Climate Action Champion Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez Accused of Massive Campaign Finance Violations

Guest essay by Eric Worrall

h/t Breitbart National Legal and Policy Center has filed a complaint alleging climate action champion Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez’s campaign manager concocted an elaborate scheme to avoid mandatory disclosure of at least $885,735 to the Federal Election Commission.

FEC Complaint Filed Against Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez for ‘Extensive Off-the-Books’ Campaign

Posted on March 4, 2019 by Peter Flaherty

National Legal and Policy Center (NLPC) filed a formal Complaint today with the Federal Election Commission (FEC) against Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-NY), her chief of staff Saikat Chakrabarti, and several other individuals and groups who orchestrated an extensive operation to hide hundreds of thousands of dollars in campaign spending during the 2018 campaign, in violation of the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971, as amended.

The funds were expended in support of ten or more Congressional candidates by a for-profit entity called Brand New Congress LLC, apparently operated by Chakrabarti. The Act requires that all expenditures of $200 or more to be disclosed to the FEC, and their purpose identified. The Complaint alleges that Chakrabarti’s LLC served as a “cutout,” for at least $885,735 received from Ocasio-Cortez’s campaign and two federal political action committees, Brand New Congress PAC and Justice Democrats PAC.

The final disposition of the funds is unknown because whatever expenditures were made were never reported to the FEC. It appears, however, that they underwrote a score of campaign-related events and activities for Ocasio-Cortez and other Congressional candidates.

Chakrabarti described the operation on MSNBC’s Rachel Maddow as a “unified” national campaign to elect progressives to Congress, whereby candidates would be freed from the responsibility of raising money or administering their campaigns. He did not mention that it would also free candidates from the responsibility of disclosure. He stated that one of the campaign’s priorities is to “get rid of the influence of money in politics.”

According to Tom Anderson, director of NLPC’s Government Integrity Project, “These are not minor or technical violations. We are talking about real money here. In all my years of studying FEC reports, I’ve never seen a more ambitious operation to circumvent reporting requirements. Representative Ocasio-Cortez has been quite vocal in condemning so-called dark money, but her own campaign went to great lengths to avoid the sunlight of disclosure.”

NLPC helped expose irregularities in the use of campaign funds by ex-Rep. Joseph Crowley (D-NY), who Ocasio-Cortez defeated for re-election in 2018.

Click here for Washington Examiner story by Alana Goodman titled, “AOC’s Chief of Staff Ran $1M Slush Fund by Diverting Campaign Cash to His Own Companies.


Let us hope the Democrats find time in their busy schedule to probe the finances of at least one person who is not connected to President Trump.

0 0 votes
Article Rating
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
March 5, 2019 12:32 am

Why am I unsurprised?

E J Zuiderwijk
Reply to  mikebartnz
March 5, 2019 1:41 am

But you don’t get it. There’s good money and there’s bad money. I get the good money, you get the bad. Simples.

Reply to  E J Zuiderwijk
March 5, 2019 3:33 am

It’s a hokey idea that someone like AOC (mediocre college degree, working as bartender) would one day just decide to run for congress, and win.
Turns out she’s just another Spice Girl or Backstreet Boy.
Justice Democrats found her with a casting call. — (Bernie’s and Young Turks in the mix) — (only video currently on their is AOC) — (repeat of above AOC) — (?Josh Bernstein?)

Reply to  Cynthia
March 5, 2019 3:37 am

Supposedly Justice Democrats also found Ilhan Omar and Rashida Tliab.

Tom Abbott
Reply to  Cynthia
March 5, 2019 6:13 am

I bet the Democrats in Congress wish the Justice Democrats would go away. They have saddled them with three dandies so far. Every time one of the Fabulous Three opens their mouths controversy is generated, and the Democrats in Congress are put on the defensive.

Reply to  Cynthia
March 5, 2019 7:26 am

I’m sure they do wish the SJWs would go away. But the Geriatric Democrats created them, and are going to be destroyed by them.

Democrats are the ones who turned the schools into factories churning out reality-denying Green Guards. As usual, they thought they could control the monster they created, and they were wrong.

Besides, it’s not like the Geriatric Democrats are much better. About all they’ve done since the election is pass anti-gun laws, which will drive away even more of their old working-class base.

Joel Snider
Reply to  Cynthia
March 5, 2019 11:04 am

Or perhaps a better analogy might be ‘The Monkeys’.

Reply to  Cynthia
March 5, 2019 8:13 pm

Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, Ilhan Omar and Rashida Tliab are the results of a casting call? I suppose that makes perfectly good sense. More puppetry at work.

That’s a fascinating post, Cynthia.

Reply to  mikebartnz
March 5, 2019 4:11 am

Nobody should be surprised. We all knew that this high speed train wreck would happen. But whether we’ll hear much condemnation from her own Dems is the question.

Reply to  ЯΞ√ΩLUT↑☼N
March 5, 2019 8:13 am

I never expected them to go off the rails this quickly.

March 5, 2019 12:35 am

Anyone who commits campaign finance violations should held accountable and if need be sacked. Can someone tell Trump?

Reply to  Simon
March 5, 2019 1:22 am

Predictable Simon, to read your latest drivel. Would you like another tissue for those tears you will shed when Trump wins in 2020?

Reply to  Craig
March 5, 2019 1:35 am

We can all chip in for a doctor’s appt. to get some Xanax so he can get his hyperventilation under control when Trump wins 2020.

John Holm
Reply to  Craig
March 5, 2019 7:36 am


Reply to  Simon
March 5, 2019 4:36 am

“Simon March 5, 2019 at 12:35 am
… Can someone tell Trump?”

Why, simple?
Why involve the chief executive for simple’s imagined problem and smear insinuation?

Let’s start with simple’s lack of reading comprehension:

“National Legal and Policy Center (NLPC) filed a formal Complaint today with the Federal Election Commission (FEC) against Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-NY)”

The issue has already been reported to the responsible Federal regulatory agency.

