Al Sharpton’s old presidential campaign agreed to pay the government $21,250. Then it never did.

The Rev. Al Sharpton is seemingly everywhere today: he hosts an MSNBC show, conducts civil rights rallies, even meets with President Joe Biden, both in public and as a confidant.

But as Sharpton has become one of the nation’s most prominent liberal voices in the national political-media-entertainment complex, there’s one topic absent from his list of talking points: Sharpton’s old 2004 presidential campaign committee still owes the U.S. Treasury more than $21,000, according to a Raw Story review of federal records.

Sharpton’s campaign debt is the result of a 2009 agreement with the Federal Election Commission requiring Sharpton 2004 to pay federal fines for accepting excessive donations and prohibited corporate contributions.

“I think it’s outrageous,” Ann Ravel, a former FEC chairman, told Raw Story. “They should put a lien on their bank account. They obviously committed an illegal act that they have taken responsibility for. They agreed to and failed to do so, because they failed to pay the fine. It renders the FEC toothless if there’s no accountability for campaigns that are clearly doing something illegal.”

Ravel, a Democrat appointed to the FEC by then-President Barack Obama, said an agreement that requires a political campaign to pay money to the U.S. Treasury puts the FEC in an awkward position. Once the FEC reaches an agreement with a political committee, the agency has little power to enforce the terms of the agreement, she explained.

“The FEC obviously doesn’t have responsibility for what the Treasury is failing to do, but it would be a wise action for them to connect with Treasury on this and let them know that when they come to a conciliation agreement at the FEC, which is part of the federal government, it should be enforced,” Ravel said. “That’s one way they can increase people’s trust in the FEC is that the Treasury is following through.”

Sharpton did not respond to Raw Story’s request for comment, nor did Terence Cullen, a spokesperson, who only noted in an email on Tuesday that the Sharpton 2004 presidential campaign committee also owes Sharpton himself $100,000.

MSNBC, the network where Sharpton hosts the weekend news program “Politics Nation with Al Sharpton,” also did not respond to a request for comment for this story.

Former Sharpton spokesperson Rachel Noerdlinger told the Center for Public Integrity in 2013 that Sharpton had planned to conduct a fundraiser to address his campaign debt problems, although it’s now unclear whether such an event ever occurred. Regardless, Sharpton’s campaign debt remains.

The U.S. Bureau of the Fiscal Service, the division of the U.S. Treasury that is responsible for collecting money owed to the federal government, declined to comment.

Money and trouble

Sharpton failed to win any delegates during the 2004 presidential campaign — or even a significant share of the Black vote in the crucial South Carolina primary. He dropped out of the race in March of that year, and endorsed John Kerry, the eventual Democratic nominee, who’d go on to lose to Republican President George W. Bush.

But Sharpton’s standing in the Democratic Party establishment — already significant then — has only grown since. Of late, he’s grown close to President Joe Biden. And in October, reports emerged that Biden told Sharpton during a private conversation at the White House that he will seek a second term.

Biden then appeared on Sharpton’s syndicated radio show in November, and in January, spoke at a Martin Luther King Jr. Day breakfast hosted by Sharpton’s National Action Network. There, Biden described Sharpton as “a good friend.”

The Biden-Sharpton friendship is made at least mildly awkward by the fact that Sharpton’s presidential committee owes money to a part of the Biden administration — the U.S. Treasury — that Biden is fighting to bolster.

For example, Biden has lambasted Republican efforts to reduce funding to the Internal Revenue Service, a part of the U.S. Treasury. Biden has even vowed to veto legislation that he says would “shift the tax burden from the wealthy to the middle-class” and “make it harder for middle-class families and small businesses to get timely tax refunds and other important services from the IRS, by rescinding billions in funding for IRS information technology and operations.”

The White House did not respond to a request for comment.

