Trump spent $55K in donations on copies of his book

Here is an article talking about other candidates having bought their own books during campaigns.

Difference being that they bought it directly from the publishers to avoid royalty issues.

newrepublic.com...

In 1996, the FEC stated that Senator Al D’Amato could gift the book to donors or fundraisers, but only sell them if the book were self-published. Yet when Scott Brown instigated an FEC ruling for purchases of his book Against All Odds, it was ruled that he could resell the books. The FEC declared that candidates must purchase the books at fair market value (defined as “a bulk rate that is a standard fair market price that the Publisher, under normal industry practice, makes available on equal terms to other large purchasers.” That fair market price usually equates to a discount of around 50%).

a reply to: Indigo5

Not when he had the option to buy them wholesale and at discount as the author of the book.

I just posted a little info. Check it out. I believe you are correct.

He has been charging the campaign for empty floors in Trump Tower (at full market rates) and the best excuse the campaign could offer is that they plan on hiring more people in the future.

Indeed. It will be interesting to see what comes of this.

originally posted by: introvert
I'm not quite sure if this will have much teeth to it.

And just a side note: I care not what has "teeth" as measured by the media (left, right or middle). We "Deny Ignorance" and shouldn't measure whether something matters or not by how much mainstream press cares...we are ATS.

originally posted by: Indigo5

originally posted by: introvert
I'm not quite sure if this will have much teeth to it.

And just a side note: I care not what has "teeth" as measured by the media (left, right or middle). We "Deny Ignorance" and shouldn't measure whether something matters or not by how much mainstream press cares...we are ATS.

I'm not talking in regards to the media and how much press it gets. I'm talking about legality and if it would end up with a day in court/FEC investigations.

a reply to: introvert

Thanks for that info. It helps greatly for context.

originally posted by: introvert
The royalty issue does throw a wrench in the works, though.

The real wrench is that FEC violations usually only get a slap on the wrist.

And both parties engage in their fair share of them -- Obama was terrible about violating FEC rules.

Since Trump has loaned his campaign so much money, he'll probably just deduct the royalty amount and be done with it now that it's come to light.

a reply to: introvert

The problem with the book is not the fair-market-value. His campaign violated the rule of not enriching themselves with campaign money by buying the book at retail in the first place. Trump got a royalty for each book bought, he enriched himself.

There is a technicality in that the FEC says it is permissible to buy books and give out, as long as no royalties, in any way, ever go to the candidate. Candidates are getting wiser about asking for permission first.

Trump's campaign did neither. Yep, "Stupid and Corrupt".

This is a fun read from 2011

When Politicians Buy Their Own Books

a reply to: MotherMayEye

The real wrench is that FEC violations usually only get a slap on the wrist.

If that. The FEC is known for it's gridlock.

Since Trump has loaned his campaign so much money, he'll probably just deduct the royalty amount and be done with it now that it's come to light.

I'm not quite sure that is how it works. You can't just deduct the money off the back end and call it good. The potential violation still occurred.

originally posted by: introvert

originally posted by: Indigo5

originally posted by: introvert
I'm not quite sure if this will have much teeth to it.

And just a side note: I care not what has "teeth" as measured by the media (left, right or middle). We "Deny Ignorance" and shouldn't measure whether something matters or not by how much mainstream press cares...we are ATS.

I'm not talking in regards to the media and how much press it gets. I'm talking about legality and if it would end up with a day in court/FEC investigations.

As I understand it...the FEC has been severely hobbled, understaffed and stripped of budget.

The only way they would actually follow-up on anything is if a team of congressmen barged into the office and threatened them...then maybe they would look into something.

Can't remember where I read it, but happy days for corrupt campaigns with the FEC only a pretend enforcement agency.

originally posted by: introvert
a reply to: MotherMayEye

The real wrench is that FEC violations usually only get a slap on the wrist.

If that. The FEC is known for it's gridlock.

Since Trump has loaned his campaign so much money, he'll probably just deduct the royalty amount and be done with it now that it's come to light.

I'm not quite sure that is how it works. You can't just deduct the money off the back end and call it good. The potential violation still occurred.

I am thinking that since his campaign is ongoing, he could get away with it.

What am I saying...he'll get away with it. They always get away with it.

a reply to: desert

It will be interesting to see if anything comes of this.

A bit of silly thing to do. Not because it should be a problem, but his team should be ensuring he does nothing even remotely questionable as we know for sure that buying your own books will be treated like mass murder by the dishonest media and their gophers.

Still, if this is the level of 'corruption' making news then Trump must be the Mother Theresa of politics.

50k wouldn't even cover Chelsea's Starbucks tab paid for by the Clinton foundation.

a reply to: Indigo5

Since Democrats are not known for demanding investigations or participating in political witch hunts, I doubt we will see that happen.

originally posted by: MotherMayEye

originally posted by: introvert
a reply to: MotherMayEye

The real wrench is that FEC violations usually only get a slap on the wrist.

If that. The FEC is known for it's gridlock.

Since Trump has loaned his campaign so much money, he'll probably just deduct the royalty amount and be done with it now that it's come to light.

I'm not quite sure that is how it works. You can't just deduct the money off the back end and call it good. The potential violation still occurred.

I am thinking that since his campaign is ongoing, he could get away with it.

What am I saying...he'll get away with it. They always get away with it.

I believe you may be correct.

originally posted by: Deny Arrogance
50k wouldn't even cover Chelsea's Starbucks tab paid for by the Clinton foundation.

There are different rules for campaigns and charitable foundations.

Apples and oranges.

a reply to: Indigo5

If you are wondering why this behavior of donnald trump is perfectly acceptable among his supporters, it is simply because a majority of them engage in similar activities.

This has been going on ever since the idea of "too little debt" became a science project.

In fact since we are not revolting how we should be, they are continuing this experiment ever forward to see if they can in fact completely control us.

And i think the only way we can stop this from moving forward is a war between classes.

originally posted by: introvert
a reply to: Indigo5

Since Democrats are not known for demanding investigations or participating in political witch hunts, I doubt we will see that happen.

Honestly?
I think Trumps larger issue with how he has been channeling donor funds to his personal profit is the Donors themselves...

Like Trump himself they don't tolerate "Losers" and while they might tolerate him skimming from the pot if he was winning, stealing from them for a losing venture has a different kind of taste to it.

If Trump loses in November it will be the Big Donors calling up the RNC asking for a full accounting of where the money they gave went...and they will be looking for Trump's head on a plate after all hope has left the building.

Just my prediction.

a reply to: Deny Arrogance

This about Trump... not Clinton or anyone else.. just another transparent attempt at deflection on your part.

originally posted by: Blazemore2000
a reply to: Deny Arrogance

This about Trump... not Clinton or anyone else.. just another transparent attempt at deflection on your part.

It's about Trump and a claim of corruption. Comments about the real corruption we should all care about is fair game imo. You don't get to decide how others respond.