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.

On the one-month anniversary of President Donald Trump’s inauguration earlier this year, a group of his appointed aides gathered to celebrate.

For four weeks, they had been working overtime to dismantle the U.S. Agency for International Development, freezing thousands of programs, including ones that provided food, water and medicine around the world. They’d culled USAID’s staff and abandoned its former headquarters in the stately Ronald Reagan Building, shunting the remnants of the agency to what was once an overflow space in a glass-walled commercial office above Nordstrom Rack and a bank.

There, the crew of newly minted political figures told the office manager to create a moat of 90 empty desks around them so no one could hear them talk. They ignored questions and advice from career staff with decades of experience in the field.

Despite the steps to insulate themselves, dire warnings poured in from diplomats and government experts around the world. The cuts would cost countless lives, Secretary of State Marco Rubio and the other Trump officials were told repeatedly. The team of aides pressed on, galvanized by two men who did little to hide their disdain for the agency: first Peter Marocco, a blunt-spoken Marine veteran, and then 28-year-old Jeremy Lewin, who, despite having no government or aid experience, often personally decided which programs should be axed.

By the third week in February, they were on track to wipe out 90% of USAID’s work. Created in 1961 to foster global stability and help advance American interests, USAID was the largest humanitarian donor in the world. In just a month’s time, the small band of appointees had set in motion its destruction.

In a corner conference room, it was time to party. They traded congratulatory speeches and cut into a sheet cake.

CONTINUE READING Show less
THANKS FOR SUBSCRIBING! ALL ADS REMOVED!

President Donald Trump is stuck with an embarrassing cast of Cabinet members because he's too stubborn to admit he's made a mistake, an analysis from the Washington Post claimed Monday.

The newspaper argued that Trump's second administration was significantly different from his first in one major way — massive and rapid turnover of his aides the first time round hasn't happened again.

That's despite embarrassing controversies involving his second-term Cabinet members.

Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem has been subject to speculation about her possible removal, linking her to a romantic affair with a co-worker. Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth has faced persistent questions about his performance, particularly regarding missile strikes on vessels allegedly carrying narcotics in the Caribbean. FBI Director Kash Patel has "drawn bipartisan scorn for his handling of key investigations." Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard was criticized for a video where she suggested the world is "on the brink of nuclear annihilation."

But Trump, a businessman-turned-politician who made his name in America by saying "You're fired" each week on national television, has left them all by his side.

And the Washington Post saw three reasons for that.

  • Loyalists Over Newcomers
Trump surrounded himself with people he knows well. Unlike his first defense secretary James Mattis, whom he met shortly before appointing him, Pete Hegseth is someone the president has known for approximately a decade. Former White House Press Secretary Sean Spicer explained: "Part of it is there was actually a playbook this time. And there's less infighting. Everyone knows their role. Last time, some of those people weren't committed to his agenda. And in some cases were adamantly opposed to it. That's not the case this time."

  • Avoiding Admissions of Error

John Bolton, Trump's third national security adviser during his first term, suggested that Trump "doesn't want the second term defined" by the personnel chaos of his first administration. Bolton noted sarcastically: "If you've hired a bunch of people and then you have to fire them, it admits you made a mistake. And as we all know, Donald Trump doesn't make mistakes."

  • Senate Confirmation Challenges

Several current appointees were narrowly confirmed. Hegseth was confirmed by one vote, Gabbard and Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. by two votes, and Office of Management and Budget Director Russell Vought by three votes. Securing approval for replacement nominees could prove more difficult now.


Despite these explanations, Trump did come close to firing a Cabinet official. National Security Adviser Michael Waltz was replaced by Secretary of State Marco Rubio after "a series of missteps." But rather than being removed from Trump's circle entirely, Waltz was instead nominated to become Trump's ambassador to the United Nations.

The contrast with Trump's first term is stark. After firing FBI Director James Comey, Trump mocked him as "the worst leader, by far, in the history of the FBI" and said he did "a great service to the people in firing him." Chief of Staff Reince Priebus was left on a rainy tarmac after his dismissal. Secretary of State Rex Tillerson reportedly learned of his firing while in the bathroom, with Trump subsequently calling him "dumb as a rock." Trump called then-Attorney General Jeff Sessions "weak," "ineffective," and "disgraceful" before Sessions resigned in 2018 at Trump's request.

Authorities released a person of interest who had been detained over the weekend in connection with a deadly shooting at Brown University, raising fresh concerns about President Donald Trump's choices to lead the FBI.

Police initially had expressed confidence that the person of interest, who was identified as a 24-year-old U.S. Army veteran, was the individual who opened fire Saturday inside a classroom in the Barus & Holley building, killing at least two students and injuring nine others.

But Rhode Island Attorney General Peter Neronha announced late Sunday the person who had been detained hours earlier by the FBI Boston’s Safe Streets Task Force would be released because the evidence “now points in a different direction,” although authorities did not specify what evidence had justified them taking that individual into custody.

"I think it's fair to say that there is no basis to consider him a person of interest, so that's why he's being released," Neronha told reporters.

The shooter apparently remains at large, although Providence Mayor Brett Smiley tried to reassure the public they are safe because police had not received any credible threats since the shooting. Law enforcement is facing criticism for how the investigation has played out in its early stages.

"Certainly there has been criticism in the sense of the lack of camera video footage that may have been acquired by investigators during this process," Will Richard, of the Providence Journal, told "CNN This Morning." "The attorney general last night assured that there is no video evidence that has not been released that would be, that they believe would be helpful in this investigation."

"What comes next?" Richmond added. "It's really, really difficult to say. I think yesterday there was a sense of relief. There was a sense that the community could start healing. The vigil was held last night, but, you know, when Providence and state authorities came out last night to announce that they were releasing the detained person it felt like there was a new tension in all of this, and an uncertainty as to, you know, when will this person be found, if at all."

FBI Director Kash Patel and his deputy director Dan Bongino faced more direct criticism on social media, where he had boasted about the bureau's role in the investigation.

"This is what happens when the FBI is run by two right-wing conspiracy theorist podcasters who spent the last 11 months purging almost anyone with institutional knowledge from the bureau," said journalist Ben Collins, who is CEO of satirical Onion newspaper. "They're going to keep [messing] this kind of thing up."

"They’re releasing the suspect in the Brown University murders," posted the widely followed Hoodlum account. "They had the wrong person. How does this even happen?"

"I’m starting to suspect that our ability to catch spree killers who leave the scene is extremely dependent on a functioning FBI…which we 100% do not have right now," worried Bluesky user Zoomer Antimillenarian.

"REALLY doesn't feel great remembering that Kash's FBI put basically all the counterterrorism people on immigration enforcement," replied Bluesky user OddEvens.

"This is why you don’t put podcasters in charge of the FBI," posted the popular X account Blue Georgia.

{{ post.roar_specific_data.api_data.analytics }}