Hillary Paid Herself $250,000 From Campaign Funds

[DesMoinesDem]

The campaign of Democratic presidential frontrunner Hillary Clinton has made payments totaling six figures to Clinton this election cycle, according to a review of its expenditures.

Federal campaign finance records reviewed by the Washington Free Beacon found that starting in April 2015, the month that Clinton launched her campaign, thousands in payments began flowing to the candidate. Clinton has previously claimed that she and Bill Clinton were “dead broke” when he left the White House, but the two have since amassed millions of dollars in wealth.

The first transaction from Hillary for America to Hillary Rodham Clinton came on April 13, 2015 in the amount of $74,042. This transaction was filed under ‘Payroll & Benefits’ with a separate payment of $1,488 for ‘Employee Benefits’ that same day, according to FEC filings. On April 14, just one day later, $744 went to Clinton marked as employee benefits.

...
No other candidate running for president recorded payments to themselves, FEC files show. Donald Trump reimbursed $410,000 to himself and other Trump entities for payroll expenses, rent, hotel, and restaurant bills in December, according to reports.

While it is legal for candidates to pay themselves from campaign funds, the rule was established and intended for candidates who are not well off and quit their jobs to run for political office.

Bill and Hillary Clinton are estimated to be worth over $100 million dollars combined, with Hillary’s net worth estimated around $30 million and Bill’s estimated around $80 million, according to previous reviews of financial disclosure reports.

http://freebeacon.com/politics/hillary-paid-herself-250000-from-campaign-funds/

[PatrickforO]

1. Wow. I can't believe she'd do that.

I mean, I know she's a weathervane. But this is just stupid.

[JaneyVee]

37. HOW DARE SHE!

http://freebeacon.com/politics/sanders-and-wife-steered-campaign-nonprofit-money-to-family-and-friends/

[roguevalley]

64. she has no clue how bad this looks and neither do you

Apparently.

[SCantiGOP]

143. Also, THE FREE BEACON IS RIGHT-WING CRAP.

Those are not my words in the title, they are from Skinner's post #58 below.
And, did you read the link in the post above yours? It has the same kind of false reporting about Bernie Sanders, because this is a RIGHT WING BULLSHIT SITE.

[shenmue]

177. "Although it is legal"

Read it again.

[PatrynXX]

98. there's something about crossing into 6 figures that sorta raises alarms

$90,000 tops spread across friends and family who aren't well off looks better than simply paying yourself a total of $250,000 comparing $90,000 across several people could mean $500-5000 a person. or charity. but $250,000?? do'h..

[SCantiGOP]

124. This is a Right Wing site !!

Site has no credibility at all. This crap is getting totally out of hand. People will take any kind of nonsense from any source and post it if they think they can use it to make snide, yet inaccurate, comments about Clinton or any of her supporters.
When you click the link above from that site, it takes you straight to a story saying that Sanders and his wife are steering campaign money to friends and family. Do you want to assume that is also correct?

PLEASE: check you sources before you post.

[Amimnoch]

140. IF the OP is the same site, doesn't that make it fair game?

[upperatmos]

154. Yeah, I figured someone would try to use this excuse. But look at your article, genius.

"According to Jane O’Meara Sanders, the senator’s wife, Sanders’ House campaigns paid her more than $90,000 for consulting and ad placement services from 2002 to 2004. She pocketed about $30,000 of that money.

Her daughter Carina Driscoll, Sanders’ stepdaughter, also drew a salary from the campaign. She was paid more than $65,000 between 2000 and 2004, according to her mother."

30K over two years = 15K a year. Not even minimum wage
65K over two years = 32.5K per.

What a dazzling example of empty argument.

[scscholar]

170. more wage theft

> 30K over two years = 15K a year. Not even minimum wage

$7.25/hour * 2080 hours/year = $15,080.00 / year

It's $80 less than minimum wage! How is that legal?

[magical thyme]

250. you're both assuming it was 2 full years,

or full time both years.

[Bubzer]

67. I think that's pretty standard actually.

Candidates have to make a living somehow... especially given the length of time required to campaign. I will say that $250k is pretty excessive... especially since, last I've heard, HRC doesn't pay her interns.

[AlbertCat]

100. I can't believe she'd do that.

B-b-b-but it not illegal.

It looks lousy.... like Bill just showing up with a bull horn.... but what does that mater??? Right?

[msanthrope]

329. Debunked in post 58. nt

[bvar22]

279. ...but, according to Hillary, $15/hr Minimum Wage it too much for the peasants.

That says a lot about Hillary.

[razorman]

301. No matter what else happens, "Hillary gonna get PAID!"

[Merryland]

2. once again, as if more proof were needed...

how can she possibly beg for donations with this kind of personna / attitude?

[JaneyVee]

39. HOW DARE SHE!

http://freebeacon.com/politics/sanders-and-wife-steered-campaign-nonprofit-money-to-family-and-friends/

[NWCorona]

47. And that's a valid point of criticism

Now should we bring up Bill and Chelsea and there issues? There's so much to pick from.

[polly7]

51. His wife also worked for years for no pay. Can you name a year on record that

any of the Clintons did the same?

[HillareeeHillaraah]

145. What's the salary for a First Lady?

Plenty of responsibilities, no Salary...so there's that.
So l'll say 1992-2000 Hillary drew no salary.

[polly7]

166. I didn't realize First Lady was a salaried position???

Our PM's wife gets no pay, why would she?

Jane O'Meara Sanders worked in her husband's congressional office for about six years during the 1990s, four of them as chief of staff. She did not take a salary for that work. Chiefs of staff typically earn between $120,000 and $150,000 a year.

[HillareeeHillaraah]

172. She didn't, we don't.

Re read my post and you'll see I was answering your question, name a year that any of the Clintons worked for free, as you state Jane Sanders did.

I pointed out that First Lady is not a salaried position.

Hillary Clinton worked representing the United Stayes of America as First Lady, a position with daily responsibilities, for 8 years without being paid.

1992-2000

[polly7]

181. And??? Why would she be paid, again?

Jane Sanders worked in her husband's congressional office as chief of staff - a position that should have paid.

[HillareeeHillaraah]

190. I'm lost as to your point here...

You said Jane Sanders worked for free. I said so did Hillary. No fight there, I think,

Though as a matter of principle I don't want to see any woman provide free labor. I think Jane Sanders as chief of staff should have drawn a salary. I think the role of First Lady should be a paid position. It creeps me out, as a woman, that Michelle Obama just worked for this country for 8 years and we as a nation didn't pay her a salary.

Why should women's labor be free?

[polly7]

195. My point is that Jane Sanders worked for free in an actual position that would have given

a salary to anyone else working it.

Different than being the wife of a President or Prime Minister - for which no salary is given.

I never once said women's labour should be free. I'm a woman. I believe all women should be paid - but, as of now - wives of leaders are not considered salaried employees of anyone and do not draw a salary anywhere, as far as I know. You're trying to compare Jane Sanders actual 'position' as an employee in a congressional office.

[HillareeeHillaraah]

226. You don't believe that First Lady of the United States of America in the 21st Century

Is an actual position? They are both actual positions. I question why Mrs Sanders didn't negotiate a salary for herself? That seems like a missed opportunity on her part. Our First Ladies had the constitution to contend with. Why did Jane Sanders choose to give away her labor for free?

And to suggested that all Hillary was, all Michell Obama is, are wives to presidents, well that's really disappointing to hear. Agree to disagree there.

Have a pleasant day, I'm exiting this conversation.

[polly7]

273. You have no idea what I 'believe' even though I just tried to spell out to you

in the simplest terms that I 'believe' all women should be paid for all work.

I pointed out why Jane Sanders should have received money serving in the actual position she did.

In reply to http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1251&pid=1411060

Your agenda is clear. Bye now.

