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.

New data contradicts the Trump administration's arguments to justify a sharp rise in violence by federal officers against migrants in detention centers.

Federal immigration authorities appear to be systematically undercounting injuries sustained by detainees during use-of-force incidents, according to internal records reviewed by the Washington Post — a finding that undermines the government's core defense of conditions inside its rapidly expanding detention network.

The discrepancy surfaced in an incident at a temporary holding facility at a Mesa, Arizona, airport, where guards deployed pepper spray against a group of 47 detainees. The facility's official report, filed through ICE's internal "Daily Detainee Assault Report" system, stated that "no injuries were reported." But a 911 call obtained by the Post through a public records request told a different story, showing an ICE officer on the recording said a man was experiencing seizures following exposure to the chemical agent.

The Department of Homeland Security denied that anyone had a seizure as a result of the incident, saying one detainee was hospitalized for an asthma episode but that there was no evidence it was caused by pepper spray exposure.

The Mesa case is not isolated. The Post found that injuries are "sometimes omitted" from the official reports across multiple facilities, meaning the agency's own count of at least 106 detainees injured in use-of-force incidents since 2024 is likely an undercount.

The finding matters because those internal reports are the primary mechanism through which ICE tracks and accounts for the treatment of detainees across 98 facilities nationwide. If the reports are incomplete, there is no reliable internal record of the scale of harm occurring inside the system.

During Trump's first year back in office, the number of people subjected to force rose 54 percent — nearly 10 percentage points faster than the 45 percent growth in the detained population itself, and that gap directly contradicts the administration's position that any increase in force incidents is simply a proportional consequence of a larger detainee population.

“Why are they resorting to this use of force in such bigger numbers?” said Jeff Schwartz, a police trainer and associate professor of law and justice at Rowan University in New Jersey. “It could be the overcrowding, it could be the lack of staff, it could be the lack of training — or a combination of all of them."

Administration officials told the Post that officers are trained to use the minimum force necessary and that the agency maintains standards of care exceeding most prisons holding American citizens.

“ICE law enforcement officers are trained to use the minimum amount of force necessary to resolve dangerous situations to prioritize the safety of the detainees, the public, and our officers,” said Lauren Bis, a spokeswoman for the Department of Homeland Security. “Officers are highly trained in de-escalation tactics and regularly receive ongoing use of force training.”

THANKS FOR SUBSCRIBING! ALL ADS REMOVED!

The Trump administration is accelerating deployment of a luxury Boeing 747-8 jet donated by Qatar for use as Air Force One, with the U.S. Air Force announcing the aircraft will be ready for presidential use this summer.

That could cut the projected timelines nearly in half and raises fresh concerns about the arrangement's ethical and political implications, wrote MS NOW columnist Steve Benen.

The shift represents a striking reversal in Trump's relationship with Qatar, which he publicly condemned in 2017 as a "funder of terrorism at a very high level," but when confronted about those comments last fall, Trump stated he "didn't really know them very well" at the time. Over the past year, however, his administration has dramatically deepened ties with the Gulf state through a series of controversial arrangements.

Beyond the Air Force One gift, the Trump administration's actions toward Qatar have included extending a NATO-like security guarantee in October, hosting a Qatari air force training facility at an Idaho air base, and storing Venezuelan oil sale revenues in a Qatari bank without full public explanation. Additionally, a Trump golf club and villa project is being developed in Qatar with investment from a Qatari government-owned company.

The modified 747 underwent a $400 million overhaul focused primarily on top-secret communications equipment enabling presidential command from the air. However, the aircraft retains luxury furnishings originally chosen for Qatari royalty — oversized leather seats, plush couches, and faux library bookcases — now bearing U.S. presidential seals. Arabic-language exit signs and Qatari artwork were removed.

Congressional members from both parties previously expressed concern that Trump would pressure the Air Force to complete security modifications prematurely. The New York Times reported last September that experts estimated the upgrade would require two years; the accelerated timeline now being announced suggests significant compression of that schedule.

Trump has stated he will not use the Qatari jet after leaving office but plans to feature it in his presidential library, but the arrangement continues drawing scrutiny regarding potential conflicts of interest and the appropriateness of accepting substantial gifts from foreign governments.

Donald Trump flew off the handle on Monday morning, attacking Van Jones, claiming the CNN personality once came to him “crying like a baby” for help, and now has deemed him a “dictator.”

Jones, who once famously praised Trump in his first term after the president honored the widow of a slain NAVY Seal during a joint session of Congress, telling his CNN colleagues, “He became President of the United States in that moment, period,” has always straddled the line between faint praise and then criticism.

On Monday morning, the president complained Jones is now calling him a “dictator” without providing a link.

On Truth Social, the president wrote that he finds Jones ungrateful.

"When a devastated (he was crying like a baby!) Van Jones of CNN came to me with a group of African American leaders, he had ‘DEAD’ in getting Criminal Justice Reform approved in Congress. Van Jones and these Black reps had been unsuccessfully fighting to get ‘Reform’ for many years. He was just wasting everyone’s time - Needed 5 Conservative Senators - there was no chance, or even hope, for a win. I liked some of the people he was with, agreed with what they were saying, and quickly rounded up the votes needed to get CRIMINAL JUSTICE REFORM approved,” the president claimed.

He further asserted, “It was NOT easy! Nobody else, including Obama, who tried to for years, could have done this! Now I watch this guy, Van Jones, every chance he gets, calling me a ‘Dictator,’ and far worse. He should be ashamed of himself!!! President DJT.”


{{ post.roar_specific_data.api_data.analytics }}