Preliminary FEC Draft Denies U.S. Senator Dianne Feinstein Request to Ask Contributors to Replace Stolen Contributions

On April 6, the Federal Election Commission general counsel presented a proposed draft of an advisory opinion, denying the request of U.S. Senator Dianne Feinstein that her contributors be allowed to contribute again. The basis for Feinstein’s request is that the original contributions were stolen by her campaign treasurer. Of course, the Feinstein request only refers to contributors who had already contributed the maximum of $2,500.

The Feinstein campaign learned last year that Kinde Durkee apparently embezzled at least $4,545,386 from the campaign. The Feinstein campaign wishes to replace as much of this money as possible, and requested permission to let contributors who had already given the maximum to this year’s campaign to give again. But the draft opinion denies the request. It says, “The purpose of the contribution limit, and the basis for the Supreme Court’s decision to uphold its constitutionality, is to prevent corruption or the appearance of corruption ‘stemming from the dependence of candidates on large campaign contributions.’ Buckley v Valeo. The larger the contribution, the greater the danger of actual and apparent corruption. See generally Buckley at 25-28. That danger does not disappear because some of the Committee’s funds were embezzled. To the contrary, if a campaign commottee were to accept second contributions to ‘replace’ those that were made, deposited, and then misappropriated, the candidate’s indebtedness to those contributors would increase.” The FEC itself will consider whether to approve this draft opinion, or amend it, or possibly reverse it, on April 12.


Preliminary FEC Draft Denies U.S. Senator Dianne Feinstein Request to Ask Contributors to Replace Stolen Contributions — No Comments

  1. This makes no sense..

    If it is not questioned that the funds were embezzled, then the Campaign did not get use, and therefore benefit, of those funds. Without that benefit, the contributors did not pass a benefit to the Campaign, and the Senator.

    Whatever you think of the Senator, There appears to be no benefit here..

  2. Possibly the FEC Commissioners will agree with you. The Commissioners don’t always follow the recommendations of staff.

  3. The appearance of corruption is caused by contributors giving large amounts of cash, regardless whether the campaign used the money wisely or not. Feinstein would presumably know that Mr.Moneybags gave $5000 and might be especially appreciative that he helped out when her carelessness had left her short of funds.

    Persons who gave $100 may have given all they could afford. Persons who gave $2500 may have given all they could legally give. So her campaign would be more dependent on large donors.

  4. What is New Age *BRIBERY* in Deficit City ??? — i.e. giving taxpayer/borrowed $$$ to various special interest gangs for years and years.

    P.R. and nonpartisan App.V.

  5. What is the donation magic dollar number amount each year (adjusted for mere nonstop inflation) to cause *corruption* or the *appearance of corruption* ???

    Is the number picked out of a SCOTUS trash can ???

    — or what SCOTUS moron has invented the most evil cute MORONIC words and phrases in the zillion JUNK SCOTUS opinions about whatever ???

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *