Rep. Maxine Waters’ campaign committee and its treasurer have entered into a conciliation agreement with the Federal Election Commission (FEC) regarding violations of the Federal Election Campaign Act (FECA).
During 2019 and 2020 the campaign received excessive contributions totaling $19,000 from seven donors. FECA limits contributions from individuals to $2,800 per election. In addition, during 2020, the campaign made four cash disbursements that were each more than the $100 limit, totaling $7,000.
The FEC never moves very fast. It claims that the violations were detected “in the normal course of carrying out its supervisory responsibilities.”
The bigger problem, however, is that while the FEC pursued these relatively minor violations, Waters continues to use her campaign committee as a money-laundering machine to enrich her own family through her daughter Karen.
For more than twenty years, Waters has engaged in a scheme based around what are called “slate mailers.” The slate mailers resemble a sample ballot distributed by political parties but contain Waters’ personal endorsements, mailed to voters in her district prior to Election Day.
Waters is the only federal candidate who uses a slate mailer. They are an anachronism. The question is why she keeps doing them. The main beneficiary appears to be her daughter Karen, who has received more than a million to coordinate the mailers, although it is unclear what duties she performs.
In 2004, Waters sought and received an Advisory Opinion (AO) from the FEC on whether she could receive payments from candidates in excess of federal contribution limits. The current limit is $5,000 for a federal political committee. The FEC advised that she could, as long as the payments were “reimbursements” for the proportional costs of the production of the mailers.
In 2018, NLPC filed two FEC complaints alleging campaign finance violations related to the slate mailer. The first cited a payment to her campaign fund from the Democratic State Central Committee of California (DSCCC) for the inclusion of then-Senate candidate Kamala Harris on Waters’ slate mailer. The FEC dismissed the allegation, stating that “the payment on behalf of the Harris committee was a coordinated party expenditure within the Acts’ limit.”
The second cited a payment to her campaign fund from a group called “Families and Teachers for Antonio” for inclusion of former Los Angeles mayor and then-California gubernatorial candidate Antonio Villaraigosa on the mailer. The FEC used “prosecutorial discretion” to dismiss the allegation, stating that, although the Waters Committee had received an excessive contribution and returned the group’s payment exceeding the attributable costs of the mailer “beyond the 60-day regulatory timeframe,” the amount in question had been modest.
The 2004 AO specifically applied to the 2004 election. Waters (and the FEC) have treated it as if it applied to all elections indefinitely into the future. The AO’s final line is:
The Commission emphasizes that, if there is a change in any of the facts or assumptions presented, and such facts or assumptions are material to a conclusion presented in this advisory opinion, then the requestor may not rely on that conclusion as support for its proposed activity.
In 2004, the FEC certainly did not contemplate that the mailer would be a vehicle for self-dealing and the enrichment of Waters’ family. Since that time, the slate mailer scheme has operated in violation of the spirit and letter of the FECA.
Meanwhile on Sunday, Waters harangued National Guard troops stationed outside the Metropolitan Detention Center in downtown Los Angeles. She challenged them directly, asking, “Who are you going to shoot? If you’re going to shoot me, you better shoot straight.”
She attempted to enter the Detention Center to visit David Huerta, the president of SEIU Local 99, who had been arrested during ICE protests. She approached the entrance wearing a congressional jacket, identified herself and her intent to “check on” Huerta, but was denied entry, with an officer shutting the door in her face.
