Ricochet is the best place on the internet to discuss the issues of the day, either through commenting on posts or writing your own for our active and dynamic community in a fully moderated environment. In addition, the Ricochet Audio Network offers over 50 original podcasts with new episodes released every day.
Money Laundering Allegations at Media Matters
David Brock is a well known ally of the Democrats, a friend and supporter of the Clintons, and a frequent visitor at the White House. His main organization, Media Matters, lays claim, as a non-profit, to being some sort of media watch dog and “fact checker”, even though it almost exclusively attacks right-of-center media outlets and, of course, Fox News. If Zero Hedge is correct in its analysis, it it has also been a front for money laundering for David Brock.
I have little to say on this myself, only to suggest that others here read and evaluate what Zero Hedge is saying. I am curious what financial folks here on Rico have to say about their analysis. I am also wondering if Brock and company would be up for criminal charges. Given Brock’s very close connections with both Obama and Clinton, this could prove incredibly damaging. The following is the heart of Zero Hedge’s analysis:
Published in PoliticsLet’s recap
Say, for example, you donate $1,062,857 to Media Matters for America. This is how David Brock would have used your charitable donation in 2014:
- Media Matters would receive your $1,062,857 donation
- The Bonner Group would earn a $132,857 commission
- Media Matters would retain $930,000
- Next, Media Matters would give what’s left of your entire donation, $930,000, to the Franklin Education Forum
- The Bonner Group would ‘earn’ a $116,250 commission
- The Franklin Education Forum would retain $813,750
- The Franklin Education Forum would then forward the remaining $813,750 to The Franklin Forum
- The Bonner Group would ‘earn’ a $101,718 commission
- The Franklin Forum would retain $712,031
In the end, Brock’s solicitor would have pocketed $350,825, almost a third of your initial donation! That’s a far cry from the advertised 12.5% commission.
As bizarre as that scenario may sound, this is exactly what David Brock did in 2014.
It is certainly embezzlement, but it is now standard practise.
I was called yesterday by someone who was trying to show me how to rob from my own company. He was very proud of having done it for many CEOs in the past.
See how Donald Trump has been applying contributed funds to a range of non-campaign expenses.
We are now in a place where nothing is bad, because between the Clintons and Trump, they are (or have) already done it.
Is this money laundering or simply, y’know, fraud? It could be fraud.
This is what Mike Murphy does with your political donations. Just sayin’
To a certain extent I don’t really care.
Why do I care if trump is using his own property and facilities to run his campaign and charging going rates to use them?
Why do I care if Mike Murphy is using his own media companies to generate media for campaigns?
As long as they are providing the services for which are being paid, and the pricing is at the normal rate, I don’t really care.
Now if Brock just as a million shell organizations that he moves money between, that may be different.
This should be good!
The problem is usually defined as “self-dealing.” Most rinky-dink operators do it, and it is shady at best.
The easiest way is to see how the outside investors come out. If they do well, then all is forgiven. If they take a bath, then the self-dealing is at least part of the reason why.
Trump always screwed his outside investors. The Clintons, when not leaving bodies behind, actually tend to return value: pay $$, acquire favors, cash them in, etc. The taxpayers pay the bill ultimately, of course. But the Clintons have been more careful than Trump to ensure that people who pay get what they paid for. In that sense, they are more trustworthy.
Heh. Strange times.
Is it criminal? Probably.
Will he get prosecuted? Not while a Democrat controls the White House. This falls under the heading of “Prosecutorial Discretion.” It’s not worth prosecuting if you support the party in power.
Seawriter
Brock did it but didn’t intend to like Hillary. Berine Sanders did something like this by setting up an advertising company that got a 12.5% cut of his campaigns advertising budget of $75 million dollars. It’s a sewer.
Which is why it’s necessary to re-elect the Democrat, whatever its name is.
(When I saw the OP, I thought this was going to be about the unmarked bills that Obama sent to Iran.)
