The Washington, D.C., Circuit Court of Appeals has determined that Hillary Clinton's 2016 campaign and the super PAC Correct the Record violated federal election law.
The ruling found that nearly $6 million in expenditures were improperly coordinated by Clinton and her allies, as the Western Journal reports.
On Tuesday, the Court made the significant ruling against Hillary Clinton’s 2016 presidential campaign and the affiliated super PAC, Correct the Record. The court decided these entities illegally coordinated their activities in violation of federal election law. The court's findings revolve around expenses close to $6 million. This illegal coordination reportedly included activities such as conducting opinion polls and employing fact-checkers.
Correct the Record was found coordinating its endeavors with the Clinton campaign, including hiring personnel and setting up communication channels. These coordinated expenditures were mistakenly classified to dodge campaign contribution designation requirements.
Initially, the Federal Election Commission dismissed the complaint against Clinton's campaign and Correct the Record. This dismissal relied on a misinterpreted "internet exemption," which did not apply to the expenditures in question.
The Court clarified that the internet exemption doesn’t cover coordinated expenditures not directly related to online messages. The court ordered the FEC to revise its conclusions based on this interpretation.
In 2022, Clinton's campaign and the Democratic National Committee resolved another FEC investigation. They agreed to pay $113,000 to settle accusations related to funding the Steele dossier. This investigation revealed that the Clinton campaign employed the law firm Perkins Coie, which then hired Fusion GPS for opposition research on Donald Trump. However, this payment was incorrectly filed as legal services on FEC documents.
The Clinton campaign agreed to the settlement without conceding to avoid further legal disputes. The classification of payments as an issue in both this case and a similar case involving Trump.
In a comparably high-profile case, the FEC and U.S. Justice Department evaluated payments made by Donald Trump through attorney Michael Cohen to Stormy Daniels. These payments, around $130,000, did not result in federal prosecution against Trump. However, Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg took up a state case against Trump for falsely reporting these expenses as business costs, bringing a different legal perspective.
In the Clinton case, the D.C. Circuit criticized the initial FEC decision for extending the internet exemption unlawfully. The court's decision emphasized that such exemptions must be accurately applied.
In sum, the court ruled that Hillary Clinton's 2016 campaign and Correct the Record unlawfully coordinated nearly $6 million in expenditures. This ruling directed the FEC to conform to the court's interpretation. Separately, Clinton’s campaign and the DNC settled an FEC probe into Steele dossier payments for $113,000.
While Trump faced scrutiny over payments to Stormy Daniels, federal authorities did not prosecute him under FEC regulations. The Clinton campaign's settlements highlight ongoing legal complexities in campaign finance law.
This decision underscores the stringent enforcement of election laws and reinforces transparency requirements in campaign financing. Both cases spotlight the intricacies and challenges in ensuring compliance with FEC regulations.
