« Happy Anniversary, John Kerry! | Main | Horror Show »

Hillary in hot water with the FEC... again.

Well, sort of. Just consider that my MSM misleading headline of the day, phrased specifically just to get your attention.

What's actually happened is that Judicial Watch has filed a complaint (PDF) with the FEC about Elton John's fundraiser for her. Uh, sorry, Hill, that's a no-no.

Judicial Watch, the public interest group that investigates and prosecutes government corruption, announced today that it filed a formal complaint with the Federal Election Commission (FEC) related to a fundraising concert by musician Sir Elton John on behalf of Hillary Clinton's presidential campaign. Elton John, a foreign national, is prohibited by federal law, from making any contribution to a federal, state or local election campaign.

"Recent news reports suggest that Hillary Clinton and Hillary Clinton for President have accepted an in-kind contribution from a foreign national, Sir Elton John, in contravention of federal electon laws," Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton stated in an April 14 letter to the Office of the General Counsel for the FEC. "On behalf of Judicial Watch and its supporters, I hereby request that the FEC investigate this matter."

According to a press release issued by the Clinton campaign, the expressed intent of the concert was to raise funds for Hillary's campaign for president. In the release, Elton John is quoted as saying, "I'm excited to support Hillary by performing at what will be a truly memorable night."

Press reports also show that Sir Elton John, on March 17, 2008, through the Clinton campaign, sent out a mass email announcing the concert and soliciting support. The Elton John concert took place on April 9, 2008 and raised more than $2.5 million (from the sale of 5,000 tickets) for Hillary Clinton and Hillary Clinton for President.

However, according to 2 U.S.C. § 441e, "Contributions and donations by foreign nationals," it is illegal for any foreign national to "make a contribution or donation of money or other thing of value...in connection with a Federal, State or local election." The Washington Times reported March 27, 2008, that a "1981 FEC decision prohibited a foreign national artist from donating his services in connection with fundraising for a U.S. Senate campaign."

"It looks as if Elton John, a foreign national, gave a valuable, in-kind contribution to Hillary Clinton's presidential campaign, which is prohibited by law. The FEC and other authorities need to take appropriate action and investigate Hillary Clinton, her campaign, and Elton John," stated Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton.



Whoopsie.

Luckily for Hillary, the FEC will probably do absolutely nothing about this. However, it seems to me that Judicial Watch has a good point.

Hat Tip: Michelle Malkin


TrackBack

TrackBack URL for this entry:
/cgi-bin/mt-tb.cgi/29222.

Comments (28)

Which troll was it around h... (Below threshold)
SPQR:

Which troll was it around here that was sticking references to a FEC complaint against McCain into unrelated threads?

Shoot, this makes him a rol... (Below threshold)
starboardhelm:

Shoot, this makes him a role model all other law 'makers' should follow. Too many laws out there now as it is . . .

Luckily for Hillary, the... (Below threshold)
Brian:

Luckily for Hillary, the FEC will probably do absolutely nothing about this.

True, but who are you going to blame? They've done nothing about McCain's violations, which serves only to invite others to break the rules also.

If Mitch McConnell and the Republicans would just agree to an up-or-down vote for the FEC nominees, McCain and Hillary could be whooped properly.

That's right, it was Brian.... (Below threshold)
SPQR:

That's right, it was Brian. Now I remember.

And here everyone thought t... (Below threshold)
Scrapiron:

And here everyone thought the democrat controlled congress wasn't filling the FEC board seats out of spite for Boooosh. Now we know they knew thousands of election law violations would be comitted by democrats this year. Don't fill the FEC seats and they can't do one thing about the law breakers. Can't try the democrat congress and can't try the criminals. Hey, democrat-Congress-Criminal, one and the same.

You're going to call a comp... (Below threshold)
Brian:

You're going to call a comparison of an uninvestigated complaint against Hillary with an uninvestigated complaint against McCain "unrelated"? Nice little dodge you got going there.

And here everyone though... (Below threshold)
Brian:

And here everyone thought the democrat controlled congress wasn't filling the FEC board seats out of spite for Boooosh.

No, it's because of McConnell's obstruction. But he could be doing it out of spite for Boooosh, I suppose.

No, Brian, your reading com... (Below threshold)
SPQR:

No, Brian, your reading comprehension is as incompetent as ever, your insertions of your comment about McCain in other unrelated threads was what I was refering to.

I could not be refering to this thread when my comment was the first one.

Sheesh.

