Can Biden really just hand over millions in campaign cash to Kamala?

For most of the past three years, Vice President Kamala Harris has been even more unpopular than her historically unpopular boss, President Biden, due largely to her responsibility as a key player in the administration’s disastrous open border policies. 

In light of Harris’ failures and unpopularity, it wouldn’t have been surprising if Biden had decided to replace her on the ticket with someone more competent.  If Biden had done that going into the Democratic convention, and Harris had claimed that she got to keep the Biden campaign’s hard-earned campaign funds, she would have been laughed out of the room.

After all, the money was all raised into the "Biden for President" campaign, with Harris’ name not included in "paid for" disclaimers and Harris not mentioned in the joint fundraising committee notices. Donors were not informed that the money could go to Harris, perhaps because of her unpopularity, or perhaps because it was never intended to go to her. 

Either way, if Harris couldn’t have kept Biden’s money upon being replaced on the ticket, then she also can’t keep Biden’s money when he was forced to withdraw because of infirmity.

HARRIS CAMPAIGN DISMISSES CRITICS OF ‘SEGREGATION’ FUNDRAISING EFFORT

Within hours of Biden’s announcement that he was withdrawing from competing to be his party’s nominee, the Harris team amended the Biden campaign’s Federal Election Commission (FEC) Statement of Organization to instead be for "Harris for President," with the bizarre committee e-mail address of fec@joebiden.com. 

There is no legal authority for this unprecedented maneuver of replacing one candidate’s name with another on a FEC Form 1, and FEC Chairman Sean Cooksey diplomatically noted that "it raised a host of open questions about whether it is legal."

Cooksey was no doubt being circumspect because he knows that the FEC is going to need to evaluate forthcoming complaints regarding the legality of this maneuver, but the reality is that because of timing issues, the FEC is not suited to take action until it is too late. 

ONE WEEK IN AGAINST TRUMP, HARRIS TOUTS 'RECORD-BREAKING' FUNDRAISING HAUL

The Harris campaign is aware, for example, of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the DC Circuit’s recent ruling regarding the illegal actions of Correct the Record coordinating with the Hillary Clinton for President campaign. If it has taken eight years to deal with the Clinton campaign’s illegal coordination, then the Harris team likely believes that any penalty they are sanctioned with for impermissibly using the Biden campaign’s money will be years in the future.

While the FEC usually has exclusive jurisdiction for regulating federal campaign fundraising, many state attorneys general have a consumer protection mandate that is implicated by the now Harris campaign’s deceptive fundraising practices. 

BIDEN GIVES 4-WORD ANSWER ON WHEN HE'LL CAMPAIGN FOR HARRIS

The funds in question here were raised for candidate Biden and 11 C.F.R. § 110.1(b)(3) makes clear, "If the candidate is not a candidate in the general election, all contributions made for the general election shall be either returned or refunded…" 

Donors understood that the $3,300 per donor raised for Biden’s general election account would be refunded to them if Biden didn’t become his party’s nominee and make the general election. Now, Biden clearly isn’t in the general election, and instead of refunding millions of dollars of such money to donors, the Harris campaign appears to be simply taking it. 

That sounds a lot like the definition of fraud, which is in most cases a state crime within the jurisdiction of state attorneys general.

CLICK HERE FOR MORE FOX NEWS OPINION

In the course of investigating Republican campaign fundraising practices in 2021, the Democrat attorneys general offices for Maryland, Connecticut, Minnesota and New York jointly explained that "Political donors have the right to be safe from fraud and deception."  

Now, you have money that was raised under the Biden disclaimer being simply transferred to a different candidate without notice to or consent from donors.  That looks like fraud and deception and should be investigated.