Reporting from Detroit News Shows Allegations of Wrongdoing Against Meijer Camp Were Correct
After getting caught in a potential illegal straw donation scheme, the Meijer camp is attempting to clean up their mess by claiming a “paperwork error” was at fault. But as an attorney with the independent, nonpartisan campaign finance watchdog group Campaign Legal Center makes clear, “this is a serious violation, so it looks like the donor acted quickly after getting caught.”
Here’s what we still don’t know:
- Why was this shell corporation, Montcalm LLC, set up just days before the donation? As the FEC complaint notes, “There is no public record of Montcalm LLC conducting any activities other than making a political contribution.”
- If the donation was above board, as the Meijer camp’s attorney claims, what is the purpose of this company?
- Why did CLF only file an amendment once the Meijer camp was caught and started getting negative press?
- Did Peter Meijer, whose family set him up with a $50 million trust fund, ask his family to funnel $150,000 to help his campaign?
As a reminder, creating a LLC with the purpose of disguising a campaign donor is a violation of federal election law, and can result in prison time. Trump associates Igor Furman and Lev Parnas were arrested earlier this year by federal agents following a similar complaint for the same practice.
Key points from The Detroit News’ Melissa Nann Burke
“Fischer [of the Campaign Legal Center] said CLF’s amendment shows that the allegations in his complaint were correct.
“The newly created ‘Montcalm LLC’ was not the true source of the $150,000 super PAC contribution. This is a serious violation, so it looks like the donor acted quickly after getting caught,” Fischer said.
“The law requires that big donors be publicly reported— and the public has a right to know if a billionaire is bankrolling a super PAC supporting his son’s run for office. It shouldn’t take a legal complaint for a super PAC donor to disclose what should have been made public in the first place.”
The FEC complaint notes that Montcalm LLC lacks a business imprint or an online presence such as a website, social media account or business record.
“There is no public record of Montcalm LLC conducting any activities other than making a political contribution,” the complaint states.
Without that record, the Campaign Legal Center suggests the entity would not have had sufficient income from assets, earnings or business revenue or investments to cover the $150,000 contribution “without an infusion of funds provided to it for that purpose.”
The complaint alleged that whoever created, operated or contributed to Montcalm violated the law by making the contribution to CLF but attributing the source to Montcalm.
The complaint also asks the FEC to probe whether Montcalm failed to register as a political committee as required by federal law.”
###