Why can't Kerry spend his wife's money?

[hgc]

As everyone knows, John Kerry's wife, Teresa Heinz Kerry, is extremely wealthy -- something like half a billion worth. But he's not allowed to spend her money on his campaign as if it's their communal property.

Does anyone know the specifics of the law around this?

[Bjorn]

Maybe it's not their communal property?

[WildCat]

Is it the law, or does Mrs. Kerry just control the purse strings?

And as the old man said, "It's the ketchup that people leave on their plate that made me a millionaire." Or something like that.

[hgc]

Originally posted by Bjorn
Maybe it's not their communal property? I guess so, and that's an issue for family law. But if so, I wonder how election law deals with that specifically. He can spend his own money all he wants, but she is his wife. Does the law prohibit even a spouse from chipping in (beyong the $2,000 max) in that circumstance?

I heard someone mention recently that there's a way aound it, but didn't get any specifics.

Here's why it's so important. He's down to $3-4 million in cash now, and even though he's raising money, he'll be spending everything he's got through the primary season. At any time Bush will carpet-bomb the airwaves from his $200 million war chest, right up until the conventions. This is what Clinton did to Dole in '96, but Bush has a lot more money than Clinton did, and unlike that election, this one will be close. If Kerry can't come into some big money, he'll get bbq'd.

[aerocontrols]

Originally posted by hgc
As everyone knows, John Kerry's wife, Teresa Heinz Kerry, is extremely wealthy -- something like half a billion worth. But he's not allowed to spend her money on his campaign as if it's their communal property.

Does anyone know the specifics of the law around this?

I believe that he's not allowed to spend her fortune on his campaigns as a result of their prenuptial agreement.

[aerocontrols]

Here (http://slate.msn.com/id/2091886) is the info you're looking for.

[hgc]

Here's a link (http://deseretnews.com/dn/view/0,1249,505037996,00.html) to deseretnews.com that explains it.

[WildCat]

Originally posted by hgc
Here's why it's so important. He's down to $3-4 million in cash now, and even though he's raising money, he'll be spending everything he's got through the primary season.
I think that Dem supporters are hanging on to their $$ until the primaries have produced a candidate. He'll reap big $$ then, but probably not nearly as much as Bush. I don't see Dems being all that excited about Kerry to bring out the big numbers (money or voter turnout) he'll need to defeat Bush.

Disclaimer: "I am not a professional pundit, I just play one on the JREF board." ;)

[shanek]

Originally posted by hgc
As everyone knows, John Kerry's wife, Teresa Heinz Kerry, is extremely wealthy -- something like half a billion worth. But he's not allowed to spend her money on his campaign as if it's their communal property.

Does anyone know the specifics of the law around this?

Yep, intimately. Money given by a spouse is considered a campaign contribution. You can only spend money with no restrictions if it's YOUR PERSONAL money; one more method of election-rigging that helps ensure that only the rich, the powerful, and/or the dishonest can get elected.

[Zero]

This is none of our business.

[The idea]

Originally posted by shanek
Yep, intimately. Money given by a spouse is considered a campaign contribution. You can only spend money with no restrictions if it's YOUR PERSONAL money [...]
Are you saying that his wife won't give him the money with no strings attached? She wants the money to be for nothing but his campaign?

Regarding the $2000 limit, if you give $3000 to a homeless person and that person then becomes a political candidate and spends more than 2/3rds of the $3000 on his/her campaign, then are you guilty of a crime?

[The idea]

Suppose somebody buys a new car every four years and also runs in an election every four years. He/she can save his/her own money for the campaign instead of for the car and collect contributions for the car instead of for the campaign. Is there any law that says you can't give someone a gift of more than $2000 towards his/her next new car?

[hgc]

Originally posted by The idea
Suppose somebody buys a new car every four years and also runs in an election every four years. He/she can save his/her own money for the campaign instead of for the car and collect contributions for the car instead of for the campaign. Is there any law that says you can't give someone a gift of more than $2000 towards his/her next new car? I think that if you were pulling that scheme on a massive scale, the quid pro quo would become apparent. Also, you would have a tax bill for those gifts.

[shanek]

Originally posted by The idea

Are you saying that his wife won't give him the money with no strings attached? She wants the money to be for nothing but his campaign?

I'm not saying anything of the kind. I think that she (and you, for that matter) has the right to give him however much money you want, and he has the right to use that money however he chooses, unless it violates some contract you and he have both agreed to.

[The idea]

Originally posted by shanek
I'm not saying anything of the kind. I think that she (and you, for that matter) has the right [...]
I wasn't asking about rights. I was asking about how you apply the laws that you apparently have an intimate knowledge of.

Suppose your spouse has been giving you a weekly allowance of $1000 for the past three years and that you have been spending it on luxuries. Now, if you cut out the luxuries and devote the money to a political campaign, is the money considered to be an illegal campaign contribution?

[shanek]

Originally posted by The idea
I wasn't asking about rights. I was asking about how you apply the laws that you apparently have an intimate knowledge of.

Suppose your spouse has been giving you a weekly allowance of $1000 for the past three years and that you have been spending it on luxuries. Now, if you cut out the luxuries and devote the money to a political campaign, is the money considered to be an illegal campaign contribution?

Y'know, it'd be nice if it were as clear-cut as that. The example you give, by any reasonable standards, should not be considered campaign donations; but understand that the sole reasons these laws exists is so that politicians can use them as fodder against their competitors. So someone who did this could conceivably find themselves facing campaign finance allegations. The law, while not specifically including this, is vague enough to be applied to it.

[swellman]

William Buckley had a column (http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=128&ncid=742&e=14&u=/uclicktext/20040217/cm_ucwb/thebeaconhillnightmare) on Kerry's finances a while back. FWIW.

I like how he squeezes in the word "usufruct".:book:

[peptoabysmal]

Kerry did this to himself by flaunting that he had to finance his election himself using his "limited" resources. He's trying to appear to be a self-made man, not the gigolo he really is.

[hgc]

Originally posted by peptoabysmal
Kerry did this to himself by flaunting that he had to finance his election himself using his "limited" resources. He's trying to appear to be a self-made man, not the gigolo he really is. Try to connect the dots. This thread is about how his wife's resources are NOT available to his campaign. He IS financing the campaign with his limited resources and with donations under the $2,000 limit. What's your point?

[peptoabysmal]

Originally posted by hgc
Try to connect the dots. This thread is about how his wife's resources are NOT available to his campaign. He IS financing the campaign with his limited resources and with donations under the $2,000 limit. What's your point?

My point is that Kerry painted himself into this corner. Kerry is the one who made this an election issue.


Her wealth could significantly help Sen. John Kerry, D-Mass., narrow the fund-raising gap with President Bush, assuming Kerry secures the Democratic nomination. But it also could invite accusations that his campaign bent the spirit, if not the letter, of campaign-finance reforms that Kerry supported, sources said.
http://www.azcentral.com/news/articles/0222kerry22.html


You call being able to draw a 6 million dollar equity loan on their house limited?!? The reason this was done was that it was not money strictly under her control and Kerry couldn't be accused of going back on his word. But, c'mon who paid for the house, I mean really? I hear that if Kerry gets elected, he will be the third wealthiest president in US history ... ever.

"I see your vanity through the holes of your coat."
-- Socrates