.jpeg) |
| (Missouri Independent) |
One week ago, U.S. Sen. Eric Schmitt (R-MO) became a national punchline when he tried to lure former Special Counsel Jack Smith into a perjury trap that wound up exploding in Schmitt's arrogant mug. Today, he could be facing much bigger problems than that.
Schmitt is one of at least five Missouri Republicans who might have irregularities in their campaign finance reports. One of the others is fellow U.S. Senator Josh Hawley (R-MO).
According to an article at The Missouri Independent, the reports contain a host of bizarre numbers that are tied to donors you would not expect to draw attention to themselves. The story comes under the following headline: "FEC questions thousands of donations to Eric Schmitt tied to prolific online donors." The story also includes a subhead that refers to Schmitt and reads "Thirteeen donors flagged in federal letters appear nearly 5,700 times in the Missouri senator's reports, highlighting questions about recurring online contributions."
Deputy Editor Rudi Keller, author of the article, says it likely is a sign of problems that can arise with increasingly automated online political fundraising. Keller begins his story by focusing on a donor that you would expect to start out in low-key fashion and remain that way:
In December 2023, a woman living in a small community near Austin, Texas, made a $78.08 contribution through WinRed. A few weeks later, she made another.
Then came four more contributions in January 2024.
Those were the first six entries under her name in Federal Election Commission (FEC) records stretching back decades. Since then, her name has appeared 126,739 times — including 1,011 times in reports filed by U.S. Sen. Eric Schmitt of Missouri.
And she is one of 13 donors with numerous contributions flagged in three letters the FEC sent this year to Schmitt’s campaign committee asking about donations that appear to exceed federal limits and other issues with his reports.
Keller notes a number of oddities in the FEC letters, including the locations of the donors and the number of donations they made. Keller writes:
None of the 13 donors flagged in the FEC letters live in Missouri, and none gave to Schmitt when he sought election to his first term in the Senate in 2022. He has raised $4.3 million since the start of 2025 for the 2028 election.
Those 13 donors are, collectively, listed in Schmitt’s FEC reports almost 5,700 times, donating $85,672 after accounting for negative amounts entered for each donor in subsequent and amended reports. The totals for each donor range from just over the donation limit of $3,500 to more than $10,500.
The Independent unsuccessfully attempted to contact the donors to understand why their names had been listed so many times.
The records offer a window into the increasingly automated world of online political fundraising, where a small number of donors can generate thousands of transactions, and campaigns must keep track of whether those contributions exceed federal limits.
Online fundraising platforms can process recurring contributions automatically, and a single donation can generate multiple entries in federal records as money moves through a platform, a political committee, and a candidate campaign. That can leave regulators sorting out whether unusual patterns reflect legitimate giving, reporting errors, or contributions a donor may not have intended to continue.
Keller points out that this is not a new problem in the Show-Me State. In fact, the 2026 docket for the Missouri Legislature included an effort to straighten out a messy picture. It remains unclear if they succeeded. It does seem clear, however, that the Schmitt campaign is not anxious to address questions about the FEC queries. Keller writes:
The issue is familiar in Missouri. Lawmakers this year tightened state campaign finance rules after The Independent reported that a 92-year-old Nebraska veteran had become an unwitting recurring donor to former state Sen. Bill Eigel’s campaign for St. Charles County executive. State and local candidates now must obtain clear consent for recurring contributions, send a receipt after every donation and stop them when asked or after the election. No such restrictions exist at the federal level.
Schmitt’s campaign did not respond to a request for comments on the FEC letters.
The first FEC letter raising concerns about Schmitt’s fundraising listed 10 contributors with at least 20 donations during 2025. The second, sent after Schmitt’s campaign filed its report for the first quarter of the year, included inquiries about seven donors, six of whom were also listed in the first letter.
The first FEC letter raising concerns about Schmitt’s fundraising listed 10 contributors with at least 20 donations during 2025. The second, sent after Schmitt’s campaign filed its report for the first quarter of the year, included inquiries about seven donors, six of whom were also listed in the first letter.
The third letter, sent after the report for the second quarter of the year, listed 10 donors, including eight listed in one or more of the previous letters.
Does it look like any person or entity has violated federal election law? So far, the answer appears to be no. But the muddled picture might not get any clearer for a while, Keller writes:
The FEC letters do not establish that Schmitt’s campaign or any donor violated federal law. They are requests from commission staff seeking corrections or explanations for apparent problems in campaign finance reports.
“It does not mean there’s been a violation of the law,” Bradley Smith, a former chairman of the FEC, told The Independent. “It does not mean there’s going to be a fine on the campaign. It’s simply saying you’ve got reporting problems, and we’d like to either have this corrected or explained.”
The letters raise other issues as well, including incomplete information about some donors, donors who made single or a handful of donations that exceed the limits, and information about the source of donations passed through a conduit to the campaign.
Given the hyper-partisan nature of today's political environment, a reasonable observer might ask: "Is something nefarious going on behind the scenes? Are these people being targeted for some improper purpose?" That might lead to questions about Bradley Smith's background. But Keller provides a look at Smith's biography, and it portrays a man who seems to be a fair-minded fellow, with a history of working on bipartisan projects. Keller writes:
Smith was a Republican member of the FEC from 2000 to 2005 and was appointed chairman by President George W. Bush. After leaving the commission, Smith founded the Center for Competitive Politics, now the Institute for Free Speech, and his academic work was cited by the U.S. Supreme Court in the Citizens United decision allowing corporations to spend directly in political campaigns.
The practices of both parties’ online fundraising efforts need to be investigated, Smith said.
“My sort of vague sense,” Smith said, “is that the FEC has probably not done enough to either investigate these items or ask campaigns to install certain safeguards to make sure that you don’t end up with people sending multiple contributions.”
What about the Missouri Republicans, besides Schmitt, who might receive scrutiny from the FEC? Keller provides background on that:
Schmitt is not alone in receiving recurring campaign donations. And four other Republicans from Missouri — U.S. Rep. Eric Burlison of Springfield, U.S. Reps. Jason Smith of Salem and Ann Wagner of St. Louis County, as well as U.S. Sen. Josh Hawley — have received numerous contributions from some of the same donors listed on the letters to Schmitt.
How has the Schmitt campaign responded to queries from the FEC? So far, it seems to be making a good-faith effort to stay on top of the matter, Keller writes:
Federal-candidate campaigns are allowed to accept donations of up to $3,500 from individuals for each election. A campaign can collect that amount for the primary election and again for the general election and can accept funds for the general election before the primary is held.
The letters said Schmitt’s campaign had the option of redesignating excessive amounts for the primary to the general, splitting the donations from joint banking accounts between the individuals on the account, refunding the money or, when the donor could not be reached, turning it over to the U.S. Treasury.
“Although the commission may take further legal action concerning the acceptance of excessive contributions, your prompt action to refund, redesignate, and/or reattribute the excessive amount will be taken into consideration,” the first letter stated.
In response to the first letter, Janna Rutland, Schmitt’s campaign treasurer, wrote that an amended report was filed addressing the issues.
“After filing the original report, the committee discovered that a software error caused donor information to be mismatched, which resulted in reporting errors,” Rutland wrote.
The amended report included “any necessary reattributions, redesignations, or refunds,” Rutland wrote.
Rutland has submitted similar letters responding to the FEC’s other letters.
No comments:
Post a Comment