Appointed Georgia Senator Kelly Loeffler Violated Federal Campaign Finance Law & Senate Ethics Rules On National Television

Today, Wednesday, 18 November 2020, Georgia’s Appointed Senator, multimillionairess Kelly Loeffler flagrantly violated Federal Campaign Finance laws, and Senate ethics rules by requesting/seeking/soliciting campaign contributions/donations for herself while on Senate property.

Senate Rules PROHIBIT any kind of political or candidate fundraising on U.S. Government/Congress property.

“Well, look… we know that hundreds of millions of dark, liberal money is pouring into our state. That’s why it’s so important that everyone across the country get involved. They can visit Kelly for Senate dot com, to chip in five, or ten bucks, and get involved, volunteer…”

– Appointed Georgia Senator Kelly Loeffler on Fox News program “America’s Newsroom,” Wednesday, 18 October 2020

The ethics rules established by the U.S. Senate Select Committee on Ethics are explicitly clear:

Senate resources may only be used for official purposes.

No official resources may be used to conduct campaign activities.

In addition to this general prohibition, there are several criminal statutes that impose additional restrictions on campaign activities by Senate Members and staff:

No Campaign Activity in a Federal Building

Senate Members and staff may not receive or solicit campaign contributions in any federal building.

It’s also contrary to Federal law to do so, and 18 U.S.C § 607 states:

“Paid for by Donald J. Trump for President, Inc.”

Self dealing.

You’d think it was a crime, eh?

But, did you know that it is NOT illegal to shift campaign money into your private account?

Actually, directly, it is.

On their website, the Federal Election Commission states in part that, “Using campaign funds for personal use is prohibited.” (https://www.fec.gov/help-candidates-and-committees/making-disbursements/personal-use/)

They state further that, “Commission regulations provide a test, called the “irrespective test,” to differentiate legitimate campaign and officeholder expenses from personal expenses. Under the “irrespective test,” personal use is any use of funds in a campaign account of a candidate (or former candidate) to fulfill a commitment, obligation or expense of any person that would exist irrespective of the candidate’s campaign or responsibilities as a federal officeholder.”

But indirectly?

That’s a horse of an entirely different color.

In the white-collar criminal underground, that’s called “money laundering,” which is the practice of shifting money through legitimate business enterprises in order to make it appear as if the money was obtained legitimately.

And that is but one reason why the FBI encourages accounting majors in university to consider joining their service – because scouring the financial books of businesses and other entities takes a well-trained eye to discern criminal wrong-doing.

On June 16, 2015, Donald Trump stood in Trump Tower, New York City, and said, “I’m using my own money. I’m not using the lobbyists. I’m not using donors. I don’t care. I’m really rich.” (https://www.cbsnews.com/news/transcript-donald-trump-announces-his-presidential-candidacy/)

With that remark in part, he announced his candidacy to be the GOP’s nominee for President.

Of note, that was also when he’d made his now-infamous remark that, “When Mexico sends its people, they’re not sending their best. They’re not sending you. They’re not sending you. They’re sending people that have lots of problems, and they’re bringing those problems with us. They’re bringing drugs. They’re bringing crime. They’re rapists. And some, I assume, are good people. But I speak to border guards and they tell us what we’re getting. And it only makes common sense. It only makes common sense. They’re sending us not the right people. It’s coming from more than Mexico. It’s coming from all over South and Latin America, and it’s coming probably — probably — from the Middle East. But we don’t know. Because we have no protection and we have no competence, we don’t know what’s happening. And it’s got to stop and it’s got to stop fast.”

But earlier – 5 years earlier, in fact – he’d said to Fortune magazine in April 3, 2000, that, “It’s very possible that I could be the first presidential candidate to run and make money on it.” (https://fortune.com/2000/04/03/what-does-donald-trump-really-want/)

In December 2018, Forbes magazine reported that

How And Why Insurance Companies Control Your Medical Care

Some have accurately, and justifiably observed that the Affordable Care Act, also colloquially known as “ObamaCare,” is a big fat, sloppy wet kiss to the Big Insurance industry and their for-profit, Wall $treet corporate masters, because their profits have continued to soar since it’s inception. Note that UnitedHealth Group reported a profit of $11 billion (on revenues of more than $157 billion) in 2015, up from $10.3 billion (on revenues of $131 billion) in 2014. Consider also how Anthem’s business changed in just one recent year. At the end of 2014, the majority of Anthem’s revenues still came from its Commercial Health Insurance customers. During 2015, however, revenues from their commercial operations actually declined 4.2%, to $37.6 billion, while revenues from their government operations skyrocketed 21%, to $40.1 billion. A significant reason why, is because of the big investments Insurance Companies continue to make in House and Senate campaigns. As a result, the Insurance Industry’s tentacles will likely only get deeper into both the Medicare and Medicaid programs.