[MADem]

334. I believe that Jane was prohibited from drawing a salary owing to nepotism rules.

So, there ya go. http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2013/03/18/campaign-funds-nepotism-relatives-payroll-congress/1991251/

Anti-nepotism rules prohibit Senate and House members from putting family on the government payroll, but efforts to ban using campaign money to pay spouses, children and others relatives have gained little traction — despite high-profile controversies.

She could have worked for another Congressman or Senator--just not her husband--for pay.

Scooter Libby's wife used to work for Joe Biden when he was Judiciary Committee chair.

[earthside]

115. It is not illegal for a reason ...

... as stated in the article:

" ... it is legal for candidates to pay themselves from campaign funds, the rule was established and intended for candidates who are not well off and quit their jobs to run for political office. "

The Sanders' are not multi-multi-multi-millionaires like Bill, Hill, and Chell Clinton.

What has become of the Democratic Party that the Rockefeller-Republican wing of the party, i.e., the Hillary Clinton campaign is always defending the prerogatives of the power elite, the bankers, corporatists and millionaires and billionaires?

Of course, no one is going to be surprised the Hillary is paying herself for being a candidate; she probably thinks that she is being underpaid.

[notadmblnd]

182. Please, send me money so I can pay myself for running for President.

Because out of all the millions I have in the bank, I still need more.

[Katashi_itto]

3. K&R

[thereismore]

4. Hahahahaha! You people who sent her money, now you know where it went. So sad! nt

[tomm2thumbs]

77. O U C H !! That's gonna leave a mark

[Spitfire of ATJ]

95. Actually most of it goes to polling firms as she tries to buy a clue.

[SCantiGOP]

128. read either of JaneyVee's posts above

Do you still want to hahahahaha?

[thereismore]

142. I can't do that. That poster is on ignore. nt

[SCantiGOP]

147. OK, here it is:

http://freebeacon.com/politics/sanders-and-wife-steered-campaign-nonprofit-money-to-family-and-friends

Please read it and see if you still want to give a hahaha

[thereismore]

161. Yes. He paid his campaign workers, she paid herself. Still laughing.

http://static.comicvine.com/uploads/original/11114/111144451/3910251-obama+mad.jpg

[SCantiGOP]

239. You must not have read the article

[Matariki]

222. ?

[jfern]

318. 250,000 "I'm not kidding, Maddis"

[jillan]

5. Eh - if she needs more money she'll just contact Goldman Sachs.

There is plenty more where that came from.

[Plucketeer]

216. Yes - yes...

Come Hillary. We have a 6-figure check we're offering for some more of your valuable insights.

[marew]

332. Guess which Clinton made $600,000 a year right out of college?

Chelsea!

https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/erik-wemple/wp/2014/06/13/what-did-nbc-newss-chelsea-clinton-do-for-her-600000-salary/

http://www.latimes.com/business/hiltzik/la-fi-mh-why-did-nbc-pay-chelsea-clinton-20140616-column.html

"Inspiring story of how one young woman rose from humble origins as Bill Clinton's daughter to make $600,000 at MSNBC" http://www.politico.com/story/2014/06/chelsea-clinton-nbc-600-k-salary-107827.html …

http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2014/08/chelsea-clinton-leaving-her-fake-job-at-nbc.html

And on and on...

I'm sure her parents expected NOTHING in return! Of course not! (wink, wink)

[Matariki]

6. Is that legal?

[amborin]

14. my same question

[amborin]

15. didn't Rubio do that too?

[TCJ70]

17. From the article...

While it is legal for candidates to pay themselves from campaign funds, the rule was established and intended for candidates who are not well off and quit their jobs to run for political office.

Because, ya know, she's broke and all.

[Downwinder]

21. She gave up her job as a paid speaker at Goldman.

[TCJ70]

23. I wonder what she was saying to them...

...if only there were transcripts or something...somewhere...

[BuelahWitch]

204. You'd think Bill would get up off his ass and get a job

And if she's really hit the skids, couldn't Chelsea and Hedge Fund Man pay her electric bill or somethin'?

[msanthrope]

272. OP was completely debunked by Skinner himself. You should read the thread. nt

[BuelahWitch]

286. Too much scrolling. Sorry, not sorry. n/t

[PonyUp]

43. Legal is not a word in the Clinton Dictionary. n/t

[jwirr]

151. Remember Sarah Palin bought a whole new wardrobe with

campaign money.

[democrattotheend]

314. I believe so

I remember the FEC passing some kind of rule allowing candidates to do this several years back. In theory, it is a good rule, because it enables people who could otherwise not afford to go without a salary while running for office to do so. But it seems weird that someone like Hillary would take advantage of it and risk alienating donors when she clearly doesn't need the money.

That said, from what I read below it seems like she might not have actually paid herself the money, and it might be a quirk in FEC reporting.

P.S. While I am a lawyer, this post is not intended as legal advice for anyone thinking about running for office.

[Godhumor]

7. Maybe you can link breitbart or the Blaze while you're at it

Free Beacon? Really?

[JackInGreen]

10. Refute the information or not

Whether you like the source or not, refute the info.

[Wilms]

11. How about the FEC?

Right to the source.

http://www.fec.gov/fecviewer/CandidateCommitteeDetail.do?candidateCommitteeId=C00575795&tabIndex=1

[Jarqui]

18. That's a tough messenger to shoot!! Well played. :) nt

[Wilms]

22. The poster was a sitting duck.

The link was right in the article.

It's dispiriting to see how the Hillarians constantly give serious issues the

But then, Hillary seems no different.

[NWCorona]

49. Well played indeed!

[Godhumor]

219. Too bad they missed. Terribly

But glad I'm a tough messenger Thanks for that, truly.

[Godhumor]

63. Sure, right to the source.

See, I went and looked at the fillings behind every single one of those payments.

...I assume you can figure out what payment in kind means?

Because sources matter, and Free Beacon is playing really loose with the facts.

[CoffeeCat]

45. Yes it's true

Congratulations. You've just spotlighted why her "dishonest and untrustworthy" ratings are at 69 percent.

Disdain for her craven dishonesty cuts across all political spectrums--Democrat and Republican.

[Herman4747]

46. Data in the article comes from the Federal Election Commission

Going to the FEC website we see:



This last picture is just from one page of the appropriate webpages; payments to Hillary continue to next page.

[Logical]

8. Remember, she was in poverty when she left the white house! Give her a break! Nt

[PonyUp]

48. Destitute, I tell ya.

[yallerdawg]

85. Kee-Ryst!

Never a break!

Husband impeached. Damaged goods. Legal bills out the wazoo. Leaving the paying job. More lawsuits pending. An uncertain future. A moment of honest doubt.

But no.

It's Hillary.

[PonyUp]

126. Uncertain future? LMAO. What will the Clinton family do being out of work with millions of dollars?

[NWCorona]

60. I will never say the Clinton's were broke. That would be a slap to all the hard working Americans

Who struggle month to month. That said, the Clinton's were ruined financially due to legal bills. I also think it was that situation that ultimately pushed the Clinton's down this road.

The fact that they are extremely wealthy now and still felt the need to do this is both sad and telling.

[roguevalley]

65. ruined by bill. no sympathy there

[NWCorona]

69. That really isn't the point I'm making.

No passes given to Bill either after he lied to my face.

[Ivan Kaputski]

108. So poor that she left the white house with a few white house items to pawn.

[840high]

269. I know - I felt so sorry for her.

[HooptieWagon]

9. It seems running for Prez pays better than Goldman/Sachs speeches.

[Ivan Kaputski]

110. SNAP!

[NWCorona]

12. What is it with the Clinton's and pushing loopholes to the limit?

"While it is legal for candidates to pay themselves from campaign funds, the rule was established and intended for candidates who are not well off and quit their jobs to run for political office. "

[Merryland]

27. greed & arrogance.

[NWCorona]

35. Exactly! They are in it for themselves

[TCJ70]

13. It never ends...

...why would anyone support her?

