I don't know how you can conclude that. To stop it they would need to challenge it in court and they're up against a potential profit here that can afford any number of big-gun law firms. I don't know the law here, but that's what will determine if this scheme succeeds, and hard proof that this sale violates such applicable laws.
I mean, you're in the territory of a non-profit entity being used to generate profit for a few individuals through corruption. The AG has a lot of pull here.
After the long list of extensively specific requests for details regarding the sale and the price cap removal and communications between each of these organizations, point 35 felt like a punchline to read.
It makes it clear they know exactly what issue they're sussing out with these requests.
Does a conflict of interest actually make something illegal? I was under the impression that while best practice to declare and avoid conflicts of interest, it was not actually illegal as long as the motives for each decision were defensible.
35 isn't a request, but a message from a powerful politician to the people behind the sale. It's hard to guess the exact meaning without full context, but I think it's "I know enough. If you want to proceed with the sale, you have to give me the names and I'll send some of them to prison." They may try to call his bluff, but they'll be sorry if he indeed knows something.
I believe a 501c3 is bound by their charter which would presumably include this conflict of interest policy. Not doing so could cause loss of non-profit status and probably other fines and penalties.
Conflict of interest may not generally be illegal, but it can be illegal under specific circumstances, especially if undisclosed. Especially things that get filed with the SEC. I would assume a lot of decisions made at the board and C-suite level have stricter requirements for this.