Democratic presidential candidate John Kerry (left) speaks with Al Sharpton (center) and John Edwards (right) during a break at the MSNBC January 29, 2004, in Greenville, S.C.Erik S. Lesser/Getty Images

Here’s how the Sharpton campaign wound up owing the U.S. Treasury $21,250:

The FEC found that a 2004 presidential election fundraiser for Sharpton hosted by the late Detroit fast-food magnate La-Van Hawkins exceeded the limit for in-kind contributions by $9,000. A flight valued at $1,750 that Hawkins provided for Sharpton also constituted a prohibited corporate contribution. Thus, the agreement required the campaign to pay the U.S. Treasury, at a minimum, $10,750.

The agreement also addressed another matter — the receipt of excessive contributions — and gave the Sharpton campaign the option of either refunding $10,500 in excessive contributions or forking the money over to the U.S. Treasury.

Soon after Sharpton and his treasurer signed the agreement with the FEC, the campaign reported a debt of $19,500 to the U.S. Treasury.

That total appears to combine the $10,500 and $9,000 increments but does not address the matter valued at $1,750. Thus, with $1,750 added to the campaign’s acknowledged debt of $19,500, the true debt to the U.S. Treasury comes to $21,250.

As for the $1,750 debt to the Treasury that appears to have gone unreported in the Sharpton campaign filings, Myles G. Martin, a spokesperson at the FEC, declined to comment other than to direct Raw Story to a clause in the agency’s compliance agreement with Sharpton 2004.

That clause stipulates that the agency has the option of filing a civil lawsuit against the Sharpton campaign in D.C. federal court to address any violations of the agreement.

The 2009 agreement with the FEC cited poor record-keeping as the cause of the Sharpton campaign’s legal woes, noting that Sharpton “routinely mixed travel” for the campaign and his responsibilities as president of the National Action Network, and that the nonprofit “effectively subsidized the Sharpton 2004 presidential campaign by paying for vendors and consultants who performed work to benefit the [campaign] committee.”

As a result, the agreement required the campaign to refund $181,115 to the National Action Network or forfeit it to the government. FEC filings indicate that the campaign intends to do the former.

The Sharpton campaign’s debt was already sizable before its legal troubles with the FEC.

By that time the campaign had $480,096 on the books from debts owed to consultants and publicists, in addition to Sharpton and Rivera themselves. But after the campaign committed to pay civil penalties to the FEC, fork over money to the U.S. Treasury and refund illegal contributions to the National Action Network, the debt ballooned to $888,713.

Records on file with the FEC show that a combination of payments from Sharpton himself and the campaign paid off the $208,000 owed to the FEC for civil penalties by March 2010.

The debt is still listed on Sharpton’s most recent FEC report, filed on Jan 31, with a note that he “paid the civil penalty with personal funds within the agreed upon timeframe.” Excluding the FEC debt, which appears to be satisfied, the campaign’s total debt is closer to $680,000.

Under a separate agreement signed by Sharpton as an officer of the National Action Network, the nonprofit agreed to pay a civil penalty of $77,000 to the FEC for the election law violations. FEC records show that the National Action Network paid off the civil penalties in 2009.

Yet the $21,250 the Sharpton campaign committed to forfeiting to the US government in 2009 for excessive contributions and prohibited corporate contributions remains unpaid.

If the Sharpton campaign does intend to pay off its debt to the US Treasury and other creditors, it’s unclear where the money would come from: The campaign reported a negative balance of -$11,636 on its year-end report for 2022.

Sharpton could also choose to pay off the debt himself.

For customer support contact support@rawstory.com. Report typos and corrections to corrections@rawstory.com.