[TexasMommaWithAHat]

16. And Palin couldn't accept a new wardrobe?

A wardrobe the hillbilly from Wasilly desperately needed?

Maybe Clinton needed new clothes. Two hundred fifty thousand dollars would about do it.

[Lizzie Poppet]

19. Aaaand look at all the "poisoning the well" tomfoolery that's followed your OP!

Fucking priceless: there is, apparently, nothing sufficiently sleazy and unprincipled enough to get some of Hillary's acolytes to question her.

[global1]

20. My Lady Friend Gets Two Or Three Solicitation E-Mails A Day From The Clinton Campaign For $'s....

from Chelsea, Bill, other endorsers and Hillary herself. Sometimes they just ask to be sent just $1.00. Now we know where some of those $1.00 go.

[Merryland]

30. I think they ask for $1 to claim more individual donations

because Bernie's emphasized his ability to get small donations from millions of people

[BernieforPres2016]

72. A bunch of $1 contributions will drag down their average contribution

One $2700 contribution + one hundred $1 contributions = 101 contributions at an average of $27.72 = a way to obscure the large contributors and claim we're a campaign driven by small donations.

[BernieforPres2016]

73. She's giving her contributors a big discount

She made almost that much from Goldman Sachs in an hour.

[jwirr]

169. Bingo.

[fleur-de-lisa]

24. Jury voted 3-4 to LEAVE IT.

On Fri Mar 4, 2016, 09:56 AM an alert was sent on the following post:

Hillary Paid Herself $250,000 From Campaign Funds
http://www.democraticunderground.com/12511410802

REASON FOR ALERT

This post is disruptive, hurtful, rude, insensitive, over-the-top, or otherwise inappropriate.

ALERTER'S COMMENTS

Using a right-wing publication, the Washington Free Beacon, to attack either of our candidates shouldn't be acceptable at DU. Please hide to show that we have standards.

You served on a randomly-selected Jury of DU members which reviewed this post. The review was completed at Fri Mar 4, 2016, 09:58 AM, and the Jury voted 3-4 to LEAVE IT.

Juror #1 voted to HIDE IT
Explanation: Right-wing source.
Juror #2 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: I think you should discuss the merits of the accusation rather than simply alerting because you don't like the source. This is rather lazy, in my opinion.
Juror #3 voted to HIDE IT
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #4 voted to HIDE IT
Explanation: This post is RW nonsense and has no place on DU.
Juror #5 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #6 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #7 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: Truth is truth. If this was not true, then the alerter would have a point.

Thank you very much for participating in our Jury system, and we hope you will be able to participate again in the future.

[NWCorona]

41. Someone doesn't want the truth out

Thank you for adding this bit of perspective.

[tomm2thumbs]

75. Embarrassing and enlightening at the same time

I would add 'self-serving', but I don't think she'd lift a finger to serve herself, she has to be spoon-fed

[elljay]

99. Disturbing

That jurors voted to hide this purely based on the source, rather than the veracity of the information. Right wing and disreputable sources require more fact-checking, but that doesn't mean all their info is untrue. Remember that The National Enquirer broke the John Edwards story and Larry Flynt the affair that caused Rep. Bob Livingston to resign as speaker.

[Ino]

117. One of my pet peeves too...

The truth is the truth no matter who reports it!

[fleur-de-lisa]

139. Jury voted to leave it.

[elljay]

153. I know

Was referring to the 2 or 3 jurors who voted to hide it based on the source.

[Ivan Kaputski]

113. This would never happen in Russia.

[thereismore]

122. What the actual fuck. Somebody has a hurt. Sorry, alerter, that you gave her money. nt

[MineralMan]

138. I was juror #1.

As Skinner points out downthread, this refers to Clinton's self-contributions, not money paid to her. This right-wing source has deceived everyone, which is not surprising. Right-wing sources do that all the time.

In fact, the OP is incorrect. The jury had a chance to hide this, due to the source, but did not.

[thesquanderer]

25. She must have given herself a speech. (n/t)

[Merryland]

31. thanks - first laugh of the day.

[NWCorona]

42. +2!

On that note is Bill gonna get a check too? You can't make this stuff up!

[PonyUp]

50. LOL. Good one. n/t

[Ivan Kaputski]

114. DUzy

[Jitter65]

26. Oh, wow! More irrelevant s _ _T looking for a wall. nt

[PoliticAverse]

28. That's peanuts, it's only pay for one-hour's work...

at an Investment Bank like say, Goldman Sachs.

[closeupready]

29. Disgusting. She's in this for HERSELF.

[Downwinder]

33. A girl has to have some spending money.

[JaneyVee]

40. HOW DARE SHE!

http://freebeacon.com/politics/sanders-and-wife-steered-campaign-nonprofit-money-to-family-and-friends/

[Downwinder]

74. You are repeating yourself.

[Agschmid]

121. Nothing wrong with that...

[TM99]

137. It is when it is a false equivalency and

a lie.

These records show that Clinton paid herself. Those records show that Sanders paid his wife and daughter who were employees of the campaign. He did NOT pay himself.

And while it is not illegal for her to do so, it does push the boundaries. But hey you Clinton supporters seem to appreciate the inappropriate boundaries, the unethical behaviors, and the borderline illegal acts. Oh, and I forgot how much you now support and love a rat-fucker like Brock.

[Agschmid]

141. Man that last line is a bit over the top...

So are you aware of accounting principles known as "in kind donations"?

[TM99]

267. Well aware.

Not illegal but unethical as the article clearly states.

No, that line is not. If you support Clinton, you support David Brock. He is the shadow behind the throne so to speak. All rat-fucking smears, baseless attacks, and outright lies that he pushes through his efforts online and in the media are supported and never disavowed by Clinton or her supporters.

Live with your choice.

[NCTraveler]

194. You are not educated on that which you are speaking.

That is as kind as I can put it.

[kydo]

32. Isn't Freebeacon a frepper site?

Why the need to spread right wing talking points? I thought this was DU not frepper land.

[still_one]

34. Joe Schoffstall, a rightwing asshole, with an article in a right wing paper.

The last few days on DU have caused me to seriously reconsider a lot of things if Sanders wins the nomination.

[magical thyme]

52. are you suggesting they made up the FEC filings? Or it doesn't matter because the MSM didn't report

it?

[noamnety]

57. biased news sources are only allowed

If Hillary's family owns them or takes contributions from them.

[SidDithers]

36. Oh look, Clinton bashing from the Washington Free Beacon...

any port in a storm, eh?

Sid

[NurseJackie]

55. Hillary must be doing better than we realized! :-D

Go, Hillary! We love you!

[SidDithers]

88. And yet the poster chose to link to the Washington Free Beacon...

Any port in a storm.

Sid

[GeorgeGist]

89. You can't expect the FEC to do it ... but you can do it yourself.

CLINTON, HILLARY RODHAM PAYROLL & BENEFITS NEW YORK NY 10185 11/14/2015 $16,534.00
CLINTON, HILLARY RODHAM PAYROLL & BENEFITS NEW YORK NY 10185 11/28/2015 $16,277.00
CLINTON, HILLARY RODHAM PAYROLL & BENEFITS NEW YORK NY 10185 12/12/2015 $42,032.00
CLINTON, HILLARY RODHAM PAYROLL & BENEFITS NEW YORK NY 10185 12/26/2015 $14,482.00
CLINTON, HILLARY RODHAM PAYROLL & BENEFITS NEW YORK NY 10185 1/29/2016 $24,546.00
CLINTON, HILLARY RODHAM PAYROLL & BENEFITS NEW YORK NY 10185 1/9/2016 $32,451.00
CLINTON, HILLARY RODHAM PAYROLL & BENEFITS NEW YORK NY 10185 1/23/2016 $31,881.00
CLINTON, HILLARY RODHAM EMPLOYEE BENEFITS NEW YORK NY 10185 4/14/2015 $744.00
CLINTON, HILLARY RODHAM EMPLOYEE BENEFITS NEW YORK NY 10185 4/13/2015 $1,488.00
CLINTON, HILLARY RODHAM PAYROLL & BENEFITS NEW YORK NY 10185 4/13/2015 $74,042.00

TOTAL $254,477.00

http://www.fec.gov/fecviewer/CandCmteTransaction.do

[SidDithers]

90. How can you even post that after reading Skinner's post #58?...

Sid

[okasha]

270. Because it doesn't matter to the poster that it's a lie.

[noamnety]

38. No wonder she was bullying Maddi for that dollar!

Can you imagine being someone with a low to middle class income and being suckered into donating, only to find out you just contributed to a quarter million dollar payout straight into the pocket of a couple with $100 million net worth?

