Maxine Waters campaign to pay $68K for violating campaign finance laws
The Federal Election Commission (FEC) said the longtime House lawmaker's 2020 campaign committee, Citizens for Waters, ran afoul of several campaign finance laws in a tranche of documents released Friday.
The FEC accused Citizens for Waters of "failing to accurately report receipts and disbursements in calendar year 2020," "knowingly accepting excessive contributions" and "making prohibited cash disbursements," according to one document that appears to be a legally binding agreement that allows both parties to avoid going to court.
Waters' committee agreed to pay the civil fine as well as "send its treasurer to a Commission-sponsored training program for political committees within one year of the effective date of this Agreement."
"Respondent shall submit evidence of the required registration and attendance at such event to the Commission," the document said.
Citizens for Waters had accepted excessive campaign contributions from seven people totaling $19,000 in 2019 and 2020, the investigation found, despite the maximum legal individual contribution being capped at $2,800.
The committee offloaded those excessive donations, albeit in an "untimely" fashion, the document said.
Waters' campaign committee also "made four prohibited cash disbursements that were each in excess of $100, totaling $7,000," the FEC said.
The campaign committee "contends that it retained legal counsel to provide advice and guidance to the treasurer and implemented procedures to ensure the disbursements comply with the requirements of the Act."
Leilani Beaver, who was listed as Citizens for Waters' attorney, sent the FEC a letter last year that maintained the campaign finance violations were "errors" that "were not willful or purposeful."
Waters, the top Democrat on the House Financial Services Committee, has served in Congress since 1991.
The new movements in the probe were first reported by OpenSecrets.
It is not the first time, however, that Waters has generated public scrutiny.
In 2023, a Fox News Digital investigation found that Waters' campaign paid her daughter $192,300 to pay for a "slate mailer" operation between Jan. 2021 and Dec. 2022.
It was reportedly just one sum out of thousands that Waters had paid her daughter for campaign work.
A complaint that Waters' campaign had accepted illegal campaign contributions in 2018 was overwhelmingly dismissed by the FEC in a 5-1 vote.
Fox News Digital reached out to Beavers, Waters' congressional office and Citizens for Waters for comment.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
17 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Adobe Stock Outlook: Is Wall Street Bullish or Bearish?
San Jose, California-based Adobe Inc. (ADBE) is a diversified software company operating through Digital Media, Digital Experience, and Publishing and Advertising segments. With a market cap of $144.7 billion, Adobe operates as one of the largest software companies in the world. The software giant has significantly underperformed the broader market over the past year. Adobe's stock has plummeted 37.8% over the past 52 weeks and approximately 25% on a YTD basis, compared to the S&P 500 Index's ($SPX) 19.3% gains over the past year and 8.4% returns in 2025. More News from Barchart Tesla Is Axing Its Dojo Supercomputer Plans. What Does That Mean for TSLA Stock Here? Dear CoreWeave Stock Fans, Mark Your Calendars for August 14 Should You Buy the Post-Preliminary Earnings Plunge in Stock? Stop Missing Market Moves: Get the FREE Barchart Brief – your midday dose of stock movers, trending sectors, and actionable trade ideas, delivered right to your inbox. Sign Up Now! Narrowing the focus, Adobe has also lagged behind the industry-focused iShares Expanded Tech-Software Sector ETF's (IGV) 31.4% surge over the past year and 8.2% uptick in 2025. Adobe's stock prices dropped 5.3% in the trading session after the release of its mixed Q2 results on Jun. 12. Driven by solid ARR and momentum, the company's overall topline for the quarter grew 10.6% year-over-year to $5.9 billion, setting a record for Q2 and surpassing Street projections. Meanwhile, its non-GAAP net income increased 7.3% year-over-year to $2.2 billion, and benefiting from share repurchases, its non-GAAP EPS surged by 12.9% to $5.06, beating the consensus estimates. Despite these impressive figures, investors have been concerned about Adobe's future growth potential as its remaining performance obligation (RPO), a key indicator of its growth, has remained under pressure. In Q1, its RPO came in at $19.7 billion, which fell short of expectations. Further, its RPO remained steady at $19.7 billion at the end of Q2, making investors jittery. Moreover, investors have also been concerned about the intense competition that Adobe's products are facing from Gen AI tools. For the full fiscal 2025, ending in