(Right Country) – Rep. Ilhan Omar is nearing the end of her freshman term in Congress and her political career has already been a constant stream of controversy and accusations of corruption.
As the evidence continues to mount, it appears that it’s all entirely founded.
You may recall that Omar, who has been credibly accused of having married her own brother for the sake of committing immigration fraud.
She also has been accused of having committed tax fraud somewhere in between being married to her brother and the father of her children, who she also was married to at some point.
Then, she cheated on her second husband with a political consultant, who was also cheating on his own wife, a very scandalous fact about a Hijab-wearing Muslim woman that just so happened to come to light in divorce proceedings between her paramour and his now-ex-wife.
Omar ended up marrying this now third husband, and her husband’s firm is also profiting handsomely from her re-election campaign.
Oh, we didn’t even get into the allegations of campaign fund embezzlement she’s also been accused of and at one point even had to pay fines for.
Newsmax reports that Omar’s re-election campaign has paid her husband’s consulting firm almost $879,000.
The Minnesota lawmaker paid her husband Tim Mynett’s company $122,000 for services since the couple got married in early March, according to Federal Election Commission records.
Mynett’s E Street Group has worked for Omar since 2018.
Records show that the group was paid $67,000 just before the couple was married. Since the beginning of 2020, Omar paid the company almost $293,000.
The largest payment was for mail advertising on March 30. Omar also has paid the company for digital consulting and advertising, fundraising and travel expenses.
While this may be a very bad look, unlike other things Omar has been accused of, this does not appear to be actually illegal. It is, however, viewed as highly unethical and some have called to change this:
There is no law prohibiting paying a company owned by a spouse for campaign related services. But some reformers say the practice should be banned.
“I think it’s a horrible idea to allow it, given the amount of money that goes into these campaigns from special interests,” Richard Painter, ethics chief to the George W. Bush administration, told the New York Post. “We already have enough problems with gifts to campaigns as a quid pro quo for political action.”