[Autumn]

56. Found the link I'm not kidding Maddie

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/hillary-clinton/12150600/ImNotKiddingMaddi-trends-after-Hillary-Clinton-sends-email-asking-for-a-dollar-after-New-Hampshire-vote.html

[Autumn]

44. Maddie now we know why she needed that dollar

[CoffeeCat]

53. I'm not kidding Maddie!!

Mama needs a new pantsuit!!

[polly7]

54. LOL

[Skinner]

58. This is a quirk of FEC reporting.

Hillary Clinton was not actually paid this money.

Take for example, the $74,042 payment on April 13,2015. The $74,042 payment is marked as an in-kind contribution on the FEC report.

An in-kind contribution is when a person gives something of value to a campaign that is not a payment to the campaign.

In-kind contributions are reported to the FEC as both receipts and expenditures. This makes no sense, I know, but there is a reason. This is done so that the bank statement of the campaign matches their record of donations and expenses.

So when a candidate gets an in-kind contribution a dollar value is recorded as a receipt. To make the cash-on-hand ledger correct, that dollar value must also be entered as an expense so people aren't left wondering where the money went.

If anyone cares to check the actual FEC report, you will find the in-kind contribution listed in two places, as a receipt and as an expense. In both places you will find that the entry is marked as in-kind.

TL;DR -- This is an in-kind contribution from Hillary to her own campaign. She was never paid back for it.

Also, THE FREE BEACON IS RIGHT-WING CRAP.

[Herman4747]

68. Alright, Your FINE EXPLANATION is most satisfactory...

Hillary's off the hook, for now at least.

[sufrommich]

70. And yet you allow it to persist.

This isn't the first time Sanders supporters have gone scurrying to right wing sites looking for shit to fling. I hope you at least make them shower before they come back in.

[Herman4747]

76. NOT EVERYONE HAS TRAINING IN ACCOUNTING...

...and a cursory look at the relevant FEC webpages would suggest that Hillary is paying herself.

[sufrommich]

78. Maybe your first clue should have been the source used.nt

[Herman4747]

80. I personally wasn't willing to accept the right-wing rag...

...however I did go to the FEC website, and lacking Skinner's knowledge of accounting quirks, I was mislead.

[Agschmid]

107. It happens fast and the right wing has been doing it for years.

[Agschmid]

105. Yup.

[PeaceNikki]

79. Just remember the Rude Pundit's wise words.

"...if you declare you despise the other candidate, you should ask who you're believing, especially when it comes to Clinton. You might be laying down in a bed of slime." ~The Rude Pundit

Just remember that every time you read a smear of HRC. You should vet your sources.

[Herman4747]

82. Look, I did go the FEC website!

I didn't accept the right-wing source straight away!
Lacking knowledge of accounting quirks, i was misled.

[Herman4747]

84. EVERYONE, I RECOMMEND THAT YOU SEE SKINNER'S FINE POST, #58! n/t

[MineralMan]

133. Replied to wrong post.

Sorry.

[Hortensis]

225. Yes, and might raise an eyebrow at obviously phony claims.

There is 0 chance that Hillary Clinton would be slipping some sweet old lady's $5 donation in her own pocket, or 50,000 of them. One doesn't need a degree in accounting for that to send the eyebrows heading for the hairline, just a little honesty and a little intelligence.

[Wilms]

83. You should alert on him. n/t

[obamanut2012]

255. +1!!!

[Agnosticsherbet]

87. Thanks for this.

[Gothmog]

91. I am the treasurer for a Texas GPAC and two candidates

Accounting for in-kind contributions is a pain in the butt. The analysis from Skinner does a good job of explaining a complex concept.

[Agschmid]

101. Oh you mean "accounting".

We have sunk so low, what a bullshit story from a bullshit source and yet here it is.

[NWCorona]

118. Thanks for the insight on this. Is this a common issues

Within campaigns?

[MineralMan]

127. Thanks, Skinner.

I did not know that, actually.

[noamnety]

144. Is there anyway to determine what the "in kind" contribution was?

I was trying to google examples and came across this - where it looks like they are generally frowned upon. http://www.campaignsandelections.com/campaign-insider/320/4-reasons-to-shun-in-kind-contributions

But I might easily change my mind if there was some transparency about what the contributions actually were.

[Skinner]

149. What on earth is there to change your mind about?

The OP is false. Period.

Hillary did not get paid from her campaign. She made an in-kind contribution to her own campaign.

[hamsterjill]

164. Thank you for this reply!

Skinner, thank you for stepping up and setting the record straight.

We need factual discussion on DU; not postings like what we all see on Facebook, etc. where "if it's on the internet it must be true". I appreciate you standing up and stating unequivocally that this is false, and I hope to see you doing this more often regardless of which candidate is being maligned.

We need facts, truth and legitimate ideas discussed on DU. We don't need the perpetuation of character assassinations, lies and mudslinging.

[noamnety]

165. I was trying to understand

what she contributed to the campaign that could have been reasonably assessed at a quarter of a million dollars, but if that's not something that's available, that's fine. It's just confusing to me and I'm trying to figure out if there's a tax write off in it - like "we loaned the use of the house we already own for a campaign dinner" and now they get to write it off as a donation of the space or what. That's why I said there might be some explanation that makes me say "oh, yeah, I get it" in a more direct and accessible way than "it's accounting stuff."

[Kensan]

264. To answer your question...

First, Internal Revenue Code Section 6113 denies a tax deduction for contributions to political organizations. So no, Hillary is not receiving a tax deduction for this.

Second, as Skinner explained, she is not actually being reimbursed at all. Effectively this is similar to calling it an out-of-pocket expense. The value of the services/items must be included in the campaign's revenue (but it never received actual cash). An offsetting "cost" is recorded to show the use of said items/services.

Third, and slightly off-topic...SuperPAC's are total pieces of garbage, since they are intentionally created under a separate classification and call themselves social welfare organizations used for "educational" purposes. These are treated as charitable organizations with full tax benefits to donors. It's why the IRS got in so much trouble when it started to scrutinize (justifiably) the flood of Tea Party 504(c)(4) organizations that popped up all at once. We all know they are effectively used as propaganda arms of various campaigns. We just pretend there's no actual coordination between the campaign and the SuperPAC.

This is the part of Bernie's platform that needs to live on if he doesn't become the nominee. The unlimited money only contributes to a corrosive environment, and just provides funding for additional tv/radio ads that spread distortions or outright lies to the masses. As we can see here at DU, even folks that follow politics on a regular basis jump on bandwagon posts decrying some fabricated issue by an opposing candidate.

[Bubzer]

208. "The OP is false. Period." - Why? Because you say so?

You're asked "Is there anyway to determine what the "in kind" contribution was?", and your response is: "The OP is false. Period."?

Sorry, no. Your word is not proof enough that it is so... particularly with that kind of response to someone who's very obviously trying to reach out and understand.

[tomm2thumbs]

212. I'm wondering also what a quarter of a million 'in kind' looks like

and why there was not a straight-forward loan

[Skinner]

258. My point is that the OP is false no matter what the in-kind contribution was.

It doesn't matter if Hillary gave her campaign a quarter million dollars in cupcakes -- the OP would still be wrong.

