Okay, I did the math

[TexasBushwhacker]

Last edited Sun Jan 3, 2016, 09:54 AM - Edit history (2)

Or rather, I did some math. Since HRC's press release said that 94% of her donations in Q4 were under $100. That may very well be, but I wondered how previous quarters fared. I used the figures from OpenSecrets.com.

Through Q3, Clinton had raised $77M. That doesn't include SuperPAC money. Donations $200 and greater have to be reported to the FEC. That total was $58M. So, 75% of her donations through Q3 were over $200. How much over? She had 34K donations, so the average over $200 donation was $1700.

How about Bernie Of course he has no SuperPAC. As of Q3, he had received $41M in donations. $9.1M of that was from donations that were greater than $200. So that's only 22%. How many donors? 15K and change. Average donation? $600.

Of course all we've seen is HRC's press release, not her FEC report. But to go from 75% of her donations being over $200 (a lot more on average) to 94% being under $100, well that's pretty remarkable.

[awake]

1. are you suggesting that Hillary maybe stretching the truth

[eppur_se_muova]

2. 75% of donations, or 75% of funds ? I think this is the hair she is splitting.

I'm guessing donations under $200 aren't reported, so maybe there's no way of knowing how many there were. To take a ridiculous extreme, suppose she had 19 million donations of $1 each. That would mean 99.8% of her *donations* were under $200, but 75% of *funds* were from larger donations.

Any way to find out (preferably independently) how many donations there were ?

Of course, this might depend on what the meaning of the word "is" is.

[TexasBushwhacker]

3. 75% of the funds vs Bernie's 22%

And we only know how many donations were over $200 through Q3. Nevertheless, since she isn't required to report her total number of donors, we really have no way of fact checking her 94% claim.

[Mike__M]

7. If money = speech, then speech = money

So every word posted here in Her favor could be counted as a donation, right?

[OffWithTheirHeads]

4. Here is the deal

If I give Hillary $2,700.00 or I give one of her super pacs $2,700,000.00, I'm probably going to vote for her. If I give Bernie $5.00, I'm probably going to vote for him. Now do the math.

[Ed Suspicious]

13. I've only given to Bernie. Pretty strong likelihood

my vote is going to follow my money.

[Autumn Colors]

5. Makes me wonder ...

Of course all we've seen is HTC's press release, not her FEC report. But to go from 75% of her donations being over $200 (a lot more on average) to 94% being under $100, well that's pretty remarkable.

So, if someone were on one hand to have just received this miraculous "gift" of a massive list of personal information about people who had never donated or registered with HRC campaign and on the other hand had a group of very wealthy people who wanted to give more money, but had already given the maximum direct amount allowed ... gee, couldn't all that money be given as lots and lots and lots of small donations of under $100 using those other people's names?

Money donated via money orders with sender info to be filled out by the buyer, Visa/MasterCard gift cards, etc ....

That sure would make it look like she just got this massive influx of new support from the nonwealthy, wouldn't it?

Hmmmm......

[TexasBushwhacker]

6. I don't see why that wouldn't work

I can't imagine that they check up on small donors. I think all you have to.provide is name, occupation and zip code.

[Divernan]

8. It depends on what your definition of "reputation for honesty" is.

Because from what I've read, the filing form only differentiates contributions from "Individuals/Persons Other than Political Committees" as itemized or unitemized. So for an ethically challenged or compromised candidate, it's very easey peasey to lie through your teeth.

I may have overlooked some other FEC form providing for identifying each individual donor, including date, amount & method of donation (credit card/check/cash). If so PLEASE provide me with the Form identification number. And if Clinton's campaign DID provide specific identification for each alleged donor, I for one, will review it to see it my name is fraudulently listed.

REPORT OF RECEIPTS
AND DISBURSEMENTS
By an Authorized Committee of a Candidate
for the Office of President OR Vice president

FEC Form 3P does not require identifying individual donors.

17. CONTRIBUTIONS (other than loans) FROM:
(a) Individuals/Persons Other Than Political
Committees
(i) itemized.............................................................
(ii) unitemized........................................................
(iii) Total contributions...........................................
(b) Political Party Committees................................
(c) Other Political Committees...............................
(d) The Candidate...................................................
(e) TOTAL CONTRIBUTIONS (other than loans)
(Add 17(a), 17(b), 17(c) and 17(d)).................

[Autumn Colors]

9. I think everyone should check for their name

Of course, HRC could always claim in the event of discovery that she had no knowledge of this and someone else would end up taking the fall ... for saving the wrongly obtained information during the data breach. If the list/info were given to someone outside the campaign, how would they ever find out who actually MADE the donations in other people's names?

Bottom line, when the info about individual donors comes out, I hope every person who suddenly started getting emails from the Clinton campaign thanking them for their support will check to see if they're on that HRC donor list and if so, report that to the Sanders campaign for use in their future lawsuit regarding the data breach.

[LiberalArkie]

10. How would one check?

[Autumn Colors]

14. I would start at opensecrets.org

Use the donor lookup function (right side of main page) and put your name in. Not sure how often this is updated, though. May have to bookmark it and check it in a few weeks again.

https://www.opensecrets.org

[eppur_se_muova]

12. The number is a closely guarded secret. ;)

... but it's not large. This is a policy to help exclude trolls (not that it's terribly effective at that) and autospammers.