Obama campaign to pay $375,000 fine for omitting some donor’s names in 2008

[alp227]

Source: Wash. Post

President Obama’s campaign has agreed to pay a $375,000 fine to the Federal Election Commission, among the largest penalties in the agency’s history.

(...)

The document shows that the Obama campaign failed to disclose the identities of donors responsible for $2 million in contributions in the weeks ahead of the election. The campaign also misreported the dates of $85 million in other contributions.

In addition, the Obama campaign also kept $1.3 million in contributions that were above the legal maximum allowed for a federal campaign, failing to return them within the 60 days required by law. The campaign kept almost $874,000 of those donations until the FEC discovered they were unlawful.

(...)

The Republican National Committee had charged in the midst of Obama’s 2008 race against Republican Sen. John McCain (Ariz.) that the Democrat’s campaign was improperly accepting foreign money and taking donations over the legal limits. In a partial vindication for the Obama campaign, the FEC did not fine Obama for taking any foreign money, according to the document.

Read more: http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/obama-campaign-to-pay-375000-fine-for-omitting-some-donors-names-in-2008/2013/01/04/78973402-56bb-11e2-8b9e-dd8773594efc_story.html

---

Meanwhile when will the FEC start investigating Super PACs with those anonymous donors like Karl Rove's Crossroads GPS? Or Dick Armey's FreedomWorks now that Armey is opening up about how FreedomWorks is basically money laundering for Rush and Beck?

[JackRiddler]

1. So how many names did this donor have?

No, it's not alp227's mistake. I followed the link. That is exactly how the headline appears in the Washington Post. A headline!

[underthematrix]

2. I just followed the link and read headline and its says

the Obama campaign was fined for NOT disclosing some of the donors to his campaign in the last 20 days of the campaign. That does not comport with your assertion or assumption that donors had multiple names, which is something entirely different and not in anyway being alleged in the article.

[JackRiddler]

3. Sorry for your inconvenience, but I was making a joke...

about the severe grammatical atrocity committed in the headline: "Obama campaign to pay $375,000 fine for omitting some donor’s names in 2008."

As I said, how many names did this donor have? (Who was it? Some donor, right? Like dat guy over deah.)

And this is in no less of a formerly (if in the main undeservedly) respected rag than the Washington Post. In the headline!

Another sign of the end times, etc.

Now do you get it? I know it's a losing struggle, but that is just unacceptable.