Once again, Thelma and Louise offer readers information and insights unavailable elsewhere. Thank you, ladies.

If there was no consulting work done (billable hours), then that's illegal. Three ways: If John Duncan, Jr owns the outfit, it is self-dealing. If John Duncan III owns it, it is a violation of campaign law at the federal level. If John Duncan III owns it and isn't claiming it as a source of income or that he profits from it, you are headed down the old fiduciary path way.

I did find online 5 U.S. Code § 3110 - Employment of relatives; restrictions, which a site other than the one I link here explained became federal law in 1967, in response to John Kennedy having appointed his brother Bobby as U. S. Attorney General.

However, its prohibition reads as follows:

A public official may not appoint, employ, promote, advance, or advocate for appointment, employment, promotion, or advancement, in or to a civilian position in the agency in which he is serving or over which he exercises jurisdiction or control any individual who is a relative of the public official. An individual may not be appointed, employed, promoted, or advanced in or to a civilian position in an agency if such appointment, employment, promotion, or advancement has been advocated by a public official, serving in or exercising jurisdiction or control over the agency, who is a relative of the individual.

I can't see that this particular statute applies to the Duncan employment arrangement, existing as it does not within any federal agency but within the campaign?

I do agree, though, that the Duncan arrangement should be illegal (and maybe it is, under another statute). At the very least it seems to me to be inappropriate.

Well, it looks like the practice was both legal and widespread under federal campaign law as of the 2013 date of this article:

Lawmakers add relatives to campaign payrolls

And it continued to be legal as of the 2017 date of this article (although the candidate caught enough flak to lead him to fire his wife, you'll see):

Rep. Hunter says he has halted campaign payments to his wife

Unless something has changed very recently, it looks like this is allowable? I don't like it.

(As our anonymous friend points out, whether or not Duncan III actually performed any work may be the pivotal question.)

(link...)

(link...)

Seriously, your not fooling anyone. Your not. This is not groundbreaking. So why is this epifany happening now?

For me, the issue is that JDIII will likely run again for public office again, perhaps for the family seat in DC. He crashed and burned in his first elected office as Knox Co. Trustee when caught giving his frat brother hires bonuses for which they were not entitled. Since then, his father has propped him up for years with a high paying job with his campaign. Has he ever had a job in the real world that he got on his own merits and not his name?

The presumption is that much of what Duncan is doing with his campaign money would be illegal under present law, however, one must remember that Duncan's campaign war chest is grandfathered under former laws to a different set of rules. He can launder this war chest to his personal use (and use of his family) in any number of ways. Someone has to talk for him to get caught as the numbers will all appear to be legit on paper.

I mean, 90,000 a year to a political criminal who defrauded taxpayers in his only elected capacity? Really? This is legit? Good luck proving it though.

Ahem:

(link...)

Humphrey's column is based on a comprehensive story by CWG in the Nashville Post. I'd link it here, but it's behind a paywall. But based on Humphrey's report, Cari did an extremely thorough job.

So, where are the invoices from American Public Strategies for services rendered? And is it a sole proprietor? There should be some 1099s. Did JD3 report it and pay taxes?

Yes, excellent and in-depth reporting on this by cwg.

(Today's local McPaper has a less detailed copycat story).

I was again researching, trying to find out what JDIII has done other than work for his father and as Knox Co Trustee.

I found this website about his current job.

I was hoping to find his old campaign website listing his qualifications for trustee (other than his last name) but it has been taken down. He does not appear to have a LinkedIn account.

Via the U. S. Department of Justice, here is their Federal Prosecution of Election Offenses, Seventh Edition (May 2007)

Yes, it's ten years old, but the preface indicates that "this book replaces the Sixth Edition, which was published in 1995, and represents a complete re-write of that last book."

So the Sixth Edition stood for fully 12 years. So maybe this is the last word on the subject right now?

And since it's Sandra's story in TN Today that's prompted this thread, I'd be remiss not to give her due credit for the part she played in this affair of 14 years ago that I recount above: The fake address this former candidate had offered was in a condominium development, so the homeowners association president there penned a letter of protest to assert that the condo in question was vacant. He sent the letter to both the KNS and to Sandra. Wanna guess who ran it and who didn't? You'd guess right.

Democratic opponent weighs in:

Dr. [Joshua] Williams Statement regarding the allegations against Rep. Jimmy Duncan

Dr. Williams stated:

If true, these actions represent a violation of public trust and should be investigated by all relevant authorities including the Office of Congressional Ethics. The public deserves better than politicians who enrich their families at our expense.

