Making the 5th District proud! (Viking: loans, income, rated)

[Teak]

It looks like a couple of Wisconsin representatives have done the 5th District's rep proud by introducing the Oversight for Members And Relatives Act (OMAR Act) to prevent political candidates from using campaign contributions to enrich spouses.

“For too long, lawmakers of both political parties have engaged in the ethically dubious practice of pocketing campaign funds by ‘hiring’ their spouses and laundering the money as campaign related expenses,” said Rep. Tom Tiffany, who represents Wisconsin’s Seventh Congressional District.

https://alphanewsmn.com/republicans-...hment-schemes/

Ms. Omar paid her current husband (not her ex-husband, the brother) $2.9 million in 2020 campaign contributions, which accounted for 78% of his company's income.

The OMAR Act is patterned after a similar act floated by Dems Schiff and Pelosi back in 2007, so there should be strong support from the Dems, eh?

Oh, Ilhan, you have done Minnesota so proud!!

[Glenfield]

Originally Posted by Teak

It looks like a couple of Wisconsin representatives have done the 5th District's rep proud by introducing the Oversight for Members And Relatives Act (OMAR Act) to prevent political candidates from using campaign contributions to enrich spouses.

“For too long, lawmakers of both political parties have engaged in the ethically dubious practice of pocketing campaign funds by ‘hiring’ their spouses and laundering the money as campaign related expenses,” said Rep. Tom Tiffany, who represents Wisconsin’s Seventh Congressional District.

https://alphanewsmn.com/republicans-...hment-schemes/

Ms. Omar paid her current husband (not her ex-husband, the brother) $2.9 million in 2020 campaign contributions, which accounted for 78% of his company's income.

The OMAR Act is patterned after a similar act floated by Dems Schiff and Pelosi back in 2007, so there should be strong support from the Dems, eh?

Oh, Ilhan, you have done Minnesota so proud!!

Her own small business rescue effort. Nice.

[snebarekim]

Originally Posted by Teak

It looks like a couple of Wisconsin representatives have done the 5th District's rep proud by introducing the Oversight for Members And Relatives Act (OMAR Act) to prevent political candidates from using campaign contributions to enrich spouses.

“For too long, lawmakers of both political parties have engaged in the ethically dubious practice of pocketing campaign funds by ‘hiring’ their spouses and laundering the money as campaign related expenses,” said Rep. Tom Tiffany, who represents Wisconsin’s Seventh Congressional District.

https://alphanewsmn.com/republicans-...hment-schemes/

Ms. Omar paid her current husband (not her ex-husband, the brother) $2.9 million in 2020 campaign contributions, which accounted for 78% of his company's income.

The OMAR Act is patterned after a similar act floated by Dems Schiff and Pelosi back in 2007, so there should be strong support from the Dems, eh?

Oh, Ilhan, you have done Minnesota so proud!!

The name is indeed perfect.

It has zero chance of passing because:

1- It makes perfect sense and is needed.
2- Dems have the house, senate and exec.

[Teak]

Originally Posted by snebarekim

The name is indeed perfect.

It has zero chance of passing because:

1- It makes perfect sense and is needed.
2- Dems have the house, senate and exec.

True, but as you said, the name is perfect!

It turns out that her current husband (not the former husband-brother) also got more than $600,000 in Paycheck Protection Program (PPP) "loans".

I should have been a politician.

[Glenfield]

The thing is Omar is not the first or only one in Congress to be doing this. It is a widespread practice. Our ruling elite are a corrupt bunch.

[TheGrandViking]

Originally Posted by Teak

It looks like a couple of Wisconsin representatives have done the 5th District's rep proud by introducing the Oversight for Members And Relatives Act (OMAR Act) to prevent political candidates from using campaign contributions to enrich spouses.

“For too long, lawmakers of both political parties have engaged in the ethically dubious practice of pocketing campaign funds by ‘hiring’ their spouses and laundering the money as campaign related expenses,” said Rep. Tom Tiffany, who represents Wisconsin’s Seventh Congressional District.

https://alphanewsmn.com/republicans-...hment-schemes/

Ms. Omar paid her current husband (not her ex-husband, the brother) $2.9 million in 2020 campaign contributions, which accounted for 78% of his company's income.

The OMAR Act is patterned after a similar act floated by Dems Schiff and Pelosi back in 2007, so there should be strong support from the Dems, eh?

