November 17, 2017 (Wall Street Journal) — Cleta Mitchell and Hans von Spakovsky’s “Hillary Clinton, the DNC and the Law” (op-ed, Nov. 13) obfuscates the intersection of these topics. The meeting ground is clear. The most basic legal infraction here is skirting Federal Election Commission rules. FEC regulations cap individual campaign contributions to individual candidates at a more austere level than what can be contributed to a party. If one candidate had effective control over the party’s operations, were contributions made to the DNC funneled disproportionally to Hillary Clinton’s campaign? FEC rules expressly prohibit this type of campaign-finance activity.

Ms. Mitchell and Mr. von Spakovsky admirably introduce the convoluted schema but they wound up burying the lead. Since everyone is to be treated equal under the law according to our Constitution, I fail to discern the faintest reason why it would not be applied and enforced in the case of persons wittingly or unwittingly violating FEC guidelines. This is the most clearly germane argument in relation to Mrs. Clinton, the DNC and the law.

Bernie Sanders wasn’t the only one to lose out. Martin O’Malley, Lawrence Lessig, Lincoln Chaffee and Jim Webb at least deserved a fair shake. I still want to believe in an America that takes pride in free and fair elections.