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 recently released Broadview Six transcripts revealed a stunning pattern of behavior by President Donald Trump's Department of Justice, raising multiple red flags for a legal expert.

Andrew Weissmann, a former federal prosecutor, said during a new interview on "All Rise News" with Adam Klasfeld on Friday that the federal prosecutors who brought the Broadview Six case broke some verboten rules in the legal profession. They include trying to sway a grand jury, trying to cover up prosecutorial misdeeds, and bringing weak evidence to support their case.

One of the most flagrant abuses, according to Weissmann, was the prosecutors' own admission that they chose a specific grand jury because they "trusted them."

"Choosing the grand jury because you trust them and they trust you and you like them and they like you ... this is like blatantly saying I engaged in grand jury shopping," Weissman said. "But then the second thing is you cannot ever say whether the grand jury stage or the trial stage, 'Trust me, I'm telling you there's probable cause. I would never present something without probable cause.'It is verboten. Everybody knows that."

Weissmann said the prosecutors' misconduct was so egregious that it made him question whether it was intentional.

"This is so fundamental that you have to know that it's wrong," he said.

THANKS FOR SUBSCRIBING! ALL ADS REMOVED!

Republican strategist Doug Heye is alarmed by the rift between President Donald Trump and Italian Prime Minister Giorgia Meloni, a right-wing leader who was initially close with Trump but is now on the outs with him.

Tensions came to a head on Friday as Meloni posted a public video raging about Trump's false claim that she had "begged" to get a photo with him at the G7 summit.

"Doug, you say that this dispute between Trump and Meloni is an embarrassment," said CNN's Boris Sanchez on Friday's edition of CNN's "OutFront."

"It's an embarrassment, and it comes at the very worst time, I think, possible that it could for the president and frankly, for the global coalition that the U.S. has put together over decades," said Heye, who has often fretted about the drama Trump creates in his party.

Notably, he said, when Meloni was first put in office, "she was viewed as sort of like an Italian MAGA candidate. So she and Trump were going to get along famously." However, he continued, Meloni is now learning what "so many other people learn about Donald Trump if they get close to him," which is that "Donald Trump doesn't give points. He only takes them away one at a time."

The consequences of the rift could be far-reaching, Heye warned.

"Whether you're talking about Europe — and by the way, things aren't terribly stable in England right now either — and what that means for Iran and thus the whole world are really important right now, I would want to keep our allies as close as possible," said Heye, but Trump appears totally unconcerned with this. "It's a huge gamble."

- YouTube www.youtube.com

President Donald Trump has talked a lot about the strength of the stock market recently, and a new analysis suggests that his recent surge in trading activity may be a motivating factor.

The New York Times published an analysis of Trump's stock trading activity on Friday that found the president's brokerage account has placed about 3,600 trades in thousands of stocks and bonds worth roughly $100 million during his second term. The activity largely stems from an appellate court ruling that threw out the $500 million judgment secured against Trump arising from a civil fraud lawsuit brought by New York Attorney General Letitia James. That ruling freed up more than $175 million in liquid assets for the president, and most of it has gone into the stock market, according to the analysis.

"Mr. Trump’s brokerage firms have authority over the accounts, the documents show, and are prohibited from accepting trade requests from him and his family. The firms also cannot provide the family notice of trades ahead of time, and The Times found no indication that the president had directed the firms to trade for him, or that he had used inside information to trade," according to the report, noting that the president seems to be abiding by the same rules as everyone else when it comes to trading.

But there is some evidence that Trump may be trying to boost stocks he already owns, according to the analysis. For instance, the NYT noted that Trump touted Intel's stock shortly before it was awarded a big government contract. Some of Trump's announcements about the war with Iran have raised red flags among market watchers as well.

"Regardless, even if Mr. Trump took official action to support any of those companies, federal law does not prohibit it. The president is exempt from a conflict-of-interest law that prohibits federal employees from taking actions in their official roles that benefit their own financial interests," the report added.

Anna Kelly, a White House spokeswoman, told the NYT that Trump “only acts in the best interests of the American public,” and that “there are no conflicts of interest.”

{{ post.roar_specific_data.api_data.analytics }}