LogFAQs > #965080962

xp1337 posted...

The idea is that you can't pay off loans you made to your campaign with campaign contributions made after the election.

In short:

A candidate can loan as much of their own money to their campaign as they wish.

Up to $250k of said loan can be paid back using the campaign's funds (which includes ANY donations made to the campaign - regular donors, SuperPACs, etc.) with no restriction whatsoever.

But if they want to use that general pool of money to repay themselves, the law was that you could only repay amounts above that first $250k with your campaign funds within the first 20 days after the election. After those 20 days expire any loan made to the campaign above $250k which you still haven't repaid to yourself is considered a campaign contribution now and you can't take it back. That is to say, you can't just keep soliciting third-party donations to pay yourself back indefinitely.

What this ruling does in throwing all that out is allowing a candidate to accept campaign contributions after the election and then transfer it from the campaign to their personal account without limit. Allowing for the kind of obvious corruption/solicited bribery that Congress meant to prohibit with campaign finance reform in the first place.

Can transfer to your personal account only what you loaned and only what people are willing to donate. I think it actually could moreso be considered helping the middling rich candidates versus the overly rich. I don't see a problem with this. If say Beto O'Rourke or whatever can now put more of his personal assets on the line to run his campaign and go all out, and people even if he loses, can respect his effort and donate to help him not fall into bankruptcy for fighting for their ordeals after the fact... what is wrong with that? Trump could outshine him and dump billions, but he would never recoup.

I don't see where bribery comes in.