His statement though!
Thank god we have someone with integrity in the race.
I’m torn - does he really think he’s popular enough to win a district (I doubt), is it a Trump-esque Hail Mary hoping to win a seat and delay his incoming investigations, or (my bet) a ploy to get the (R) team to buy him OUT of the race rather than split the vote.
Or the last but slightly more evil, an equally Trump-like desire to grift as much as he can, whether or NOT he can ALSO get the (R) team to buy him off. It may have become that now that the RNC’s funds are solely for Trump to do with as he sees fit.
Yeah, this sounds most likely.
Or, he just can’t stand to not have his name in the papers. Rather like a certain fellow Long Islander…
I’ve been seeing references to “buying out” DJT in other threads and now Santos here. Isn’t that just code for saying “why don’t they bribe x to do what they want”? And wouldn’t that be illegal?
Yeah, I think it’s just “I don’t care what you write about me, as long as you spell my name right.”
In our system, it’s probably not illegal. After all, running for office is voluntary, suspending a run is voluntary. If I go to you and say “here’s a loan for $100,000 contingent on you entering/leaving a race legally” I think it’d be unethical but probably not illegal. It also may or may not be enforceable as a contract, but that’s a separate question.
No force is being involved. Now, there may be issues in how it’s handled as a campaign contribution (as Trump is finding out) - but if I declared it openly, or, at least, noted it accurately as such for tax purposes, again, probably unethical, doubtful illegal.
While Trump has shown himself to be a bottomless pit of need when it comes to praise, he has not also shown he does not like to see any mention of himself that he deems to be critical.
Why would you possibly think that anything to do with legal/illegal enters the calculus for any of thee people? They do not care one whit for whether any given [something] is illegal or not. They care only if it is advantageous to themselves.
Laws are for losers, not winners.
Believe me when I say I don’t think any of these people care if it is legal or not. I would suggest you should take that post as rhetorical rather than genuine questions.
Gotcha. I tend to be overly literal absent some really over the top rhetoric. My fail. Cheers!
Slight hijack, but IIRC John Grisham once threw in a bit where a couple of co-conspirators — or are they? — debate whether they’re talking about illegally bribing the Governor. Oh, sure, they agree it’d be illegal to give him a big campaign contribution in exchange for him pardoning a criminal; but what if we give him that money in exchange for him not pardoning one?
I think this is a huge reason that some donors sign up and pay for those fancy “in-person” or “off-the-record” meetings. You have your talks, a meeting of minds happens, and a sudden gift for your “friend” (throwing shade at our SCOTUS here) materializes, or Santos “after carefully listening to his constituent(s)” changes their mind after learning more on the subject.
You’d have to be blindingly stupid to be blatant, when “wink wink nudge nudge” works just fine and is more deniable.
Yep. Only idiots explicitly tie official acts to campaign contributions, especially when there’s no need to. Everybody knows how the game is played. A donor holds a fundraiser for an officeholder. A little while later (preferably at least a few weeks for appearances sake), he calls up the officeholder to express his concern/support regarding Issue X. No words are expressed to connect the two. But you can bet your ass the politician is going to jump on Issue X.
IANAL but I think the line is crossed when you offer money to a public official to perform or not perform an act of their office (such as issuing or not issuing a pardon).
Running for office is not an act of the office so it probably falls outside of this area.
Thank you @Little_Nemo, that was a much better parsing of the situation than my earlier effort. Still likely unethical, probably not illegal.
I do think the issue here is whether this could be considered a de facto campaign contribution to the candidate’s opponent. Then it would have to comply with campaign finance laws, such as the $3,300 personal limit.
Oh, certainly, I think we’re in agreement on that. There would be much quibbling and careful accountants involved for MORE competent political criminals than Trump or Santos. But this is SANTOS. He’d probably say “just give the 100k to my close, personal friend Mr. Devolder, who happens to be visiting his girlfriend in Canada and out of touch right now”.
(Spoiler alert: IIRC, yes, after convincing themselves that what they’re planning wouldn’t technically be an offense, the law does wind up coming down on them like a hammer for it, because, well, you know.)
These days, it’s not illegal unless the bribe is handed off in a white cartoon-style bag with big dollar signs on it……if you’re Republican, that is.