#Qanon #Q
As Q mentions Facebook is Violating our Rights, our Privacy, Tacking us, reading our
Private Messages, Facebook is Censoring Conservatives.
Class Action Lawsuits are Effective, via Global against Facebook, Against Mark Zuckerberg.
#Qanondrop #wikileaks #mz #privacy #trackingyou #privatemessages #fbcensorship
https://wikileaks.org/…/1663961_-windows-1252-q-re-3a_-5bos…
https://wikileaks.org/…/1663961_-windows-1252-q-re-3a_-5bos…
**THUNDER STRIKES** I got it right here thanks Julian Assange
As Q Mentions Wikileakshttps://wikileaks.org/gifiles/docs/16/1663961_-windows-1252-q-re-3a_-5bos-5d_us-ct-_report-3a_faceboo.html
Here's the Story/Email you Should Read.
Re: [OS] US/CT- Report: Faceboo k CEO Mark Zuckerberg Doesn’t Believe In Privacy
Released on 2013-11-15 00:00 GMT
| Email-ID | 1663961 |
|---|---|
| Date | 2010-04-28 21:54:41 |
| From | sean.noonan@stratfor.com |
| To | ct@stratfor.com |
=?windows-1252?Q?Re=3A_=5BOS=5D_US/CT-_Report=3A_Faceboo?=
=?windows-1252?Q?k_CEO_Mark_Zuckerberg_Doesn=92t_Believe_In_?=
=?windows-1252?Q?Privacy?=
Facebook just gets better.
Sean Noonan wrote:
Report: Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg Doesn't Believe In Privacy
* By Eliot Van Buskirk Email Author
* April 28, 2010 |
* 1:47 pm |
http://www.wired.com/epicenter/2010/04/report-facebook-ceo-mark-zuckerberg-doesnt-believe-in-privacy/
Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg appears to have been outed as not caring
one whit about your privacy - a jarring admission, considering how much
of our personal data Facebook owns, not to mention its plans to become
the web's central repository for our preferences and predilections.
Also interesting is how this came about: Not in a proper article, but in
a Tweet by Nick Bilton, lead technology blogger for the New York Times`
Bits Blog, based on a conversation he says was "off the record" and
which he may have confused with "not for attribution."
"Off record chat w/ Facebook employee," begins Bilton's fateful tweet.
"Me: How does Zuck feel about privacy? Response: [laughter] He doesn't
believe in it."
Ouch.
Zuckerberg's apparent disregard for your privacy is probably not reason
enough to delete your Facebook account. But we wouldn't recommend
posting anything there that you wouldn't want marketers, legal
authorities, governments (or your mother) to see, especially as Facebook
continues to push more and more of users' information public and even
into the hands of other companies, leaving the onus on users to figure
out its Rubic's Cube-esque privacy controls.
Over the past six months, Facebook has been on a relentless request to
become the center of identity and connections online. Last December, the
site unilaterally decided that much of a user's profile information,
including the names of all their friends and the things they were "fans"
of, would be public information - no exceptions or opt-outs allowed.
Zuckerberg defended the change - largely intended to keep up with the
publicness of Twitter, saying that people's notions of privacy were
changing. He took no responsibility for being the one to drag many
Facebook users into the net's public sphere.
Then last week at its f8 conference, Facebook announced it was sending
user profile information to companies like Yelp, Pandora and Microsoft
in bulk, so that when users show up at those sites while logged in to
Facebook, they see personalized versions of the those services (unless
the user opts out of each site, somewhere deep in the bowels of
Facebook's privacy control center). Facebook is also pushing a "Like"
button, which lets sites put little Facebook buttons on anything from
blog entries to T-shirts in web stores.
Clicking that button sends that information to Facebook, which publishes
it as part of what it calls the Open Graph, linking your identity to
things you choose online. That information, in turn, is shared with
whatever sites Facebook chooses to share it with - and to the sites
you've allowed to access your profile.
It's an ambitious attempt to re-write the Web as a socially-linked
network, but many see Facebook's move as trying to colonize the rest of
the web, and keep all this valuable information in its data silos, in
order to become a force on the web that rivals Google, which is why it's
no laughing matter that the head of Facebook appears not to care about
privacy. (We asked Facebook to clarify Zuckerberg's privacy stance but
have yet to hear back.)
