After the recent admissions scandal at top California schools (including Stanford), the gifts of Rep. Ted Lieu (D., Cal.) would immediately raise concerns over the same type of academic pay-to-play pattern. However, the $51,046 to his alma mater, Stanford University, was not his own money but his campaign funds. It is like the Lori Loughlin but using someone else’s money. According to reports, the money was transferred just before his son was admitted to the highly competitive university. What is most shocking is that taking money for a campaign and then giving it to a school is not itself illegal. However, Lieu could still face some serious questions even under a law designed by Congress to allow what most donors would view as a bait-and-switch.
Lieu is the assistant Whip for the House Democrats and is an American success story. Born in Taiwan, Lieu became a citizens, attended Stanford, and then was an outstanding student at Georgetown Law Journal. He then held state and federal office. He is one of the most effective members on television.
The political contributions are subject to rules written by the people who collect them. Not surprisingly, the rules are written to allow members to raise money ostensibly for their own campaigns and then transfer the funds to others. They also are used for expenses that seem overtly personal and excessive. Take Eric Swalwell who recently was found to be spending his campaign funds on booze, limos, and rooms at the Ritz-Carlton (where his wife worked). Other members like former Rep. Aaron Schock (R., III.) were accused of using public funds (from his official office account) for excessive decorations of his office. The Schock story however received far more media coverage and he was later the subject of a prosecution. Those criminal charges were later dropped.
That brings us to the current scandal. Federal Election Commission (FEC) filings show that Lieu gave $51,046 to Stanford between February 2016 and June 2018. As the other admissions scandal was raging, Lieu was transferring political donations to the school that his son would be applying to for college.
Most citizens would find the donations outrageous and wrong. However, Lieu can claim that they are lawful and many voters are so tied up in this fierce partisan period that they will not call Lieu to account since he is a Democratic leader in Congress. Yet, some may ask why a university with a $29 billion endowment and one of the most affluent alumni bases in the world should receive tens of thousands of their donations as opposed to campaigns to protect the House majority or social justice programs.
Under the FEC rules, it may first appear that this is clearly a violation:
Using campaign funds for personal use is prohibited.
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.
More simply, if the expense would exist even in the absence of the candidacy or even if the officeholder were not in office, then the personal use ban applies.
Conversely, any expense that results from campaign or officeholder activity falls outside the personal use ban.
A donation to Stanford would seem an expense that would exist “in the absence of the candidacy or even if the officeholder were not in office.” Then however comes the loophole that you could drive a semi truck filled with cash through:
Spending that isn’t personal use
In addition to the “irrespective test,” Commission regulations include other uses of funds that do not constitute personal use and thus are permissible uses of campaign funds.
Charitable donations
Gifts to charity are not considered personal use expenses as long as the candidate does not receive compensation from the charitable organization before it has expended the entire amount donated. Note that the amount donated must have been used for purposes that do not personally benefit the candidate.
Transfer of campaign assets
The sale or transfer of a campaign asset to either the candidate or a third party does not constitute personal use as long as the transaction is made at the fair market value.
Gifts
On special occasions, campaign funds may be used to purchase gifts or make donations of nominal value to persons other than the members of the candidate’s family.
Lieu can cite the fact that Stanford is a non-for-profit and that this fits the charitable exception. However, it must still not “benefit the candidate.” With the university deciding whether to admit his son, that condition is arguably violated in this case.
Lieu can claim that any donation to a charity can “benefit” a candidate in direct ways. Giving money to Sierra Club is a popular cause for example. Stanford is a major institution in California and supporting the university can be based on purely on altruistic motives. It is probably enough to avoid a charge but there are critical facts still not known. For example, the timing could be challenged if Lieu did not make donations until his son was in high school and likely to apply to Stanford.
Whether Lieu avoids any charge in this case, the Swalwell and Lieu controversies should lead to voters for both parties to say “enough.” This is not just a Democratic practice. Republicans have also been accused of such abuse of political contributions. Most voters assume that they are contributing to a particular candidate — not giving him an open credit card for use outside of his campaign. Even if they know that candidates will often send money to fellow candidates, they likely assume the money will be used for political purposes — not to support elite universities who just happen to be the preference for their children for college.
This is rampant and not just one side. In his books “Secret Empires” and “Profiles in Corruption” author Peter Schweizer outlines how it is done. It starts at the top with the sitting (acting) President. “Plausible deniability” is the ticket. If the politician doesn’t want their millions to show up on his/her disclosure statement then they work out clever methods to use family, children, non-profits, or simply wait until after office to collect the goodies and favors. Then the dollars flow in “book deals” and consulting jobs.
It is sickening. This is not an isolated case.
In Lieu of merit, here’s some money.
It must be nice for Ted Lieu to know that as a Democrat, there will be no political consequences for this open bribe.
People of White… People of Yellow… People of Brown… Asian-American privilege? Redistributive privilege? Democrat privilege?
LOS ANGELES (Reuters) – “Full House” actress Lori Loughlin began a two-month prison sentence for her role in a vast college admissions fraud scheme to help her daughters gain entry into a top U.S. university, a prison official said on Friday.Oct 30, 2020
___________________________________
What’s good for the gander is good for the foreign hyphenate.
While the details may be somewhat different, how in principle is this any different from the Varsity Blues scandal, for which non-politicians are being criminally prosecuted?
Because….Democrat politicians can do whatever they want with no consequences. Just ask the Bidens and Clintons.
Not different except he used campaign funds to make to payoff.