Nor did Trump’s campaign financing involve improprieties.

Joel O’Bryan
Reply to  Simon
March 5, 2019 7:44 am

Trump paid for his 2016 campaign out of his own money.

Reply to  Joel O’Bryan
March 5, 2019 8:14 am

That’s evil. Unless a Democrat is doing it.

John Tillman
Reply to  Joel O’Bryan
March 5, 2019 8:41 am

He did get some donations, to include federal funds, but mostly he thrived on free media, by dint of celebrity status and making statements deemed outrageous by the media, who imagined they could torpedo him in the general, after having promoted him in the primaries as the easiest candidate for Clinton to beat.

Joel Snider
Reply to  Joel O’Bryan
March 5, 2019 12:41 pm

Oh, Simon knows that – he’s just parroting talking points and leaving his daily stain on the mattress.

Reply to  Simon
March 5, 2019 8:10 am

President Obama’s campaign was fined $375,000 for $1.9M in illegal donations so I take it he should have been sacked Simon? That isn’t alleged it is a certified fact.

So do you agree we need consistency here Simon for all parties?

Joel Snider
Reply to  LdB
March 5, 2019 1:07 pm

Nope – that’s the thing – by definition, a hypocrite doesn’t care.

Reply to  Simon
March 5, 2019 8:14 am

Of course there isn’t any evidence that Trump has done anything wrong. But that won’t slow down the haters.

mike the morlock
Reply to  Simon
March 5, 2019 1:50 pm

Simon March 5, 2019 at 12:35 am

President Trump financed his own campaign out of his own pocket, no donations. He can spend as much of his own money as he wants.
Jealous much?


March 5, 2019 12:41 am

What the FEC ?! as they say in Ireland.

remove the influence of money in politics: by providing it. Clever.

Reply to  Greg
March 5, 2019 12:50 am

Congress critters spend most of their time fund raising. link That’s probably not good.

Reply to  commieBob
March 5, 2019 8:16 am

Make House districts smaller, and make the Senate be appointed by the states again.

John Tillman
Reply to  MarkW
March 5, 2019 8:55 am

At present, GOP controls 30 state legislatures, with two split, ie MN and AK. Assuming two GOP senators from AK and two Democrat from MN, yields a GOP majority Senate, 62-38.

Agree as to districts, upping the House to perhaps 1000 members.

Reply to  John Tillman
March 5, 2019 10:29 am

I’d go higher than that.
With modern communication technology, there is no need for Representatives to spend any time in Washington.
Living full time in their district cuts costs, and allows them to keep their pre-congress jobs.
It also makes it easier for their constituents to keep an eye on them.

It’s also a nightmare for lobbiests. Instead of finding all Representatives nicely collected in one place, they would be the ones who have to travel all over the country in order to do their lobbying.

Javert Chip
Reply to  John Tillman
March 5, 2019 4:07 pm

UGH! Just what we need – another 500+ Federal politicians. You’re definitely going in the wrong direction…

How about:
1) tern limits
2) Only people who live in the district can donate to that candidate

Reply to  John Tillman
March 6, 2019 4:32 pm

How about only people who demonstrably LIVE in that district can run to represent said district?

Reply to  John Tillman
March 7, 2019 5:17 pm

Javert — I’m sure the object is to represent the people hidden by gerrymandering. We must be careful what we wish for..

I definitely do not agree with tern limits.. nor with terM limits — I want strong politicians, and something for a strong politician to fight against. More importantly, it is up to the state, and its people, to decide on term limits, with one mechanism already in place… Vote for the other guy!

As for donations, I see nothing wrong with unlimited raising and spending by a candidate. As long as the ballot remains secret, people will vote who they want without regard to the ‘correct’ person to support in that part of town.

Having said that, there are some suggestions that may help — The elimination of the “party” system. We vote. We contribute to PACS. The candidates vote to form a plurality or majority for changing the rules and getting past 50%. Or 60 when the senates rules aren’t being overridden.

The elimination of the wasted vote syndrome — vote for any and all candidates you want to, but only one vote per candidate for each person. Or have a rising tide where when a clear majority is finally realized, that candidate wins. Or vice versa, remove water from the well, adding those votes at the top to each candidates votes. Or the automated run-off preference vote.. this one I don’t like.

Sue the pants off of people and get back logical correctness with a correct interpretation of the so called ‘commerce’ clause, or the ‘general welfare’ clause. And with respect to campaign finance, the correct ruling should have been something like — read the first amendment. These laws are invalid. Case closed.

Joel O’Bryan
Reply to  Greg
March 5, 2019 8:28 am

Forward Error Correction.
Good stuff for noisy channels and a noise filled world.
I employ FEC by avoiding reading Buzzfeed, NYT opinion pages, etc.

March 5, 2019 12:44 am

AOC is a brilliant politician, brilliant but not wise. If it doesn’t kill her, this should impart some wisdom.

I know that many here will denigrate her intelligence but it is a serious mistake to underestimate the opposition.

Greg F
Reply to  commieBob
March 5, 2019 8:01 am

AOC is a brilliant politician …

I think the AOC phenomenon says more about the voters in her district than her brilliance as a politician. If you ran Bullwinkle the moose as a Dem in that district he would win.

Reply to  commieBob
March 5, 2019 8:49 am
Reply to  icisil
March 5, 2019 8:54 am
Reply to  commieBob
March 5, 2019 11:20 am

(Over)confidence and bearing does not equate with brilliance. It will get a person just so far.

She will go down in flames unless she changes her ways.

Those that think they can get something from her will run like rats once they realize they won’t get what they want.

Craig from Oz
Reply to  commieBob
March 5, 2019 5:34 pm

Only a casual observer, but I disagree.

Good politicians convince you that they care for you, personally. That they remember you. That they believe in you and are working for you.