For his part, Bilton fired off a number of salvos defending his
understanding of the the ground rules which governed the conversation he
had. "`Off record' means there is no attribution to who it is but
conversation can be used in story. `On background" means I can not
repeat it," wrote Bilton, who took over the Time's technology blog in
the last few months, after a long stint working with its technology
development team.
uh-ohUnfortunately, he's wrong about the definitions.
"`Off the record' restricts the reporter from using the information the
source is about to deliver," reads NYU's Journalism Handbook, in one
definition of the phrase. "If the reporter can confirm the information
with another source who doesn't insist on speaking off the record
(whether that means he agreed to talking on the record, on background,
or not for attribution), he can publish it." "On background" usually
means that information can be used, but can't be attributed to a
specific person.
Bilton later responded to our request for clarification, saying, "My
source said it was OK to quote them, just not say who they are." So
apparently, this Facebook employee wanted this information to get out,
for whatever reason.
Now, the die has been cast: The world knows that a Facebook employee
thinks his CEO "doesn't believe in" privacy, which should scare the
bejesus out of anyone with a Facebook account - and that encompasses
just about everyone reading this now.
Read More
http://www.wired.com/epicenter/2010/04/report-facebook-ceo-mark-zuckerberg-doesnt-believe-in-privacy/#ixzz0mQUVfhAJ
=?windows-1252?Q?k_CEO_Mark_Zuckerberg_Doesn=92t_Believe_In_?=
=?windows-1252?Q?Privacy?=
Facebook just gets better.
Sean Noonan wrote:
Report: Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg Doesn't Believe In Privacy
* By Eliot Van Buskirk Email Author
* April 28, 2010 |
* 1:47 pm |
http://www.wired.com/epicenter/2010/04/report-facebook-ceo-mark-zuckerberg-doesnt-believe-in-privacy/
Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg appears to have been outed as not caring
one whit about your privacy - a jarring admission, considering how much
of our personal data Facebook owns, not to mention its plans to become
the web's central repository for our preferences and predilections.
Also interesting is how this came about: Not in a proper article, but in
a Tweet by Nick Bilton, lead technology blogger for the New York Times`
Bits Blog, based on a conversation he says was "off the record" and
which he may have confused with "not for attribution."
"Off record chat w/ Facebook employee," begins Bilton's fateful tweet.
"Me: How does Zuck feel about privacy? Response: [laughter] He doesn't
believe in it."
Ouch.
Zuckerberg's apparent disregard for your privacy is probably not reason
enough to delete your Facebook account. But we wouldn't recommend
posting anything there that you wouldn't want marketers, legal
authorities, governments (or your mother) to see, especially as Facebook
continues to push more and more of users' information public and even
into the hands of other companies, leaving the onus on users to figure
out its Rubic's Cube-esque privacy controls.
Over the past six months, Facebook has been on a relentless request to
become the center of identity and connections online. Last December, the
site unilaterally decided that much of a user's profile information,
including the names of all their friends and the things they were "fans"
of, would be public information - no exceptions or opt-outs allowed.
Zuckerberg defended the change - largely intended to keep up with the
publicness of Twitter, saying that people's notions of privacy were
changing. He took no responsibility for being the one to drag many
Facebook users into the net's public sphere.
Then last week at its f8 conference, Facebook announced it was sending
user profile information to companies like Yelp, Pandora and Microsoft
in bulk, so that when users show up at those sites while logged in to
Facebook, they see personalized versions of the those services (unless
the user opts out of each site, somewhere deep in the bowels of
Facebook's privacy control center). Facebook is also pushing a "Like"
button, which lets sites put little Facebook buttons on anything from
blog entries to T-shirts in web stores.
Clicking that button sends that information to Facebook, which publishes
it as part of what it calls the Open Graph, linking your identity to
things you choose online. That information, in turn, is shared with
whatever sites Facebook chooses to share it with - and to the sites
you've allowed to access your profile.
It's an ambitious attempt to re-write the Web as a socially-linked
network, but many see Facebook's move as trying to colonize the rest of
the web, and keep all this valuable information in its data silos, in
order to become a force on the web that rivals Google, which is why it's
no laughing matter that the head of Facebook appears not to care about
privacy. (We asked Facebook to clarify Zuckerberg's privacy stance but
have yet to hear back.)
