U.S. Representative Marjorie Taylor Greene (R-GA) is once again under scrutiny—this time for a potential violation of House ethics rules linked to her financial ties to Tesla. Greene, a vocal supporter of former President Donald Trump, recently called on the FBI and the Department of Justice (DOJ) to investigate protests against Tesla. However, her demands have sparked concerns about a conflict of interest, as she is a Tesla shareholder.
Greene’s Tesla Stock Purchases Raise Questions
According to Forbes, Greene has made significant investments in Tesla, buying hundreds of thousands of dollars’ worth of shares over the past year. Notably, these purchases ramped up after Elon Musk contributed to Trump’s re-election campaign. In addition, five of her Tesla stock purchases came after Trump appointed Musk to lead the Department of Government Efficiency, with her most recent transaction occurring on March 7.
House Ethics Rules and Potential Violations
The House ethics rules explicitly state that members “may not receive compensation and may not permit compensation to accrue to the beneficial interest of such individual from any source, the receipt of which would occur by virtue of influence improperly exerted from the position of such individual in Congress.”
In simpler terms, if Greene’s call for an FBI investigation into the protests helped Tesla by boosting its stock prices, she would be gaining financially from her congressional influence.
Legal Experts Weigh In
Brett Kappel, an attorney specializing in campaign finance, highlighted the serious ethical implications of Greene’s actions. He explained that House rules strictly prohibit members from taking any official action that benefits their financial interests.
“Calling for an FBI probe into protests that could directly impact Tesla’s stock value raises serious ethical questions,” Kappel stated.
What’s Next for Greene?
As the controversy unfolds, political analysts speculate whether this potential ethics violation could lead to an official investigation into Greene’s conduct. With political corruption and financial conflicts becoming a major concern among voters, this case serves as another example of how government officials may exploit their power for personal gain.