Many of them don’t of course, but they manage to convince people that they can. Take note next time you actually meet and talk to a politician. Think of what they actually say and then compare it to the warm fuzzy they gave you at the time. Good politician convince everyone, at least in the short term, that they can and they will without every actually nailing their colours firmly to the mast. No matter who they are party wise, you feel that at some level you can deal with them on a professional bias. You are either a friend, or someone who grudgingly respects their talents.

Brilliant politicians not only convince you, but then also manage to get things done AND convince you that is what you wanted all along, even if you disagreed in specific details. Hey, I didn’t want my leg cut off, but it IS a really sharp knife and quality pain killers.

AOC is not one of these people. She has come out with a my way or the highway threat. She is not convincing the masses, she is forcing. Her problem is compounded by the fact she is being seen to also be forcing this onto her own party, again with my way/highway brute force. She also embraces the Millennial sense of entitlement, rather than being self aware enough to realise that this same sense of entitlement is what makes all other generations hate Millennials with a vengeance.

What she also seems to fail to realise is that she is Product. The party machine and the MSM created her and then deployed her. She has not risen on her merits through the ranks, she was selected based on the metrics her handlers thought would work the best which brings us back to the last point of being a good political.

You need to have political friends.

Why are many of the better and more powerful politicals older? Because it takes time to hook and crook your way into a position where they know everyone and how to enforce influence over them when needed. Contacts are grown. You can’t download them. They take time and time makes you older.

AOC, to my eyes at least, is too young to have contacts, too lacking in self awareness to realise she is Product, too much a bully to convince us she is your friend and too overt in her world domination to trick you into agreeing.

Or, to word another way, NOT brilliant.

AOC will either be destroyed by her party in order to bring her back into line, or will destroy her party in her image. The only real question is how many will get caught in the cross fire.

Uncle Max
March 5, 2019 12:51 am

If the Dems really want leverage on her and hers, this is it. They can make this go away for her if she falls into line.

Tom in Florida
Reply to  Uncle Max
March 5, 2019 5:40 am

They don’t want her to fall in line…….yet. They need her as the far left demon so that other Democrats running for election look moderate in comparison. She is being played by her own party.

Moderately Cross of East Anglia
March 5, 2019 12:53 am

Removing the need for candidates to worry about money seems a laudable aim, pity they seem to have overlooked the need to actually be scrupulous about practising what they preach.

Meanwhile a gem of a dope piece of alarmism two minutes ago on BBC radio 4 news, as the increasingly insane BBC news leads off with a claim that the oceans are warming, promptly interviews the academic claiming this and replies to the question “do we really know about what is going on with ocean temperatures?” And replies “no not really”. And we are paying for this, OMG!

March 5, 2019 1:26 am

If it had been Donald Trump who had received $885,735, in such a way as to circumvent reporting requirements, it would have immediately been an impeachment issue for the Democrats. However as it is $885,735 received in such a way as to circumvent reporting requirements for Occasional Cortex’s campaign, it is really a matter of no interest for the Democrats.

Reply to  Nicholas William Tesdorf
March 5, 2019 8:12 am

As stated above Obama was fined $375,000 for $1.9M breach

I am not a US citizen and could not care a less but I would ask you be consistent.

Reply to  LdB
March 5, 2019 10:32 am

$1.9M was the absolute lowest the FEC could get away with finding.
The Obama campaign turned off the ability of their donation site to check for foreign credit cards. They also permitted people to use gift cards to donate.

Reply to  MarkW
March 5, 2019 5:25 pm

Yeah read that but wasn’t aware of the significance, no media mentioned there was a significance to the value.

A C Osborn
March 5, 2019 1:39 am

Nothing will happen, she is a Democrat, they regularly get away with law breaking and are not prosecuted, Hilary Clinton anyone?
One law for them and another for everybody else.

Patrick MJD
Reply to  A C Osborn
March 5, 2019 1:53 am

She’s not running in 2020. That’s a good thing!

John Endicott
Reply to  Patrick MJD
March 5, 2019 5:24 am

She’s legally prevented from running in 2020 (thank goodness) due to not meeting the constitutional age requirement, if she wasn’t then you can bet she’d already have her hat in the ring. Unfortunately she could run in 2024 (assuming her political career doesn’t crash and burn before then) as she would be the required age to be president by inauguration day in Jan 2025.

Reply to  John Endicott
March 5, 2019 7:30 am

“She’s legally prevented from running in 2020 (thank goodness) due to not meeting the constitutional age requirement”

So what?

Who do you think is going to enforce the law?

Even if someone tries, all she has to do is identify as a forty-year-old and she’ll be fine.

John Endicott
Reply to  MarkG
March 5, 2019 7:46 am

The Supreme Court would rule against her. Now, had the two most recent vacancies been filled by Hillary appointees, such blatant disregard for the constitution would be approved by the Supreme Court, but thankfully we don’t live in such a universe and as such the constitution still applies.

Reply to  MarkG
March 5, 2019 8:19 am

I remember a few decades ago, when the CA supreme court ruled that an amendment to the CA constitution violated the CA constitution and had it tossed out.

John Tillman
Reply to  MarkG
March 5, 2019 8:43 am


Same thing happened in OR. The AG ruled that the OR constitution violated itself, with respect to same sex marriage.

Joel O’Bryan
Reply to  John Endicott
March 5, 2019 8:16 am

He was referring to Hillary not AOC.

John Endicott
Reply to  Joel O’Bryan
March 5, 2019 8:47 am

I’d say no He wasn’t based on the subject and context of the post being replied to (Patrick is welcome to clarify otherwise) however, the use of pronouns does lend some ambiguity to the matter.

A C Osborn said “Nothing will happen, she is a Democrat, they regularly get away with law breaking and are not prosecuted, Hilary Clinton anyone?”

The subject (“she is a Democrat”) in the above sentence is AOC. Hillary is used as an tangential example of another Democrat getting away with lawbreaking to support the point about “nothing will happen” to the “she” of that is the subject of the sentence due to there being “One law for them and another for everybody else”.