For his part, Bilton fired off a number of salvos defending his
understanding of the the ground rules which governed the conversation he
had. "`Off record' means there is no attribution to who it is but
conversation can be used in story. `On background" means I can not
repeat it," wrote Bilton, who took over the Time's technology blog in
the last few months, after a long stint working with its technology
development team.
uh-ohUnfortunately, he's wrong about the definitions.
"`Off the record' restricts the reporter from using the information the
source is about to deliver," reads NYU's Journalism Handbook, in one
definition of the phrase. "If the reporter can confirm the information
with another source who doesn't insist on speaking off the record
(whether that means he agreed to talking on the record, on background,
or not for attribution), he can publish it." "On background" usually
means that information can be used, but can't be attributed to a
specific person.
Bilton later responded to our request for clarification, saying, "My
source said it was OK to quote them, just not say who they are." So
apparently, this Facebook employee wanted this information to get out,
for whatever reason.
Now, the die has been cast: The world knows that a Facebook employee
thinks his CEO "doesn't believe in" privacy, which should scare the
bejesus out of anyone with a Facebook account - and that encompasses
just about everyone reading this now.
Read More
http://www.wired.com/epicenter/2010/04/report-facebook-ceo-mark-zuckerberg-doesnt-believe-in-privacy/#ixzz0mQUVfhAJ
Sean Noonan
ADP- Tactical Intelligence
Mobile: +1 512-758-5967
Strategic Forecasting, Inc.
www.stratfor.com
Sean Noonan
ADP- Tactical Intelligence
Mobile: +1 512-758-5967
Strategic Forecasting, Inc.
www.stratfor.com
ADP- Tactical Intelligence
Mobile: +1 512-758-5967
Strategic Forecasting, Inc.
www.stratfor.com
Sean Noonan
ADP- Tactical Intelligence
Mobile: +1 512-758-5967
Strategic Forecasting, Inc.
www.stratfor.com
**MARK ZUCKERBERG DOES NOT BELIEVE IN PRIVACY!!!!** ARE'T YOU PISSED OFF??
Report: Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg Doesn't Believe In Privacy
https://www.wired.com/2010/04/report-facebook-ceo-mark-zuckerberg-doesnt-believe-in-privacy/
Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg appears to have been outed as not caring one whit about your privacy – a jarring admission, considering how much of our personal data Facebook owns, not to mention its plans to become the web's central repository for our preferences and predilections.
Also interesting is how this came about: Not in a proper article, but in a tweet by Nick Bilton, lead technology blogger for the The New York Times' Bits Blog, based on a conversation he says was "off the record" and which he may have confused with "not for attribution."
#Qanondrop #wikileaks #mz #privacy #trackingyou #privatemessages #fbcensorship #Q
#Qdrops #MarkZuckerberg #Facebook #WeRStrong #Algothriams #Google #FacebookPrivacy
#HRC #Hussien #Hillary #Clintons #Obama #Wikileaks #JulianAssange #Julian
https://wikileaks.org/dnc-emails/emailid/11621
Mark Cuban's lament; KTLA going viral; who's attending Zuckerberg's meeting; TV upfronts cleanse; Larry King talks Trump; media week ahead calendar
Date: 2016-05-16 01:36
The broadcast TV upfronts are weird and ritualistic but there's also something beautifully optimistic about them. No matter how lousy the last season was... No matter how many shows were cancelled... No matter what the execs promised last time... The upfronts are the opportunity to start over. Wipe the slate clean, forget everything that failed, look to the future, and dream about that next huge "Empire"-sized hit. Every corner of the media biz could use an annual cleanse. While web video giants have been trying to chip away at TV's ad $$ dominance, Big TV has been making a strong counterargument. Steinberg: (http://variety.com/2016/tv/news/2016-tv-upfront-advertising-empire-thursday-night-football-1201774396/?mc_cid=eef5265156&mc_eid=[UNIQID]) "Advertisers are sick of paying for 'traffic' jimmied by click tricks and pre-roll ads no one watches. They worry ad blocking software might do for the desktop and smartphone what the DVR did to TV. And they notice that companies once thought of as old-school – like Fox or NBCUniversal – are suddenly getting more digitally savvy, all the while maintaining a better quality of video content." Jim Rutenberg elaborates in his Monday NYT column...