Oh, and Brian, the FEC inve... (Below threshold)
SPQR:

Oh, and Brian, the FEC investigation time is measured in years, so a current unfilled position on the FEC is not going to get any investigation finished before the election.

Oh, and Brian, the FEC i... (Below threshold)
Brian:

Oh, and Brian, the FEC investigation time is measured in years, so a current unfilled position on the FEC is not going to get any investigation finished before the election.

Did I say it would? Boy, talk about lack of reading comprehension....

No, it's because of M... (Below threshold)

No, it's because of McConnell's obstruction.

Brian, is this what you are talking about?

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/10/25/AR2007102502489_2.html

Yep, Hugh, that does show B... (Below threshold)
SPQR:

Yep, Hugh, that does show Brian's usual partisan spin for what it is.

obamas missing in action in... (Below threshold)
914:

obamas missing in action in His pastors church for 20 years? but present for this sham voting debacle?


Hugh, Thanks for th... (Below threshold)
LoveAmerica, Immigrant:

Hugh,
Thanks for the post. It is not surprised that Obama is involved in this sham. Brian must love Abramoff now since Obama is involved with Abramoff 's company as well.

that does show Brian's u... (Below threshold)
Brian:

that does show Brian's usual partisan spin for what it is.

Yeah, my partisan spin. Let's just forget that in 2000 the Republican majority in Congress happily allowed a controversial FEC nominee an individual vote. But now that Democrats are in charge, an individual vote is somehow prohibited by custom and precedent. Yet another case of IOKIYAR. Either that or McCain's senior moments are contagious.

Why are you still talking a... (Below threshold)
hammerdown:

Why are you still talking about Obama's religion? We all know now that he's not Muslim. His preacher is not running for president. Obama speaks, Hillary repeats and attacks and McCain copies Hillary. Then Obama answers McCains on his own turf. Sting, hustle, this can go on all summer. That old fool belongs in a retirement home.

Actually, I think it was Ad... (Below threshold)

Actually, I think it was Adrian Browne who brought up the allegation about McCain's campaign finance violations. And Brian knows that, but he's happy to take the credit.

Newer Brian: "You're going ... (Below threshold)
Drago:

Newer Brian: "You're going to call a comparison of an uninvestigated complaint against Hillary with an uninvestigated complaint against McCain "unrelated"?"

Older Brian: "True, but who are you going to blame? They've done nothing about McCain's violations,..."

Wow.

So let me see if understand Brian's point: an uninvestigated assertion made against McCain is a "violation" (apparently, no "ifs" "ands" or "buts"), but an assertion made against Barack Obama immediately creates the condition whereby we must all recognize that the assertion has yet to investigated, much less ruled a violation.

Thanks.

Very clear now.

Perfectly.

Oh, would it matter that what McCain was asserting was exactly what Howard Dean did in 2004?

Does it even matter?

Brian sure sounds bitter. He must be buying alot more guns and clinging more to his Unitarian Church.

Sir Elton John should be fo... (Below threshold)

Sir Elton John should be forbidden to enter this country for oh, say, 50 years because of his unsolicited and uninformed blather criticizing this country. And when I read news reports of the benefit - I wondered how they were going to get around this one!

Newer Brian:...Ol... (Below threshold)
Brian:

Newer Brian:...
Older Brian:...
Wow.

What the hell are you talking about? Those two quotes you took from me hardly contradict each other. It's reasonable to compare the action taken on one FEC complaint to the action taken on another, AND it's reasonable to conclude that when the FEC takes no action on one violation they encourage other violations.

So let me see if understand Brian's point:...

Wow, your "understanding" is so far from my point that I have to conclude that you pasted it into the wrong thread.

an uninvestigated assertion made against McCain is a "violation"

The head of the FEC has stated as such.

but an assertion made against Barack Obama

I never even mentioned Obama. The topic is Hillary. But assuming that's just sloppiness on your part...

we must all recognize that the assertion has yet to investigated, much less ruled a violation.

I never said that either. In fact, I referred to McCain's violation, and then said it encouraged others to break the rules also. "Break the rules" = "violation". "Also" = "like McCain". And then I said Hillary should be "whooped". Go look it up if you don't believe me.

Brian sure sounds bitter.

No, actually I'm very sympathetic. It must hurt a lot for you to pull so many statements out of your ass like that.

And Brian knows that, bu... (Below threshold)
Brian:

And Brian knows that, but he's happy to take the credit.

