The Washington D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals has ruled that the 2016 Hillary Clinton campaign and its affiliated super PAC, Correct the Record, violated federal election law by coordinating nearly $6 million worth of expenses.

This decision against the Clinton-linked PAC overturns an earlier Federal Election Commission (FEC) dismissal which had cited an Internet exemption as justification, as the Gateway Pundit reports.

The Court's finding that the campaign and super PAC coordinated nearly $6 million in expenses, implicates a sum significantly larger than the $130,000 former President Donald Trump was convicted of misreporting during the same election cycle.

Initial FEC Dismissal Overturned

The Federal Election Commission (FEC) had initially dismissed the complaint against Clinton's campaign and Correct the Record, citing an internet exemption. This exemption was used to justify the lack of disclosure of the expenditures. However, the D.C. Circuit Court ruled that the FEC acted contrary to law in dismissing the complaint and that the internet exemption was misapplied.

The administrative complaint was filed by the nonprofit watchdog Campaign Legal Center. They alleged that Correct the Record spent close to $6 million in coordination with the Clinton campaign for activities such as conducting polls, hiring fact-checkers, and connecting Clinton's media surrogates with news outlets.

According to the Court, "Correct the Record set out to engage in a wide range of coordinated activities to support Hillary Clinton’s 2016 presidential campaign." The Court detailed that these activities were not categorized as contributions, with the super PAC instead characterizing its expenditures as "inputs" to unpaid internet communications.

Details of Coordinated Activities

The D.C. Circuit Court found that Correct the Record engaged in numerous coordinated activities to support Clinton's campaign. These included polling, media connections, and fact-checking services. The three-judge panel concluded that all these activities were coordinated with the Clinton campaign.

In its ruling, the Court stated, “In an administrative complaint filed with the Federal Election Commission, nonprofit watchdog Campaign Legal Center alleges that Correct the Record spent close to $6 million in coordination with the Clinton campaign during the lead-up to the 2016 election, including to conduct polls, hire teams of round-the-clock fact checkers, and connect Clinton media surrogates with radio and television news outlets.”

The ruling further elaborated that Correct the Record characterized its myriad expenditures -- from staff salaries and travel expenses to the cost of commissioning polls and renting offices -- as "inputs" to unpaid communications over the Internet. Because of this categorization, neither Correct the Record nor the Clinton campaign designated these expenditures as contributions to the campaign.

Court's Interpretation of Internet Exemption

The FEC's initial dismissal was based on their interpretation of the internet exemption, which the D.C. Circuit Court found to be erroneous. The Court ruled, “We hold that the Commission acted contrary to law in dismissing the complaint. Because we conclude that the internet exemption cannot be read to exempt from disclosure those expenditures that are only tangentially related to an eventual internet message or post, the Commission’s reading of the internet exemption stretches it beyond lawful limits.”

Further, the Court stated, “As to those expenditures that it deemed not to be covered by the internet exemption, the Commission acted contrary to law in dismissing the complaint for want of reason to believe the relevant expenditures were coordinated with the campaign, despite plausible allegations that Correct the Record coordinated all its expenditures with Hillary for America — and openly acknowledged doing so.”

Comparison to Trump's Case

This case contrasts sharply with the legal issues faced by former President Donald Trump. The FEC and the Justice Department reviewed payments Trump made through his personal attorney, Michael Cohen, to Stormy Daniels but declined to prosecute. Instead, Democrat Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg pursued the case under New York law, referencing an alleged FEC violation.

The Trump organization had listed payments to Cohen as legal expenses, which Bragg argued were illegal contributions to Trump's campaign. The amount involved in Trump’s case was $130,000, significantly less than the nearly $6 million in the Clinton campaign’s case.

Implications for Campaign Finance

The ruling by the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals sets a precedent in the interpretation of the internet exemption in campaign finance law. It underscores the necessity for transparency and proper categorization of campaign expenditures, particularly those related to internet communications.

This decision highlights the importance of accurate reporting and adherence to federal election laws by all campaign entities. It serves as a reminder that the misapplication of exemptions and the coordination of activities without proper disclosure can lead to significant legal repercussions.

The case against the Clinton campaign and Correct the Record underscores the need for vigilant oversight and accountability in the electoral process. It reinforces the role of watchdog organizations like the Campaign Legal Center in ensuring compliance with election laws.

Conclusion

In summary, the Washington D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals has ruled that the 2016 Hillary Clinton campaign and its affiliated super PAC, Correct the Record, violated federal election law by coordinating nearly $6 million worth of expenses. This ruling overturns an earlier FEC dismissal that had misapplied an internet exemption. The decision underscores the necessity for transparency in campaign finance and sets a significant precedent for the interpretation of related laws.

The implications of this ruling extend beyond the specific case, highlighting the need for accurate reporting and adherence to election laws by all campaign entities. It reinforces the role of oversight organizations in maintaining the integrity of the electoral process.