Who controls campaign funds when a candidate dies? John is a candidate for Congress. His campaign committee consists of himself and a treasurer (or perhaps only himself). Before the election, he suddenly dies. His campaign has raised but not spent $1 million. John's wife wants to spend that money supporting candidates she likes in other races. John's replacement on the ballot wants to spend the money on his own campaign. John's political party wants to spend the money on party operations. John's treasurer wants to spend the money to pay off campaign debts and establish a nonprofit in the candidate's name. Who gets control of the money?
The Federal Election Committee's Congressional candidates and committees campaign guide (212-page PDF) has lots of information about how campaigns must be run under federal law. All candidates for US Federal offices with over $5000 of donations or expenditures are required to register a campaign committee with the FEC. Campaign donations are generally accepted by the campaign committee (not the candidate himself/herself) and disbursed by same. Within 15 days after an individual becomes a candidate as described in Section 1, he or she must designate a principal campaign committee. This designation is made by filing either a Statement of Candidacy (FEC Form 2) or a letter with the same information. 101.1(a) and 102.12(a). Within 10 days after it has been designated by the candidate, the principal campaign committee must register with the FEC by filing a Statement of Organization (FEC Form 1). 52 U.S.C. §§ 30102(g), 30103(a); 102.1(a). This committee would probably still exist after the candidate's death,* and would be responsible for any decisions regarding the disposition of remaining campaign funds at that time (just as if the candidate had withdrawn from the race.) So by law, the answer is &quot;the campaign committee&quot;. The FEC does place restrictions on what a campaign can do with leftover funds, but the options are: Settling debts. Note, in fact, that the campaign committee cannot terminate its operations if it has any outstanding debts or obligations. (p. 137 of the FEC guide) Start a non-profit organization. Convert to a multicandidate committee (this is really just a special type of non-profit, I suppose.) Donate the unused funds to charity. Donate the unused funds to another candidate's committee, subject to a $2000 limit. (p. 19) Donate the unused funds to a party organization (no limit as far as I can tell.) So: The treasurer's idea of paying off the debts is in fact required by law before the committee can wind down its operations. The campaign committee can't send more than $2000 directly to any other federal candidate, so John's wife and John's replacement are constrained in this regard. Beyond that, where the funds end up will depend on who is on the campaign committee and what procedures the committee uses to make decisions. *Technically, it appears to be legal for the candidate to be both treasurer and custodian of records for their own campaign — which are the only two positions on the committee required by law. It is conceivable that a campaign organized in this way could end up with &quot;orphaned&quot; funds, without anyone authorized to dispose of them. I'm not sure what would happen in this case.
What does this paragraph mean? Line by line. I give my Residuary Estate This is a gift, effective when the person writing the Will dies, of everything that is left over after all debts and taxes are paid and after any other gifts already in the Will (e.g. leaving a car or a house or a Monet to someone in particular) have been given. to the said [Full Name] absolutely I'm going give [Full Name] a name so that it is easier to follow this explanation. [Full Name]'s name for purposes of this answer is &quot;Luna&quot;. This says to give all that stuff to Luna when the person who wrote the Will dies, if Luna is still alive for whatever the required amount of time is after the person who wrote the Will dies. The required survival time period is either in the boilerplate provisions of the Will, or in the relevant statute if the Will is silent on the question. The Will says &quot;absolutely&quot; because historically, someone who received gifts of property in deed or wills in England only got to keep it for their lifetime, unless it clearly specified otherwise, after which someone else would get it. But in this case, if Luna survives this long, Luna gets all of this stuff with no strings attached. and if [Name] shall fail to obtain a vested interest leaving issue who survive me then such issue shall take by substitution If Luna dies before the person who wrote the Will does, or doesn't stay alive for the required number of days afterwards, then Luna isn't entitled to this stuff. Luna's descendants get it instead (i.e. Luna's descendants &quot;take by substitution&quot; what Luna would have gotten if Luna had lived, instead of Luna's probate estate getting the stuff). and if there shall be more than one of such issue they shall take in equal shares per stirpes but so that no issue shall take whose parent is alive and so capable of taking. If Luna predeceases and has exactly one living descendant who is alive when the person who wrote the Will dies, and that living descendant lives the required number of days after the person who wrote the Will dies, then the sole living descendant of Luna gets all of the stuff that is left over when the person who wrote the Will dies. If Luna has more than one living descendant, the stuff that is left over when the person who wrote the Will dies, then Luna's descendants gets broken up the way described below, which is called per stirpes: Create one share for each child of Luna who is alive and survives Luna by the required amount of time. If Luna has only one living child, that child gets everything even if Luna's child has children of their own. Create one share for each child of Luna who didn't live for long enough after the person who wrote the Will's death, if the predeceased child has descendants who are alive and remain alive after the person who wrote the Will dies by the required amount of time. This share is then broken up into one sub-share for each child of the predeceased child who is alive when the person who wrote the Will dies and is still alive after the person who wrote the Will dies by the required amount of time, and one sub-share for each predeceased child of the predeceased child who has living descendants who remain alive for the requisite number of days. Continue this process until 100% of the the residuary estate has been assigned to someone and give them their share of it once the estate is settled. If someone lives past the minimum number of days to outlive the person who wrote the Will, and