Federal Election Commission Chairman Sean Cooksey joins Glenn to weigh in on a major question about the 2024 election: Was it legal for Kamala Harris to inherit Joe Biden’s entire election campaign, including his multi-million-dollar war chest? While Cooksey can’t comment on any possible investigations, he calls the situation “completely unprecedented” and explains why he believes “It's something that is going to have to go through an FEC process, and maybe a court process too to get to the bottom of it.” Plus, Glenn asks Cooksey to weigh in on claims of illegal straw donor schemes revolving around the left-wing fundraising platform ActBlue.
Transcript
Below is a rush transcript that may contain errors
GLENN: Sean Cooksey is the Federal Election Commission chairperson. I really appreciate you coming on, Chairman, and helping us figure out exactly what is going on.
We want to start with this situation. How do you transfer money from one person to another? Legally? Can you do that?
SEAN: Well, thanks for having me on, Glenn. And you're right. We talked about that at the top.
Which is that it's a completely unprecedented situation. We haven't had anything like this happen for at least 50 years. To have a presidential nominee, drop out just a few weeks before the convention, before he's been formerly nominated and hand over his entire campaign operation, including millions of dollars, cash on hand, to a different candidate. To his vice presidential nominee, although she hasn't been formerly nominated yet.
It's really no surprise that this race is a lot of legal questions. Again, a completely novel situation.
Some experts have tried to argue, that this is permissible. But a lot of election experts have raised a lot of big questions about this. Some have said, it is unlawful. That you can't just switch the name on a committee and give it over to another person without that being an illegal transfer. It's something that is going to have to go through an FEC process, and maybe a court process too to get to the bottom of it.
GLENN: So I know, that for my charity, let's say. If I raise money, and it is designated for, let's say, hurricanes. I can only use that money to help people recover from the hurricane.
I cannot transfer it to another, and even if it's a bigger emergency, legally, I can't move that money. To any other place.
It's the same kind of thing with this, isn't it?
SEAN: I mean, it's a big question. What these donors were told. And what they thought they were given to. To your point. All these people were giving money, they thought to reelect Joe Biden as president. And now they're being told, no. Actually, this money is going to a completely different candidate. That you may or may not really approve of. One of the big questions that happens under the FEC guidance is whether donors in that kind of situation are entitled to a refund. Or to have the campaign be required to ask their permission, to redesignate it.
I think one of the big problems though, is really just the lack of time on the clock. Where a situation where, the election is less than 13 weeks away, at this point.
GLENN: Jeez.
SEAN: And the wheels of government move so slow. I'm concerned that really none of this is going to be resolved before Election Day.
GLENN: And it won't really matter, after Election Day, will it?
SEAN: I mean, I think for all intents and purposes, right.
Any fine or any unwinding that happens, after the fact. Israel will not really do anything to change the vote count on Election Day.
GLENN: So the money she got from the Biden/Harris campaign. They transfer it over. But is that really -- that's really not that important. Compared to what she's raising now.
I mean, she's raising money hand over fist.
Like I've never seen before.
SEAN: No. I think that's a fair point, about why maybe at the end of the day, this won't matter much.
I mean, reportedly both the Harris committee, and the Trump committee, right?
Are raising hundreds of millions of dollars every month. They have to report that to the FEC. Every month on the 20th. So, for example, in a little bit less than two weeks here.
We'll get the hard numbers on what they raised in July.
Harris Committee, I believe, reported over $300 million raised. So it may be the case, that whatever cash was left over from the Biden committee, doesn't make a big difference at the end of the take.
GLENN: We're talking to the Federal Election Commission chairperson. He's the guy who is at the SEC, that is -- or at the FEC, that is making sure all the money is on the up and up.
And everything is played by the rules.
His name is Sean Cooksey. And, Sean, to be fair to them, you could make the case, that when I gave money to Biden/Harris.
A lot of people would say, I was just giving it, because I didn't want Donald Trump.
And Harris was part of that team.
And if Joe Biden would have died.
Wouldn't the money have gone to her anyway?
VOICE: Well, I think the big problem with that possibility, is that this happened before the convention.
One of the big sorted of open questions is what happened, when she's on the paperwork. It's called, you know -- they call her the vice presidential nominee.
But she really hasn't gone through the role -- she hasn't been nominated by the convention yet.
In that case, you know, it would have also been possible for Joe Biden to switch vice presidential nominees. And things would be very different.
I think, again, it will have to go through some court process, ultimately, at the end of the day. To get that settled.
And I don't think that will happen before the election unfortunately.
GLENN: So I don't know if this is your purview.
Or if you can comment on this.
But this is the first time that I have seen in American history, where the democratic process didn't really happen.
I mean, it happened.
People went to vote. But they didn't vote for her, to be president.
And it was -- you know, really funky.
I think a lot of people on the democratic side.
Wanted a different candidate.
But the DNC shut it down.
And then at the last minute, they say this was a grassroots movement.
But it appeared to me, at least, a coup. You know, he's not going to leave. He's not going to leave. They give him a deadline of Sunday.
Deadline for what? He's already made his decision. Then Sunday, at the very last minute, he changes his mind. And then Barack Obama comes out and says, we will see how this Democratic process works, and there were no votes.
It was just going to the -- the electors, and the superdelegates. And that's just the party.
It -- I mean, it is -- there's -- is this totally funky?
Is this legal?
The way this has happened.
SEAN: I think you're right. It's absolutely not a grassroots nomination process. I think it's really the exact opposite of that.
Which is party leaders.