Patrick MJD replied “She’s not running in 2020. That’s a good thing!”

the obvious reading is the “she” that is the subject of Patrick’s post is the same she that is the subject in the post he is replying to (IE AOC). Now, granted, it’s possible Patrick meant for the she to refer to the tangential example (IE Hillary) rather than the actual subject of the previous post, but that’s not so obvious from the context.

Reply to  John Endicott
March 5, 2019 8:20 am

Hillary says she won’t run again in 2020 …. or will she read carefully what she said only a few hours ago

John Endicott
Reply to  LdB
March 5, 2019 8:54 am

I think she knows 2016 was her only shot at winning. The Democrat field is too crowded for her shenanigans with super-delegates to fly this time (it was one thing when it was just Bernie she was screwing over, a dozen fellow democrats aren’t going to sit still for that), her one selling point (vote for me because I have a vagina) is shared by several other candidates, and a lot of her own party just wants her to go away. For once she’s smart enough to realize her time has passed (most likely her folks have done some polling and saw that she doesn’t have a snowballs chance of pulling it off).

Reply to  LdB
March 5, 2019 2:13 pm

If the vote is so split that no candidate gets more than 30 to 40 percent of the delegates, then super delegates could become more important than ever.

John Endicott
Reply to  LdB
March 6, 2019 5:02 am

If the vote is too fractured, not even super delegates will get any single candidate over the line, setting the stage for a very nasty convention fight.

Reply to  A C Osborn
March 5, 2019 3:58 am

I wouldn’t be surprised to learn that Nancy Pelosi is behind this exposure – to put AOC back in her place. It’s clear that she had quickly become way too big for her britches.

Krudd Gillard of Commondebt of Australia
March 5, 2019 2:12 am

C’mon. She just stealin from da man. Dat ok. She against the whole sellout. She expropriate the expropriators, dat ok. Ok? She da boss.

Rhys Jaggar
March 5, 2019 2:25 am

[dark conspiracy theories and antisemitism have no place on this site ~mod]

I certainly do not want foreign countries or foreign individuals influencing UK elections……

As I said elsewhere, I do not care what the law says, the spirit of the law says TIG members refusing full disclosure should face the wrath of a mob, leaving them physically incapable of campaigning in future. Very simple really: if you will not play by the rules, nor will we.

As for this situation, the issue for AOC is most likely not whether she received payments under the counter, more whether she was fully aware of the way the parent organisation Brand New Congress LLC was going to operate. As a public official in waiting, she needed to do forensic due diligence on BNC LLC to ensure it operated in an above-board manner. After all, as a Congresswoman, that is what she would be doing on behalf of voters when considering allocations of public funds. If she took payments, she is toast, in need of resigning her seat in Congress.

As for Chakrabarty, he will need to disclose who was providing ‘strategic consultancy’. Was it third parties such as Cambridge Analytica or similar voter data mining companies? Was it a campaign management company and, if so, how much were they remunerated?

I am not cognisant with precise US election campaign law, but there are certainly questions to be asked, but I would also bear in mind that Republicans will slit Democrat throats whenever possible and the potential for witch hunts not following evidential trails is very high here.

Harry Passfield
Reply to  Rhys Jaggar
March 5, 2019 3:26 am

Rhys: Does it matter that there are (maybe) Jews (prominent, or otherwise) and ‘the State of Israel’ (allegedly) funding the new TIG group? I detect a touch of anti-semitism in your comment, which is not something I have detected on WUWT in all the years I’ve been coming here.

Rich Davis
Reply to  Harry Passfield
March 5, 2019 3:46 am

Isn’t anti-semitism a basic part of the Labour platform? Not too surprising coming from Rhys.

Hey Rhys, yank meddling in UK politics over here! Exterminate…EX-TERMINATE!!! (Dalek voice)

Reply to  Harry Passfield
March 5, 2019 4:41 am

More than a touch, Harry. Thank you for calling attention to this!

Also notice Rhys’ slipshod conspiracy insinuations, without evidence, citation or facts.

Reply to  ATheoK
March 5, 2019 7:07 am

In what bizarro world is the Israeli Government in cahoots with Soros and Steyer? Two of the biggest funders of BDS, close workers with CAIR, supporters of the “Arab Spring,” etc.

Reply to  Writing Observer
March 5, 2019 8:22 am

To some, the fact that they are all Jews is all that matters.

PS: Rhys is the guy who considers the US to be “uber capitalist”, which should give you an idea of how far to the left he is.

March 5, 2019 2:32 am

She (allegedly) kept the Green of the Green New Deal

Doug Huffman
Reply to  Urederra
March 5, 2019 2:47 am

Kept the green of the Green Nude Eel. Feels good man! Praise Kek.

March 5, 2019 2:42 am

At the risk of repeating myself (but I will anyway) AOC is a naive lamb to the slaughter. She will be politically crucified as soon as it suits the democrats.

Perhaps this is the beginning.

mike macray
Reply to  HotScot
March 5, 2019 6:14 am

Hot Scot:
..”She will be politically crucified as soon as it suits the democrats.”…
Better the established method of eliminating dissidents by pushing them into the front line so that the ‘enemy’ can kill them for you.
Stalin’s marshal Zukhov used political dissidents to lead assaults across minefields. If the mines didn’t kill them the Germans would and they made useful martyr/heros!
Politics is not that different ..especially by the Left.

Reply to  HotScot
March 5, 2019 8:24 am

We need to get ready to start a campaign telling supporters of people like AOC that the Democrats won’t welcome them or their ideas, so they need to find a party that will.

Crispin in waterloo
March 5, 2019 2:54 am

Rhys raises the possibility that not all is above board: these funds may have been used to pay for FaceBitch ads and a campaign fake news plants and fabricated blog comments appearing to be from a fabricated radical right. Perhaps they paid for pretend radical rightist comments on Fritter or Breitfart. The possibilities are endless.

