The people drawing comparisons this week between Rosie O’Donnell’s illegally over-sized campaign contributions and convicted felon Dinesh D’Souza’s straw donation scheme are either ignorant or dishonest – or both.
It’s true that O’Donnell has run afoul of Federal Election Commission rules by donating more than the maximum personal amount allowed per election ($2,700) to “at least five Democratic federal candidates,” the New York Post reported this week. It’s also true that her donations were filed from at least five separate New York addresses.
But the people alleging felonious behavior based on the Post reporting the contributions were also filed under “four variations of her name” would do well to look at the actual FEC documents.
For the record, this is how O’Donnell’s name appears on the receipts:
- Rosie O’Donnell
- Rosie Odonnell
- Rosie O’Donnell
- Rosie O’Donnell
- Rose Odonnell
- Rose Odonnell
- Rose Odonnell
- Rosie O’Donnell
- Rose O’Donnell
- Rosie O’Donnell
- Rosie O’Donnell
- Rose O’Donnell
- rose Odonnell
- rose odonnell
- Rosie ODonnell
This is important because it runs contrary to the claim that O’Donnell tried to conceal multiple over-sized donations, which would be a felony. If her aim was to avoid detection, having her occupation (“comic”) and employer (“Showtime”) included on the receipts seems like an odd choice. And let’s not lose sight of the fact that her name is on every single filing (how do you think the Post and the Washington Examiner found them?). Lastly, it’s probably worth mentioning that it is common for the recipient of a campaign donation to fill out the necessary FEC forms.
Put more plainly, it’s more likely that O’Donnell was careless rather than nefarious. She’s also probably in the clear, especially considering that excessive contributions are routine, non-felonious issue for the FEC. They are so routine, in fact, that there’s a page on the agency’s website dedicated to this specific issue.
As the Post report itself notes, “[I]t’s unlikely O’Donnell or her benefactors will be penalized for breaking FEC rules. Contributions over the limit can be refunded or counted toward a different election, and married donors can attribute the money to a spouse.”
Also, as campaign finance lawyer Jan Witold Baran told the paper, “Campaigns generally are not penalized for isolated contributions over a limit. However, multiple excessive donations may lead to an investigation … Fines could result in such cases.”
Now, let’s compare all of this to D’Souza, who is playing the victim angle hard this week.
D’Souza pleaded guilty in May 2014 to using straw donors to funnel an estimated $20,000 to a New York Senate candidate. He enlisted the aid of two acquaintances, a friend and a woman with whom he was romantically involved, to carry out the illegal donations. D’Souza promised that he would reimburse them later. This is all illegal, which is why he was sentenced to serve eight months in “community confinement.”
Yet, the right-wing provocateur and his fans are crying foul this week following the Post’s O’Donnell report.
“Dinesh D’Souza got a felony conviction for illegal campaign donations; will Rosie O’Donnell get same treatment?” asked one Fox News headline.
Fox also reported incorrectly that O’Donnell “used fake names and addresses.” This isn’t true.
Former Republican Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee groused in response to the Fox headline: “Of course not. Laws are ignored for liberals and weaponized for conservatives. And Americans are sick of the double standard.”
“Will Rosie O’Donnell Serve Time Like Dinesh D’Souza?” asked a headline published by Townhall.
The story claims erroneously that “O’Donnell’s contributions are similar to what conservative author and filmmaker Dinesh D’Souza did during the 2012 election cycle.” No, they really aren’t.
D’Souza himself complained this week on Fox that, “[W]hat makes it particularly sneaky on her part is that she used four different names and five different addresses. So it seems clear that she knew what she was doing and she was trying to cover her tracks.”
He added, “What’s going to happen to Rosie is going to be a very interesting question of political equity. Remember, in justice, it’s not just a matter that you break the law. It’s a matter of whether other people who broke the law who are in a similar situation get similar treatment.”
Oh, please. Come down off the cross, we could use the wood.
There’s a significant difference between over-contributing, which is a routine matter, and using straw donors, the latter of which is a felony. D’Souza is guilty of the latter. There’s no real comparison between his $20,000 felony and O’Donnell giving a combined $5,400 in over-the-limit contributions to five candidates. D’Souza used personal acquaintances as donor mules, and now he’s playing the victim.
No thank you.