Mark Zuckerberg and his Wife networth $40 Billion
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mark_Zuckerberg
Mark Elliot Zuckerberg (/ˈzʌkərbɜːrɡ/; born May 14, 1984) is an American computer programmer and Internet entrepreneur. He is a co-founder of Facebook, and is currently its chairman and chief executive officer.[4][5] His net worth is estimated to be US$62.2 billion as of March 25, 2018.
Zuckerberg launched Facebook from his Harvard University dormitory room on February 4, 2004 with college roommates and fellow Harvard students Eduardo Saverin, Andrew McCollum, Dustin Moskovitz, and Chris Hughes.[7] The group then introduced Facebook to other college campuses. Facebook expanded rapidly, reaching one billion users by 2012. During this time, Zuckerberg became involved in various legal disputes brought by his friends and cofounders, who claimed they were due a share of the company based upon their involvement during its development phase.[8]
Since 2010, Time magazine has named Zuckerberg among the 100 wealthiest and most influential people in the world as a part of its Person of the Year award.[3][9][10] In December 2016, Zuckerberg was ranked 10th on Forbes list of The World's Most Powerful People.[11]
#guncontrol #humancontrol #facebook #privacy #liberals #deepstate #rothschild
#NWO #hitler #holocaust
MARK ZUCKERBERG IS REVEALED BY THE TAP BLOG. HIS TWO GRANDFATHERS ARE DAVID ROCKEFELLER AND MAURICE (HANK) GREENBERG OF A.I.G. FAME. HE HAS AN AGENDA, IN SERVICE TO THE CABAL. CAMELOT HAS MANY BRANCHES IN AMERICAN ROYALTY.
Mark Zuckerberg founder of Facebook
It has been revealed that Mark Zuckerberg is the grandson of David Rockefeller. His true name is Jacob Greenberg, also grandson to Hank Greenberg. He is royalty. Some police records show a Jacob Greenberg was arrested for possession of marijuana when a much younger man. His mugshot was taken, which looks like a younger FaceBook icon with 99% reliability. It was later revealed that this could indeed be the man the world knows as Mark Zuckerberg. Also, the Rothschilds own 8% of FaceBook shares. The hidden agenda for the FaceBook social network is to aid the growth of the police state and one world government movement. According to the TAP Blog, the venture Facebook was funded with $500 million from a CIA owned bank. One can only wonder if the other giant Google has similar disguised progeny. The adopted name Zuckerberg means sugar mountain in German.
http://gold-silver.us/forum/showthread.php?67702-Zuckerberg-is-David-Rockefeller-s-Grandson!-Clinton-greatgrandson-of-JD-Rockefeller
What's Jack Secret T-handle?
maybe this not him?
https://wikileaks.org/hackingteam/emails/emailid/1088684
Used by countless great orators and charismatic
leaders the likes of the President
of United States Barack Obama,
American talk-show host and entrepreneur Oprah Winfrey,
British Labour Party statesman Tony Blair and Apple Inc.
co-founder the late Steve Jobs, NLP is extremely
effective when used for influence because it considers both
the conscious and sub-conscious decision-making processes as
well as the inner neurological motivations of human beings.
https://wikileaks.org/gifiles/docs/31/311866_-os-nigeria-econ-gv-executive-jacks-up-2010-budget-to-n4-3tr.html
#internet #conservatives #patriots #propaganda #facebook #donors
#bigpharma #censorship #freedomofspeech #2ndAmendment
#guncontrol #tryingtoshutusup #MarkZuckerBerg #termsofservice
#datamining #privacyinvasion #nothingburger #infowars
#diamondandsilk #bluepill #redpill #matrix #globalistinternetwar
#NWO #rockerfellars #rothschild #family
Show more
LISTEN TO THE AUDIO OF MARK ZUCKERBERG ON THIS INTERVIEW
Q&A. https://techcrunch.com/2018/04/04/zuckerberg-raw/
#NWO #rockerfellars #rothschild #family
http://www.latimes.com/local/lanow/la-me-facebook-lawsuit-20180406-story.html
A Navy veteran has joined with two other Southern Californians to file a class-action lawsuit against Facebook and others in the wake of revelations that the personal data of an estimated 87 million users was exposed in an alleged effort to help steer the 2016 presidential campaign.
The lawsuit was filed in Los Angeles federal court Wednesday, one of several that have been filed around the country on similar claims. The lawsuit accuses Facebook of failing to protect the personal information of its users, despite assurances on its site that users "own all of the content and information" they post on Facebook, and that users "can control how it is shared" by using the platform's privacy settings.