Medical equipment is pictured on the wall of an examination room inside a Kaiser Permanente health clinic located inside a Target retail department store in San Diego, California November 17, 2014. Four clinics are scheduled to open to provide pediatric and adolescent care, well-woman care, family planning, and management of chronic conditions like diabetes and high blood pressure for Kaiser members and non-members. REUTERS/Mike Blake (UNITED STATES – Tags: HEALTH BUSINESS SOCIETY) Fair Use

by Christy Ford Chapin

It’s that time of year again. Insurance companies that participate in the Affordable Care Act’s state health exchanges are signaling that prices will rise dramatically this fall.

And if insurance costs aren’t enough of a crisis, researchers are highlighting deficiencies in health care quality, such as unnecessary tests and procedures that cause patient harm, medical errors bred by disjointed or fragmented care and disparities in service distribution.

While critics emphasize the ACA’s shortcomings, cost and quality issues have long plagued the U.S. health care system. As my research demonstrates, we have these problems because insurance companies are at the center of the system, where they both finance and manage medical care.

If this system is so flawed, how did we get stuck with it in the first place?

Answer: Organized physicians.

As I explain in my book, “Ensuring America’s Health: The Public Creation of the Corporate Health Care System,” from the 1930s through the 1960s, the American Medical Association, the foremost professional organization for physicians, played a leading role in implementing the insurance company model.

What existed before health insurance companies?

Between the 1900s and the 1940s, patients flocked to what were called “prepaid physician groups,” or “prepaid doctor groups.”

Prepaid groups offered inexpensive health care because

To send $25 to the political candidate of your choice, text “GO” to 43468

Here’s your WTF moment.

It’s not as if our nation doesn’t have enough problems already with unlimited political donations, Super PACs, and the concern for the influx of money from foreign concerns – although, SCOTUS justice Samuel Alito mouthed otherwise during the 2010 State of the Union address given by President Obama.

Retired Justice John Paul Stevens – in a speech at the University of Arkansas – said that,

“[T]he Court must then explain its abandonment of, or at least qualify its reliance upon, proposition that the identity of the speaker is an impermissible basis for regulating campaign speech,” Stevens said Wednesday night, according to prepared remarks. “It will be necessary to explain why the First Amendment provides greater protection to the campaign speech of some non-voters than to that of other non-voters.”

He further noted that the court’s majority opinion in the Citizens United case, written by Justice Anthony Kennedy, specifically did NOT address the possibility that foreign entities could bankroll U.S. elections.

There are – believe it, or else – Supreme Court Justices with level heads. One of them is Ruth Bader Ginsburg. She petitioned the SCOTUS to reconsider the Citizens United case, arguing that by granting certiorari, it “will give the court an opportunity to consider whether, in light of the huge sums currently deployed to buy candidates’ allegiance, Citizens United should continue to hold sway.”

If you think we have difficulty tracing campaign contributions now, just wait.

Now, the Federal Election Commission is about to open wide the doors to…

—

FEC Poised to Allow Campaign Donations Via Texts

June 7, 2012, 5:10 PM, By Amy Schatz

Giving money to political candidates could soon be just a few taps away, thanks to federal campaign-finance officials who are close to approving a plan to allow political donations via text message.

Several Federal Election Commission commissioners signaled their interest in approving a plan from two political consulting firms to allow campaigns to accept donations via text message at a meeting Thursday.
The FEC rejected a similar wireless industry proposal to allow text message donations two years ago but

John Edwards, and How to Indict the Ham Sandwich

John Edwards, U.S. Senator, North Carolina (D), official portrait

In legal circles – in which I do not travel – there is a common saying (one which can be found on Wikipedia – the so-called “fount of all knowledge” – please excuse me while I find the vomitorium) – which says  “A good prosecutor could get a grand jury to indict a ham sandwich.^” 

It is that aphorism – an aphorism, which by the way, is defined as “a terse saying embodying a general truth, or astute observation” – upon which I begin this entry.

John Edwards, a former U.S. senator from North Carolina, Democrat, and former presidential candidate, was discovered to have fathered a child out of wedlock while he was married to his now-late former wife Elizabeth, whom was also an attorney, and whom died of a recurrence of cancer.

Fearing public censure, “handlers” for former Senator Edwards’ presidential campaign sought to