanatory. No need to investigate anything there. Senator Clinton also has many PAC contributions to support her are well, including some "winners" such as:
ANHEUSER-BUSCH COMPANIES INC. POLITICAL ACTION COMMITTEE (Senator - drink much?)
HARRAH’S ENTERTAINMENT INC. IMPACTS PUBLIC POLICY (Senator - gamble much?)
MARIJUANA POLICY PROJECT MEDICAL MARIJUANA PAC OR MPP MEDICAL MARIJUANA PAC (Senator - are you in medical need?)
…and a personal favorite as we are all encountering an increasing percentage of late flights, the…
ASSOCIATION OF PROFESSIONAL FLIGHT ATTENDANTS (APFA PAC) POLITICAL ACTION COMMITTEE
In addition to these are several legal-profession related PACs (can you really trust an attorney?), financial, and mercantile- exchange PACs. There are also some indecipherable PACs such as Emily’s List (huh?), Help Elect America’s Team (we play sports at the Whitehouse now?), and Excelsior Committee. Certain PAC namings are cryptic at best - they do not provide you a clue as to the intent or origination of the PAC contributors, which smacks of dirty laundry. PACs with names like the "Good Government Fund", or "Building a Majority" sounds as clean as mud. We will pick up our investigation tomorrow, and work backwards from the cryptic PACs to the standard industry classification PACs. Go to Top of Page
Today, I started digging into a single PAC - PAPPAS TELECASTING COMPANIES POLITICAL ACTION COMMITTEE. There are several areas of listings within the FEC page regarding PACs. These are:
- Contributions Received By This Candidate’s Committees
- Committees And Candidates Supported/Opposed
- Individuals Who Gave To This Committee
At a cursory glance, I didn’t find any improprieties. No-one donated over the alloted limit ($4,600 per person, per calendar year).
I then moved to the PAC titled - HILLARY CLINTON FOR PRESIDENT EXPLORATORY COMMITTEE, INC., to search under the section of individuals who gave section. Huge amount of individual contributions (33,199 entries are available). Segmented by alpha (first letter of the last name), and the site is restricted in size, there were multiple pages for "A" (3) and I was only able to look at 1,260 contribution records (500 per page is the max). I copied the entries, transferred to a spreadsheet program, and organized/sorted the data looking for multiple contributions made by the same individual, which may have exceeded the $4,600 limit. Some were found, but were later offset by a section titled "Contribution Refund to an Individual". There were 11 cases of a refund in the "A" section. Of this, there were 3 curious entries.
- Frances A. was refunded $500, on two separate dates. The interesting point of these entries is he only donated $500 originally, and violated no rules. In other words, Senator Clinton’s personnel refunded $500 too much. She better consider firing the person in accounting that made that mistake. I would hope, if elected President, funding would be better managed than this.
- James A. made two contributions on the same day - each for $2,300 ($4,600 total - the maximum allowed). Two months later, James A. was refunded $2,300 twice on the same day. So while he was refunded the exact amount he donated (nothing wrong with that financially), it is curious as to why. Did Senator Clinton or someone on her staff tick this individual right-off and he demanded his money back? A bit cheeky.
- There is a section titled "CONTRIBUTIONS FROM AN INDIVIDUAL EARMARKED THROUGH ANOTHER COMMITTEE". No idea what that means, so I’ll have to investigate on a later date.
It’s taking a bit of time with the multiple twists and turns of the PAC databases which reference, cross-reference, and backtracks among the multiple databases in Federal conglomerate. But, an interesting fact has arisen via a database titled "Federal Contractor Misconduct Database". Number one on the list is Lockheed Martin with 40 instances of misconduct since 1995. There are no details found (yet) on the types of misconduct as that is outside the scope of this review (to focus on candidates and potential improprieties). It was VERY interesting to note that Lockheed Martin didn’t get involved with establishment and contributions via their PAC, until AFTER they started getting busted for contractor misconduct. You have some L-M bigwigs donating to this PAC - President of Missles and Fire Control Group, a Vice-President (VP) in Finance, a VP for contracts, a VP of Strategic Planning, a VP of Research Engineering, and more. Hmm. Think they have a vested interest, or this is total on the up-and-up? I’ll give you 3 guesses and the first 2 don’t count! An interesting find, but this will be put on the shelf to pursue later, as nothing is seen that points directly to Presidential Campaign funding…at least not yet. Go to Top of Page
For individual contributions, we have reached the donators with last names beginning with "C". Over eight-thousand records to date and over $100,000 in refunds due to "over contributors". There are a couple of interesting things to note.
