Here are two cases of alleged campaign finance violations: in the first, a candidate used money donated by others for the campaign to pay for personal legal expenses and unrelated travel. In the second, the candidate used his own money to pay personal expenses but had someone else make the payment and then repaid that person; no campaign contributions were used. Which is worse? The first candidate clearly violated the campaign finance laws, while the second one didn't. The second candidate can only be said to have violated the laws if you argue that when the other person advanced the funds, it constituted a campaign contribution. The problem with the argument, however, is that by law it can't be a violation if the expenditure wasn't exclusively for the campaign (and it wasn't). It seems pretty clear that the first alleged violation is much worse; indeed the only actual violation.
The first candidate is Ilhan Omar, Democrat of Minnesota, who has been ordered to repay the funds taken from the campaign and also pay a fine of $500. The second candidate is, of course, president Trump. He has not been sanctioned in any way or found to have violated the law, but the other person, the one who advanced the funds, is Michael Cohen and he pleaded guilty to violating campaign finance laws and is in prison, in part, as a result.
Can you say double standard?
The first candidate is Ilhan Omar, Democrat of Minnesota, who has been ordered to repay the funds taken from the campaign and also pay a fine of $500. The second candidate is, of course, president Trump. He has not been sanctioned in any way or found to have violated the law, but the other person, the one who advanced the funds, is Michael Cohen and he pleaded guilty to violating campaign finance laws and is in prison, in part, as a result.
Can you say double standard?
No comments:
Post a Comment