"This is false and misleading," the lawsuit argues.
Bloggers Note: WikiLeaks Says OtherWise::
https://wikileaks.org/gifiles/docs/16/1663961_-windows-1252-q-re-3a_-5bos-5d_us-ct-_report-3a_faceboo.html
Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg appears to have been outed as not caring
one whit about your privacy - a jarring admission, considering how much
of our personal data Facebook owns, not to mention its plans to become
the web's central repository for our preferences and predilections.
one whit about your privacy - a jarring admission, considering how much
of our personal data Facebook owns, not to mention its plans to become
the web's central repository for our preferences and predilections.
Snowden did Warn Us about Mark Z.
http://money.cnn.com/2018/03/20/technology/business/investors-sue-facebook-cambridge-analytica/index.html
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/business/news/article.cfm?c_id=3&objectid=12026376
https://www.ctvnews.ca/sci-tech/data-of-620-000-canadians-improperly-shared-with-consulting-firm-facebook-1.3871348
https://techcrunch.com/2018/04/04/zuckerberg-raw/
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/asia/thailand-facebook-anti-monarchy-posts-lawsuit-sue-military-government-king-maha-a7731846.html
https://www.cbsnews.com/video/full-video-trump-to-drain-the-swamp-in-dc/
https://www.npr.org/2017/04/26/525551816/trumps-efforts-to-drain-the-swamp-lagging-behind-his-campaign-rhetoric
Apr 26, 2017 - Trump's Efforts To 'Drain The Swamp' Lagging Behind His Campaign Rhetoric.
President Trump's campaign rallies were defined by three slogans, three syllables each, which the candidate led the crowd in chanting: "Build the wall," condemning illegal immigration; "Lock her up," attacking Democratic rival Hillary Clinton; and "Drain the swamp," all about cleaning up Washington.
At a Wisconsin rally last October, Trump announced, "It is time to drain the swamp in Washington, D.C. This is why I'm proposing a package of ethics reforms to make our government honest once again."
The phrase "drain the swamp" didn't originate with the Trump campaign. Advocates of tougher laws on political money and lobbying have used it for years.
https://www.opensecrets.org/news/2018/01/drain-the-swamp-lobbyists-are-filling-it-up/
https://www.forbes.com/forbes/welcome/?toURL=https://www.forbes.com/sites/kenrapoza/2018/04/08/strange-bedfellows-what-trump-and-brazils-lula-have-in-common/&refURL=https://www.google.com/&referrer=https://www.google.com/ Asshole Story!!
http://www.stltoday.com/news/local/govt-and-politics/in-missouri-s-senate-race-one-of-us-is-in/article_cb6d0534-edd3-514e-ac00-c417a0978967.html
In Missouri's Senate race, 'one of us' is in the eye of the beholder
WASHINGTON • Missouri’s U.S. Senate race has become a game of association — of “one of us” vs. “one of them.”
It’s full of contradictions and ironies, complicated by the intrinsic paradoxes of President Donald Trump, the billionaire populist, who remains relatively popular in the state.
Missouri’s Senate race is one in which another billionaire, filmmaker Steven Spielberg, has been attacked as a toxic associate of incumbent Democrat Claire McCaskill, for whom Spielberg is co-hosting a May 6 fundraiser in Beverly Hills that will feature former President Barack Obama.
A spokeswoman for Attorney General Josh Hawley, the leading Republican contender challenging McCaskill in this year’s election, said that “our families prefer elected officials who represent Missouri-styled conservatism rather than left coast liberalism.”
Meanwhile, Trump, the “Celebrity Apprentice” billionaire, was welcomed in suburban St. Louis to a $50,000-a-person fundraiser for Hawley.
Trump has been accused of paying hush money to cover up an affair with a porn star, but he raised money for a candidate who has said sex trafficking was caused by “the sexual revolution” and a “culture that has lost its way.”
Trump won Missouri by almost 19 percentage points by promising to drain the D.C. “swamp.”
“He portrayed himself as a D.C. outsider who was in step with the ‘regular Americans’ values,’” said Jeremy Walling, a political scientist at Southeast Missouri State, speaking of the president. “Not necessarily one of us … but definitely not ‘one of them.’”