Don’t be silly! No reasonable prosecutor would bring a case against Brock!
I am quite sure that it is only a matter of time before Mr. Brock is brought to the floor of the United States Senate and that Senator Warren (aka Lieawatha) will accuse him of making $200 million through a scam, that he should resign and be charged criminally.
Oh … wait ….
It’s not money laundering, that is taking money from compromised (criminal) sources and making it appear to be legitimately earned, but it is similar to “churning” in the investment game, that is making trades with little or no gain, especially in and out of the same investments, to create commissions on trades. At some point “churning” becomes presumptive fraud. In addition, when a not for profit solicits donations there is a presumption that the funds will be used primarily for the stated purpose of the organization. Certainly, there is a presumption that there will be no excessive self dealing with respect to the funds. The stated commission rate of 12.5% itself disclosed by Media Matters is itself a very high figure, by itself a borderline presumption of self dealing. However, since it is disclosed, the donors have little recourse – caveat emptor. However, the commissions earned further down the transaction trail when entities controlled by those who control Media Matters move money to another captive non-for-profit entity and effective give themselves another cut from the pie, this is troublesome self dealing and it would likely constitute fraud, that is if someone wanted to prosecute. A further commission earned after the second entity moves yet more money to a third captive is simply breathtaking. This is the wormhole to riches every Democrat operative has been looking for! And it is fraud, plain and simple.
“No reasonable prosecutor” == “No U.S. Attorney who knows what is good for him.”
In that case, let’s prosecute him right here on the Internet.
“Nice career you’ve got ‘ere! Be a shame if sumfin’ was to ‘appen to it!”
I’ve been thinking this for several days and this seems like the place to get it off my chest:
David Brock
MegaMind’s human appearance (Bernard):
I know something about 501 (3)c groups. If Zero Hedge’s data is sound, Brock is in trouble. He thinks he can get away with this because he’s an operating foundation, not a charitable foundation–that is, they tell you up front they aren’t giving your money to others, they spend it on the stated purpose of the org. Nothing wrong with that, but a multi-stage diversion rate of 12.5% that amounts to 30% net isn’t the stated purpose.
The best way to blast through Brock’s thicket might be the RICO statutes. Yes, declaring him a racketeer and convicting him as the boss of a corrupt organization.
Wouldn’t look good on a resume, IMHO.
In that case, we could indict most of the US Government, and especially the political parties.
Not going to happen.
It’s more important to do this on the internet than through the legal system. (This is not sarcasm, btw.)
This is pretty standard practice at a lot of nonprofits unfortunately. The analysis is correct.
As Mark Bellign says, there’s a lot of profit to be made in non-profits.
It’s depressing that I have no trouble believing that.
I always think he’s going to give me the plans to build an Interocitor.
Just look at the NFL!
Don’t abandon all hope for prosecution- they got that bastard kingpen Dinesh D’Souza!!
I wouldn’t call this money laundering. It is fraud however.
I am sure that the Clinton Foundation is doing similar and much worse things.
As noted in The Daily Shot today, the Trump Foundation looks like it might be in some trouble for things like this also.
The people in this elite non-profit/government/finance nexus are perplexed why the public is so angry.
I thought the Donald J. Trump Foundation was mostly used by Trump to finance philanthropy in his name with others’ money or is this a separate foundation?
I’ve read that in 2014 something like 6% of donations to the Clinton Foundation went to charitable activities.
Drink! As soon as I saw “Money Laundering” in the title, I just knew RICO would come up. RICO requires a far more complicated case than what seems to be a much simpler kind of fraud. From what is described, money laundering isn’t even the right term to describe this, since laundering involves illicit funds being made to look legitimate. This looks like just straight up fraud and embezzlement. [Source: reading Popehat.com mostly. I don’t pretend to be a lawyer, because that is a crime which only works out well for characters on TV.]
If the IRS didn’t see this group as an ally, they might be interested.
Well it could be money laundering too since they’re not disclosing the source of funds. But it’s unlikely.