The United Nations is warning it is on the brink of an “imminent financial collapse” just weeks after President Donald Trump pulled the United States out of dozens of UN organizations and treaties, slashing a major source of global funding. In a letter to ambassadors cited by Reuters, UN Secretary-General António Guterres said the crisis is already disrupting programs and will worsen rapidly as key member states refuse to honor their financial commitments. While Guterres did not name the US directly, the warning comes after Trump withdrew from more than 60 international agreements, including major UN bodies, cutting off roughly $820 million a year from the world’s largest economy. The funding loss has already forced the cancellation of hundreds of millions of dollars in grants, including lifesaving programs targeting maternal mortality and sexual violence, prompting Guterres to warn that without swift action the UN could run out of cash by July.

Watch the video below.

UN warns of imminent financial collapse after Trump yanks US funding from global bodies UN warns of imminent financial collapse after Trump yanks US funding from global bodies

THANKS FOR SUBSCRIBING! ALL ADS REMOVED!

In a lengthy post on Truth Social, President Donald Trump unveiled his pick to head up the Bureau of Labor Statistics months after ousting its chief.

Trump unleashed criticism on the agency's previous leadership, claiming that "WEAK and STUPID people" ran the BLS "for many years." He railed that the bureau has been "FAILING American Businesses, Policymakers, and Families by releasing VERY inaccurate numbers."

Trump then revealed his replacement: a veteran economist from his first administration.

"That is why I FIRED the former Commissioner, and am pleased to nominate the very talented Brett Matsumoto as the next Commissioner of the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS)," he wrote.

Matsumoto, who previously served as a Supervisory Research Economist at the BLS, currently holds the position of Senior Economist on the Trump Council of Economic Advisers, a role he held during Trump's first term. Trump described him as "Brilliant, Reputable, and Trusted."

"I am confident that Brett has the expertise to QUICKLY fix the long history of issues at the BLS on behalf of the American People," wrote Trump.

The agency has faced turmoil since Trump ousted its previous chief, Erika McEntarfer, in August following a weak jobs report that he claimed was “rigged” against him.

In the fall, the BLS announced there wouldn't be an October jobs report, the first time the monthly data has not been released in 12 years.

In November, the White House warned that the federal statistical system could be "permanently damaged" in the fallout over the government shutdown.

The reviews are coming in for first lady Melania Trump's documentary — and they're about as bad as could possibly be.

"Melania," bankrolled by Amazon in a controversial move that had many theorizing the movie's mere existence was a bribe to funnel millions into the Trump family's pocket, already had danger signs going into its debut, as theater after theater showed almost entirely unsold screenings, and even the movie's billionaire benefactors didn't bother to show up to the premiere.

But the handful of reporters who showed up seemed to have very similar messages: the movie is awful.

"Melania moves through the action like a listless automaton, talking constantly but saying nothing, squired from Mar-a-Lago to Trump Tower to her final destination, the White House," stated a review from The Guardian's Xan Brooks. "It’s dispiriting, it’s deadly and it’s spectacularly unrevealing. Ratner’s film plays like a gilded trash remake of Jonathan Glazer’s The Zone of Interest in which a button-eyed Cinderella points at gold baubles and designer dresses, cunningly distracting us while her husband and his cronies prepare to dismantle the Constitution and asset-strip the federal government."

Ultimately, the review concluded, "the fun’s not infectious and the guests are a nightmare, and two hours of Melania feels like pure, endless hell," giving the movie one star.

It was a similar story at The Mirror, where Mikey Smith called the project "an absolute, all-time stinker" and "a bad film made by bad people about bad people."

"You feel very keenly every moment of its 1 hour and 48 minute running time," wrote Smith, who noted that there were four people maximum at his showing, and one appeared to be another journalist. "A good two-thirds of that 108 minutes is spent watching Melania Trump leave buildings and get in a car, then get driven around in the car, then get out of the car and onto a plane, then get flown around on the plane, then sometimes get off the plane and into a different car. This is the very first thing you see in the film, and it’s repeated a good six or seven times."

"If you’re hoping Melania will have a ‘so bad it’s good’ energy, I’m afraid it does not. Melania is not Cats," Smith concluded.

{{ post.roar_specific_data.api_data.analytics }}