Missouri Democrats and Republicans have essentially switched sides on the “one of us” debate.
http://time.com/donald-trump-drain-swamp/
How do politicians access campaign contributions for personal use?
https://www.campaignsandelections.com/campaign-insider/a-primer-on-the-rules-of-personal-use-for-campaign-funds
In one way, Christine O’Donnell’s unsuccessful 2010 campaign for Senate just ended. Last month, a federal judge ordered O’Donnell to disgorge nearly $6,000 in campaign funds that were spent on payments for a building used, in part, as her personal residence, and to jointly pay, with her campaign, a civil penalty of $25,000 for violating federal campaign law.
Personal use violations are nothing new, but now campaign finance reports are publicly available and easy to access online. Several members of Congress and federal candidates have recently come under investigation as campaign finance information is routinely used by political and ideological opponents as a bludgeon. Compounding matters, numerous bodies have the jurisdiction to receive complaints and investigate violations of improper personal use, including the Department of Justice, FEC, House and Senate ethics commissions, and the Office of Congressional Ethics.
Moreover, personal use violations can be low-hanging fruit for investigators, as campaigns that fulfill their recordkeeping obligations under federal law leave an ideal paper trail for a savvy investigator to follow. And if the DoJ finds that violations of the personal use rule are “knowing and willful,” a criminal investigation, prosecution and jail time can result.
As many campaigns are starting to ramp-up for the 2018 election cycle, and many first-time candidates are considering a run for office, a brief reminder of the rules for personal use of campaign funds can be helpful. Generally, funds donated to a federal political committee may not be converted to a personal use.
Money is considered to be converted to personal use if it’s used to pay for any commitment, obligation, or expense of a person that would exist irrespective of his or her election campaign or duties as a federal officeholder. Certain types of payments are always considered to be a conversion of funds, including payments for any of the following:
- Home mortgage, rent, or utilities, for any part of the candidate’s personal residence or that of his or her family, unless the payment represents the fair market value for use by the campaign
- Clothing, other than de minimis campaign giveaways like t-shirts
- Non-campaign related automobile expense
- Country club membership
- Vacation or personal travel
- Household food
- Tuition payments, unless intended to train campaign staff
- Admission to a sporting event, concert, theater, or other form of entertainment not associated with a campaign or officeholder activity
- Dues, fees, or payments to a health club or recreational facility
- Funeral, cremation or burial expenses (unless for a candidate or other certain exceptions)
- Salary payments to a member of the candidate’s family over the fair market value of any bona fide service that person is providing to the campaign
- Excessive salary payments to the candidate personally
Other types of payments may not necessarily result in personal conversion, but are subject to a case-by-case review, such as:
- Legal expenses
- Meal expenses
- Travel expenses
- Vehicle expenses other than as described above.
Still, other types of payments are generally permissible, unless other facts suggest that they may result in personal conversion, such as the receipt of payments by a family member or payments over fair market value. Generally permissible types of payments include:
- Donations to a charitable organization
- Transfers of campaign assets, such as a mailing list, for fair market value
- Gifts of nominal value on special occasions or holidays
Also note that the FEC requires special record keeping requirements for payments described above that may result in personal expenses, including a contemporaneous log of those payments.
While these rules apply exclusively to federal campaigns, many states and localities maintain their own, unique rules regarding what constitutes personal conversion. These rules may take the federal statutes and regulations described above as advisory, or they may be dramatically different than what's described here.
https://www.fec.gov/help-candidates-and-committees/making-disbursements/personal-use/
Using campaign funds for personal use is prohibited.
Commission regulations provide a test, called the “irrespective test,” to differentiate legitimate campaign and officeholder expenses from personal expenses. Under the “irrespective test,” personal use is any use of funds in a campaign account of acandidate (or former candidate) to fulfill a commitment, obligation or expense of any person that would exist irrespective of the candidate’s campaign or responsibilities as a federal officeholder.
More simply, if the expense would exist even in the absence of the candidacy or even if the officeholder were not in office, then the personal use ban applies.
https://ballotpedia.org/What_can_politicians_do_with_unused_campaign_funds%3F
Can a politician keep all of the money from a campaign account after leaving office?
In July 2016, a Ballotpedia review of FEC records revealed that over $3.5 million sat in the campaign accounts for senators who had left the legislature since 2000.[1] Legally, these lawmakers were not required to do anything with that money. Another legal option: these former senators could have donated all of it to charity.