I did? You mean like when I never made a single reference to the "other threads" SPQR was talking about?

To quote him, your reading comprehension is as incompetent as ever. Perhaps you and Drago can compare techniques for pulling flawed conclusions out of your asses.

"I did? You mean like wh... (Below threshold)

"I did? You mean like when I never made a single reference to the "other threads" SPQR was talking about?"

Yeah, Brian. Like your denying and rebutting every other accusation categorically and in detail, but not that one notion. You had several opportunities. But you like notoriety, so it's no surprise you would leave others with the impression it was you who brought it up first because of SPQR's wrong memory.

And just to be clear, I AM referring to the other thread, just as SPQR was. You're being obtuse.

Now it's your turn to imply I'm a troll as you did here when Adrian brought it up again in another unrelated post.

Sorry for going off topic, Cassy. I won't say another word about it.

Has anyone seen the fine pr... (Below threshold)
Rance:

Has anyone seen the fine print on this one?
Did Elton foot the bill for the entire concert or did the campaign pay for the venue, the crew, the band, etc.? If so EJ could simply have performed for a fee of $1.

Brian, fear not, you lost a... (Below threshold)
SPQR:

Brian, fear not, you lost all your credibility long ago.

Rance, Elton John's services were worth more than a dollar. So he was contributing in kind regardless of the monetary cost of support. That is arguably illegal for him to do.

Yeah, Brian. Like your d... (Below threshold)
Brian:

Yeah, Brian. Like your denying and rebutting every other accusation categorically and in detail, but not that one notion.

Wow, that's a pretty lame argument, even for you. Because I didn't attempt to rebut SPQR's insult, I was therefore admitting to and taking credit for it? Let me post some things about you, and when you fail to deny something, I guess we'll all know it's true.

And just to be clear, I AM referring to the other thread, just as SPQR was. You're being obtuse.

I'm not. Since I wasn't involved in that "other thread", I just ignored it. I'm not sure why you want to drag me into accusations about a thread I had nothing to do with.

Now it's your turn to imply I'm a troll as you did here when Adrian brought it up again in another unrelated post.

That wasn't an implication, it was an outright label. I'm not sure where your fascination with dragging me into threads that I'm not involved with comes from, why you're so drawn to whatever Adrian posts, or what compels you to post off-topic insults that add nothing to a discussion. But if the label fits...

Brian, fear not, you los... (Below threshold)
Brian:

Brian, fear not, you lost all your credibility long ago.

Ha! You claim I said something I never said, then Oyster calls you out on accusing me of something I never did, and then you choose to hide behind an insult instead of responding to the facts.

And my credibility is gone, eh?

Well, yes, Brian, it is.</p... (Below threshold)
SPQR:

Well, yes, Brian, it is.

Ah, I see the problem now. ... (Below threshold)
Brian:

Ah, I see the problem now. You think "credibility" means making false statements, having poor reading comprehension, and sticking out your tongue instead of making fact-based arguments. Never mind, then. On your way.

Oh, but first you'd better deny this, lest Oyster decrees that you admit to it by your silence.




Advertisements









rightads.gif

beltwaybloggers.gif

insiderslogo.jpg

mba_blue.gif

Follow Wizbang

Follow Wizbang on FacebookFollow Wizbang on TwitterSubscribe to Wizbang feedWizbang Mobile

Contact

Send e-mail tips to us:

[email protected]

Fresh Links

Credits

Section Editor: Maggie Whitton

Editors: Jay Tea, Lorie Byrd, Kim Priestap, DJ Drummond, Michael Laprarie, Baron Von Ottomatic, Shawn Mallow, Rick, Dan Karipides, Michael Avitablile, Charlie Quidnunc, Steve Schippert

Emeritus: Paul, Mary Katherine Ham, Jim Addison, Alexander K. McClure, Cassy Fiano, Bill Jempty, John Stansbury, Rob Port

In Memorium: HughS

All original content copyright © 2003-2010 by Wizbang®, LLC. All rights reserved. Wizbang® is a registered service mark.

Powered by Movable Type Pro 4.361

Hosting by ServInt

Ratings on this site are powered by the Ajax Ratings Pro plugin for Movable Type.

Search on this site is powered by the FastSearch plugin for Movable Type.

Blogrolls on this site are powered by the MT-Blogroll.

Temporary site design is based on Cutline and Cutline for MT. Graphics by Apothegm Designs.

Author Login



Terms Of Service

DCMA Compliance Notice

Privacy Policy