The only good reason to hide such funding is to do something you want obscured. It is probably not as simple as shoveling money into the accounts of supportable candidates; it is far more likely the dark money was used to do dark things.

When I cruise the comments sections of various online journals it is obvious that bots write crap comments intended to make it appear that loonies hang out there, thus hoping to drive away at least a fraction of the reading public. As this is known to have been done during recent campaigns, even going so far as to send paid harassers to rallies to incite violence, we can safely assume “with high confidence” that hiding funds and passing them through private hands was intended to disrupt, not just to assist.

Fake news, fake comments and fake sources are all the rage. Someone has to pay for it. You can do a lot with 885K.

Do dig, neh?

March 5, 2019 3:18 am

I said the other day that she is ‘smart, very articulate, intelligent and manipulative.
The boss-woman is attractive enough to appeal to many male voters, but not too pretty to repel the female ones.’
Not everyone agrees, but you don’t get elected as a congressional representative for one of the New York’s districts for being stupid. You need to outsmart all opponents, be articulate, intelligent and possibly most of all manipulative (in this case manipulating men), and New York City is not short of smart articulate, intelligent and manipulative men.
Good luck to her, she might not even need it, but for the rest be on your guard. I’m looking forward to next couple of years of fun, and hopefully much longer.

Reply to  Vuk
March 5, 2019 4:45 am

“You need to outsmart all opponents”

She ran unopposed.
Her democrat primary opponent was an incumbent who didn’t file necessary papers for seeking reelection in the democrat primary or for democrat political party support.

John Tillman
Reply to  ATheoK
March 5, 2019 7:18 am

Her primary opponent was ten-term incumbent Joe Crowley, “Chair” of the US House of Representatives Democratic Caucus. A formidable opponent, whom she beat by better than 57-43%.

In that Bronx-Queens district, the Democrat primary is all that matters. The general election is a foregone conclusion. She got 78% of the vote against the GOP candidate, who didn’t actively campaign, and Crowley, as the candidate of a minor party.

Reply to  John Tillman
March 5, 2019 7:36 am

“A formidable opponent, whom she beat by better than 57-43%.”

Not hard, given only a few thousand people voted. He got sloppy and didn’t think he could lose.

SJWs are apparently targeting Democrat safe seats that are easy to take over. The Geriatrics deserve everything they get.

John Tillman
Reply to  MarkG
March 5, 2019 7:46 am


Yes, he was clearly overconfident, and turnout was low, although more than a few thousand. Ocasio beat Crowley by 15,897 to 11,761.

By comparison, in the 2016 presidential election year general, 178,132 people voted in the district.

John Tillman
Reply to  MarkG
March 5, 2019 7:49 am

Now she’s a celebrity, and will be well-funded, so could be hard for regular Democrats to find a candidate to beat her, without fraud. Will have to be a Latina.

Reply to  MarkG
March 5, 2019 8:27 am

“without fraud”

We are talking about the Democrats here.

John Tillman
Reply to  MarkG
March 5, 2019 8:47 am


Fraud goes without saying, but will the crooked precinct workers back the Clinton-Pelosi-Feinstein-Schumer Left wing or the Sanders-Ocasio-Omar-Tlaib Left of Left wing?

Might depend upon who pays the most per vote.

John Endicott
Reply to  MarkG
March 5, 2019 9:15 am

Yes, he was clearly overconfident, and turnout was low, although more than a few thousand. Ocasio beat Crowley by 15,897 to 11,761.

Which equals about 4,000 vote difference. That literally *is* a few thousand. Even the total (27k and change) is “a few thousand” compared to the numbers of active registered democrat voters in the district (214,750 – in other words slightly above a tenth of the active registered voters showed up). Turnout wasn’t just low, it was very low.

Reply to  MarkG
March 5, 2019 11:48 am


“By comparison, in the 2016 presidential election year general, 178,132 people voted in the district.”

That tells you something about the people of that district.

Overwhelmingly, when they think they are on the winning side they respond well … they want to be part of the show (even though they knew hillary would win NY and they did not even need to vote).

Overwhelmingly, when they think they are stuck with & consorting with losers, they don’t care. The majority know what she is and the majority will not support her unless she delivers them a whole lot of free stuff. She will lose (or not run) the next term.

(and, to the Ahole ocasio supporter in Brooklyn that keeps trying use my credit card … keep it up and I’ll come knock on your door)

Greg F
Reply to  MarkG
March 5, 2019 12:21 pm

Even the total (27k and change) is “a few thousand” compared to the numbers of active registered democrat voters in the district (214,750 – in other words slightly above a tenth of the active registered voters showed up).

I would guess a lot of them didn’t show up because they just assumed Crowley would win the primary over the valley girl.

John Endicott
Reply to  Vuk
March 5, 2019 5:36 am

You need to outsmart all opponents,

What serious opponents did she have and how did she outsmart them? The closest she came was “outsmarting” her primary opponent by actually having a campaign. Being an incumbent, her opponent didn’t feel the need to put in any effort into the primary (and even then, she only beat him by 4,000 votes). No outsmarting was necessary in the general, as she ran as a democrat in a highly democrat district. A lamp post could win that district as long as it was a democrat lamp post.

be articulate, intelligent

You’ve obviously never listened to her talk on the issues.

Reply to  John Endicott
March 5, 2019 8:04 am

There are millions of smart, inelegant people in the US who would like to sit in the USA Congress. Where were they?
USA is a democracy, everyone of ability has equal chance to get there.
If you don’t have a go to be a candidate, don’t complain someone else got elected.
If you don’t bother to vote, don’t complain about person who got elected.
To an outsider some of the above comments sound as a bit of ‘sour grapes’.
After all, in the UK we have Jeremy Corbin, brother of Piers.
Pass the popcorn.

