From Death Row: ‘Thank You’ From Christian Brothers Facing Execution for Their Faith
The NY Times Tries and Fails to Gin Up Sympathy for Laid Off...
The Official Democrat X Account Tried Deleting Its Tweet Attacking Hung Cao...but There...
J.K. Rowling Offers Support After Trans Assault in Scottish Women’s Prison Sparks Backlash
Democrats Can't Distance Themselves From Hasan Piker Now
A North Carolina School Superintendent Sees Nothing Wrong With This LGTBQ Book for...
It Sure Sounds Like Hakeem Jeffries Just Tried to Threaten the VA Supreme...
Rich NY Writer Who Called Stealing a 'Political Protest' Melts Down When Confronted...
Teenage Girl Suffers Concussion After Vicious Daylight Attack in NYC
A Virginia Democrat Just Proved His Party Doesn't Understand Rural America
Illegal Alien in Custody Following Horror Attack on Mom, Three-Year-Old Girl at San...
Australia and Sweden Teamed Up for the Most Unnecessary Scientific Study of All...
Leading CA Gov Candidate Says US Should've Been More Aggressive on Asylum, Blames...
This GOP Rep Is Calling for the Pardon of the Special Forces Soldier...
Pete Hegseth Warns Our Allies That the Time for Free-Riding Is Over
Tipsheet
Premium

What Republicans Are Hoping to Accomplish Through a Bill Named After Ilhan Omar

What Republicans Are Hoping to Accomplish Through a Bill Named After Ilhan Omar
AP Photo/Jim Mone

It seems like common sense and something that should already be on the books — lawmakers shouldn’t be able to use their campaign funds to pay their spouse, which is what happened when Rep. Ilhan Omar’s campaign paid her husband’s political consulting firm, E Street Group, nearly $2.8 million.

Though Omar did eventually cut ties with the firm after she won reelection, saying she wanted to “make sure that anybody who is supporting our campaign with their time or financial support feels there is no perceived issue with that support,” Republican lawmakers are hoping to put an end to such conduct once and for all.

Wisconsin Reps. Tom Tiffany and Mike Gallagher on Friday introduced the Oversight for Members And Relatives Act. Though it’s named after the Minnesota Democrat — the OMAR Act — the pair said “ethically dubious practices” occur on both sides of the political aisle.

“For too long, lawmakers of both political parties have engaged in the ethically dubious practice of pocketing campaign funds by ‘hiring’ their spouses and laundering the money as campaign related expenses,” Tiffany said in a press release.

“It is outrageous and inappropriate for Members of Congress to convert campaign donations to personal funds in this way,” Tiffany added. “It feeds public perceptions of corruption, undermines public trust in Congress, and must come to an end.”

Gallagher echoed Tiffany’s remarks about how such practices “erode trust in our government.”

“There’s simply no logical reason for allowing this practice to continue,” he said.

The two noted that passage of the legislation will help restore trust and public confidence in Congress.

They also pointed to past Democratic support for such efforts.

In 2007, Rep. Adam Schiff called for House approval of a ban on campaign payments to spouses “an important step forward in restoring the public’s confidence that elected officials are working in the public’s interest and not their own.” Speaker Pelosi, too, praised the House action, saying it would “increase transparency in election campaigns and [prevent] the misuse of funds.” Majority Leader Hoyer also applauded the measure, adding that it would “restore high ethical standards to Washington and clean up the culture of corruption.” 

“Regardless of political party, we should all be able to agree that running for political office shouldn’t be part of a family enrichment scheme,” Tiffany concluded.

Recommended

Trending on Townhall Videos