Oh, and then make sure said hubby filed inaccurate campaign finance reports to cover up what they did?
This not only sounds plausible, but the commenter seems to know a lot more about this than we (or the press) do:
Uh, that strikes me as not merely being technically illegal, but a disqualifying offense.
Personal to BHL donors past and present: Are you OK with your campaign contributions being used to pay off the personal debts of BHL and Dana? Are you ready to pony up again? Or might you want your money back?
Personal to BHL: If TomTom’s gotten it wrong, come on here and explain just what the money was used for, and share the information that you, and only you, have which you claim has exonerated you. You will have free reign, and I will close comments for you. Fair enough?
TomTom:
Definitely not at all tax deductible.
Also, the accusation isn’t that she was giving money to the campaign. It’s that she/her husband were taking money OUT of the campaign and putting it in their personal bank accounts. Checks are being written from the campaign (donor money) to her husband for perhaps personal use.
The reason she wants to go back and claim campaign expenses were loans, if they’re loans then a candidate is allowed to re-pay the loans with cash.
So it’s a way to post-hoc justify $200k of checks from campaign funds to her/her husband’s personal accounts.