then dies, that person's share goes that person's probate estate. For visual learners, a per stirpes distributions of assets looks like this: A per stirpes distribution to descendants is the plain vanilla ordinary way to giving stuff to the descendants of a dead person when you don't know in advance who will outlive you. What if Luna predeceases with no living descendants? Usually, this paragraph of a Will will be followed by another paragraph called the &quot;ultimate contingent beneficiary&quot; which says who gets the stuff that's left over in the residuary estate if Luna predeceases the person who wrote the Will and has no living descendants. Often, the ultimate contingent beneficiary will be one or more distant relatives, a list of friends, or a charity. If there is no ultimately contingent beneficiary in the Will, but Luna and all of Luna's descendants predecease the person who wrote the Will, then it goes to the next of kin (a.k.a. &quot;heirs at law&quot;) of the person who wrote the Will, if there are any relatives of the person who wrote the Will who are close enough to qualify to inherit under English inheritances law. If there is no one closely enough related to the person who wrote the Will to qualify under English inheritance law, then the stuff &quot;escheats&quot; (i.e. is inherited by default) by the King (or Queen) of England, as the case may be. There are some circumstances when the Will can be ignored. Everything above explains what this language in the Will means. This isn't always what happens, however. There are several exceptions to the general rule that property goes to the people that the Will says it goes to. I won't list them all here, but it is important when a Will is being written to understand that this is the case. For example, if the person who wrote the Will leaves nothing in the Will to their spouse of thirty years as of the death of the person who wrote the Will, who has no assets of their own, then the Court will partially ignore what the Will says and give some of the residuary estate to the surviving spouse. Also, the Will only controls assets that are in the &quot;probate estate&quot;. Some assets pass at death in what are called &quot;non-probate transfers&quot; that are not controlled by what the Will says. And, finally, of course, if the Will was written when the person signing the Will was of unsound mind, the Will can be invalidated in a &quot;Will contest&quot; in the appropriate court if the person contesting the Will's validity can prove that the person signing it was of unsound mind at the time. This is mediocre legal writing This paragraph gets the job done, but it is not very well written by modern legal Will drafting standards. It is adequate and probably meets the standard of care for a lawyer who hasn't committed malpractice. Lawyers in England have been writing paragraphs like this one for three or four hundred years. But it is not &quot;best practices&quot; legal writing in a Will. Good modern legal drafting for a Will would be much easier for a non-lawyer to understand, in addition to being clear and unambiguous.
Who's entitled to financial compensation in this case? Children? Parents? Grandparents? SO's? Friends? Usually, state law in the state where the person who died was domiciled at death specifies who may file a wrongful death lawsuit (and usually it is not the most obvious answer, the probate estate of the deceased person). The Colorado Statue, which is typical, is found at Colorado Revised Statutes, § 13-21-201 et seq. The person or persons entitled to sue for wrongful death are usually basically &quot;next of kin&quot; but the details of how this is defined and operationalized varies moderately from state to state. And how exactly is the payout for each person determined? The total dollar amount is usually determined by a jury based upon evidence provided at trial although there is no fixed formula. The jury simply assigns a value that it believes is fair. If more than one person is allowed to sue for wrongful death, the state wrongful death statute clarifies how the wrongful death settlement is divided among those people.
The legal requirement to hand over the returns is found in 26 U.S. Code § 6103: (f) Disclosure to Committees of Congress (1) Committee on Ways and Means, Committee on Finance, and Joint Committee on Taxation Upon written request from the chairman of the Committee on Ways and Means of the House of Representatives, the chairman of the Committee on Finance of the Senate, or the chairman of the Joint Committee on Taxation, the Secretary shall furnish such committee with any return or return information specified in such request, except that any return or return information which can be associated with, or otherwise identify, directly or indirectly, a particular taxpayer shall be furnished to such committee only when sitting in closed executive session unless such taxpayer otherwise consents in writing to such disclosure. Enforcement is found in 26 U.S. Code § 7214 (a) Unlawful acts of revenue officers or agents Any officer or employee of the United States acting in connection with any revenue law of the United States— ... (3) who with intent to defeat the application of any provision of this title fails to perform any of the duties of his office or employment; or ... shall be dismissed from office or discharged from employment and, upon conviction thereof, shall be fined not more than $10,000, or imprisoned not more than 5 years, or both. The court may in its discretion award out of the fine so imposed an amount, not in excess of one-half thereof, for the use of the informer, if any, who shall be ascertained by the judgment of the court. The court also shall render judgment against the said officer or employee for the amount of damages sustained in favor of the party injured, to be collected by execution. These punishments are essentially identical to those in Section 7213, which describe the punishments for those who unlawfully release returns. I've seen that section quoted in some articles as the basis for punishing failure to provide requested returns to the Chair of the House Ways and Means committee, but I'm not really seeing how that section covers non-compliance. Non-compliance seems only covered by Section 7214, which requires the "intent to defeat" (or various other issues, such as not disclosing known violations to the Secretary, etc.). That may be hard to prove in this scenario, and part of the stalling by Mnuchin may in part because they are exploring if they can build a strong case that it wasn't his intent to defeat the title. The quote of his you note is particularly on point on this, as he explicitly says he intends to obey the law; he's just questioning the constitutional issues involved.