November, analysts expect Adobe to report a non-GAAP EPS of $16.92, up 13.6% year-over-year. The company has a solid earnings surprise history. It has surpassed the Street's bottom-line estimates in each of the past four quarters. Among the 34 analysts covering the ADBE stock, the consensus rating is a 'Moderate Buy.' That's based on 23 'Strong Buy,' two 'Moderate Buy,' eight 'Hold,' and one 'Strong Sell' rating. This configuration is slightly more optimistic than three months ago, when the stock had 21 'Strong Buy' recommendations. On Jul. 2, Redburn Atlantic analyst Omar Sheikh downgraded ADBE to 'Sell' and lowered the price target from $420 to $280. As of writing, ADBE's mean price target of $493.57 represents a 47.9% premium to current price levels, while its street-high target of $605 suggests a staggering 81.3% upside potential. On the date of publication, Aditya Sarawgi did not have (either directly or indirectly) positions in any of the securities mentioned in this article. All information and data in this article is solely for informational purposes. This article was originally published on
Yahoo
17 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Editorial: Mamdani's shifts aren't believable — ‘Changed' views on cops and Israel are hollow
Zohran Mamdani's sudden 180-degree turn on defunding the police, from supporting the foolish concept to opposing it, coincides with his political necessity and rank opportunism as he tries to be elected mayor. At least the old anti-cop Mamdani was consistent, if wrong. And it's not the only area where the Democratic mayoral nominee and frontrunner for November has shed his past, just like Mamdani now says he'll discourage use of 'Globalize the Intifada,' a change of heart he came to after he talked to a woman about what the phase meant to her. That's good, if it's to be believed. Likewise, Mamdani told of his new stand on cops after meeting with the family of the police officer slain on Park Ave., Detective First Grade Didarul Islam. That's good, if it's to be believed. We're not buying it. Mamdani is trying to redefine himself to appeal to a wider audience in the general election and spinning it as if he all of a sudden learned something new from these conversations. New Yorkers should also be more than skeptical. Part of Mamdani's appeal to those who voted for the democratic socialist in June beyond the folks who were sold on his pledges of free buses and free child care and rent freezes was his authenticity. In the primary he stood for clear, long-held principles. We thought that he's someone who harbored dangerous views on public safety and Israel and unworkable solutions on the city's budget and urged Democratic voters not to choose him. But now he's someone who is trying to cover up his dangerous and unworkable views. With the old Mamdani you knew what you were getting. How many more conversions will Mamdani have over the next few months that will produce conversions of his stands? And should he prevail over a splintered field of Eric Adams, Andrew Cuomo and Curtis Sliwa this fall and win, who will be the man who becomes mayor on Jan. 1? Which Mamdani will be taking over at City Hall? 'Defund the police' was a popular slogan five years ago in many quarters in the aftermath of the killing of George Floyd and Mamdani was right there in the middle. Now, with crime a major concern of New Yorkers (and thankfully the NYPD is successfully driving down the numbers), support for the cops is seen as a political plus and Mamdani is saying he is supposedly backtracking, offering up a version of 'different time, different place.' But he is not a different person. Mamdani still wants to create a proposed Department of Community Safety, which would hollow out the ranks and budget of the NYPD by setting up a rival agency. To us, that still sounds like a version of 'defund the police.' As for 'Globalize the Intifada,' which to many (including not a few Mamdani supporters) means murderous attacks on Jews everywhere, a global pogrom, Mamdani will encourage people to use other words, perhaps 'From the River to the Sea,' calling for the eradication of the Jewish state. Is a list of phrases about the Mideast now going to be needed for the potential mayor to weigh in on? Clearly, his deep-set animosity to the existence of the state of Israel, including backing the antisemitic Boycott, Divestment, and Sanctions (BDS) movement, isn't changing. Promising more cops to protect New York Jews from being attacked is a poor substitute when the mayor is ratcheting up the rhetoric and the hate. There are three months to go until Election Day. How else will the new Mamdani attempt to distance himself from the old Mamdani? _____
Yahoo
17 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Donald Trump holds up a copy of a story featuring New York Attorney General Letitia James during a news conference on Jan. 11, 2024, in New York.