- The FEC doesn’t keep up with scanning/posting the required records for the details to research (convenient?).
- There have been found several violations of the law which states the maximum contribution of one person to one candidate is $4600. In all cases found to date there were refunds given to rectify the situation. But with the time-value of money and a smart investor….you could pool the money keep it for a month or two (in majority of cases refunds have been provided from 4-6 weeks) and make some decent change with the interest.
- The accounting people handling the money for the Hillary PAC are either incompetent, inept, or conveniently disorganized.
But with that said, there was a good find today. We have a notable attorney in Chicago, IL area that made several donations to Hillary (and other primary camps throughout the years). He has been VERY active in political contributions and is just-shy of the 6-figure mark. Now being as active as he has in the political contribution scene AND an attorney, you’d think he’d know the ins/outs of the contribution ceiling. Apparently, not, as he "mistakenly" donated TWICE the ceiling amount; now how could that be? Hillary’s crew had the extra amount for one-month before the refund. Hey, it all adds up folks.
But speaking of adding up, take a quick glimpse at his political contribution "career" over the years (active since 2000 in the records I have found). He has the full amount donated to Jr. Senator and Presidential wannabe Hillary Rodham Clinton. On the other side, he has donated 1/2 that amount ($2300) to Barack Obama. Now that is in ‘07, and it looks like he is betting on the horses (a 1,2 place finish, but still not sure so covering the odds).
This person is a tried-and-true Democrat supporter. In ‘06 he donated $25,000 to the DEMOCRATIC CONGRESSIONAL CAMPAIGN COMMITTEE (D). Remember, $4600 is the limit per person, but the loophole in the law allows him to donate as much as he wants to a PAC (such as the congressional campaign committee) who can then throw more money at the same time with no legal ramifications). He has been active mostly in primaries, although has donated a couple of times to the general funds. This person feels he is a mover and a shaker and has a need to feel he can influence candidates via dollar$. This is a notable donator, and it will be worth reviewing this character in terms of contract awards or other government interactions.
On a closing note for this day, another case was found where 100% of the contributed money was retuned to the donator. This was the owner of a Printing Company who donated twice the limit ($9200) on the same day, and received 1/2 back the following month and the balance was returned the second month after the initial contribution. How’s that - make any sense? It does if the committee or someone upset the individual! Hmm. Go to Top of Page
Plowed through and reviewed an approximate 2,000 contributors for last names beginning with D and E. The most notable items are:
- Three cases where contributors had refunds issued to them, none of which exceeded the legal limit, but for some reason two refund checks were issued on the same day, vs for the full amount on one check. Checking balance issue?
- A NYC Board of Education person had their full contribution amount refunded to them. Hmm… Hillary upsetting the BOE? I thought she supported education. Maybe education doesn’t support her as much as she thought.
- A husband/wife or brother/sister team (same last name, same address) donated the same amounts on two contributions) on two different dates (one person, one date). Odd that the exact same amounts were made in two separate contributions on the same but unique days. Even stranger - both people were issued two refunds apiece, mimicking the same amounts, on the same date, almost 3 months later, for exactly 1/2 of the total contribution. This involved an attorney and an magazine editor of a high-end travel publication. Go to Top of Page
Last names ending in Fs today. Scandalous, shocking, or stupid? You decide, but here are the findings.
Of 1,447 records, there were 11 refunds. With these findings, I want to change my last name to something that starts with "F". Why? Somebody on the Senatory Clinton team is GIVING AWAY FREE MONEY! There were 2 cases where refunds were provided, but the individuals have NO record of making ANY contributions. $5,500 of free money? Yea, I’ll wait in that line! More intriguing - the person with the maximum allowed refund had the same first and last name. Now it wouldn’t be the first time some parent that lacks imagination or thinks an identical first/last name would be cute…but it isn’t common. Someone tipping their hand into the cookie jar to cover expenses that aren’t exactly on the up-and-up and covering it up with a refund to an imaginary friend? Too early to tell, but this is CLEARLY a violation of contribution law. Morals, ethics - anyone?