The constitution does not actually forbid "abusing a position for financial gain", and thus it is left to the political process to address any such actions (voting for a different candidate), or the legislative process (defining certain acts as forbidden) – or, the impeachment process. The court system in the US does not have the power to decide on their own what politicians can and can't do, if there is no underlying law. It is within congressional power to define limits on the act of any politician, for example Congress could pass a law requiring the President and Vice-President to have no business interests or stocks during their term of office; they could require that of cabinet members or members of Congress. Such a law would, of course, either require presidential approval or else sufficient support in the houses of congress to override a veto. There are various limits on what government folks can do. 18 USC 202(c) is an example of a limit on the limits: Except as otherwise provided in such sections, the terms “officer” and “employee” in sections 203, 205, 207 through 209, and 218 of this title shall not include the President, the Vice President, a Member of Congress, or a Federal judge It is possible that a president could engage in a criminal act such as theft, and that is not permitted and would be grounds for impeachment. The president does not, however, have the power to e.g. unilaterally send all government hotel business to a certain hotel company, nor can he declare that 10% of all government expenditures must be deposited in his personal bank account, so the mechanisms whereby corrupt rules of certain other nations can get away with that is that those executives have vastly more power in their countries than POTUS does. With congressional support, though, such acts could come about. If it did, it would not be too surprising if SCOTUS ruled based on common law and considerations of justice that such a law / act was illegal, but it would not be a textualist argument.
This will depend on the exact wording of the will. If the will is well-drawn, it will provide alternative recipients in case the primary recipient of a bequest dies before the testator (will-maker) does. But as a general rule, if A makes a will leaving particular property to B, but B dies before A does, that bequest is void. If the will specifies an alternate recipient, the property goes to the alternate. If not, or if all specified alternates die before the testator does, the property becomes part of the residual estate of the testator. (The residual estate is that part which is not subject to a specific bequest.) The testator can specify a line of descent for a bequest: "I leave my house to Joan and her heirs". In that case, if Joan died before the testator, the house would go to whatever person or persons inherit from Joan. This was once a somewhat common form of bequest, but now is much less common. A will normally includes language leaving the residual estate to some person (or several people) or some entity (it can be an organization, such as a church or a charity). This is often done with language such as "I leave all the rest of my estate to ..." OR "Everything not include above i leave to..." or "I give all the remainder and residue of my estate to...". The executor does not choose, but rather follows the directions of the will on who gets the residue of the estate. I am not sure what happens if the will does not name a residuary legatee, or if the person so named dies before the testator. That will depend on the specific law of the jurisdiction. In the US, this means state law, and will vary from state to state. The comment by Dale M says that assets not provided for in the will are inherited as if the person was intestate, that is, as if the person had no valid will. The law in each jurisdiction specifies exactly what rules are followed in the case of intestacy. In general this is that property goes first to the teatator's spouse and children, but if there are no living spouse and children, to more distant relatives. Eventually, if no relatives close enough can be found, property escheats, that is, goes to the government. The exact rule varies by jurisdiction -- in the US by state.
Government FAQ on the Electoral College: If a winning Presidential candidate dies or becomes incapacitated between the counting of electoral votes in Congress and the inauguration, the Vice President elect will become President, according to Section 3 of the 20th Amendment. Section 3 of the 20th Amendment: If, at the time fixed for the beginning of the term of the President, the President elect shall have died, the Vice President elect shall become President. [...]
No. The scope of Medicare is established by statute which must be amended with a statute approved by Congress and signed by the President, or approved after being vetoed by the President with a veto override, to be changed. The age limitation is set forth at 42 U.S.C. 1395c: The insurance program for which entitlement is established by sections 226 and 226A provides basic protection against the costs of hospital, related post-hospital, home health services, and hospice care in accordance with this part for (1) individuals who are age 65 or over and are eligible for retirement benefits under title II of this Act (or would be eligible for such benefits if certain government employment were covered employment under such title) or under the railroad retirement system, (2) individuals under age 65 who have been entitled for not less than 24 months to benefits under title II of this Act (or would have been so entitled to such benefits if certain government employment were covered employment under such title) or under the railroad retirement system on the basis of a disability, and (3) certain individuals who do not meet the conditions specified in either clause (1) or (2) but who are medically determined to have end stage renal disease. Also, money doesn't grow on trees. The only way to provide that greatly expanded single payer health care benefit would be to raise hundreds of millions of dollars or more of new taxes to pay for it. Any new tax would have to be proposed with a bill initiated in the House of Representatives, approved by the Senate, and then passed by the President (or approved over his veto with a veto override). Likewise, the increased appropriation of funds for the benefits would have to be approved by Congress, even though it is an entitlement, because current legislation doesn't authorize spending for that purpose.