Did Hillary Illegally Fund Her Campaign?

Hillary Clinton's 2016 presidential campaign and the Democratic National Committee (DNC) have been accused of violating campaign finance laws. In 2024, they agreed to pay $113,000 to settle a Federal Election Commission (FEC) investigation into whether they misreported spending on research that became the Steele dossier. The Clinton campaign hired a law firm, which then hired a research and intelligence firm to conduct opposition research on Republican candidate Donald Trump's ties to Russia. However, on FEC forms, the Clinton campaign classified the spending as legal services. This led to accusations that they intentionally obscured the true nature of the payments. While the Clinton campaign and DNC argued that the payments were described accurately, they agreed to settle to avoid further legal costs. Additionally, there have been allegations that Hillary Clinton broke the law by using a private server and portable electronic devices to transact government business and subsequently destroying emails and devices after being subpoenaed.

Clinton campaign's funding of the Steele dossier

Hillary Clinton's 2016 presidential campaign and the Democratic National Committee (DNC) have agreed to pay $113,000 to settle a Federal Election Commission (FEC) investigation into whether they violated campaign finance law by misreporting spending on research that eventually became the infamous Steele dossier. The Clinton campaign hired Perkins Coie, which then hired Fusion GPS, a research and intelligence firm, to conduct opposition research on Republican candidate Donald Trump's ties to Russia. However, on FEC forms, the Clinton campaign classified the spending as legal services.

The Steele dossier was a report compiled by former British spy Christopher Steele and financed by Democrats. It included salacious allegations about Trump's conduct in Russia and allegations about ties between the Trump campaign and Russia. The FBI invested significant resources in attempting to corroborate the dossier and relied on it to obtain surveillance warrants targeting former Trump campaign aide Carter Page.

The Clinton campaign and DNC had argued that the payments had been described accurately but agreed to settle without conceding to avoid further legal costs. The Clinton campaign agreed to a civil penalty of $8,000 and the DNC $105,000, according to a pair of conciliatory agreements.

While the dossier played a central and essential role in seeking FISA warrants on Carter Page, it did not trigger the Russia investigation or play a role in the January 2017 intelligence community assessment of Russian actions in the 2016 election. The dossier has been largely discredited since its publication, with core aspects of the material exposed as unsupported and unproven rumors.

The FEC concluded that the Clinton campaign and DNC misreported the money that funded the dossier, masking it as "legal services" and "legal and compliance consulting" instead of opposition research. The Clinton campaign and the DNC never conceded that they violated campaign finance laws but agreed to drop their pushback and accept the civil fines, according to the FEC letter.

Clinton's use of a private server

Hillary Clinton's use of a private email server for official communications during her tenure as Secretary of State from 2009 to 2013 was a significant point of controversy and discussion during the 2016 presidential election, in which she was the Democratic nominee.

Clinton's server was initially set up in the basement of her home in Chappaqua, New York, and was later moved to a data center in New Jersey before being handed over to Platte River Networks, an IT firm hired to manage her email system. The server was configured to allow users to connect and control it remotely, and Clinton frequently used mobile devices to conduct official business, despite warnings from State Department security personnel about the security risks.

A years-long FBI investigation into Clinton's server found that it did not contain any emails that were clearly marked as classified. However, federal agencies retroactively determined that many emails contained information that should have been deemed classified, including some marked as "Secret" and "Top Secret".

While Clinton claimed that her use of the private server complied with federal laws and State Department regulations, experts, officials, and members of Congress contended that it violated federal law and State Department protocols. The controversy surrounding Clinton's private email server led to an FBI investigation and intense media scrutiny, with some critics alleging that she intentionally deleted emails that were under subpoena.

The FBI ultimately concluded that Clinton had been extremely careless in her handling of sensitive information but recommended against prosecution, as they found no evidence of criminal intent. The investigation's findings and subsequent announcements by FBI Director James Comey had a significant impact on the 2016 election, with some arguing that it contributed to Clinton's loss to her Republican rival, Donald Trump.

Clinton's deletion of 33,000 emails

During her time as Secretary of State, Hillary Clinton used a private email server for official public communications instead of an official State Department email account. This decision led to a years-long FBI investigation, which concluded that Clinton's server did not contain any emails that were clearly marked as classified. However, federal agencies did retroactively determine that 100 emails contained information that should have been deemed classified.

Clinton's use of a private email system and server was controversial, with some experts, officials, and members of Congress arguing that it violated federal law, specifically 18 U.S. Code § 1924, which pertains to the unauthorised removal and retention of classified documents or materials. Despite this, Clinton maintained that her use of a private email server complied with federal laws and State Department regulations.

In July 2016, FBI Director James Comey announced that the FBI investigation had concluded that Clinton had been "extremely careless" but recommended against filing charges as there was no evidence of criminal intent. However, the controversy surrounding Clinton's emails received significant media coverage during the 2016 presidential election, in which she was the Democratic nominee, and may have contributed to her loss.

Now, to address the specific issue of the deletion of 33,000 emails:

Clinton's office disclosed on March 10, 2015, that she had provided the State Department with 30,490 work-related emails and had "chosen not to keep" 31,830 emails deemed "personal." This decision was made before Clinton received a congressional subpoena on March 4, 2015, from the House Select Committee on Benghazi, which was seeking emails related to its investigation into the September 11, 2012, attack on U.S. facilities in Libya.

The actual deletion of the 31,830 personal emails took place between March 25 and 31, 2015, according to the FBI, which was about three weeks after Clinton received the subpoena. This timing became an issue, with some accusing Clinton of deleting the emails while under subpoena. However, Clinton and her campaign pushed back against these suggestions.