John Endicott
Reply to  Vuk
March 5, 2019 9:05 am

There are millions of smart, inelegant people in the US who would like to sit in the USA Congress. Where were they?

they are smart enough to not want to go through the wringer that is US politics these days. Frankly, if you look at how the media treats political figures (particularly those whose politics the media doesn’t agree with), you’d have to be a masochist to want to put yourself and your family through that.

If you don’t have a go to be a candidate, don’t complain someone else got elected.

I don’t live in AOC’s state (NY), I literally, by law, could not have a go at running for her seat. So you are spouting nonsense in an attempt to dismiss peoples observations of AOC’s tendency to say stupid shit.

If you don’t bother to vote, don’t complain about person who got elected.

What makes you think those who don’t like AOC didn’t vote? While I, personally, was not able to vote in her district (that whole not living in NY, in general, and the Bronx in particular, thing) I do vote and did so in the 2018 elections. So again, for whatever reason, you are trying to dismiss what others have to say on specious ground. Here’s an idea, instead of making erroneous assumptions as a means to dismiss what you don’t like to here, how about trying to address what people actually have to say?

To an outsider some of the above comments sound as a bit of ‘sour grapes’.

what sounds like “sour grapes” is your specious arguments for dismissing what others have to say on the subject. How about instead of making excuses to dismiss what others have to say, you actually try addressing the substance of what they did say or say nothing if you have nothing intelligent to say.

Reply to  Vuk
March 5, 2019 9:50 am

‘If you … ‘, was not addressed to you specifically (therefore I apologise for misunderstanding), it is a general kind of address to many. In the UK there is no residential requirement and often a suitable candidate is parachuted from a far, but if get elected setting up a local residence is considered ‘thing to do’. Anyway how am I to know you are/not New Yorker, as far as I know you might a Canadian, or even British living in the USA.
John, I grew up on the other side of the iron curtain and the AOC’s election on the US politics Richter scale just a ‘kitten’s cough’, that is why I find many of the comments and complaints rather hilarious and was making a light-hearted observation.
Seriously, the US system and democracy are far too strong to be in any way engendered by kinds of B. Sanders or A.O. Cortez.

Reply to  Vuk
March 6, 2019 5:54 pm

Heh, prob automiscorrected for ‘endangered’.

Dodgy Geezer
March 5, 2019 3:55 am

“…Climate Action Champion Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez Accused of Massive Campaign Finance Violations….”

It’s not a violation when the left wing do it. And if it is, it’s certainly not a press story….

March 5, 2019 4:29 am

Silly rabbit. Rules are for Republicans.

Rich Davis
Reply to  Gamecock
March 5, 2019 6:16 am

…and Tricks are for kids (such as the occasionally conscious democratic socialist)

As a public service for our many non-US friends, there is a long-running TV advertisement for a breakfast cereal, where a rabbit tries to steal the kid’s cereal (tradename Trix). The tagline is “Silly rabbit, Trix are for kids”.

John Endicott
Reply to  Rich Davis
March 5, 2019 9:26 am

Reminds me of the joke that riffed on that tag line.

On a far away planet lived a race of aliens called Trids. On this planet there was a mountain the contained a delicious fruit that the Trids enjoyed. However it was also home to a monter. Every time the Trids attempted to climb the mountain the monster would kick them back down.

One day a visiting holy man cam across the depressed Trids and asked them what the matter was. After they explained the situation to him, he agreed to help. He lead a delegation of Trids up most of the way up the mountain only to have the monster show up and kick all the Trids back down the mountain, but not the holy man. The next day, he lead another delegation up the mountain to the same result. Third day, and again same result.

Finally the holy man went up the mountain alone and asked the monster “Monster, why do you only ever kick down the Trids, but always leave me standing?” To which the monster replied “Silly rabbi, kicks are for Trids.”

Reply to  John Endicott
March 5, 2019 12:16 pm


I’m saving that one. 🙂

Tom in Florida
Reply to  John Endicott
March 5, 2019 3:36 pm

That’s 30 seconds of my life I will never get back.

John Endicott
Reply to  Tom in Florida
March 6, 2019 7:32 am

I didn’t say it was a good joke. 🙂

March 5, 2019 4:49 am

I expect AOC to invoke some sort of virtuous double-standard, saying something a long the lines of: “Well, the money was and is being used to save us all from the end of the world!” It’s egomaniacal, a distortion of a reality around herself. A superiority complex.

Tom in Florida
Reply to  leowaj
March 5, 2019 5:44 am

or more likely, I was not aware of what he did.

March 5, 2019 5:08 am

Nothing will happen except, just perhaps, a slap or a finger wave and, if so, velvet gloved at that. We’ve entered an era that even the Weimer Republic did not tread. The list is long and includes things like Fast and Furious, Lois Lerner, et al. All surviving and protected. AOC fits nicely into the group and the modern times.
The March To Impeachment will simply suck all the air out of any Left’s transgressions, omissions.

Reply to  cedarhill
March 5, 2019 10:40 am

“Nothing will happen”

That’s the normal MO. The Dems will circle the wagons. HOWEVER, if they don’t, it will speak volumes. The Wicked Witch of the West (okay, from a 1930s movie, if I have to explain) may have her revenge on the little upstart. And her little dog, too.

Mark Pawelek
March 5, 2019 5:15 am

When you convince yourself that you’re saving the planet, keeping to the letter of the law, ain’t such a big priority. leoaaj has it exactly. Egomaniacs live in massive reality distortion fields of their own concoction. When their cause is some plan for humanity, they even convince themselves they hurt themselves for us, and that they’re humble, salt of the earth, types, rather than egomaniacs!

Reply to  Mark Pawelek
March 6, 2019 4:37 am

True. When you can characterize the opposition as evil, ANYTHING is justified.

March 5, 2019 5:19 am

Come on guys, its only 800k$.
And what about that time Trump got large fries with his big Mac and only declared small on his expenses ?


