Scammer is King


------------------------------

Kanye’s YEEZY Received Over $2 Million in Federal Loan Meant for Small Businesses

https://www.highsnobiety.com/p/kanye-west-yeezy-recieves-millions-trump-ppp/


Kanye West‘s YEEZY brand received more than two million dollars under the Trump administration’s Paycheck Protection Program (PPP). Newly released government documents verify that YEEZY is one of the companies that received funds as part of a $660 billion relief program implemented to help small businesses keep their workforce employed during the coronavirus crisis.

According to a report disclosed by the US Treasury’s Small Business Administration yesterday, YEEZY received between $2 million and $5 million through PPP. According to Forbes, these funds helped to protect 106 jobs.

Considering YEEZY brought in approximately $1.3 billion in 2019, the fact that West was even eligible for the loan is not without controversy, particularly as 87 percent of the approved companies received an average of $107,000. What’s more — as Vox reported in April, one month after the stimulus bill was passed — the PPP pot ran dry very quickly, leaving around 700,000 small businesses and nonprofits waiting on funding.

Further, it would seem that YEEZY is one of a concerning number of companies with ties to the Trump administration that financially benefitted under the program. The Washington Post reports that businesses owned by members of Congress, institutions linked to Trump’s family, and even the law practice that represented the president also received millions in relief.

West has publicly signaled his support for Trump, famously meeting with the president at the White House in 2018. Under normal circumstances, the billionaire rapper and entrepreneur might have harmed his 2020 presidential run by receiving the huge funding injection, however, the current administration has eroded many of the protections that previously prevented taxpayer funds from being awarded to companies that have potential conflicts of interest among influential Washington figures.

Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin had initally planned to keep the list of PPP beneficiaries confidential, but Democrats pushed for greater transparency. The data dump has revealed that fashion brands including Iconix Brand Group (Joe Boxer and Ed Hardy), suitmaker Hickey Freeman, and designers Oscar de la Renta and Vera Wang received funds, too.

https://board.okayplayer.com/okp.php?az=show_topic&forum=4&topic_id=13390838&mesg_id=13390838&page=3#13390982


"...and shit on any news he makes

When in reality, he’s undercover building viable low-income housing alternatives, creating new US manufacturing jobs, making streetwear more accessible for consumers, and realizing almost all of his grandiose dreams...dreams that so many (mostly white arrogant and dismissive) pricks have laughed at. He’s Seemed NUTS nuts for about 7 years...and yet, almost every outlandish thing he said he was going to do he’s done.

Go ahead - “but he charges $200 for sweatshop shoes!!!” So do all of your other heroes too including the allegedly hyper-intelligent Lebron James, whose spineless response to the China controversy is easily as embarrassing and disappointing as anything Kanye has done.

If you want to shit on him, shit on the last two albums. They’re awful."






lol

https://www.businessinsider.com/kanye-west-star-wars-homeless-housing-torn-down-2019-9

They looked like shit too..

"Further, it would seem that YEEZY is one of a concerning number of companies with ties to the Trump administration that financially benefitted under the program. The Washington Post reports that businesses owned by members of Congress, institutions linked to Trump’s family, and even the law practice that represented the president also received millions in relief."

I'm not even judging Kanye because I don't know his involvement at this point. However, just looking at it from a pure financial aspect, the fact that a company that had 1.3 billion in revenue took $2 million bux that could have went to small biz is so pathetic. $2 million at a company like Yeezy should be like, their printer paper costs. It's nothing.

PPP.

The obvious one hand is any amount of bread is taking away from the small businesses that need it way way way more.

But the other hand is like "Do people really expect the millionaires to infuse their own businesses with cash, like on a moral mission to just throw away their money just because?"

That would be nice but should it be expected? I don't know.

Finally there should be some sort of way to ban the companies that don't obviously need it as much as the ones going out of business left and right because they truly are small businesses...

FINALLY yeah I know that isn't gonna happen because the more rich people that get money from PPP the more Trump knows they will fight to help keep him in power.

I know that's like eight hands lol.

>But the other hand is like "Do people really expect the
>millionaires to infuse their own businesses with cash, like on
>a moral mission to just throw away their money just because?"

hit to save their business when a loan they don't even have to pay back is right there.

That doesn't make good and smart financial sense.

Unsure where you get the idea that companies can be public leeches and folks should
“lol that’s the game”

Reads white as hell as a mentality.

and still qualify as small businesses under SBA?

what qualifies by income or number of employees is different per industries but I am not a big fan of seeing the selective outrage over who got PPP loans based on who the personality behind them are when so many other folks slide under the radar because they are less visible.

If folks don't like who getting money they should be mad at the rules, but to call people scammers for getting money that is legally available to them seems worrying about the wrong things (especially if its putting money in the pockets of black people).

Shot out to my homie was the biggest lender to black small black businesses in the country.

https://www.cnbc.com/video/2020/06/23/how-lendistry-is-address-the-disparities-in-ppp-funding.html

**********
"Everyone has a plan until you punch them in the face. Then they don't have a plan anymore." (c) Mike Tyson

"what's a leader if he isn't reluctant"

like, if you technically qualify you should just take the money regardless of need?

also, how many Black businesses benefited under the trump admin. i'd be very curious.

The only ethics involved are don't lie on the application.