As it happens, the FEC report actually includes explanations for each of the in-kind donations. Some are office supplies, rent, payroll and benefits, etc.

But even if they were for something else, the fact remains that these are donations FROM Hillary TO her campaign. Not the other way around.

[Bubzer]

281. My issue was this: You could have easily posted a link at a request instead of stone-walling.

As has been made clear, not everyone understands the intricacies of the FEC.

[onenote]

315. But people who don't understand the intricacies of the FEC

seem to have no problem in reaching their own uniformed conclusions based on an article from a RW site.

Curious, that.

[Bubzer]

316. The inoculant to disinformation is fact. No one benefits by refusing to share facts.

Best way to get people to stop using RW sites is to point out flaws in the information provided by the source... generally with something more than a nu-uh. Especially important when almost all news sources are right wing.

An unchallenged lie becomes accepted truth.

[onenote]

319. True. But engaging in some due diligence before buying into something from a rw site

is generally a smart idea rather than going all rah-rah (not referring to you, just some other posters in this thread).

[Bubzer]

320. I do agree.

I tend to think of this as a bit of yin and yang. We need more due diligence when checking sources (and of course, we all should be dubious of RW sources), but we also need to recognize we're only human and make mistakes.

Even well intentioned people can get misled by bad info (I've been guilty of that once or twice and had to take down a few OPs... much to my chagrin). We have to be ready to point out bad info as well.

So, perhaps in this case, a little more of both supported rebuttal and more due diligence was needed (the rebuttal came...but it could have come quicker).

In the end, I think the poster seemed to acknowledge that he didn't have all the facts... AND, people may have learned a bit more about the FEC. I certainly did.

[onenote]

321. I think the better thing would have been for the OP, after acknowledging the article was misleading,

to delete the post and kill the thread.

[Bubzer]

323. Can't argue with that. It takes strength to admit being wrong... so there's cetainly no harm in it.

That kind of admission, and corrective action, can even garner respect, on occasion.

[MADem]

268. Why don't you try READING the post--it explains it all, quite simply, too.

Shouldn't be hard to understand if you simply apply yourself. smh.

[Loki]

217. Welcome to our world Skinner.

Truth has no meaning for the Bernistas.

[obamanut2012]

256. HAHAHA BEAT ME TO IT

Was going to post the same thing.

[tomm2thumbs]

210. your link was interesting

has someone noted what the 'in kind' items were so we can see actual value

a quarter of a million dollars is a lot of 'in kind' and I think the question of what items added up to that amount are fair

[George II]

155. Thanks. I didn't even get into the guts of the report to see that, since this essentially....

....is a non-issue.

Campaign finance disclosure reports are full of things that neophytes would take as improper, illegal, or unethical.

The fact is if anyone here cared, they could find similar types of line items in any campaign's reports.

[SunSeeker]

168. Thank you, Skinner!

[silvershadow]

184. To be fair, I didn't hear about tit on Free Beacon (whatever that is). I heard of it on DU.

Any comments I made before just now discovering your post should be disregarded, in light of SKinner's post. To lay this at the feet of Sanders supporters (not you, Skinner, but the butthurt is out there) is a little disingenuous. Not everyone knew of the intricacies of the FEC accounting. So while I offer an apology, and it is sincere, I'm not going to go overboard. Simple matter, great explanation from you. Kudos. Let us now all move on.

[Skinner]

223. I think the "butthurt" (your word) is justified.

There was a time when people on this website used to treat right-wing rags like the Washington Free Beacon with the contempt they deserve. These days, people will gladly post right-wing garbage as long as it trashes the primary candidate they dislike. It happens all the time.

I'm watching this thread climb to the top of the Greatest Page, and frankly I'm finding it to be both hilarious and sad. Each new recommendation is a mark of shame on this website. It is a massive fail.

[obamanut2012]

276. "It is a massive fail"

It is, and it is really sad. I agree with you there. And, it never stops.

[SidDithers]

289. Do Hosts have the authority to lock a disruptive thread linking to a right-wing source?...

A jury of 7 obviously thought the Washington Free Beacon was acceptable.

Could right-wing sourcing be considered an SOP violation?

Sid

[NanceGreggs]

291. Uh, yeah.

It's a crying shame that the sole owner of this site is apparently completely powerless to do anything about what gets posted here.

[1]"Each new recommendation is a mark of shame on this website."

Sadly, it's just one of many 'marks of shame' that get posted here on a daily basis.

[MaggieD]

308. +1

SMH.

[KitSileya]

325. Indeed. It's like there's nothing that can be done

Like there's no one to put down some rules, or say what is ok or not. I mean, Markos is just a figment of our imagination as a site owner that puts his foot down on sociopathic behavior, and the forum rules that forbids certain topics for discussion in GD are just dreams. It is obvious that there is no one, not a single person, who can be proactive and actually do something about how things are right now.

Because all we can do is watch the downward slide of the site, and cry for how much better things where before.

[NastyRiffraff]

330. Sad, indeed

This isn't even the worst post; I suppose it's noticed because it's climbing to the Greatest page. There's a reason for that; it's allowed to stand, and the bottom-feeders think it's wonderful.

[George II]

297. Skinner, also sad are the recommendations that a troll with only 24 posts....

.....got last night when he/she attacked a long-time member here AND made references to where she lived and her age.

That one got more than 250 recommendations and was a "LEAVE" by a jury. Thankfully MIRT acted quickly, but the post is still there and actually got MORE recommendations after it was banned.

[zappaman]

306. I find that far worse than the hourly use of RW sources here.

[onenote]

229. Except people aren't "moving on"

There continue be post after post on this thread by people who accept the disproven allegations of the OP article as gospel.

The OP should have deleted the original message right after Skinner debunked it.

[MADem]

274. Why don't you, as a Sanders supporter, urge the OP to delete this pile of steaming Free Beacon crap?

Then we CAN all "move on."

S/He won't take any advice from me so I don't dare even offer it.

[silvershadow]

280. I am not anyone's keeper, but I will try anyway. Perhaps it is a troll? I have no idea.

Or perhaps the Hillary supporters are making an issue just to have one? I don't have any idea about that either. The only place i've seen mention of it is DU, so maybe it's just an intramural sport to some folks? ...

[MADem]

283. I'm not issuing an order, just offering a suggestion. You're your own boss, of course.

You might have more clout than anyone supporting HRC in shutting down this Big Lie.

This IS a shit charge, though--and it opens up a rationale for retaliatory commentary about how Sanders has spent his (entirely legal, mind you, to hire family) campaign donations, himself.


I don't think we help either candidate by getting into another shit-fling about peripheral nonsense. All it is, is a food fight. No hearts or minds will be changed. And if you make false charges (she paid herself to run from campaign donations; it's illegal for him to hire family) all it does is lower poor DU's "level of discourse" to the sub - basement.

Every time I don't think we can sink any lower, I find another subterranean cavern beneath my feet!!!

[yardwork]

331. Oh, so now this too is the fault of "Hillary supporters?"

Are you serious?

[Autumn]

198. Thanks Skinner. I was looking through the FCC and didn't understand that.

[azurnoir]

220. I've trying tom find info about this type of contribution FEC wasn't helpful but IRS was

https://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-tege/eotopice94.pdf

[Skinner]

247. Go to the FEC website and download her entire 7/15/215 REPORT OF RECEIPTS AND DISBURSEMENTS

It's a 14,000 page PDF. Now look for these two transactions:

Receipt
Transaction ID : C1010579
Hillary Rodham Clinton 4/13/2015 $74042.24 *In-Kind: Payroll & Benefits

Disbursement
Transaction ID : D8250
Hillary Rodham Clinton 4/13/2015 $74042.24 *In-Kind Received

There are many more like that.

[azurnoir]

293. thanks but I was more looking for a definition of in kind contribution IRS was helpful with that

[lumberjack_jeff]

284. Can you give us an idea of what she gave her campaign on April 13th that was worth $74,000?

As you point out, it wasn't cash.