Prosecutors, law enforcement officials and legislators who have previously led or participated in investigations into Donald Trump's business and political activities are increasingly under scrutiny themselves. While the moves haven't been announced by Trump himself, they dovetail with his vows on the 2024 presidential campaign to seek retribution if he was voted back into the White House. As it pertains to the probes into Russian interference in the 2016 election, which included looking into contacts between Trump campaign officials and Russian individuals, Trump has been vowing since at least 2019 to "investigate the investigators." Here's a look at the latest developments, which follow previous actions taken to investigate former FBI director James Comey, as well as two members of Trump's first presidential administration. It remains to be seen if the probes will lead to actual legal peril for those targeted or if they are simply a means to make their lives miserable, with significant legal costs. Letitia James Prosecutors have convened a grand jury investigation and subpoenaed James's office for documents about the lawsuit against Trump and a separate case she brought against the National Rifle Association, several U.S. media outlets reported on Friday, citing unnamed sources. Abbe Lowell, a lawyer representing James, called the reported probe "the most blatant and desperate example of this administration carrying out the president's political retribution campaign." When she ran for office in 2018, James branded Trump a "con man," and she has sued Trump and his Republican administration dozens of times over his policies as president and over how he conducted his private business empire. The civil fraud case, brought forward in 2022, resulted in a $355-million US judgment against Trump last year, after a judge found he fraudulently overstated his net worth to dupe lenders as he built his real estate empire. The penalty is now larger, as it is accumulating interest, but Trump is appealing the verdict itself. "Any weaponization of the justice system should disturb every American," James's office said in a statement last week. In addition, FBI Director Kash Patel confirmed in May that James was being investigated after a Trump administration official accused her of mortgage fraud. James's lawyer says the accusation was a lie based on a purposeful misreading of documents the attorney general signed in 2023 to help her niece purchase a Virginia house. Brian Driscoll Brian Driscoll was named acting director of the FBI in January to replace Christopher Wray and served in the position as Patel's nomination was pending. Driscoll made headlines after he and Robert Kissane, the then-deputy director, resisted Trump administration demands for a list of agents who participated in investigations into the Jan. 6, 2021, riot at the Capitol, which was led by Trump supporters. Fired last week, Driscoll told colleagues in an email seen by AP that he hadn't been given a reason for his dismissal. But Jamie Raskin, the lead Democrat on the House's judiciary committee, condemned what he characterized as the "purge at the FBI of anyone who refuses to pledge their blind and paramount loyalty to Donald Trump." "The firing of Mr. Driscoll and other career agents is a shameful affront to the rule of law and typifies the Trump Administration's campaign to replace nonpartisan career law enforcement professionals with political loyalists and incompetent sycophants," said Raskin. Also let go last week was Steven Jensen, assistant director in charge of the FBI's Washington field office. Jensen oversaw a domestic terrorism section of the FBI at the time of the Capitol riot. In a statement last week, the FBI Agents Association condemned the firings of agents "carrying out the assignments given to them." Under Patel's watch, the FBI has moved to aggressively demote, reassign or push out agents seen as being out of favour with bureau leadership or the Trump administration, while Trump pardoned the vast majority of those convicted for Capitol riot offences, including militia group leaders found guilty of seditious behaviour. Adam Schiff U.S. Attorney General Pam Bondi has appointed a "special attorney" to probe mortgage fraud allegations of both James and Sen. Adam Schiff, two administration officials told NBC News last week. The Schiff allegations concern a home purchased in Maryland more than 15 years ago. Preet Bharara, representing Schiff, said in a statement last week that the allegations were previously "debunked," while characterizing any resulting investigation as politically motivated. Schiff has long been a Trump target, and the California Democrat was one of the House managers of Trump's first impeachment in late 2019. In 2019, Schiff irked Trump and MAGA supporters by saying there was "significant" and "compelling" evidence of collusion between certain Trump campaign officials and Russians seeking to interfere in the 2016 election, though he admitted to CNN "there is a difference between seeing evidence of collusion and being able to prove a criminal conspiracy beyond a reasonable doubt." House Republicans in 2023 censured Schiff, saying in a resolution he "abused" his position by saying there was evidence of collusion. WATCH l Trump's AG Bondi steps up efforts to probe Democratic officials: Barack Obama The Trump White House has renewed efforts to accuse former president Barack Obama and those who served in intelligence in 2015 and 2016 — including former CIA director John Brennan and former national intelligence director James Clapper — of treachery related to the origins of the Russian interference investigation. Bondi announced a "strike force" to examine Obama administration officials, with reports emerging that federal prosecutors are being encouraged to seek grand jury indictments, though it's not clear which former officials might be under scrutiny. In an interview with Fox News broadcast this weekend, Vice-President J.D. Vance said prosecutors must follow the law but he predicted "you're going to see a lot of people get indicted." Bondi's move follows Trump's director of national intelligence, Tulsi Gabbard, releasing previously classified records on the origins of the Russian investigation. Gabbard and other officials, including Patel, have trumpeted them as demonstrating Democratic culpability in investigating the Trump campaign. It earned a rare public statement from Obama, as well as accusations from critics like former Republican congressman Adam Kinzinger that the administration was seeking a distraction from criticism over the Jeffrey Epstein controversy. While a Republican-led Senate committee and a Justice Department inspector general have found fault with aspects of the Russia interference investigation, none have concluded it was unwarranted or the result of Democratic Party political tricks. Special counsel Robert Mueller, who led a two-year Justice Department investigation, determined Russia intervened on the campaign's behalf and that Trump's campaign welcomed the help. Mueller's team, which could not secure an in-person interview with Trump, did not find that the campaign conspired to sway the election, but laid out examples of possible obstruction of justice.
