in ,

Hillary Superpac Busted For Taking $200,000 From A Company Doing Business With The Government

The Hill is breaking a story that will most certainly cause Hillary Clinton more PR headaches and potential legal troubles.

The world over is already well aware of Clinton’s fondness of taking cash for favors, but up until now Hillary was very sneaky in making sure the donations were deposited to her slush fund Clinton Foundation, and had no traces bask to her personally, or her Clinton campaign.

That all could come to an end with the recent revelation that a super-PAC backing Clinton accepted $200,000 in donations from a company holding multiple contracts with the federal government, despite a ban on such contributions.

Boston-based Suffolk Construction made two contributions of $100,000 to Priorities USA, who is backing Hillary Clinton for president. In short, a company doing business with the government handed cash to Clinton…a pay-to-play deal that FEC campaign laws are meant to prevent.

The Hill reports…

According to a review of contributions by The Hill, Boston-based Suffolk Construction made two contributions of $100,000 to Priorities USA, which is backing the presumptive Democratic presidential nominee.

At the time it made the contributions, Suffolk held multiple contracts worth $976,560 with the Department of Defense for maintenance and construction projects at a Naval base in Newport, R.I., and the U.S. Military Academy in West Point, N.Y., according to the government website

Suffolk — which, by Forbes’s estimate, brings in some $2 billion in revenue annually — also donated $10,000 in 2015 to Right to Rise, a super-PAC that supported Republican Jeb Bush’s now-defunct presidential bid.

The donations from Suffolk highlight how a 70-year-old campaign finance law meant to prevent pay-to-play deals between public officials and companies making money from the government is often ignored by those making the donations and those on the receiving end.

The two contributions, one made in July and one in December, came during Clinton’s presidential primary battle with Bernie Sanders, who rose to prominence partly because he railed against super-PACs and the wealthy donors who fund them.

In addition to the donations to Priorities USA, The Hill found 14 federal contractors that had contributed a total of $173,250 to Right to Rise. Two had also given to Conservative Solutions PAC, a group that supported Sen. Marco Rubio’s (R-Fla.) bid for president.

One contractor, a Florida utility named Gulf Power Co., gave $44,000 to Right to Rise in March 2015. At the time, the company held more than $1 million in contracts with the Department of Defense.

The Hill asked Gulf Power whether the company was aware it was in violation of the ban and if it believed there was a conflict of interest in politicians benefiting from donations from federal contractors.

Jeff Rogers, a spokesman for the company, responded, “We believe Gulf Power’s right to make the contribution in question is constitutionally protected.”

Suffolk Construction, which since 2008 has received $169.7 million in federal contracts, according to USASpending.­gov, declined multiple requests for comment.

John Fish, the company’s CEO, has been a prolific donor to both parties over the years, though FEC records show he favors Democrats by a wide margin. He’s contributed thousands to President Obama’s White House bids and gave $500 to his 2004 Senate campaign.

Fish’s office did not return a request for comment.

The company itself has mainly funneled money to Republicans. In 2012 it gave $510,000 to Restore Our Future, a super-PAC supporting GOP presidential nominee Mitt Romney, and $50,000 to another group backing then-Sen. Scott Brown (R-Mass.).

Campaign finance lawyers say federal contractors that donate to super-PACs are taking a calculated risk that the politically deadlocked FEC will never take action against them.

Will this recent news on the corruption taking place right before our eyes in US politics finally push the FEC to enforce campaign laws that have been on the books for 70 years?

Somehow we doubt it.


Liked it? Take a second to support The Duran on Patreon!


The statements, views and opinions expressed in this column are solely those of the author and do not necessarily represent those of The Duran.

What do you think?

Leave a Reply

Notify of

This New Breed of Celebrities Makes China’s Rise Even More Obvious

Five Questions for Peter Lavelle: Media Wars, Brexit and Russia