@gulfgal98

Dammit, I repeatedly posted on this at the time and can't even recall the woman's name who was running? the FEC? and spoke about this, but The Federal Election Commission was unable to act on both Bush and Hillary Clinton breaking campaign finance law due to Republicans invariably blocking the equal number of Dems voting in all such cases during the nominations. Can't even recall if I packed my brain during that last move... in any event, as you know better than I, the fix has been in for so long as to have become a fixture.

If only America had ever fully adopted democracy, then nobody would be above the law...

This must have been the same person, although I lack the energy to keep searching for an article which may have been 'disappeared' or re-written, in a case when you'll no doubt remember this far more clearly than I, as well as knowing far more about the situation.

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/02/19/us/politics/fec-elections-ann-ravel-c...

Democratic Member to Quit Election Commission, Setting Up Political Fight

By ERIC LICHTBLAUFEB. 19, 2017

WASHINGTON — A Democrat on the Federal Election Commission is quitting her term early because of the gridlock that has gripped the panel, offering President Trump an unexpected chance to shape political spending rules.

The commissioner, Ann M. Ravel, said during an interview that she would send Mr. Trump her letter of resignation this week. She pointed to a series of deadlocked votes between the panel’s three Democrats and three Republicans that she said left her little hope the group would ever be able to rein in campaign finance abuses.

“The ability of the commission to perform its role has deteriorated significantly,” said Ms. Ravel, who has sparred bitterly with the Republican election commissioners during her three years on the panel. She added, “I think I can be more effective on the outside.”

Her departure will probably set off an intense political fight over how a new commissioner should be picked. By tradition, Senate Democrats would be allowed to select the replacement, but, by law, the choice belongs to the president, and Mr. Trump has shown little interest in Washington customs.

The outcome could have a major impact on a commission long derided for inaction, even as record amounts of money have poured into campaigns. Spending during last year’s presidential and congressional races exceeded $6.9 billion, according to data from the Center for Responsive Politics, as “super PACs” and other outside groups spent freely as a result of the Supreme Court’s 2010 Citizens United decision. ...

...Mr. Trump can pick a nominee himself so long as he does not choose a registered Republican, said Richard L. Hasen, an election law scholar at the University of California, Irvine. The panel, which already has three Republicans, cannot have more than three members from any political party. Mr. Hasen said he would not be surprised if Mr. Trump made the pick himself, especially because his White House counsel, Donald F. McGahn II, was an election commissioner himself and has pushed fiercely for deregulating campaign finance.

“It would be transformative,” Mr. Hasen said, if the president nominated someone more aligned with the panel’s Republican members to push for even further deregulation.

Mr. Trump has promised to “drain the swamp” of special interest money in Washington, but his record so far has been mixed. While he claimed repeatedly during the campaign that he was “self-funding” his run, Mr. Trump and organizations supporting him took in nearly $600 million, and he put in far less than the $100 million of his own money that he had pledged.

... Her claims that Republican commissioners have been unwilling to rein in obvious violations and abuses have drawn wide attention — as well as angry rebukes from those Republicans, who have accused her of grandstanding and of exaggerating the problem. The publicity even earned Ms. Ravel an appearance on “The Daily Show,” where her interviewer suggested the commission had become as irrelevant as male nipples.

Ms. Ravel said she would return to California, where she had served as a state regulator in identifying millions of dollars in “dark money” that flooded California elections.

She considered leaving the commission last year, she said, but decided to stay through the election after President Barack Obama had asked her to do so. ...

...Ms. Ravel plans to release an analysis her office has prepared on what she says is the worsening gridlock at the commission. The title sums up her feelings: “Dysfunction and Deadlock: The Enforcement Crisis at the Federal Election Commission Reveals the Unlikelihood of Draining the Swamp.” ...

#2.2 that limit the amount a single donor can give to an individual candidate in the primaries to $2,700. Donors can give much more to state parties to be used in down ticket races. What the Clinton campaign was doing in 32 states where they had sharing agreements was having those large donations funneled to the DNC which in turn funneled them to Brooklyn, home of the Clinton campaign headquarters. Most of that money stayed in Brooklyn which meant it went into Hillary's campaign chest. Some miniscule percentage went back to the states for down ticket races.

The contract for this arrangement was executed in August 2015, long before Hillary formally declared. What this scheme does is launder the money so that Hillary benefited from large individual donations exceeding $2,700 per donor during the primary. IMHO, this is in violation of federal campaign finance laws.

Apparently Jamarl Thomas thinks so too as he describes in his video below.

[video:https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=2&v=bUHJIe8qtbk]