F’s also had some pretty stupid CEOs (1 from a highly successful and known advertising agency, 1-hotel industry, 1-very well known financial institution) in the fray donating TWICE the maximum limit allowed under the law…to be refunded 1 to 2 months later. Go to Top of Page
G contributors - More ignorant contributors with high flying job titles. You’d think these people would know the law and maximum contribution amounts - these are leaders of corporate America? A total of fourteen cases of refunds with a total of $29,550. Read and be amazed at the titles/roles of the violators who received refunds:
- A Sr VP of a reputable financial institution donated $9200 dollars (twice the max) on the same day in 3 installments, and received a refund a full 8 weeks later (duh!).
- An CEO of a known investment firm donates 2, $2300 amounts on same day and 1 month later contriubtes another $4600 (he maxed-out the first day), and is another victim that had to wait 2 months until he received a refund.
- A PhD AND a business owner donates 3 times (2 @ $2300, 1 @ $4600) all on the same day. His wait-period for a refund check was 6 weeks.
- A business owner donates 2 times for $2300 on the same day (reaching the legal limit of $4600) and then donates another $4600 2 weeks later. This refund also took 6 weeks.
- An Attorney who must have changed legal firms between the first and second set of donations (2 checks written for $2300 on each date) - perhaps trying to make an impression on the new legal firm; refund wait, 1 month later.
- Another Attorney, not as generous, donates $1000 and another $1000 5 days later, then apparently requested a refund, and waits 8 weeks. Must not have been so pleased with what he saw, as he was no-where near the legal limit.
- A sculpter donates twice on same day for a total of $5000, and one month later receives a refund for $400.
- A retired Texan (where everyone is rich and everything is big) donates twice on same day for a total of $4200. Then, 6 weeks later, donates another $400 (reaches limit) and 2 days after that donates another $400. Refund got in the mail 6 weeks later.
- A Bank Real Estate individual donates $2300 then gets a full rebate 1 month later. Hmm. Cheeky or upset?
- In addition to those above, there were three cases where money was refunded, but no initial contribution was found. Total amount was negligible at best ($100, $25, $25; $150 total). Must be nice to have free "gifts" of money.
Now readers, don’t you feel smart with all those high-ranking, visible, professional, educated individuals acting so silly? They don’t seem to grasp the important concept of the time-value of money. Go to Top of Page
H section of contributors - 1856 contributors, with 13 refunds, and the refund total was $24,475 for an average refund of $1882.7. We hit the jackpot again, finding no records of a contribution from an individual that lives in California that received a maximum refund (as a reminder for the reader, this is restricted by law to $4600). Refund does not show the occupation of the individual, but the refund went to someone of middle-eastern descent. Second individual living or working in Maryland made 3 contributions on the same day totaling $9200, with a refund of $4600 6 weeks later. An Asset Manager of an investment management firm that accepts new clients with a minimum of $1million to invest, contributed $4600 in 2 payments of $2300 on the same day, and 2 days later contributes $4600 in one installment for a total of $9200. A refund of $4600 was issued 1 month later.
Then found are individuals who must feel that they have donated too much (typically requesting a refund of 1/2 of what was initially donated), while waiting anywhere from 4 to 8 weeks for a refund. Let me manage your money for you and I’ll only charge a measly 2% as a management fee!
For those that may be wondering what will be done with the discoveries of contribution refund inconsistencies, incomplete records, and other "curious/random" findings that appear suspect; these will be reported to the correct authorities with a request of their findings.
I section - only 141 instances found, with 2 refunds to the same individual; 2 payments for the same amount of $2300. This individual lists themselves as a self-employed investor from Florida. Either the investments went bad, or either Hillary or someone in the PAC staff p_ssed them right-off. 100% refund issued.
J contributions - 608 instances found, with 1 refund to an individual who reached the maximum at the end of March, then contributed the maximum again toward the end of April, with a refund 8 weeks later. Sorry to say this was a Professor at a University. Interesting that when I tried to research his staff position with the university the individual was not listed! (Maybe dismissed for poor fund management?)
There were 5 cases where funds were labeled "contributions from an individual earmarked through another committee. I’ll have to learn more about this standing.
K contributions - 1870 contribution cases with 20 cases of refunds totaling $49060 or an avg refund of $2453. 1 instance of 3 refunds to 1 individual.
Some of the refund findings: A Professor at GW University on 3/31 made 3 donations; 1 @ $4600 (the maximum allowed), then 2 contributions of $2600 apiece. Refund of $4600 6 wks later (apparently not a smart professor). A Physician/Surgeon on 3/7 repeats what the Professor did ($4600, $2300, $2300 on the same day), and waits 8 wks later for a refund. A retired individual on 3/28 gives $4600, and two days later gives two instances of $2300 and waited 5 weeks for a refund. A second individual (same last family name too) repeats the giving of the first retired individual; same amounts, dates, zip code, and refund date…hmmm, sounds suspicious. An undefined career person in Maryland contributed $6900 (violation of contribution rules and the PAC should not have accepted this), and then $2300 all on the same day; refund of $4600 follows 2 weeks later. On 3/31 a PAC INC/PRESIDENT & COO makes 3 contributions of $4600, $2300, $2300 and receives a refund of $4600 4 wks later. On 4/19 another case of a $6900 (violation of contribution rules and the PAC should not have accepted this), and then $2300 all on the same day; refund of $4600 follows 2 weeks later. Go to Top of Page
Last names beginning with Ls: Seventeen cases of refunds totaling $23,675 or an average refund of $1393. 1 case of 4 refunds to 1 individual.
On 23 April 2007 $9200 contributed by a retiree, with a refund 2 months later for $4600 (must be nice to be able to part with $4600 for 2 months while not employed!). On 2 April, $2300 refund to someone who did not contribute - FREE MONEY!! Another individual contributed $4600 on 2 February and again 14 March with a refund 6 weeks later.
Ms = 27 cases of refunds totaling $56,424 or an avg. refund of $2090. 1 case of 3 refunds to 1 individual for a total of $6600.
There were several strange instances of donations (all legal, but required refunds), with one remaining violation. The violation involves a self-employed Philanthropist who maximizes the contribution to the legal limit at the beginning of February, then at the end of March contributes another $9200 for a total of $13,800. and gets a refund of $4600 at the end of May - this person remains over the legal contribution limit by $4600. Naughty, naughty - the Hillary Clinton for President Exploratory Committee, Inc. is in legal violation not refunding this amount. Most likely, more similar instances will be discovered the deeper the investigation gets.
Most violations of the Federal Election Campaign Act (FECA) result in civil penalties–fines arrived at through a conciliation process. Knowing and willful violations of certain FECA provisions can lead to imprisonment. The FEC has exclusive civil enforcement authority, and may refer criminal violations to the U.S. Department of Justice. Guess what is being reported…. Enjoy! Go to Top of Page
Ns - 594 contributors, and of this only 1 refund for $50 - which was provided to an individual that never contributed to the PAC. Inappropriate use of funds.
Os - 450 contributors, with a single refund record, for $25, to an individual who contributed the max of $4600. Why? No rhyme or reason, but above the board. Go to Top of Page
Ps - for individuals whose last names begin with P, there were sixteen refund entries to 8 individuals for a total of $14,648 or an average of $1831 per individual.
Something is really wrong here - Two $25 refunds to one individual who never made a single contribution. One $20 refund to an individual for whom no record of a contribution is found. Six refunds were made to a single individual name for whom no record of a contribution is found - refund sizes ranged from $10-$23 for a total of $103. On 3/31 there was an individual name recorded for whom two contributions were made for $2300 each; eleven weeks later a full refund amount of $4600 was issued and 1 week later, an additional $4600 refund was issued to the same individual; the PAC is out $4600. One refund of $25 was issued to another individual name for whom no contribution is shown. According to the records shown by the FEC, a total of $4398 was inappropriate issued in a refund by Hillary’s primary PAC. Go to Top of Page
Qs - uneventful. Seventy one entries and zero refunds
Rs - One-thousand, eight hundred and sixty two (1862) entries, with 10 refund records to 9 individuals for a total of $31,250 or an avg refund of $3472.
Within 2 days, an apparently related male/female combination contribute (between them) $23,000. One violation of excessive contribution beyond the legal limit of $4600 ($9200 provided on one date); with the refunds 4 & 8 weeks later; both the m/f are brought back to the maximum allowed amount of $4600. Still don’t understand why the PAC representatives allow individuals to contribute beyond the maximum amount, unless they are unfamiliar with the laws themselves. Go to Top of Page
S = Three-thousand, seven hundred seventy one contribution records, with 16 refund records for a total refund of $37,485, or an average refund check of $2343.