FCC Rules are written to benefit Politicians dead or alive, John Glenn was a great example. This Loop Hole and others like it, are symbiotic of the corrupt swap denizens.
but the bigger ethical issue is: what about the fundamental immorality of raising funds by claiming that donations will help them
I thought for a second you were talking about the Clinton Global Initiative. (no I harbored no such notion)
For you see, the sin here is not scamming campaign laws, or buying his kid entrance into collage. The sin is the hubris of not establishing a non profit, or Charity to launder the money through.
Lieu is so sure he would never be investigated or charged, positive the media would bury any story, he made no pretense of using even one cut-out.
Trump can use his campaign funds to buy a huge jet so he can fly to heaven when he croakes.
So. Trump can spend all that huge campaign fund he has acquired. Recently I heard it was $102 million.
Maybe it explains why there were what, 20+ candidates on each side running for president last time around? It’s profitable to throw your hat in the ring.
The timing of the contribution is important, but it surely looks like it was for personal favor, purpose and use, and he expected something in return from a university with a $29 billion endowment and one of the most affluent alumni bases in the world. If this was Trump, there would be an IRS investigation because there is a great case that Lieu benefited and the contribution should be taxable income to Congressman Lieu. Turley should be calling for equal justice and the Attorney General to file charges.
Turley can only see “questionable” things when it comes to Democrats–part of his assignments as a Fox flunkie. The title tells a lot: Lieu is “accused of” “pay to play” with campaign contributions. Then, there’s the admission that the exceptions probably mean that the contribution was not illegal. But does that stop Turley from waxing on about Lieu’s “misconduct”? Nope.
Here’s a little query, Turley: what’s Trump doing with all of that cash he’s soliciting from donors to defend the Big Lie? The disposition of all of that cash is one question, but the bigger ethical issue is: what about the fundamental immorality of raising funds by claiming that donations will help them restore Trump’s “presidency” that was “stolen” from him? Turley at least admits that donating money to Stanford, a California institution of higher learning, is beneficial to the State of California, but what about the fraudulent raising of cash by lying to the supporters and pandering to their patriotism? How can that not be a crime?
No matter the subject, some folks have great difficulty not injecting “Trump” into the conversation! Please … they need to go and get some good mental health treatment so they can “move on.”
I have to wonder if Natacha’s husband enjoys sharing her with Trump.
tt1970-Your right that tune is getting old.
Once Trump moves on, the rest of America will move on. But, he won’t. He can’t. His massive ego and malignant narcissism won’t let him accept the fact that the majority of Americans never wanted him in the first place, and that the cheating he used to get into the White House in 2016 didn’t work the second go-round. The point of my comment is the extent to which Turley looks hard at Democrats who allegedly violate campaign finance rules, while simultaneously ignoring Trump’s.
Natacha, still waiting on a Hunter story that when he was a little boy, he had a puppy with no license tag. A sure sign how the Democratic party has no shame, and should be investigated.
The Biden dog probably tipped over someone’s garbage can or peed on a neighbor’s prize rose bushes, too. The scandals never end.
I am a graduate of USC. I have been told that the school will not accept donations from a relative of an applicant. I think that is a good policy.
“I am a graduate of USC. I have been told that the school will not accept donations from a relative of an applicant. I think that is a good policy.”
100% False.
Has no one heard of arm’s length transactions?
Nothing happened here – please disperse
Turley: “It is probably enough to avoid a charge….”
***
Of course he can avoid a charge.
That would be true if emails surfaced showing beyond doubt that the ‘gift’ was a bribe.
He is a Democrat and the DOJ is corrupt from the top down. They aren’t even pretending not to be corrupt. As with the Stasi or Gestapo they likely see it as an advantage to be thought unrestrained by law or morality.
Turley: “It is probably enough to avoid a charge….”
***
Of course he can avoid a charge.
Yep, Using the DoJ rules, this is the text book example of “sure laws are broken, but no credible prosecutor would pursue charges.”
Ah yes , the privileged wealthy politicos get what they want yet again….to hell with grades , merit ( that’s for the little people ) . And yet again it’s a demoratzi …a quisling by any other definition !.
I would like to know his son’s GPA and SAT scores. That is the tell tale sign.
Dennis Bedard,
Ordinarily I would agree with you, but in the Case of Stanford, the school has so many applicants with perfect grades, that the school does not always go with GPA and SAT scores. Things like race, gender, sexual orientation, are just as important. And, in the case of an Asian applicant, Stanford, like many other similar institutions feel that Asians must be limited in entrance, since there are too many with high grades. So, in the case of Lieu, my guess would be that the donation would tip the scales in the son’s favor.
You have provided a rationale for Lieu. CRT and other racist policies make it so that Lieu is only trying to level the playing field. However, we don’t hear his objections to such racism, so he is a typical Democrat hypocrite. Throw the son out of Stanford.
He is Asian so both scores are probably good. The gift might help overcome the anti-Asian racial discrimination in many admission policies.
Where have you been? Traditional test scores are racist!
Apparently Lieu’s son is quite intelligent, but does this pass the sniff test? Did it get his son’s application moved to the top of the pile?
It never mattered! The kid’s daddy is a sidekick of pelosi; ’nuff said. Lieu is accustomed to special treatment — put into his D job in the House because he isn’t one of those old white men; with the old white woman in the top job, a man was a sure pick — and, given the fact that he was born in Asia and looks like an Asian, he was a sure bet with the Ds for their press conferences. So why not use “campaign” funds to make sure his kid is admitted to Stanford???
Scum in Washington.
Aided and abetted by the media.
Ugly people manipulating us for their benefit.
The system is broken.
Yes. Especially if you are a Democrat.
The system is what it is and always has been. There was never a time where the system was any less-broken than it is now. There’s just a light shone on it these days due to the “internetting of things.”
Rules for thee, not for me !