A cynical person would suggest that these in-kind contributions by a candidate makes that candidate's fundraising efforts look bigger than they really are.

Reading between the lines, since the expenditures were categorized as "payroll and benefits", the implication is that she's donating the value of her time, which I have always though of as an inherent part of campaigning for public office.

[riversedge]

300. Thanks. for information. Lets take the OP down.

[NowSam]

61. Gee, are we donating enough?

We need to make sure she makes enough money from campaign contributions to continue living in the manner she is accustomed to. Sheesh. While I am not opposed to candidates taking a salary for their campaigning, I find it obscene that a person who has made over 100 million in , ahem, speeches would take additional salary from campaign contributors. And - if she was flat broke somehow - after raking in that 100 + million and needed the salary? Then I wouldn't want her creating a budget for the USA. Anyone Dems really defending this?

[Dem2]

62. Free bacon!

Must have been another source, no?

[mercuryblues]

96. yes there are

USAcarry, conservativeangle, dailycaller,libertyeagle, rightwingnews and fox-where the truth goes to die.

[Dem2]

285. Wingnut lies that would get downvoted to oblivion on reddit - a site that allows Republicans

is upvoted here by those who would believe any lies against Hillary in order to further their agenda/candidate.

Thanks to Skinner for doing the research, though anybody who's been on the internet for a little while knows Free Bacon is an unreliable right-wing site that slanders Hillary for a living.

[mercuryblues]

305. the problem is

even though it has proven to be an outright lie, the OP still stands. Survived a jury. The poster even admits, now that the truth has been told he is wrong and has not deleted it.

Even after it was exposed as a lie, the Hillary haters are taking it as the truth and posting shitty assed remarks.

Another fine day in DULand. They should be proud.

[kracer20]

66. If I were donating to her I'd be a bit upset

Knowing that my dollars aren't being used in the way I intended.

[SunSeeker]

160. Why aren't you upset about right wing propaganda being posted on DU?

Did you not see Skinner's post 58 before you posted?


http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1251&pid=1411154

Why aren't you "a bit upset" that the OP posted right wing lies and refuses to edit or self-delete?

[RoccoR5955]

71. Give her a break

That hair and makeup cost a YUUUUUGE amount of money! We wouldn't want our queen looking like a shriveled up raisin. Would we?

[DemocratSinceBirth]

119. Since you are making fun of how other people look

That hair and makeup cost a YUUUUUGE amount of money! We wouldn't want our queen looking like a shriveled up raisin. Would we?

Since you are criticizing how other people look could you please grace us with a photo of your handsome visage.

We wait with bated breath.

Thank you in advance.

[closeupready]

132. He's not running for president; she is.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

146. Your pal

Give her a break

That hair and makeup cost a YUUUUUGE amount of money! We wouldn't want our queen looking like a shriveled up raisin. Would we?

RoccoT5955

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1251&pid=1411221

Your pal suggested she looked like a "shriveled up raisin" not me. I am waiting to see his handsome visage with bated breath.

Those comments are sexist, ageist, and misogynistic. Deal with it.

[closeupready]

176. She's running for president. Deal with it.

Trump and Bernie both get razzed for their hair. Deal with it.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

187. You and your pal have every right to call...

You and your pal have every right to say Hillary and other women of a certain age look like "shriveled up raisins" and I have every right to call you and your pal out for your misogynistic, lookist, sexist, and ageist epithets.


"Deal with it."

[closeupready]

197. Is that her campaign strategy, Hillary Clinton, victim-in-chief?

lol That's a winning strategy!

Anyway, carry on without me.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

205. If I said women of a certain age look like shriveled up raisins I would want to change the subject

If I said women of a certain age look like "shriveled up raisins" I would want to change the subject too...


BTW, you should join your pal in gracing us with your handsome visage.

[obamanut2012]

259. Thanks for this

Didn't work, of course, but thanks.

[treestar]

335. Let's try an experiment.

"Elizabeth Warren looks like a stuck up school warm"

surely that's OK to say isn't it?

If you complained about it, wouldn't she be a victim, in the same way that you sneeringly dub Hilary?

[RoccoR5955]

152. My hair and makeup don't cost that much

besides, it is not legal for me to post a picture of myself. I scare small children. You might get scared too if you saw my ugly mug.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

157. There are no ugly people, just misinformed observers.

[RoccoR5955]

159. Oh believe me when I tell you

I am ugly. If you look it up in your Funk and Wagnels, you will see my picture right next to the definition!

[DemocratSinceBirth]

162. I am sure there are people in your life who find you attractive.

Quit fishing for compliments, lol.

[RoccoR5955]

167. Nope not a one.

My mother even had me leave as soon as I could. She told me that I was too ugly!
I am not fishing for compliments, because I do not expect them.
The problem is that some of us cannot believe the truth when it is told to them.

[obamanut2012]

257. Making fun of how an over-60 female politican looks

Giggling at her wrinkles?

And snarking about her hair and makeup.

Really? Is this really what DU has become?

[Starry Messenger]

277. Yes, this is what DU has become. Awful. :(

[obamanut2012]

278. yup

imo

[onenote]

304. Sadly, there are some immature jerks here masquerading as progressives

[dsc]

265. yet we don't dare call any Bernie supporter sexist at any time

[RoccoR5955]

271. Meanwhile

It's okay for Clinton supporters to make remarks about Bernie's unkempt hair.
Just reciprocating, that's all, nothing more.

[Vinca]

81. Why? Does she figure there's a per hour rate for running for president?

Maybe she should consider working for minimum wage given the size of her bank account.

[fleabiscuit]

86. "Also, THE FREE BEACON IS RIGHT-WING CRAP."

Poetry!

[Godhumor]

92. I'm assuming you will be self-deleting now, right? N/t

[PeaceNikki]

93. The founder of the Free Beacon is Michael Goldfarb.

Goldfarb is a Republican who worked as an aide to Sen. John McCain's (R-AZ) presidential campaign and for the conservative Weekly Standard.

[Jack Rabbit]

94. Are the Clintons broke again?

Just wondering.

[onenote]

97. Thanks to Skinner for debunking a right wing meme that shouldn't have been posted here

without some due diligence. (Yes, I know the poster went to the FEC site, but instead of simply saying "hey, look what's in the FEC report, they linked to a RW article that spins the information incorrectly.)

See post #58.

[Agschmid]

109. Yup.

[CentralMass]

102. Pocket change.

[George II]

103. Anyone know how much Sanders is paying himself and family members?

[MADem]

112. He isn't paying himself anything--he gets a salary from his Senate gig.

The people he has working for him in both places get part of their salary from once source and part of their salary from the other.

He might be paying his wife, his kid, and her kids. He has done this before (and it's documented in his campaign filings).

And, though it might not be the best move in terms of optics, it's entirely legal.

[George II]

129. Thanks. My question was borderline rhetorical. What the OP "uncovered" is not uncommon at all....

...candidates pay themselves (sometimes) and family members (frequently) during campaigns.

Sanders has paid his wife and family in several of his past campaigns.

Having worked as a treasurer for about 10 campaigns in the past, even the fact that the Clinton reimbursements are in "her" name, that does not necessarily mean the money went to her. She could very well have turned around and used it to pay employees in her campaign. That's not unheard of, either.

This is just another "scandal" that really isn't one.

[Skinner]

134. Except Hillary isn't paying herself from her campaign.

Please read my explanation above.

[George II]

156. Thanks. I responded up there, too.

[MADem]

266. Of course she isn't. But the counter-argument that Sanders is paying himself is a lie, TOO.

He gets a paycheck from the Senate, and he's slicing up his staffers' paychecks and dividing their workload, paying part from the Senate, the rest from the campaign, depending on the work they are doing.