John the Econ
March 5, 2019 5:23 am

…by a for-profit entity…

Savor that.

Reply to  John the Econ
March 5, 2019 5:53 am

Watch the double-standard play out…

Since Crazy-yo Cortez is a Leftist hack and an MSM darling, her campaign will pay a fine and get about 3 seconds of news coverage…

Had a Republican Congressmen done this, it would be in the news 24/7 for a week and would be forced to resign…

Isn’t capriciousness of the law fun?

Leo Smith
March 5, 2019 5:46 am

When you compare this creature with Judith Curry, its hard to realise they are in fact the same species.

March 5, 2019 5:58 am

When you are that virtuous, rules no longer apply. You are above that. The law applies to sinners, who need to be kept in line, not the green saints. They have a higher, nobler calling, and must be free to be righteous unfettered by petty restraints. Ave! Ave!

Tom Abbott
March 5, 2019 6:07 am

From the article: “He stated that one of the campaign’s priorities is to “get rid of the influence of money in politics.”

They don’t want to get rid of the money, they just want the money to be in their hands.

Reply to  Tom Abbott
March 5, 2019 12:23 pm

They want to cut out the middleman (money) and have their power influence the politics directly.

“The puppets don’t need to come into contact with the money … we have taken that out of the equation.”

Johann Wundersamer
March 5, 2019 6:10 am

“Let us hope the Democrats find time in their busy schedule to probe the finances of at least one person who is not connected to President Trump.”

There should be enough underemployed staff to fulfill this monotonous tasks.

Tom Abbott
Reply to  Johann Wundersamer
March 5, 2019 6:38 am

No doubt the House Democrats will do a thorough investigation of Trump and Stormy Daniels. As if it’s any of their business, but they’ll make it their busines because it’s politics.

The House Democrats are getting ready to conduct the biggest political witch hunt in history by subpeoning all of Trump’s businesses and the people involved, costing them no telling how much money just to hire lawyers to defend themselves against these Democrat jackals. A True Witch Hunt. They are searching for a crime to pin on Trump and they don’t care how many people they destroy to do it. It may backfired on them, though. People see what they are doing.

My advice to all those people called to testify is to take the Fifth Amendment and not answer ANY of the Democrat’s questions.

You can justify taking the Fifth because testifying before the House is like testifying before Mueller, both are perjury traps where they take slight discrepancies in what you say and what someone else says, and they then claim you are lying and committing a crime.

So the best thing you can do to preserve yourself is to say absolutely nothing to Congress. They won’t like it but they can’t make you talk. And not taling doesn’t mean you have something to hide, it means, in this case, you think you are being entrapped and are not going to play along.

Don’t play the Democrats game. Make them work to try to overthrow the president.

Reply to  Tom Abbott
March 5, 2019 8:40 am

Destroying people close to your target is a feature, not a bug, for these people.

Tom Abbott
Reply to  MarkW
March 5, 2019 2:19 pm

“Destroying people close to your target is a feature”

That’s right, MarkW. And attacking all the people around Trump has longrange repurcussions. Who is going to want to work for Trump in the future facing such actions by the Democrats? You would have to be a dedicated individual to put yourself in this kind of potential jeopardy.

The Democrats are doing great harm to our Republic by their behavior. They should be made to pay at the voting polls.

Hillary was complaining the other day that current times are the most devisive in history. Well, Hillary, that’s because you and the Democrats are hell-bent on dividing Americans one from another. If you don’t like divisiveness, quit spewing dviisive rhetoric. Quit calling Trump and all his supporters racists.

Reply to  Tom Abbott
March 5, 2019 9:54 am

As any member of Congress, or their staff, or the MSM, will tell you, Congressional hearings aren’t court cases. You may be forced to incriminate yourself in front of Congress, and then your incriminating statements can be used in the courts. At least that is the way Congress likes to try to play it.

John Endicott
Reply to  Retired_Engineer_Jim
March 5, 2019 10:43 am

And as the Supreme court will tell you, the Fifth Amendment right is available to recipients of congressional subpoenas. Back in the 1950s, many an accused communist plead the fifth when faced with the “red scare” hearings before the House Committee on Un-American Activities or the Senate Internal Security Subcommittee. More recently, Lois Lerner (of the IRS scandal) was allowed to plead the Fifth during her congressional appearances (despite claiming innocence of any wrong doing just before invoking the fifth)

Tom Abbott
Reply to  John Endicott
March 5, 2019 2:11 pm

Yes, I think Lois Lerner even gave a little speech declaring her innocence, before taking the Fifth, much to the displeasure of the Republicans.

That’s what Trump people caught up in the House Democrat Witch Hunt should do. They should declare that their hearing is part of a witch hunt and is a perjury trap for themselves and they are going to take the Fifth in order to protect themselves from criminal charges trumped up by dishonest Democrats.

The Democrats can’t accuse you of lying if you don’t say anything. They *can* charge you with lying if you do say anything. It doesn’t matter whether they can prove their charge. That’s not the point. If you testify you open yourself up to this kind of legal abuse. Shut your trap.

John Endicott
Reply to  John Endicott
March 6, 2019 5:06 am

Exactly, they should all follow the Lois Lerner playbook when called to testify before congress

J Mac
Reply to  Tom Abbott
March 5, 2019 10:40 am

I advocate the individuals subjected to ‘document requests’ send the congressional inquisitors a roll of toilet paper for each request… and nothing more.

Tom Abbott
Reply to  Tom Abbott
March 5, 2019 10:53 am

Btw, I just emailed my U.S. Senators and told them if they voted with the Democrats to kill Trump’s National Emergency Declaration, then I would be voting against them come the next election.

I would suggest everyone do that so your Senators will know where you stand.

I don’t know that either one of my Senators will vote against Trump, but I thought it important enough to let them know what I would do if they voted with the Democrats and in effect help the Democrats to destroy Trump and the country we love.

