Maxine Waters campaign to pay $68K for violating campaign finance laws
The Federal Election Commission (FEC) said the longtime House lawmaker's 2020 campaign committee, Citizens for Waters, ran afoul of several campaign finance laws in a tranche of documents released Friday.
The FEC accused Citizens for Waters of "failing to accurately report receipts and disbursements in calendar year 2020," "knowingly accepting excessive contributions" and "making prohibited cash disbursements," according to one document that appears to be a legally binding agreement that allows both parties to avoid going to court.
Dems Fume Over 'Due Process' For Abrego Garcia Despite Long History Of Party Bucking The Legal Principle
Waters' committee agreed to pay the civil fine as well as "send its treasurer to a Commission-sponsored training program for political committees within one year of the effective date of this Agreement."
"Respondent shall submit evidence of the required registration and attendance at such event to the Commission," the document said.
Read On The Fox News App
Citizens for Waters had accepted excessive campaign contributions from seven people totaling $19,000 in 2019 and 2020, the investigation found, despite the maximum legal individual contribution being capped at $2,800.
The committee offloaded those excessive donations, albeit in an "untimely" fashion, the document said.
Waters' campaign committee also "made four prohibited cash disbursements that were each in excess of $100, totaling $7,000," the FEC said.
The campaign committee "contends that it retained legal counsel to provide advice and guidance to the treasurer and implemented procedures to ensure the disbursements comply with the requirements of the Act."
Leilani Beaver, who was listed as Citizens for Waters' attorney, sent the FEC a letter last year that maintained the campaign finance violations were "errors" that "were not willful or purposeful."
Waters, the top Democrat on the House Financial Services Committee, has served in Congress since 1991.
The new movements in the probe were first reported by OpenSecrets.
Maxine Waters Floats Deporting Melania Trump In Anti-doge Diatribe
It is not the first time, however, that Waters has generated public scrutiny.
In 2023, a Fox News Digital investigation found that Waters' campaign paid her daughter $192,300 to pay for a "slate mailer" operation between Jan. 2021 and Dec. 2022.
It was reportedly just one sum out of thousands that Waters had paid her daughter for campaign work.
A complaint that Waters' campaign had accepted illegal campaign contributions in 2018 was overwhelmingly dismissed by the FEC in a 5-1 vote.
Fox News Digital reached out to Beavers, Waters' congressional office and Citizens for Waters for comment.Original article source: Maxine Waters campaign to pay $68K for violating campaign finance laws
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
19 minutes ago
Judge allows the National Science Foundation to withhold hundreds of millions of research dollars
NEW YORK -- The National Science Foundation can continue to withhold hundreds of millions of dollars from researchers in several states until litigation aimed at restoring it plays out, a federal court ruled Friday. U.S. District Judge John Cronan in New York declined to force the NSF to restart payments immediately, while the case is still being decided, as requested by the sixteen Democrat-led states who brought the suit, including New York, Hawaii, California, Colorado and Connecticut. In his ruling, Cronan said he would not grant the preliminary injunction in part because it may be that another court, the Court of Federal Claims, has jurisdiction over what is essentially a case about money. He also said the states failed to show that NSF's actions were counter to the agency's mandate. The lawsuit filed in May alleges that the National Science Foundation's new grant-funding priorities as well as a cap on what's known as indirect research expenses 'violate the law and jeopardize America's longstanding global leadership in STEM.' Another district court had already blocked the the cap on indirect costs — administrative expenses that allow research to get done like paying support staff and maintaining equipment. This injunction had been requested to restore funding to the grants that were cut. In April, the NSF announced a new set of priorities and began axing hundreds of grants for research focused on things like misinformation and diversity, equity and inclusion. Researchers who lost funding also were studying artificial intelligence, post-traumatic stress disorder in veterans, STEM education for K-12 students and more. Researchers were not given a specific explanation for why their grants were canceled, attorney Colleen Faherty, representing the state of New York, said during last month's hearing. Instead, they received boilerplate language stating that their work 'no longer effectuates the program goals or agency priorities." NSF has long been directed by Congress to encourage underrepresented groups like women and people with disabilities to participate in STEM. According to the lawsuit, the science foundation's funding cuts already halted efforts to train the next generation of scientists in fields like computer science, math and environmental science. A lawyer for the NSF said at the hearing that the agency has the authority to fund whatever research it deems necessary — and has since its inception in 1950. In the court filing, the government also argued that its current priorities were to 'create opportunities for all Americans everywhere' and 'not preference some groups at the expense of others, or directly/indirectly exclude individuals or groups.' The plaintiff states are trying to 'substitute their own judgement for the judgement of the agency," Adam Gitlin, an attorney for the NSF, said during the hearing. The science foundation is still funding some projects related to expanding representation in STEM, Cronan wrote in his ruling. Per the lawsuit filed in May, for example, the University of Northern Colorado lost funding for only one of its nine programs focused on increasing participation of underrepresented groups in STEM fields. The states are reviewing the decision, according to spokespeople from the New York and Hawaii attorney general offices. The National Science Foundation declined to comment. ___ The Associated Press Health and Science Department receives support from the Howard Hughes Medical Institute's Department of Science Education and the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation. The AP is solely responsible for all content.