He may--or may not--be paying his wife, child, and step-children--as is entirely legal to do (though it doesn't look terribly good) -- but I haven't seen anything that says he's doing that to this point in time. I know he has done it in the past.

I was only trying to tell George that if he did this, it's not illegal.

[Agnosticsherbet]

104. Stop posting Republican lies. (Thank you Skinner for Debunking this,)

These things should be left for Free Republic or Stormfront.

[Ivan Kaputski]

106. Last time she ended up owing a lot of money to vendors. Don't want that to happen again.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/news/hillary-clinton-campaign-debt/



Warning: You will be alerted on for that link.

[bigtree]

111. this rw post still up getting recs after being proven false

...is a good illustration of what's wrong in this forum.

If we can't get this deleted by jury, the entire premise of this site is undermined, somehow.

[Agschmid]

123. Don't post the "Rec's" you'll get a hide.

[bigtree]

135. wow

...fucking out of control.

[SCantiGOP]

136. I started to rec it

Hoping that people would read through it and see how some people are throwing untrue crap up here in an effort to spread what they know is false information, but its better just to let this kind of stuff sink.

[Blue_Adept]

116. As bad as the first post is

The amount of people still going on about it after it's been repeatedly proven false is what's disturbing.

Remember when it used to be thought that liberals were the thinking person's party that would actively look at what's said without just believing whatever is shoved in front of them?

[demwing]

253. How has it been proven false?

Honestly?

[Blue_Adept]

261. Right here

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1251&pid=1411154

But I suppose for most people it's easier to just ignore the experts/those that deal in these things.

[lamp_shade]

120. horse shit

[SoapBox]

125. Ohhhh...some Chump Change for the Flat Broke.

NO...More...Clintons.

[msanthrope]

193. Completely debunked by Skinner himself. nt

[Gwhittey]

130. See

This is why we need to get Money out of politics and have public funded ones. Each candidate gets x amount from the Federal Gov to run campaign. No superPacs or paid speeches. Then you would never have this type of thing tempting you to do it. I mean of coarse we know all millions the Pharm companies gave Hillary is not going to influence her, they give money away all time out goodness of their hearts.


p.s. I mean except GOP we know they take money and it influences them, but all good DNC people take money and then laugh at donors because they are not going to help them out.

p.p.s: Ok maybe except that one time Hillary got 900,000 from Lockheed Martin and she pushed for selling Fighter Jets to Saudi Arabia but that was offset by her getting 10 million from Saudi Arabia they jokes on Lockheed Martin because they wasted 900k to get a multi billion dollar sale that she was already for. Ha take that Lockheed Martin. Vote Clinton!!

[Cryptoad]

131. Free Beacon ?

The GOP beacon of made up shit for years is ur source,, Funny there the data link does not support ur lie Another made up lie furnished by BernBots..... there is not level too low for them!

[MineralMan]

148. Hey, OP! Please come back and self-delete this.

It's been completely debunked. Do us, and yourself, a favor and self-delete. Thanks.

[azurnoir]

173. Lol still feelin' the Bern ?

condolences on Hillary's performance in Minnesota

[MineralMan]

178. Sorry...what does that have to do with my reply?

I'm confused, I guess.

[azurnoir]

188. sorry I don't understand

[SunSeeker]

191. Here, let Skinner help you:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1251&pid=1411154

[azurnoir]

196. not much I've been on FEC's website searching for info that fits this situation nothing so far

[Skinner]

244. Self-deleted. Will reply to you above. (nt)

[Loki]

218. #byebyebernie

That's how I'm feeling the "bern".

[SunSeeker]

150. Right wing lies, right here on DU. Edit your OP with post #58.

It is shameful enough that you posted that right wing site's propaganda on DU, but after having been given the FACTS by Skinner in post 58, you should self delete or edit.

[Scalded Nun]

158. It is all about the money

It will always be about the money. She'll take a penny from a baby.

[SunSeeker]

163. This is all about failure to read.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1251&pid=1411154

[NurseJackie]

275. Why let mere FACTS get in the way of a good faux outrage?

[silvershadow]

171. Her time is valuable, dear. When she left the White House she was so broke she had to

shop with coupons so she could afford to send Chelsea to college. She ate bread and butter. She knows your pain, though, and she's willing to step up to the job, all for you. If you wanted to be paid, you should run for office too.

(** in the style of that dismissive tone she had with that woman the other day)

PS: It may be permitted, but damn...does she have to take every last dollar on some accounting line? If I had her money and was running to serve, paying myself wouldn't even be a thought- I find it just unsavory.

[hack89]

175. She didn't pay herself. Read Skinner explanation.

it is an FECC accounting quirk.

[silvershadow]

179. OH. If so, my apologies. Off to read. nt

[treestar]

336. the legal bills made them bankrupt

not that people like them can't get out of it. And Bill was the causes of the legal bills.

[taught_me_patience]

180. I can't believe the responses of some people after this has been completely debunked

wowzers... I thank the OP for not self deleting... this has really opened my eyes.

[EndElectoral]

183. "No other candidate running for president recorded payments to themselves" - whew...

Guess being on the campaign trail has cut into her speaking fee appearances on Wall Street.

[arcane1]

185. Super-PACs are nothing more than legalized money-laundering as well n/t

[SunSeeker]

186. Bookmarking. The people rec'ing this OP have truly revealed themselves. nt

[zappaman]

307. Did any of those recs surprise you?

I wasn't surprised by a single one.

[Godhumor]

189. This thread has become a disgrace

Well, it started as a disgrace. Now it is a farce.

[KitSileya]

326. That's for bleeding sure!

Like that thread with 250+ recs that a now-banned troll made denigrating a long-time, well-respected DUer, this is just another example of how much this website has declined.

Sanders supporters are eagerly dragging all the rightwing smears they can find to sling at a Democrat. But then, considering how much Republican support, in the form of ads and donations, Bernie gets because they want him to be the nominee since they know they can beat him much more easily than Clinton, it's not surprising that his supporters follow his example.

[left-of-center2012]

192. Did donors know $$$ was going in HRC's pocket?

Ripping off her donors while taking millions from Wall Street.

[Godhumor]

202. Never happened. Has been repeatedly shown to be false n/t

[NCTraveler]

199. A blatant attempt to ratfuck is about to clear the one hundred rec mark.

Truly sickening.

[bettyellen]

260. that is exactly what this is. smells like manny propaganda threads of days past.

[salinsky]

200. This story has been proven to be horseshit ...

... when is it going to be taken down (or at least off the front page).

Sheesh.

[SidDithers]

201. Hit and run lies from a right-wing source...

gets a hundred fucking recs.

Election season can't come soon enough.

Sid

[Katashi_itto]

221. Waffles!

[Orange Butterfly]

203. Does Bernie have controversial $$$?

The thing is... she has these write-up's.

I have not seen in the media any questionable $$$$ for Bernie.
Let me know if you seen any.

[SunSeeker]

213. Yes. He's gotten letters from the FEC over his donations.

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/onpolitics/2016/02/26/bernie-sanders-campaign-contributions/80999298/

[Orange Butterfly]

224. TY, I read the article...

"Briggs said the contributions in question involved about 200 donors who appeared to have gone over the contribution limit.

"This happens all the time in campaigns, and the FEC’s rules explicitly allow 60-days from receipt of an over-the-limit contribution for campaigns to remedy the excessive portion of the contribution," Briggs wrote".

************************************
I am assuming they cleared this up from the Bernie camp.

I don't like all the attacks on Hillary and the Repubs. hunt for them. Did they just make it up that she paid herself from the contribution funds? Bernie's article you sent me, is about contributors over-giving. Do you know of any article about him paying himself?

I would assume he is still paid from being a Senator.

[SunSeeker]

236. Free Beacon is a right wing propaganda site.

No, Hillary did not pay herself. Skinner explains it upthread:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1251&pid=1411154

The OP should edit or self-delete.