Oh, Ilhan, you have done Minnesota so proud!!

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/w...-b1776359.html

Donald Trump’s son-in-law Jared Kushner allegedly created a shell company that secretly paid the president’s family members and spent more than $600 million, a report says.

The payments to the Trump family and top advisors through the company helped shield financial details from the public, according to Business Insider.

Use of the company, incorporated as American Made Media Consultants Corporation and American Made Media Consultants LLC, reportedly allowed the president and his family to bypass federally required financial disclosures.

Campaign finance records show the Trump campaign and its committee at the Republican National Committee, spent $617 million from their $1.26bn coffers through the company, according to Business Insider.

If the Information on Omar is correct, she is Bush league compared to the Trump family. Campaign finance rules and regulations have historically been championed by Dems, so despite one of their members potentially using it to enrich their family, they might find an ally. However, I doubt they would back something called OMAR act, instead if changed to include exteneded family, they would probably support such an act.

[Glenfield]

Originally Posted by TheGrandViking

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/w...-b1776359.html

Donald Trump’s son-in-law Jared Kushner allegedly created a shell company that secretly paid the president’s family members and spent more than $600 million, a report says.

The payments to the Trump family and top advisors through the company helped shield financial details from the public, according to Business Insider.

Use of the company, incorporated as American Made Media Consultants Corporation and American Made Media Consultants LLC, reportedly allowed the president and his family to bypass federally required financial disclosures.

Campaign finance records show the Trump campaign and its committee at the Republican National Committee, spent $617 million from their $1.26bn coffers through the company, according to Business Insider.

If the Information on Omar is correct, she is Bush league compared to the Trump family. Campaign finance rules and regulations have historically been championed by Dems, so despite one of their members potentially using it to enrich their family, they might find an ally. However, I doubt they would back something called OMAR act, instead if changed to include exteneded family, they would probably support such an act.

This is whataboutism. Can you explain how what you cite makes Omar’s actions acceptable? Because she’s not as good at it? As for me, I believe that the use of campaign contributions to support family members is wrong no matter who does it. Can you say the same? Or is your partisanship too strong?

[TheGrandViking]

Originally Posted by Glenfield

This is whataboutism. Can you explain how what you cite makes Omar’s actions acceptable? Because she’s not as good at it? As for me, I believe that the use of campaign contributions to support family members is wrong no matter who does it. Can you say the same? Or is your partisanship too strong?

If she actually did that, I do not find it acceptable (I'm not her biggest fan, but regardless of whether I like her or not, I'm not going to alter my values or opinion about family relations enriching themselves through campaigning). The point about bringing Donald Trump into the conversation was not to justify or mitigate what Omar may have done, but to give a reason why it shouldn't be named after her (name it after the most egregious violator of the problem) and why Dems might be motivated to see a measure like this pass.

[Glenfield]

Originally Posted by TheGrandViking

If she actually did that, I do not find it acceptable (I'm not her biggest fan, but regardless of whether I like her or not, I'm not going to alter my values or opinion about family relations enriching themselves through campaigning). The point about bringing Donald Trump into the conversation was not to justify or mitigate what Omar may have done, but to give a reason why it shouldn't be named after her (name it after the most egregious violator of the problem) and why Dems might be motivated to see a measure like this pass.

FWIW, I think the whole thing of giving laws made up names to fit some acronym, like the PATRIOT Act, is [Mod edit: BS]

The larger point of stopping the ruling class from stuffing their pockets with campaign contributions is valid. And, yeah, she did it. It’s in her FEC disclosures. Look at the amounts paid to her husband’s firm, E Street Group. https://docquery.fec.gov/cgi-bin/for.../1357988/sb/17

[snebarekim]

Originally Posted by Glenfield

FWIW, I think the whole thing of giving laws made up names to fit some acronym, like the PATRIOT Act, is [Mod edit: BS]

Omar was being trolled for sure with the name, but in this case the corrupt little turd blossom had it coming.

Originally Posted by Glenfield

The larger point of stopping the ruling class from stuffing their pockets with campaign contributions is valid. And, yeah, she did it. It’s in her FEC disclosures. Look at the amounts paid to her husband’s firm, E Street Group. https://docquery.fec.gov/cgi-bin/for.../1357988/sb/17

She didn't even try to hide it. That is how arrogant she is.