Herschel Walker's Campaign Expenditures 'Sparking Concern'

Written By BlabberBuzz | Wednesday, 01 March 2023 04:30 PM
1
Views 6K

Former Republican Senate candidate Herschel Walker's campaign has come under scrutiny after a Fox News Digital investigation revealed that his team paid a defunct car wash hundreds of thousands of dollars for private jet travel.

According to the report, Walker's main campaign organization, Team Herschel, paid Jetts approximately $595,600 to charter private jets between March and December last year, with another $270,000 paid by other Walker-linked groups. However, the investigation discovered that Jetts was registered as Jetts Car Wash, LLC, a defunct car wash owned by a Walker campaign donor.

The report has raised concerns among campaign finance experts, with Saurav Ghosh, the director of federal reform for nonprofit group Campaign Legal Center, telling Fox News Digital in an interview, "The amount of money involved is eye-catching... This whole notion that a campaign is spending almost $600,000 at a car wash is very, very concerning."

 TECH GIANTS JOIN FORCES WITH DHS IN HERCULEAN BATTLE AGAINST CHILD EXPLOITATIONbell_image

Ghosh also suggested that a large amount of money involved and the unclear nature of the payments could indicate a "very corrupt type of deal" between the campaign and the donor.

 HORRIFIC FOOTAGE EMERGES: FRANTIC RESCUE EFFORTS AFTER RUSSIAN MISSILES HIT UKRAINIAN CITY (WATCH)bell_image

Jetts Car Wash was founded in Kennesaw, Georgia, in 2015 but was transferred to Thomas Huff, the campaign donor, and a Powder Springs, Georgia, address confirmed to be his residential address.

The address was listed by Team Herschel with payments to "Jetts," according to Federal Election Commission (FEC) filings. Jetts Car Wash was ultimately dissolved in October after failing to file the required registration information with state officials. However, Walker's campaign continued paying the business hundreds of thousands of dollars for "air charter" through December.

 WATCH: NEWT GINGRICH'S APPROACH TO "DEATH TO AMERICA" CHANTSbell_image

Ciara Torres-Spelliscy, a professor at the Stetson University College of Law, warned that claiming campaign spending on a private jet while paying an entity that does not possess private jets could violate the law. She said, "When candidates file documents with the FEC, they are subject to 18 U.S. Code § 1001. This law makes it a crime to lie to the federal government."

 WATCH: THIS IS HAPPENING HERE IN PLAIN SIGHTbell_image

The investigation also found that another company, Aviation Development Group, is registered at Huff's address in Powder Springs. The company operates a Gulfstream IV aircraft formerly registered under a firm named JEGE, LLC, which had been owned by convicted pedophile Jeffrey Epstein before Huff purchased the firm and jet from Epstein in 2019. flight tracking data shows that the aircraft was used to fly around Georgia during the campaign.

 BOEING WHISTLEBLOWER REVEALS SHOCKING SAFETY CONCERNS PLAGUING BOEING'S 787 DREAMLINERSbell_image

Knowing the initial owner of JEGE, LLC, Ghosh suggested, "If that's what these payments were really for, at the end of the day, I think we could all understand why he wouldn't want it to be known that he was flying around on a plane once owned by Jeffrey Epstein."

 UNTHINKABLE IMPACT: ISS DEBRIS STRIKES FLORIDA RESIDENCE, NASA LAUNCHES INVESTIGATIONbell_image

Ghosh also mentioned that if the payments to Jetts were for private jet travel, it could violate campaign finance law. He said, "The basic concept of election transparency about election spending requires that campaigns specify exactly what they're spending money on and what they're getting when they purchase something."

 POLITICAL FIRESTORM: SPEAKER JOHNSON FACING FIERCE REBELLION OVER FOREIGN AID BILLSbell_image

The FEC has sent a letter to Team Herschel, noting that the campaign appeared to be in violation of various laws. The agency declined to comment, while both Huff and Walker campaign treasurer Salvatore Purpura previously declined to comment on the matter.

X