There were three questionable instances found: Two instances of refunds ($75, $10) to two names for which there is no record of a contribution. One instance of a single contribution violation (of $6900) followed by a second contribution on the same day of $2300 for a total of $9200; $4600 refunded 5 weeks later to bring the balance to the maximum allowed contribution amount of $4600.
There was one amusing contribution record with a contribution made by a self-employed Buddhist monk from Philadelphia, who contributed $1000, only to get a refund 9 weeks later.
T = 1033 contribution records, 13 refund records. Refund total was $23,055 for an average refund of $1773. One instance was discovered with a refund issued with no record of a contribution - in other words money was improperly disbursed. Total of the refund was small ($5), but it is the principle that was violated. I’m sure the FEC doesn’t look kindly on this. Again, once all contributions are researched for this primary PAC, will file a formal complaint with the findings. Go to Top of Page
U = 73 contribution records for a total of $95,025. No refunds. No surprises.
V = 411 contribution records for a total of $556,349. Two refund records found worth a total of $4798.
Two issues found: One contributor provided (all on the same day) $9200 in contributions (FEC violation), and it took them 5 weeks to get this straightened out by issuing a refund of $4600 5 weeks later. One individual was provided a refund of $198, but there is no FEC record of any contribution; disbursement of funds - illegal in this case? Umm - yea, I would think so. Go to Top of Page
W = lots of seemingly inappropriate PAC transactions found here! But first the standard summary. 1,552 contribution records for $2.2M plus contribution total. Seventeen refund records for a total of $45,500, or an average refund of $1776.
Now the juicy stuff. Lots of issues found with inappropriate refunds provide (inappropriate definition is when a refund was provided to an individual for whom the FEC doesn’t have a contribution record for the same individual within the PAC. Doesn’t that smack of an illegal transaction?).
Inappropriate record summary: 2 instances of a $500 refund, 1 instance of a $1000 refund and 1 instance of a $4600 refund - total for inappropriate refunds = $6600. Also found multiple cases of where a person exceeded the legal contribution limit, and accepted by the PAC. Sounds like someone is dipping their hand in the cookie-jar. Naughty people.
To go out on an interesting note for the "W" section, Hillary must be pissing these people right-off: Discovered 4 refund case where the person received 100% refund of all the contributions made to Hillary Clinton’s main PAC - value of total refund? $17100, or an average of $4275 per person. Hmm. What’s that tell you? I let you draw your own conclusions.
X = pretty simple as a last name starting with X is not common. Sixteen records, no excessive contributions by any 1 individual. All seems in order. If your last name begins with X, it appears you’re "in the know" as to how much you can legally contribute to 1 candidate. Brava!
Ys were simplier yet, but with many more records - 236 in all. Only 1 refund record (for $4600) to an individual who provided a total of $9200 - different days, but all in the month of March; an LA actress from St. Elsewhere.
Zs - 366 contribution records, with 3 refunds. Nothing unusual…seems all is in order. Interesting to note that of the 3 refunds, 2 individuals apparently wanted a 100% refund. Bottom dollar contribution to Hillary in those cases = $0.
Sen. Hillary Clinton’s main candidate PAC has been fraught with many cited violations. I know all the infractions have not been caught as I am but one person conducting the research, but enough has been found to warrant an investigation request to POGO. We’ll let you know if they accept or reject. If you don’t know what the POGO is, select this "Expose Corruption" link to discover their role in the U.S. governmental world.
I will note that Hillary has been picking up more and more "Independent Expenditure Against a Candidate". Now you would expect that from some of the listings - such as the Illinois Republican Party. But in all honesty, I was a bit shocked to see SEVERAL recorded expenditures since the beginning of 2007 from a group titled the "Latino Alliance". What do Latinos have against Sen. Hillary? I’d like to know that perspective - so any readers, feel free to share your input on what the issue is with the Senator. You can leave a comment by posting to the Presidential-Race.net home page. I’d love to hear the perspective of other groups as well (African-Americans, UAW members, etc.)
Another expenditure against surprise was from the "Stop Union Political Abuse" (SUPA), which has contributed a fair amount against this candidate.
