So he borrowed money and put it into his own campaign?
And this is illegal?
Back in Roman times, a man who wanted to win elections was expected to borrow heavily so he could throw lavish celebrations, games, banquets and win the hearts of the voters. It was so expensive that borrowing was required of all but the weathiest families. They made it up by getting appointments later to provinces where there were ways for them to get paid by getting a take of taxes or war booty or whatever. It's one reason Caesar stayed in Gual so long. He needed money to maintain his political power base. He became super wealthy there, but his staying gave the senate an excuse to recall him to Rome for trial, a trial which would have surely been rigged and he knew it. So he came back but with his army.
Anyway, I don't really know why it's worse to borrow to fund your campaign than it is to beg to fund it.
He actually claims he thought it was legal, because he was not getting loans from a friend, and going through normal procedures.
But apparently the law prohibits any entity from lending money to a campaign, such loans are treated as contributions; and since he got the loans himself but immediately transfered the money to his campaign, that was considered breaking the law.
WHat I can’t figure out is how any campaign ever ends up in debt — it seems that if a campaign has a debt at the end, they must have gotten “loans” of some sort (actually, it is like they buy stuff but then don’t pay the people they bought it from).
He is paying back all the loans, as he always expected to do, and it looks like he’ll get some small fine from the FEC, as is often the case in inadvertent violations of campaign finance laws.
Meanwhile, I’d rather a guy buy his own election, than having a bunch of other people buy it for him.
I have thought politicians have done this all of my life—and I am 79.