Party elders. Coming together.
To decide, you know, amongst a couple dozen of them. Who they want as their nominee.
In fact, it's really sort of a throw back to the way parties used to nominate presidential candidates.
Right?
Sort of in the proverbial smoke-filled rooms, where they would say, you know, primary be damned. We don't really care what the voters think. We are going to just make this election, as bosses, of who is going to be up for president.
And I think that's really kind of a good summation of what will happen here.
GLENN: And that's still legal to do that?
I mean, do parties get to make their own rules, right?
SEAN: Right. At the end of the day, the parties make their own rules. They chose several decades ago, to really go to primary voting processes. They don't have to do that.
Ultimately, the party decides how they want to select their nominees.
GLENN: Okay. So tonight, we have been following this -- this Act Blue. And all of these organizations, that are raising money for the Democrats.
And to me, and I'm not asking to you comment on this. Nor am I putting words in your mouth. This is me saying this. I've done enough research on the Tides foundation to know how this shell game works.
And they're raising all kinds of dark money through things like Act Blue. And they're setting up all these different organizations.
And I guess you can do that. That's fine. The one thing that is happening right now, is there are reports that they're doing something called smurfing. It's being called smurfing.
And that is, if someone makes a donation of let's say $100,000, all of a sudden, it will show up on the books that they made an 18,000-dollar donation, and they did it in ways that aren't even humanly possible.
And we looked into this, tonight -- I mean, when we show you this, America.
I think you're going to be. You're going to be flabbergasted. James O'Keefe did a recent report, where he highlighted donations to a Cindy Nowe. N-O-W-E of Maryland. She claimed to have not made the majority of the donations.
If you go to the FEC database, on Cindy Nowe of Maryland, the donations through Act Blue do seem suspicious. We're not saying that it's illegal.
We don't know yet. Coincidentally, through an accident, as we were double-checking the work. One of our researchers typed in Cindy Rowe, R-O-W-E, of Massachusetts. And you find the same exact donation pattern, on a Cindy Rowe instead of a Cindy Nowe.
So, yes, James O'Keefe was right about Cindy Nowe.
But the same pattern is there with Cindy Rowe. What makes it even more suspicious, is that the names are nearly identical. Only one difference.
Are you guys looking into these -- these irregularities here? Or these strange instances?
SEAN: Well, you know, as you said, as a matter of law and FEC policy, I can't comment on any investigation the FEC may or may not be doing.
But what I can say, at a general level, that the FEC takes misreporting and straw donor schemes, which is I think another name for what you called smurfing, we take those things extremely seriously.
Those are some of the most serious violations. That we have at the FEC. Where you are misreporting your identity on campaign reports.
Where you're giving someone else money, in order to make a political contribution for you. Those are serious violations. Many people have gone to prison for those kinds of things.
And I know this is an issue that reporters have been focused on. I know it's one that other government agencies are looking into.
The Virginia attorney general, I know, and the committee on how the administration in Congress are looking into this.
I think it's worth watching their work on that issue, and any results that come out of their investigations.
GLENN: And is that because the FEC is -- I mean, you may or may not be investigating it?
But you're so slow. Will it matter, if the FEC picks it up?
SEAN: Well, ultimately, we do move as fast as our resources allow on any enforcement matter. And there's opportunities for private parties to get involved. If we -- if we move too slow, under the statute. Whether something can come out --
GLENN: Wait. Wait. Wait.
What does that mean?
Private parties can get involved. What does that mean?
Under the statute of the FEC, when you file a complaint with the FEC, any private person can file a complaint with the FEC, alleging a violation of campaign finance law.
And under the statute, if the FEC does not act on that complaint. Doesn't give an up-or-down vote, whether this is something that we'll look into or not. Within 120 days, the person who filed the complaint, can then sue.
Saying, we are too slow.
We are not acting on their complaint fast enough.
And ultimately, if it's shown, we're not acting on that complaint fast enough. That person can then file a private lawsuit, to enforce the law themselves.
GLENN: Wow. Wow.
And the -- like the Virginia attorney general, I'm not sure, you know, if you can answer this. Or if you can -- if you even know the answer.
But the attorneys general, they can only look at the -- the potential fraud, that's happening in their state.
So Cindy Rowe in Massachusetts, would have to be the Massachusetts attorney general.
SEAN: I don't know the -- the specific limits on their authority. Certainly, attorneys general have really wide-ranging, you know, subpoena authority, and investigative authority, to launch their own inquiries into their own things.
To start demanding documents and witnesses and interviews.
Whether that could be limited to their own state. It might depend on their state. It might depend on where act blue is located. And sort of where their servers are and things like that, as a sort of jurisdictional perspective. But I think the one thing you do know, Congress has jurisdiction throughout the entire country. And they wouldn't be limited in that kind of way. One last question, and I believe we have to run. Because I have a network break.
But the -- they'll say that this is just all politics. This is just a smear campaign. I don't want to be involved in any of that.
I want to look for real things. Is there enough smoke here, to believe that this is worth questioning? No outcome.
But it is a legitimate line of inquiry.
SEAN: I mean, I think the action sort of speaks for themselves here. When you have multiple agencies. Members of Congress. Attorney general, who have been alerted. And are interested enough, to operationalize their offices.
To or the of get the machinery moving, to get the facts. I think that really speaks -- speaks for itself.
GLENN: This is the Federal Election Commission. The FEC chairman, Sean Cooksey. Sean, thank you so much. God bless.
SEAN: Thank you so much, Glenn.