When Evan Bayh (D-Ind.) announced that he would run for U.S. Senate in July 2016—running in place of Baron Hill (D), who dropped out of the race—Bayh had $9.2 million ready to spend in his campaign account.[2] Bayh hadn't been in office for six years, and his campaign funds dwarfed the less than $1 million raised at that point by Todd Young, the Republican nominee.[3] At the time, The Washington Post predicted that Bayh's money would "go a long way to insulate Bayh from whatever attacks Republicans throw at him."[4]
How did $9.2 million sit in a campaign account for six years? And what were Bayh's legal options for using that money?
| This article will explain what happens to excess campaign committee funds when a lawmaker leaves office. With leftover funds, former politicians can legally only use the money from campaign committees toward political or charitable purposes. They can: |
| The rules on what politicians can do with unused campaign money were developed in 1979 when the Federal Election Campaign Act was amended. To learn more about these amendments and see the language that dictates these policies, click "Show more" below. |
What can politicians do with unused campaign funds?
The general rule for the use of excess campaign funds after a federal lawmaker leaves office is that the funds cannot be used for personal expenses. They must be put toward political or charitable uses.[11] The following sections detail the options for federal campaign committee funds once a candidate ceases to hold office.
Pay for winding-down costs
Campaign funds can be used to "wind down" the office of a federal lawmaker. According to the FEC, winding-down costs are "ordinary and necessary expenses incurred in connection with one’s duties as a federal officeholder" and can include moving costs, payments to campaign committee staff, or "gifts ... [or] donations of nominal value to persons other than the members of the candidate’s family." These winding-down costs are only applicable for six months after an officeholder leaves his or her position.[12]
Donate the funds to a recognized charity
One option for unused campaign funds is to donate them as a charitable contribution. In the 1979 amendments to FECA, charitable contributions are defined as donations to groups described in section 170(c) of the Internal Revenue Code. This includes contributions for use by the state, recognized nonprofit organizations, and other organizations not designed for private interests.[13] After his retirement in 2013, former U.S. Sen. Joe Lieberman (I-Conn.) used the remaining funds from his campaign account for charitable purposes, starting the Joe Lieberman Connecticut Scholarship Fund. He also spent some of the money organizing his personal and professional papers for donation to the Library of Congress.[14]
This option also includes creating a nonprofit organization with the leftover campaign funds. In 2008, former Rep. Ron Paul (R-Texas) used the remaining money from his presidential campaign to form the Campaign for Liberty, a 501(c)(4)nonprofit.[15]
Donate to other politicians' campaign committees
Unused funds can also be donated to other candidates' committees, but such donations are subject to state laws on contribution limits where applicable. Federally, these donations are limited to $2,000 to a single candidate's committee each year, according to the Center for Responsive Politics.[11]
Donate to party activity at the federal, state, or local level
Federal law allows for unlimited transfers of unused campaign funds to federal, state, or local parties and party committees.[11][12]
Do nothing
A former legislator does not have to do anything with remaining money in his or her campaign account. This was the case with Bayh until 2016, as he rarely donated any money to candidates or party activities. In 2015, The Atlantic reported that Bayh "donated to a handful of past Senate and House campaigns" but that these donations were largely offset because "interest keeps replenishing Bayh's account as he spends and donates from it." The article also reported other former lawmakers who had campaign funds and had chosen to do nothing with them at the time. These lawmakers included former U.S. Reps. Joe Kennedy II (D-Mass.), Michele Bachmann (R-Minn.), and Mark Foley (R-Fla.).[16]
What happens to the funds if a lawmaker dies?
In the event that campaign funds are still available for a lawmaker or former lawmaker who passes away, those funds remain bound by the provisions outlined above. The person responsible for distributing those funds is the official treasurer of the campaign.[17]
Footnotes
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Campaign_finance_in_the_United_States
https://ethics.house.gov/campaign-activity/proper-use-campaign-funds-and-resources
https://ethics.house.gov/campaign-activity/proper-use-campaign-funds-and-resources
GOOGLE WHO IS SERGY BRIN? #RUSSIA #KGB <<REFER TO MY EARLIER BLOG>>
Q&A. https://techcrunch.com/2018/04/04/zuckerberg-raw/
No comments:
Post a Comment