###

Coupla clarifications:

In that first cut-and-paste above, I bolded the text "fictitious political organization" in possible reference to Duncan Jr's PAC, not to Duncan III's American Political Strategies, as Cari's story raised some questions about transactions in the PAC, too.

In that second cut-and-paste above, I didn't share the text of that bolded citation in U. S. Code because I haven't found it yet (so help me if you can).

Obviously, I'm over my head here--but any of us combing through this stuff could stumble across a nugget, don't you think?

"for the purpose of raising funds" which I'm guessing is not the case here - APS shows up in no other FEC filings. The main issue seems to be the personal use clause as pertaining to paying family members. But, also, I am no expert in campaign law - only know what the people I talked to told me.

A sole proprieter doesn't have to register with the secretary of state. Just needs a county (and city if in the city) business license.

If it is a corporation, it must be registered with the state and the name of the company must indicate that by including inc., corp., llc, etc.

I'm sorry, Cari. My last response to you at 11:54 p.m. last night was garbled...

Yes, I found that too much of that document I linked (Federal Prosecution of Election Offenses) focused on how and how much a candidate raised in funds, especially whether s/he accepted contributions in excess of amounts allowable under law. Obviously, that instruction doesn't much illuminate whether/how Duncan III's American Public Strategies broke any federal laws.

But no, I did not mean to concede that instruction in that document might not be pertinent at all. As I had tried to clarify in my post at 9:28 p.m., some of the instruction may be applicable not to Duncan III's business, but to this Duncan PAC. Based on details in your story, the PAC, too, looks to have potentially violated law?

(I'm off to do yard work. Will check in later.)

The more I read about this the more it seems someone should be investigating the business/personal tax aspects of these payments. Something's not right.

Sounds like the Duncan Family MISTrust, to me.

These payments may very well past muster legally, but my sniff test smells something very rotten. The $750 a month for bookkeeping services paid to Jimmy's niece who's a trained dancer. REALLY, really, come on Jimmy, ya couldn't find somebody w/ a bit of a business background in the family willing to take a paultry $750 a month.

I think back to when the Duncan school of law at LMU was in need of financial support, and Jimmy stated that he can't really help them because he's not a rich man. REALLY, really. Guess the best he could do was watch his wife get a job at LMU to do fundraising.

When he's done running for office maybe he could use the leftover campaign funds towards a more publicly philanthropical purpose than propping up his teat sucking family members. I'd like to think he'd give all the leftover funds to Remote Area Medical. Come on Jimmy, I double dare ya to do that.

(link...)

Here are the 850 bills submitted by Burchett as a State Senator...have fun...

Say what you will about his policy and priorities, but his character is above reproach. He is an anomaly of our political system in that he is a man of principle in a world of scoundrels.

At first, I was going to do all the hard work to shut you down. Instead, I will copy something verbatim and source it.
"Recent reports of inaccuracies occurred in 2006 when Tim failed to report contributions and was discovered by the state
election commission. Then in 2007, while in the State Senate, Tim actually sponsored a bill so the election commission
couldn’t fine candidates when they failed to report contributions. Then in 2008 he was fined for failing to report
correctly"

Source:
(link...)

So Tamara, what part of "notorious" do you not understand? One time mistake. OK. Two small mistakes, it happens. Multiple mistakes, a huge investigation, and an attempt to weaken the laws...come on!

I do not want to turn this into a bash one candidate or anything like that. All I wish to point out is that CWG has done great work and yes, the impact of her story can have great implications

when you promise to get the courage and stop deleting posts then ask that question

If you haven't noticed, I only attack when I am attacked. (See above with Hornback remark by you.)

As for why I have become kind of jaded...Basically, soon everything will make sense.

...soon everything will make sense.

That sounds eerily like Donald Trump giving a press conference.

Back on topic, I'm seeing on FB this morning that this story has been picked up for national publication by The Daily Beast.

"This is all for a congressperson in a noncompetitive district who has not faced a serious challenger for many years," (Brendan Fischer, a staff attorney for the Campaign Legal Center) said. "There does appear to be a pattern of payments to family members that raises the question of whether Congressman Duncan is illegally converting campaign funds to personal use."

Perhaps we won't need to rely on just a couple of compromised local media outlets to investigate, after all. Very good, then.

See also stories in the Washington Post, New York Times, and Chicago Tribune, all 3 and 4 days ago. I hadn't realized.

I find the NYT headline to be the most eye-catching, Tennessee Congressman Defends Paying Salary to Felon Son.

(Sandra, I notice the AP is crediting KnoxTNToday with breaking the story--and offering a link.)

And from the FEC's website, here is instruction on how to file a complaint (on which basis the FEC would then decide whether or not to open an investigation).