Don’t make your Senators have to guess about the way you feel. Tell them.

John Endicott
Reply to  Tom Abbott
March 5, 2019 11:31 am

Unfortunately my Senators and Representatives are Democrats in a deep blue state – sadly, there is no question as to how they’ll vote.

Tom Abbott
Reply to  John Endicott
March 5, 2019 2:47 pm

The wobbly-kneed Republicans are the ones who need to hear from their constituents.

Some Republicans say they will vote against the declaration because it weakens the “separation of powers” between the branches of government. I don’t happen to agree. I think everything Trump is planning on doing is authorized by one law or another. But be that as it may, the Senators should allow this question to be decided by the Supreme Court, not by a harmful, ineffective Republican NO vote in the U.S. Senate.

Some Republicans say they will vote against the declaration because it may set a precedent for future presidents. This argument is laughable on its face. Nothing Trump does will have an effect on future presidents. Future presidents can call a national emergency for anything and don’t need precedent to do it. One, thoughtless Republican Senator said a future Democrat president could declare a national emergency over Climate Change or over a Ban on Guns.

Well, think about that for a moment. Trump is scrambling to scrap together 8 or 10 billion dollars to put towards building a wall on the southern border. That money is the *maximum* Trump can redeploy, before he has to go to Congress for more money.

The Green New Deal is reportedly to cost between 5 and 10 TRILLION dollars per year. Even if a Democrat declared it a national emergency, he doesn’t have nearly enough funds to do anything about it. Ten billion dollars doesn’t go that far in the New Green Deal. It would be dead in its tracks without Congress signing on.

As for banning guns, you tell me how a president declaring guns a national emergency is going to change the Second Amendment. He won’t These Republican’s fears are baseless. They seem to just be looking for an excuse to vote NO.

We’re watching. We’ll know soon enough which Republican Senators we need to primary the next time around.

March 5, 2019 6:23 am

Of all the nasty characteristics of the leftist/marxist movement, the one that is most pervasive are lies/deception. Of course there are endless variations & forms — outright lies, lies by omission, half truths/half lies, crying wolf/scare-mongering, number manipulation, fabricated history — the list goes on limited only by their evil imaginations.

Nothing in the lame-stream media can be trusted.

March 5, 2019 6:30 am

Use the insanity defense. Dems are always setting new precedence in the courts and Congress.

March 5, 2019 6:43 am

Last line of the article: “Let us hope the Democrats find time in their busy schedule to probe the finances of at least one person who is not connected to President Trump.”

Riiiight. On a cold day in …. (Although she’s ticked off enough Democrats already, so maybe…)

By the way, I’ve been wondering how she’s been able to afford those multi-thousand-dollar outfits. Campaign expenditures, perhaps?

Gordon Dressler
Reply to  Rod
March 6, 2019 8:44 am

In her successful 2018 campaign to become Congressional Representative of New York District 14, Ms. Ocasio-Cortez (Democrat):
Raised: $2,084,838
Spent: $1,673,699
Retained as Cash on Hand: $368,811

Note: source of above information is

John Endicott
Reply to  Gordon Dressler
March 6, 2019 9:06 am

How much of that money was funneled into/through the LLC?

John Powers
March 5, 2019 6:51 am

Color me SHOCKED !!!!!

John Tillman
March 5, 2019 7:30 am

Campaign finance laws are for the Little People, not for the Bosses!

March 5, 2019 7:52 am

Hopefully she gets the same treatment / jail time, relative to the amount of money involved, that Dinesh D’Sousa received. But of course, there are two sets of rules in America: One for Republicans where they go to jail. Another for Democrats, where nothing will happen.

Just add this to the list of Democrat crimes where nothing will happen. Perhaps time will prove me wrong, but I doubt it.

March 5, 2019 8:11 am

“get rid of the influence of money in politics.”

It’s always been about getting other people’s money out of politics. Money that supports me is pure.

Joel O’Bryan
March 5, 2019 8:23 am

We need AO-C around us of what the insanity of the Left looks like.

March 5, 2019 9:18 am

It’s interesting that in the US as in the UK (and probably elsewhere as well) the sense of entitlement increases in direct relationship to how far left you are.
The rules don’t apply to them.
Trying to take the money out of politics doesn’t apply to the money they spend.
While the rest of us starve/freeze/ aren’t allowed to travel they are at liberty to do all those things in the name of “saving the planet”.
And on and on!
I’ve been battling this sort of attitude for decades. The (very) occasional victory is worth celebrating but I’m afraid they’re becoming rarer.

March 5, 2019 11:50 am

Just two months in office and Alexandria may already be among the large cadre of Congressional Crooks.

John Endicott
Reply to  Gandhi
March 6, 2019 8:57 am

That would be a cadre that consists of 97% of congress critters. 😉

Harry Passfield
March 5, 2019 1:03 pm

Anthony/Mods: I’m surprised you allowed the comment from Rhys Jagger ( to stand. It is patently anti-Semitic.

March 5, 2019 1:42 pm

So what are the legal consequences of doing that (besides being investigated)?

John Endicott
Reply to  littlepeaks
March 6, 2019 8:56 am

depends on what letter is after their name (D or R). sadly that’s not sarcasm.

High Treason
March 5, 2019 3:33 pm

Flagrant hypocrisy-something the left are notorious for. If it is an actual offense, then she has to go-simple.
If the boot were on the other foot, the Democrats would be howling for blood, so time for a level playing field. Mind you, she is such a dope that she could actually wake people up that she speaks utter propaganda and rubbish, but then again, never underestimate the extent of human stupidity. There would be people out there that actually believe her drivel.

March 6, 2019 7:01 am

AOC, the gift that keeps giving. The Republican Party should pay her rent in DC in return for the favor she does for the R party.

March 7, 2019 10:07 pm

Just think–after five years in the slammer, AOC will finally be old enough to run for president!

%d bloggers like this:
Verified by MonsterInsights