Politico
31 minutes ago
- Politico
Democratic governors advise strong counteroffensive on redistricting
Kelly didn't cite California Gov. Gavin Newsom by name, but he is the most high profile, and likeliest, example of a Democrat considering a counteroffensive remapping effort to squeeze more seats from a blue state. On Thursday, Newsom said he'd seek a November special election to have voters approve a new House map that would boost Democrats' numbers. It's an expensive and potentially perilous gamble that his Democratic colleagues throughout the country appear to be backing — a notably more aggressive posture for the party. Various mid-decade redistricting efforts could launch a partisan arms race, as the parties look to redraw competing congressional maps to their own advantages. Democrats face a tougher path, as several blue states are bound by independent redistricting commissions and state constitutions, which would prevent them from quickly remaking maps. By contrast, discussions are already underway in several other Republican-controlled states that could follow Texas' lead, including Missouri, Indiana and Florida. Minnesota Gov. Tim Walz acknowledged there's 'validity' to concerns that Republicans might gain even more seats, should redistricting wars escalate. But, Walz and Kelly said, 'there's a bigger risk in doing nothing.' 'We can't just let this happen and act like it's fine, and hope that the courts fix it,' Kelly said. 'We have no idea, quite honestly, at this point, what the courts might do, but by virtue of us responding in kind, we do send a message. We're not going to take this line down.'
Politico
an hour ago
- Politico
Senate passes first funding package ahead of shutdown cliff
'It's taken a great deal of work, good faith and negotiation to get to this point,' Senate Appropriations Chair Susan Collins (R-Maine). 'Congress has a responsibility, a constitutional responsibility under Article I, for the power of the purse. We are executing that responsibility.' The package would provide almost $154 billion for military construction and veterans programs. It would send more than $27 billion to the Agriculture department and FDA. Both represent a roughly 2 percent boost over current levels. The Senate rejected an amendment from Sen. Jeff Merkley, an appropriator and the top Democrat on the Senate Budget Committee, that would bar the rescission, or clawback, of funds in the bill by the White House. Democrats are worried that the administration will send another rescissions package ahead of the fall funding deadline, which would likely implode any hopes of getting a larger funding deal. Still, Sen. Patty Murray, the top Democrat on the Appropriations Committee, defended the smaller deal reached among senators, saying that the package 'rejects damaging cuts from Trump and House Republicans.' The Senate adopted by voice vote an amendment from Democratic Sens. Richard Blumenthal of Connecticut and Alex Padilla of California that would bar the use of any funds in the bill to reduce services provided by the Veterans Crisis Line. Senators rejected other amendments from Democrats including one that would have halted funding of the Agriculture Department reorganization and another to require a report on staffing reductions at the VA. They also rejected amendments from Sens. John Kennedy (R-La.) and Rick Scott (R-Fla.) that would have made deeper cuts to the Agriculture-FDA bill. The chamber also voted 75-21 to reject a proposal from Sen. Ron Johnson of Wisconsin that would bar lawmakers from taking credit for earmarks. It would require the funding to be revoked if a lawmaker were to ever tout their earmarks in interviews, mailings, speeches or even on the campaign trail.
