The mainstream media continued to press its priority — attacking President Trump for perceived crimes, despite lack of evidence — while largely ignoring a federal lawsuit by Dan Backer and others showing evidence that 2016 presidential candidate Hillary Clinton, through the Hillary Victory Fund, colluded with the Democratic National Committee in violation of federal campaign-finance law.
Backer, board chairman of Accuracy In Media, filed the suit not on behalf of AIM but in his role as counsel to the Committee to Defend the President.
So far, only conservative media like The Federalist and Townhall have reported on the lawsuit, and it’s unclear whether the mainstream media, which highly favored Clinton in the 2016 race, will cover this bombshell story.
Backer laid out the case in a column for Investor’s Business Daily.
Hillary Victory Fund solicited six-figure donations from major donors, including “Family Guy” creator Seth MacFarlane and Calvin Klein, and routed them through state parties en route to the Clinton campaign. Roughly $84 million may have been laundered in what might be the single largest campaign finance scandal in U.S. history.
Here’s what we know. Campaign finance law is complex and infamous for its lack of clarity. As I’ve written about before, its complexity is a feature, not a bug. Major political players with the resources to hire the few attorneys who practice campaign finance law benefit from the complexity that keeps others out. Perhaps Hillary Victory Fund architects thought so too, and assumed that if no one understands what’s happening, no one would complain.
Per election, an individual donor can contribute $2,700 to any candidate, $10,000 to any state party committee and (during the 2016 cycle) $33,400 to a national party’s main account. These groups can get together and take a single check from a donor for the sum of those contribution limits — it’s legal because the donor cannot exceed the base limit for any one recipient. And state parties can make unlimited transfers to their national party.
Here’s what you can’t do, which the Clinton machine appeared to do anyway. As the Supreme Court made clear in McCutcheon v. FEC, the JFC may not solicit or accept contributions to circumvent base limits, through “earmarks” and “straw men” that are ultimately excessive
AIM will continue covering developments around the case and hold the mainstream media accountable for any significant reporting omissions.