Free Republic

Upon her departure from the Democratic Party, the Justice Department and FBI considered opening a criminal investigation into the then-Sen. Kyrsten Sinema, I-Ariz., over alleged campaign finance violations, according to reports. The New York Post reported that emails obtained by the newspaper revealed communications between DOJ’s Criminal Division; a prosecutor in then-Washington, D.C., U.S. Attorney Matthew Graves’ office; and FBI agents in the bureau’s Washington Field Office that discussed investigating Sinema in February 2024. Sinema left the Democratic Party in 2022 and chose not to seek re-election in 2024. The email exchanges came in response to the Post’s Feb. 1,...

A member of the Federal Election Commission testified to Congress on Thursday that the Manhattan district attorney who led the prosecution of former President Donald Trump overstepped his authority. Trey Trainor, a Trump-appointed commissioner who once served as FEC chairman, said during a hearing that District Attorney Alvin Bragg, an elected Democrat, inappropriately incorporated a federal election campaign law into his charges against Trump.“Bragg has effectively usurped the jurisdiction that this Congress has explicitly reserved for federal authorities,” Trainor said during a House Judiciary Committee hearing. “This overreach sets a troubling precedent for politicization of legal proceedings at the state...

Former Commissioner of the Federal Elections Commission, Brad Smith, a preeminent expert on campaign finance law has taken to social media to lash out against the Manhattan trial that led to the conviction of former President Donald Trump. Judge Juan Merchan had prevented Trump’s defense team from seating Smith as a witness or even submitting his testimony to the jury. Smith had planned on testifying that Donald Trump’s filing of a “hush money” payment as a “legal expense” was not a crime against federal elections law. Indeed, federal prosecutors had passed up on the case prior to Alvin Bragg, the...

WASHINGTON — The U.S. Department of Labor issued a bulletin on Oct. 1 to prepare for compensating federal employees, under the Federal Employees’ Compensation Act (FECA), who have been injured by COVID-19 shots after President Joe Biden’s executive order mandating it.The bulletin, number 22-01, appears to be a first of its kind as FECA has never been used to compensate employees for injuries from vaccines, according to the bulletin itself.“The FECA does not generally authorize provision of preventive measures such as vaccines and inoculations,” the bulletin states. However, for the COVID-19 jabs it provides “employees impacted by this mandate who...

The candidate ads look like independent expenditures by a foreign national in a U.S. election in violation of the Federal Election Campaign Act. Under FECA, the term “foreign national” includes corporations organized under the laws of a foreign county or with a principal place of business in a foreign country. If done knowingly and willfully, such spending by a foreign national is a crime. But what about the First Amendment? That should not be a concern in this case. In 2012, after Citizens United v. FEC, the Supreme Court confirmed in Bluman v. FEC that barring foreign nationals from spending...

WASHINGTON, DC (July 14, 2011) – The U.S. Government Accountability Office (GAO) is investigating fraud and abuse in the Federal Employees’ Compensation Act (FECA) program. Specifically, GAO is looking for information on cases in which federal employees are currently abusing workers compensation benefits. For example, fraud schemes might include a beneficiary working a second job, overstating their workers’ compensation claim, or collecting benefits for a deceased individual. Anyone with information regarding fraud or abuse of the FECA program by federal employees is encouraged to contact us at workerscompfraud@gao.gov. All information about individuals who contact us will be kept confidential.

My daughter has a question as she prepares for her finals tomorrow in her First Amendment class. It is relating to campaign finance law and government restrictions on expendutures and contributions in the 1976 case of Buckley vs. Valeo. She doesn't understand the difference between individual contributions to candidates and independant individual expenditures relative to a clearly identified candidate. It seems that the court allows a limit on contributions but doesn't allow a limit on expenditures. She doesn't know how to tell the difference between individual contributions and individual expenditures. Also, she is confused about the difference between soft and...