NOPE.
problem is, shills bake faster than anons. we're not paid, kek.
>bakeoffs are rigged by groups who want to keep their guy in the kitchen
way too complicated….ha ha ha.
you're replying to vati.
have seen - in Sept 2020, when admins didn't know the dif between signed in bakers and bread stealers. nowadays bread steals are rare. this time, signed in baker ghosted late, which leaves any bakers on the bread having to scramble to get a bread up. Usually means more than one bread.
another great video on RFKjr more than holding his own before hostile Dems in the House.
https://youtu.be/BgJsfNbjJec
Dishonest Democrat Tries To CENSOR & SLANDER Robert F. Kennedy Jr…..BAD IDEA!!!
No Personal Use of Campaign Funds or Resources, and the Related Verification Requirement
House Rules. The key provision of the House rules barring use of campaign funds for personal purposes is House Rule XXIII, clause 6(b) which provides that a Member may not convert campaign funds to personal use in excess of an amount representing reimbursement for legitimate and verifiable campaign expenditures. [Emphasis added.]
Two other provisions are pertinent here as well. First, House Rule XXIII, clause 6(a) provides that each Member “shall keep his campaign funds separate from his personal funds.” Second, House Rule XXIII, clause 7 provides that a Member “shall treat as campaign contributions all proceeds from testimonial dinners or other fund-raising events.”
In addition, the provision of the rule prohibiting the use of campaign funds for personal purposes is, of course, directly related to another provision of the rule, discussed above, requiring the use of those funds for bona fide campaign or political purposes. The Ethics Committee has taken the position that Members, in making expenditures of their campaign funds, must observe these provisions strictly:
[A] bona fide campaign purpose is not established merely because the use of campaign money might result in a campaign benefit as an incident to benefits personally realized by the recipient of such funds . . . .68
The Committee has explained its reasons for taking this position in the following manner:
[T]he Committee believes that any other interpretation . . . would open the door to a potentially wide range of abuse and could result in situations where campaign moneys were expended for personal enjoyment, entertainment, or economic well-being of an individual without any clear nexus that the funds so expended achieved any political benefit . . . .69
The Ethics Committee has reiterated this position a number of times,70 and it was incorporated as well into the 1989 Report of the House Bipartisan Task Force on Ethics.71
The rule by its terms requires that each campaign outlay made by a Member be not only “legitimate,” but also capable of being verified as such. This requirement that the proper purpose of each outlay be “verifiable” is a common-sense requirement. With the huge number of outlays that Members’ campaigns typically make, often on a nearly continuous basis, the propriety of particular outlays may not be subject to review for months or years after the fact, when recollections as to the circumstances or specific purposes of an outlay may well have faded. Absent a requirement for verification, the prohibition against converting campaign funds to personal use would be nullified in substantial part. Furthermore, the verification requirement should serve to cause Members and their campaign staffs to exercise caution in spending campaign funds, and to ensure that no outlay is for an impermissible personal purpose.
Members and their campaign staffs should bear in mind that the verification requirement imposed by the House rules is separate from, and in addition to, whatever recordkeeping requirements are imposed by the Federal Election Commission on federal candidates generally (or, with regard to Members who are candidates for a state or local office, the requirements imposed by applicable state or local law).
Application of the House Rules. The Ethics Committee has found that Members violated the House rules on proper use of campaign funds in several disciplinary cases. One case involved, among other things, transfers from the Member’s campaign account that were made to repay personal loans of the Member and to cover outstanding obligations against his personal checking account.72 That case resulted in a censure of the Member by the House.73
The rule’s verification requirement was implicated in an Ethics Committee disciplinary case that was completed in the 106th Congress.74 In that case the Committee determined that a Member had, through his campaign committee, engaged in significant misconduct by failing to keep records adequate to verify the legitimacy of the expenditures that had been made by his campaign for meals, including numerous meals in the Washington, D.C. area, and for private airplane travel, particularly between Washington and the Member’s district.75 According to the reports that his committee had filed with the FEC, the expenditures for those purposes were extraordinarily high in number as well as dollar amount,76 but the Investigative Subcommittee found that the campaign committee had not made “even the most minimal effort to document or verify that the expenditures were related to legitimate campaign activity.”77
Impermissible personal use of campaign funds can arise in a variety of circumstances.
Notwithstanding the variety of circumstances in which impermissible personal use of campaign funds can arise, questions in this area have arisen most frequently regarding certain kinds of campaign outlays, specifically –
Borrowing of campaign funds;
Expenditures for travel;
Expenditures for meals; and
Expenditures for the purchase of goods or services, or the rental of property, from the Member or a member of his or her family.
It is now well established that borrowing of money from one’s campaign is a serious violation of the House Rules. As to outlays for travel or meals – as well as outlays for the acquisition of goods or services from themselves or their family members – Members must exercise great care, because such outlays by their nature raise a concern of personal use. Records should be maintained with regard to these kinds of outlays.
https://ethics.house.gov/campaign/proper-use-campaign-funds-and-resources
says "no personal use" but never clarifies how to separate personal from campaign use:
Members must exercise great care, because such outlays by their nature raise a concern of personal use. Records should be maintained with regard to these kinds of outlays.
looking for same document for the Senate.
Nothing so far.
There IS one for "congress":
https://crsreports.congress.gov/product/pdf/R/R46878/4
nothing on the term "MEALS" there.
Permissible and Prohibited Uses of Campaign Funds: Frequently Asked Questions and Policy Overview
August 18, 2021
One section is relevant, but doesn't deign to specify what's ok and what's not:
Questions of permissible and prohibited uses of campaign funds encompass a
wide variety of individual facts and circumstances, ranging from the mundane to
the extraordinary. Congressional needs and interests on the topic are likely to be
similarly diverse, ranging from addressing discrete constituent questions to
considering whether permissible-use issues are best treated as self-contained
campaign finance policy matters, as criminal ones, or as a combination of these
and other areas of law.
In their capacities as candidates, Members and their
campaigns also have individual obligations under FECA, FEC regulations, and
chamber rules. In their capacity as Members, they also may be subject to
additional regulations established by the Committee on House Administration or
the Senate Rules and Administration Committee.
Not all spending that appears to be questionable is problematic or prohibited.
Audits, such as those the FEC may conduct, or other civil or criminal
investigations, can determine whether political committees complied with federal
law and regulation in specific circumstances.
>Not all spending that appears to be questionable is problematic or prohibited.
THAT is the key phrase here.
If you're part of Congress, want to be able to enjoy the benefits of DC Swamp lifestyle.