Donations from Andrew Yang's election campaign raise legal concerns, despite Dem's assertions

Andrew Yang insisted this week with Fox News that his "small army of very, very smart lawyers" will give him $ 1,000 a month to 10 random families – to put his project forward. to create a universal basic income for all American adults – "is perfectly legal."

But some campaign finance experts dispute the provocative promotion of the Democratic presidential candidate and say it is likely that Yang is breaking the campaign finance law.

TRUMP WEIGHT AFTER AFTER WRITTEN BY ANDREW YANG TWEET

The problem of the technology entrepreneur, who has seen his long-running candidacy for the White House gain ground this summer thanks to the buzz generated by his so-called "Freedom Dividend," is that the federal law forbids Use campaign contributions for personal purposes. purposes. These uses include things such as paying the mortgage or rent, doing grocery shopping, buying clothes or refueling – basically any expense that could be made without the purpose of the countryside.

Larry Noble, a former legal adviser to the Federal Election Commission, said on Twitter: "A lottery designed to give money to potential supporters can be a violation of the law and a slippery slope."

The independent legal center of the campaign, which strives to minimize the influence of large sums in politics, tweeted "Before @AndrewYang starts distributing campaign money, he could ask to an electoral law expert to explain 52 USC 30114 (b), the section of the federal code that prohibits the conversion of campaign funds for personal purposes. "

And former US lawyer Preet Bharara, a defender of the fight against corruption, asked whether Mr. Yang "would check with his lawyer $ 1,000 per month for voters of campaign funds."

Craig Holman, a campaign finance expert who acts as a Public Citizen lobbyist at Capitol Hill on ethics, lobbying and campaign financing rules, told Fox News that the federal law "defines personal purposes as any expense regardless of the campaign.In other words, if it is an expense that could be made without any campaign goal, it is a personal goal. "

Holman said it would likely be a "violation of the federal campaign finance law" if Mr. Yang used the campaign funds to pay $ 1,000 a month to the 10 families.

YANG PLANS DOUBLE CASH HAUL CAMPAIGN IN THE THIRD QUARTER

But Yang's campaign said that payments are considered a campaign expense because they are made "to achieve the campaign's goals".

In a staging fight, Yang announced in his opening speech during the Democratic presidential debate last week's third round: "I'm going to do something new this evening."

The candidate then pointed out that his campaign "will now bring back an independence dividend of $ 1,000 a month for a full year to 10 American families, which someone is currently looking at at home. If you believe that you can solve your own problems better than any politician, go to yang2020.com and tell us how $ 1,000 a month will help you get there. "

Yang – in front of millions of people watching the debate – pointed out that "when you give money to a presidential campaign, what happens? The politician spends the money on TV commercials and consultants and you hope it works. It's time to trust us more than our politicians. "

FOX NEWS NEWS ON 2020 PRESIDENTIAL CAMPAIGN

Yang was the company's CEO of Test Preparation Education, Manhattan GMAT. In 2011, he launched Venture for America, an organization that trains entrepreneurs in New York. Since his candidacy for the presidency a year and a half ago, the central theme of his campaign is that automation is increasingly displacing the country's workforce and will require payment in species to enable people to live through the evolution of automation.

The candidate argues that his "Freedom Dividend" of $ 12,000 per year for every adult American "would help people improve their health, their nutrition, pay off some debts and the bills that weigh on them, reduce their stress levels" .

Yang explains that his plan would be paid for by a value-added tax, called VAT. According to him, a 10% VAT would raise between 700 and 800 billion dollars.

To make his basic universal income proposal known, Yang has already paid $ 1,000 a month to three families, in the first voter caucus and the main states of Iowa and New Hampshire, as well as another one in the United States. key story of the Battle of Florida. But Yang financed these contributions with his personal funds.

"I spoke to the FEC and they said that as long as it's my personal funds, it's an unconditional personal gift, they have no problem," Yang told Fox News in February. when the first family started receiving their monthly payments.

He added that he was "optimistic" that families receiving his cash payments this year "will come out for me, but I have no expectation and certainly no obligation."

He described the payments as gifts in his CEF campaign funding reports.

But using campaign funds to fund 10 more families is a brand new game.

However, there is a difference: the FEC is fundamentally paralyzed by the blockages and dysfunctions of supporters in the nation's capital. He does not have enough commissioners to make decisions or to punish violators of the electoral law.

"The FEC has closed. He's gone, Holman said.

He asked if Yang "could bet on the fact that there is no cop in campaign funding on time. There is no agency to enforce the law. The Department of Justice could intervene if it wished. But they usually only intervene if it is a flagrant criminal violation of the law. It would be a civil violation. "

Yang's campaign announced on Monday that he has received $ 1 million in donations and 450,000 emails after announcing Thursday his "pilot dividend program for freedom" over the weekend.

The candidate, who spoke with Fox News and other media outlets after a rally for Monday's campaign in Boston, rejected criticism of the legality of his pilot program.

"I want people to think for a moment about the system in which we operate," Yang said. "If I had a million dollars in campaign funds and gave them to a media company like your employer, no offense, no consultant, or an army of solicitors, then everyone would say that It's OK, but if I give them to the Americans to do what they want in a positive and problematic way. "

"I want everyone to think about this and how weird it is," he said.