[MariaThinks]

206. bull crap

[SunSeeker]

209. Here, let Skinner help you:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1251&pid=1411154

[SunSeeker]

214. Who did you send your PRA request to? nt

[SunSeeker]

237. Then why did you mention it?

[SunSeeker]

240. I know that. The California Public Records Act only applies to California agencies.

Which is why I was wondering why you raised your PRA request when we're talking about the FEC.

[nadinbrzezinski]

241. It was a passing comment

can I? Oh wait it is Du... we are not supposed to say a thing.

Tell you what I will delete my side of the conversation becuase this is talking to a wall, I hate inquisitions,

[SunSeeker]

243. Wow.

[zappaman]

310. Don't worry about it.

Self delete are some posters way of never having to admit they haven't a clue what they're talking about.

[SunSeeker]

312. LOL

[Godhumor]

227. You can look up every single transaction online and see every single one is in-kind

Download the csv file from the FEC for her committee expenditures and filter for Hillary and Payroll. Copy the provided URL for a line item and paste in your browser. Voila, every transaction has a "*in-kind received" designation.

[nadinbrzezinski]

230. I know that, but I am waiting for a phone call

and I hate to interrupt things when waiting for a call

[JTFrog]

251. LOL! n/t

[zappaman]

311. LMAO!

[Gothmog]

262. Skinner's analysis is correct

[Persondem]

228. A prime example of 100+ LOW INFO VOTERS who will believe anything so long as it

props up their preconceived and ill informed notions.

[Hiraeth]

233. I RED THE THRED THAT IS WHY I DELEATED !! QUICK DRAW MCRAW

[Godhumor]

234. Snort. OK, your reply was hilarious

As frustrated as this thread has made me, you made me laugh.

[Hiraeth]

249. good deal

we all need to laugh more around here

[Nonhlanhla]

235. NO SHE DID NOT

This had been debunked. Shame on all of you who has recced or agreed with this thread, for this LIE.

[Capt. Obvious]

242. There are multiple threads going about this thread

including one dedicated entirely to the people who rec'ed it.

This place is boring.

[MrWendel]

245. Getting your anti-Hillary...

news from Right wing websites is COMPLETELY PATHETIC.

[zappaman]

246. Opps, was going to reply because I thought I was at DU. but

it turns out I'm at Free Republic.
My bad.

[MelissaB]

248. It looks like this was debunked, but it reminds me of the Bernie photos. Hillary fans just

couldn't admit it WAS Bernie.

[AgerolanAmerican]

252. It's a bargain

Goldman Sachs paid that much just for a couple of hours, while the campaign gets her services for a month at that price.

[JTFrog]

254. Nothing like a hit and run right wing propaganda thread to confirm who the haters are.

I guess that's helpful in it's own way.

[Agschmid]

282. Yes it is.

[SidDithers]

288. The right hates Hillary. The fringe left hates Hillary...

and they both love the Washington Free Beacon.

Sid

[Gothmog]

263. I am the treasurer for a Texas GPAC and two candidates

Skinner's post above is correct. These are in-kind contributions that have to be accounted for. The premise of this thread is simply false and misleading. Accounting for in-kind contributions is a pain but the Clinton campaign is correctly reporting these amounts and Hillary Clinton was not paid anything.

[lumberjack_jeff]

287. A more accurate headline is: Clinton donates $250k of her time to her campaign.

It is my understanding that the federal government matches these "donations" to some extent.

[Skinner]

290. Actually, that is almost certainly false.

She did not donate her time and then report it on her FEC report. That would be completely absurd.

The FEC reports show in-kind contributions from Hillary for Rent, Office Supplies, and Payroll and Benefits. The most likely explanation is she paid out of her own pocket to get her campaign office started.

[demwing]

294. wouldn't that then be declered as a loan?

I hear about candidates loaning their campaign money quite often. That doesn't seem to be what Clinton did...

[Skinner]

295. Based on the reporting, it was not a loan.

She made a contribution to her campaign.

[lumberjack_jeff]

298. An in-kind contribution is by definition noncash.

I am at a loss to imagine an in-kind contribution of "payroll" that is anything other than the value of volunteered labor.
As I understand campaign (and nonprofit) law, this donated labor, office space and supplies couldn't have been Clinton foundation staff. It could have only been personal staff or Clinton herself.
As the poster upthread pointed out, setting up a campaign office is a cash thing and would more likely been a loan or cash donation.

[Skinner]

299. She paid for staff salaries directly out of her own pocket.

So the value of the contribution is the value of the labor by staffers that she paid for.

[Cheese Sandwich]

292. Sounds sleazy

[riversedge]

302. per Skinner memo........ 58. This is a quirk of FEC reporting. Hillary Clinton was not actually pai

X=posted from above.....


Star Member Skinner (61,325 posts)


58. This is a quirk of FEC reporting.

Hillary Clinton was not actually paid this money.

Take for example, the $74,042 payment on April 13,2015. The $74,042 payment is marked as an in-kind contribution on the FEC report.

An in-kind contribution is when a person gives something of value to a campaign that is not a payment to the campaign.

In-kind contributions are reported to the FEC as both receipts and expenditures. This makes no sense, I know, but there is a reason. This is done so that the bank statement of the campaign matches their record of donations and expenses.

So when a candidate gets an in-kind contribution a dollar value is recorded as a receipt. To make the cash-on-hand ledger correct, that dollar value must also be entered as an expense so people aren't left wondering where the money went.

If anyone cares to check the actual FEC report, you will find the in-kind contribution listed in two places, as a receipt and as an expense. In both places you will find that the entry is marked as in-kind.

TL;DR -- This is an in-kind contribution from Hillary to her own campaign. She was never paid back for it.

Also, THE FREE BEACON IS RIGHT-WING CRAP.

[BreakfastClub]

296. Sorry, I don't believe anything from that site, and you shouldn't either. nt

[randys1]

303. Meanwhile, President Rubio gives the go ahead to House bill HR277B, titled

"If you thought we hated Gay people, wait till you see what we have in store for Women who need reproductive healthcare"

[democrattotheend]

309. This is perfectly legal, I believe, but kind of stupid

I believe the FEC passed a rule allowing candidates to do this a few years ago. The intent was to enable people who otherwise might not be able to afford to go without a salary during the campaign period to run for office. It is odd that someone as rich as Hillary would take advantage of it, knowing it would become public record. If I were a donor to her campaign I would be kind of miffed that she is pocketing some of the money knowing she doesn't need it. As is probably obvious from my avatar, I have not donated to her for this campaign cycle, but would consider doing so for the general if she gets the nomination. However, this makes me more reluctant to do so. Stupid optics on her part, and not worth the risk of alienating current and potential donors.

[onenote]

313. Not stupid. See Skinner's explanation at post 58

And the poster who started this train wreck of a thread should be doubly ashamed for not having deleted it after he/she admitted that Skinner was right.

[democrattotheend]

317. Got it. Should have read that first.

I posted my comment before I read any of the reply threads or noticed that it came from a right wing site. My apologies.

Like I said, I support Sanders but don't hate Hillary, and will probably donate to her if she wins the nomination and opts out of public funding for the general. I can't remember, but I am pretty sure I donated a little bit to help her pay off debt in 2008 after she conceded the nomination.

[Major Hogwash]

324. Kicked and recommended.

For pissing off all the right people!!!!!!

[jpb33]

327. No Shame

No shame at all. Plus she knows she can get away with it because the press won't call her on it, they will not even mention it. And Hillary's followers will either make an excuse for her, or they will rationalize it, or they will deflect, or they will try attack the source of the information, or they just do not mind.

[msanthrope]

328. You mean, no shame in posting a completely debunked OP?

Welcome to DU....read post 58.

[JohnnyLib2]

333. Bookmarked. Maybe this is end times?

[Nonhlanhla]

337. Why is this abomination of a thread even still up?

Gullible Bernie supporters (not all Bernie supporters) are still eating this up as if it is truth. This thread has been debunked.