The process of sorting and deleting the emails was overseen by Clinton's former chief of staff, Cheryl Mills, and her lawyer, David Kendall. Heather Samuelson, a lawyer who worked on Clinton's 2008 presidential campaign, undertook the review to identify work-related emails. In December 2014, after the work-related emails were preserved, Mills instructed Platte River Networks (PRN), the company managing Clinton's private server, to change the server's retention policy to reflect Clinton's decision to no longer need access to emails older than 60 days.

However, a PRN employee mistakenly failed to make the retention policy change and did not delete the old emails until sometime between March 25 and 31, 2015. This deletion was performed using BleachBit, a free utility software. The PRN employee responsible for deleting the emails stated that he had an "oh shit" moment when he realised his mistake, as it contradicted the guidance given by Clinton's attorneys to retain all data in compliance with the congressional preservation request.

Clinton herself told the FBI that she was not aware that the emails had been deleted in late March 2015. Campaign spokesman Josh Schwerin also stated that nobody from the campaign, including Clinton, her attorneys, or other relevant individuals, knew when PRN deleted the emails. It appears that the PRN employee acted on his own, contrary to the instructions given by Clinton's attorneys.

While the Clinton campaign initially stated that the personal emails were deleted before the subpoena was issued, this statement was later clarified to refer specifically to the decision to delete the emails and not the actual execution of the deletion. The campaign argued that they only learned of the exact timing of the deletion from the FBI report, which was released in September 2016.

In conclusion, while the deletion of 33,000 emails by Clinton may have been controversial and contributed to the broader controversy surrounding her use of a private email server, the available evidence suggests that the timing of the deletion was due to a mistake by a PRN employee rather than a deliberate attempt by Clinton or her team to obstruct the congressional investigation.

Clinton's control of the DNC

In 2016, Hillary Clinton ran for president of the United States as the Democratic Party's candidate. In July 2016, she committed to introducing a constitutional amendment that would overturn the 2010 Citizens United decision, which allowed corporations and unions to spend unlimited amounts of money on political campaigns.

Clinton's campaign had planned for a delayed announcement, and on April 12, 2015, she released a YouTube video formally announcing her candidacy. Clinton's campaign logo was unveiled on the same day, featuring a blue "H" with a red arrow through the middle.

Clinton's campaign began with near-universal name recognition, having been First Lady, a US Senator, and Secretary of State. She had a very high name recognition of an estimated 99% and strong support from African-Americans, college-educated women, and single women.

Clinton's campaign strategy focused on local issues, emphasising experience and steady leadership, and targeting specific demographic groups. She also emphasised the need for calm and experienced leadership, particularly in the context of uncertain times and maintaining US alliances.

Clinton's campaign benefited from a network of donors that she and her husband, former President Bill Clinton, had cultivated over 40 years. By the end of September 2015, the campaign had drawn $110 million in support.

In August 2015, the Clinton campaign signed a joint fundraising agreement with the Democratic National Committee (DNC). The campaign set up a joint fundraising committee with the DNC, the Hillary Victory Fund, and 32 state committees. The Clinton campaign sent the DNC a memorandum of understanding, agreeing to help the DNC pay off its debt in exchange for joint authority over strategic decisions, staffing, budgeting, and communications.

The agreement between the Clinton campaign and the DNC gave the campaign control over the DNC's finances, strategy, and all money raised. The campaign had the right of refusal over the DNC's communications director and made final decisions on other staff. The DNC was required to consult the campaign on staffing, budgeting, data, analytics, and mailings.

This agreement, signed in August 2015, gave the Clinton campaign control over the DNC before Clinton was officially nominated, raising ethical concerns about the integrity of the party.

In 2024, Clinton's 2016 presidential campaign and the DNC agreed to pay $113,000 to settle a Federal Election Commission investigation. The investigation probed whether they violated campaign finance law by misreporting spending on research that became the Steele dossier. The Clinton campaign hired law firm Perkins Coie, which then hired Fusion GPS, a research and intelligence firm, to conduct opposition research on Republican candidate Donald Trump's ties to Russia. However, on FEC forms, the Clinton campaign classified the spending as legal services.

The Clinton campaign and the DNC argued that the payments had been accurately described but agreed to settle to avoid further legal costs. The Clinton campaign paid a civil penalty of $8,000, while the DNC paid $105,000.

Clinton's influence over DNC finances

In 2016, Hillary Clinton's presidential campaign and the Democratic National Committee (DNC) were accused of violating campaign finance laws by misreporting spending on research that eventually became the Steele dossier. The dossier, compiled by former British spy Christopher Steele, contained unverified allegations about Donald Trump's conduct in Russia and alleged ties between the Trump campaign and Russia. The Clinton campaign hired law firm Perkins Coie, which then hired Fusion GPS, a research and intelligence firm, to conduct opposition research on Trump's Russia connections. However, on FEC forms, the Clinton campaign classified the spending as "legal services".

The DNC and the Clinton campaign agreed to pay a total of $113,000 to settle the Federal Election Commission (FEC) investigation without conceding any wrongdoing. The Clinton campaign paid a civil penalty of $8,000, while the DNC paid $105,000.

In her book, Hacks: The Inside Story of the Break-ins and Breakdowns that Put Donald Trump in the White House, former Democratic National Committee interim chief Donna Brazile accused Hillary Clinton of taking control of the party in exchange for funding during the 2016 campaign. Brazile alleged that the DNC signed a deal with Clinton's team, giving her campaign control over the committee's finances, strategy, and fundraising in return for keeping the party financially afloat. This deal gave the Clinton campaign influence over staff hiring and veto power over press releases and mailings.

Additionally, the Clinton Foundation has faced scrutiny for its questionable money dealings, including receiving donations from Gulf sheikhs, billionaires, and various Mideast sources. There have been allegations of a "pay-to-play" scheme, where donors expected political favours in return for their contributions.

Frequently asked questions