Apparently, these charges are so frequent that bank fraud departments are receiving hundreds of phone calls a day from their patrons, who are requesting refunds for the fraudulent charges. Some donors have reportedly filed complaints with their state’s attorney general, and some of those AGs have turned the information over to the Federal Election Commission, an independent regulatory agency that oversees public funding of American elections and enforces campaign finance laws. One donor received a letter from a Clinton campaign lawyer, who stated that the donor would be removed from the donor list, but never took any responsibility for the fraudulent charges.
And to add insult to injury, the Clinton campaign seems to be targeting lower income donors. “We get up to a hundred calls a day from Hillary’s low-income supporters complaining about multiple unauthorized charges,” said a long-time employee of Wells Fargo, who asked to remain anonymous for fear of job security. These are people who can only afford to make a one-time contribution, and they say they never would have signed up for multiple donations. The source went on to say that the Hillary for America campaign has been enacting this scheme for several months, strategically charging small amounts under $100 to stay under the bank’s fraud detection radar, because banks typically do not investigate fraudulent charges under $100. The source said they have never seen a charge over $100 at Wells Fargo, but instead typically see repeated charges of $20, $40 or $60. And because the charges are never for the same amount, the donor clearly did not sign up for recurring payments. A typical scheme is $25 for the first payment, then $19, then $25, and so on, and the total of all charges is always under $100, overwhelming evidence that the charges are intentional. Wells Fargo has issued daily refunds ranging from $700 – $1200. Just think about how much money is going to the Clinton campaign for all those people who have no idea they’re being defrauded by their presidential hopeful. What a shame!
The bank spokesman went on to say that many customers tell Wells Fargo that they first attempted to resolve the issue directly with Clinton’s campaign, but they get nowhere. Some called dozens of times, and when they finally reached someone, the campaign promised to stop charging, but donors soon found new charges on their bank statements. The bank is frustrated, and feels that Clinton is literally passing the buck. “The Clinton campaign knows these charges are small potatoes and that we’ll just refund the money back.”
The source describes himself as apolitical, but felt compelled to speak with the Observer because “what Hillary’s doing is so messed up–she’s stealing from her poorest supporters.” The source continued by saying that Wells Fargo has not received a single call from any Trump supporter regarding overcharging. On a humorous note, the Wells Fargo source said that the bank sees the same scheme employed by seedy pornography companies.
Another anonymous bank source said that Clinton’s motivation is not only to bring in more money by overcharging, but to also pump up the small donor numbers reported to the FEC, to give a false impression about how much money she has actually raised. Bank refunds will not be reflected in the FEC reports until after the election.
What the Clinton campaign is doing is a federal crime. And it seems that this has happened before, and we’re not talking about the email debacle. In 2007, The New York Times reported that Hillary’s first presidential campaign issued refunds because donors were charged twice. In total, Clinton had to refund a whopping $2.8 million in donations, more than three times what Obama’s campaign refunded ($900K). Even her own 2008 campaign workers are speaking out. Kathy Callahan claimed that she herself was overcharged thousands of dollars, and voluntarily left the campaign’s finance committee after she discovered it and spent a month “begging and pleading” for a refund. Callahan went on to say that campaign compliance and accounting worker Matt McQueeney said that what happened to her was happening to others; McQueeney also left the campaign shortly after Callahan did.
And let’s not forget that in 2001, as Bill exited the White House, the Clintons were accused of attempting to steal donated items–$190,000 worth of gifts– shipped to their new Chappaqua house. The attempted theft created a firestorm with many miffed donors who had donated the items as part of the 1993 restoration project and therefore expected them to stay in the White House. The Clintons had the audacity to claim that the donations were given to them prior to Bill taking office, but after government records proved otherwise, the Clinton clan was forced to return them. They returned approximately $30K worth of items and paid $86,000 for items they wanted to keep.
There are less than fifty days until the election—who knows what else will turn up before November 8.
