Mystery Deepens Around George Santos's $700,000 in Campaign Loans

[RandySF]

An updated campaign finance report filed on Tuesday raised new questions about the source of six-figure loans that Representative George Santos gave his congressional campaign.

In previous filings with the Federal Election Commission, the Santos campaign has reported that Mr. Santos, a Republican from New York who is already facing inquiries from federal and local investigators over his lies and financial dealings, lent his own campaign more than $700,000.

But in an update to a report originally filed in April 2022, the Santos campaign unmarked a box that had originally indicated that $500,000 of those loans came from Mr. Santos’s own personal funds.

The significance of the change, which was earlier reported by The Daily Beast, was not immediately clear to campaign finance experts. Mr. Santos’s lawyer, Joe Murray, said it “would be inappropriate” to comment given pending investigations.






https://www.nytimes.com/2023/01/24/nyregion/george-santos-loan-campaign-finances.html

[TheBlackAdder]

1. Santos: I'll donate my $174K paycheck.

.

Kinda makes you wonder how he's making an income.

.

[niyad]

2. putler?

[Bernardo de La Paz]

3. Mystery already deep about Boebert's failed restaurant financing. Earnings from "escort" service?

Funny how such unlikely candidates get elected.

[Irish_Dem]

4. Funding from dark money? The ones who want to elect ignorant buffoons to high public office.

[Bernardo de La Paz]

5. I think so. Buffoons are manipulable, ignorant ones more so. . . . nt

[Irish_Dem]

7. Exactly. Plus they make the US a laughing stock, voters look foolish and ridiculous.

So yes, easy to manipulate and weakens US standing in the world.

[Bernardo de La Paz]

6. Her penis-waving hubby earned over $930,000 in 2 yrs as a "shift worker"

Despite campaign finance laws and ethics laws requiring Congressional candidates to reveal their immediate family's income sources to show potential conflicts of interest, Boebert did not report her husband's income in her 2020 filing, instead belatedly revealing it in August 2021,[26] the same day the Federal Election Commission (FEC) sent her a letter investigating her campaign expenses.[71] The filing, while misnaming the company involved, stated that her husband Jayson was paid $460,000 in 2019 and $478,000 in 2020 as a consultant for Terra Energy, one of Colorado's largest natural gas producers and fourth nationwide in methane emissions.[26][72] The company told The Daily Beast that Jayson was a contracted shift worker for the company who was not paid directly but through another company, Boebert Consulting.[73] As of 2021, Colorado classified Boebert Consulting as a delinquent company due to the lack of filings or registered agent with the state.[71] Boebert oversees the energy industry via her position on the House Committee on Natural Resources.[73]

[Irish_Dem]

8. +1

[Autumn]

13. So Boebert Counsulting paid him that as an Energy Consultant for a real company?

Now that's shady AF. Bet the only thing he consulted was his dick pics.

Seriously. Is no one in the government even curious as to where Boebert Consulting got the money to pay him $938 000 thousand dollars as an Energy Consultant to another Energy company? Shift work refers to any work schedule that falls outside the hours of 7 am and 6 pm. Who the fuck was he consulting with ? Strippers in the evening and drinking all night?

[LetMyPeopleVote]

9. If the loan funds were NOT from Santos, then this was an illegal campaign contribution

I suspect that Santos' tax returns do not show Santos declaring the income necessary to make this "loan"

Link to tweet

[Cha]

10. "..backtreacks.."?! They mean

admits to LYING ONCE FUCKING AGAIN.

Ty, LMPV

[crickets]

11. That Santos declines to name the source is ridiculous.

The FEC is not going to let that slide. Eventually (at least three fake stories from now) we'll all know. 🙄

[dalton99a]

12. Kick

https://archive.ph/JabtT

Brett G. Kappel, a leading elections lawyer who advises both Democrats and Republicans on campaign finance issues, said that it would be a “very big deal” if Mr. Santos was admitting he did not personally finance the campaign loan.

“If the candidate’s personal wealth wasn’t the source of the loan, then what was?” he asked. “The only other permissible source would be a bank, and they would require collateral for a loan of this size. If a bank wasn’t the source of the funds, then the only alternatives are illegal sources.”

Mr. Kappel said that the change on Mr. Santos’s campaign filings would be likely to trigger a letter from the F.E.C. asking for more information on the source of the loan.

He also said that Mr. Santos’s campaign finance records were among the most unusual he had seen in more than 30 years working in the field.

“This one is in the bizarre category,” he said. “That’s a fair word.”

[gratuitous]

14. Inappropriate to comment given pending investigations

How tough is it to show that Santos got his money from a legitimate source? Or is Santos going to try to finesse this by being too cute by half?