>like, if you technically qualify you should just take the
>money regardless of need?

The application is specifically need-based. And it's need based on whether you need the loan to avoid laying off employees (very generally speaking). So I don't care how rich the owner is, or how profitable the business is, if a business owners meets the requirements for the loan, and will otherwise layoff employees BUT for the loan, I have no qualms with them getting the loan because at the end of the day the purpose of the loan is to protect employees.

Could the system be better and should it be improved. For sure, but there is nothing unethical about taking a loan that you qualify for for its stated purpose.



>
>also, how many Black businesses benefited under the trump
>admin. i'd be very curious.

Big vague open question I couldn't answer but I am sure more SBA Loans have gone out to black businesses during the Trump administration than during Obama's 8 years by virtue of the PPP. No points to trump because he put us in this quagmire but yeah.



>


**********
"Everyone has a plan until you punch them in the face. Then they don't have a plan anymore." (c) Mike Tyson

"what's a leader if he isn't reluctant"

I think you can differentiate on a robust government policy and emergency legislation to keep small businesses and local communities afloat when no other means are available

be forgivable...that's a different topic.

**********
"Everyone has a plan until you punch them in the face. Then they don't have a plan anymore." (c) Mike Tyson

"what's a leader if he isn't reluctant"

It's more akin to a line of credit.

do you think that if Yeezy needed the the loan to not lay off 15 people they should have got that money

vs.

15 small businesses that could have stayed open period that got nothing and had to close?

He is saying if there is a need for the loan businesses should be able to get it, based on how the rules were written*. That's all.

You are saying the money should be spent differently to help more businesses.

Neither of you are wrong, but you guys are talking about two different issues.

*He even acknowledged that the rules should be possibly be reworked, which I agree with, but given that he said that I would argue you two aren't even on different sides of the argument, just pointing out and trying to prove two different things.

For emergency legislation.

"The Paycheck Protection Program is a loan designed to provide a direct incentive for small businesses to keep their workers on the payroll."


The kind of person that have million, billion, and trillion company valuation and thinks about laying off people during a pandemic and not only putting their financial woes in jeopardy but also health care is the exact kind of person that we don't need in charge of a company.

I say this working for a company that has had financial losses due to needing to cut departments, raise wages, hire more due to overtime, ramp up a new network to handle vpn, and equip all of their employees with protective gear ... but hasn't cut jobs ... because that would be

1. Morally bankrupt
2. Worsen the problem that we're all supposed to be in together ... even companies.

Just to be clear, they cut departments but not employees?


Its sounds like you are describing a company that has had an increase in demand during this period. If that's the case, of course you would not be cutting jobs if you are in need of hiring people to meet demand. That has nothing to do with not being morally bankrupt, there is a business purpose for not cutting jobs.

What happens though when your demand has been decimated because of Covid?


>For emergency legislation.
>
>"The Paycheck Protection Program is a loan designed to provide
>a direct incentive for small businesses to keep their workers
>on the payroll."
>
>
>The kind of person that have million, billion, and trillion
>company valuation and thinks about laying off people during a
>pandemic and not only putting their financial woes in jeopardy
>but also health care is the exact kind of person that we don't
>need in charge of a company.
>
>I say this working for a company that has had financial losses
>due to needing to cut departments, raise wages, hire more due
>to overtime, ramp up a new network to handle vpn, and equip
>all of their employees with protective gear ... but hasn't cut
>jobs ... because that would be
>
>1. Morally bankrupt
>2. Worsen the problem that we're all supposed to be in
>together ... even companies.


**********
"Everyone has a plan until you punch them in the face. Then they don't have a plan anymore." (c) Mike Tyson

"what's a leader if he isn't reluctant"

that your company did the right thing, the not morally bankrupt thing, but by your own description it also just sounds like they needed more workers, not less. Some businesses have been booming during COVID. Some have been suffering and have had their businesses decimated.

Doesnt' make a lot of sense to me to be arguing that businesses doing well doing what any company would do when they are normally doing is morally superior to the companies who have to make tough decisions like lay off employees because business is down.

We can't begin arguing the ethics of Kanye if we don't have basic MicroEcon 101 agreement on how businesses work in general.


**********
"Everyone has a plan until you punch them in the face. Then they don't have a plan anymore." (c) Mike Tyson

"what's a leader if he isn't reluctant"

I ask because by your logic you're saying that the rules of supply and demand should justify the PPP and not the earnings of the company

So by your logic essential businesses will need to absorb operational losses at cost

While non essential businesses will be afforded payroll protections with low or no operational costs.


Meanwhile ............................ according to the SBA it's about business financial needs to continue operating, not subsidizing losses



-----------


Question: Do businesses owned by large companies with adequate sources of liquidity to support the business’s ongoing operations qualify for a PPP loan?


Answer: In addition to reviewing applicable affiliation rules to determine eligibility, all borrowers must assess their economic need for a PPP loan under the standard established by the CARES Act and the PPP regulations at the time of the loan application. Although the CARES Act suspends the ordinary requirement that borrowers must be unable to obtain credit elsewhere (as defined in section 3(h) of the Small Business Act), borrowers still must certify in good faith that their PPP loan request is necessary. Specifically, before submitting a PPP application, all borrowers should review carefully the required certification that “urrent economic uncertainty makes this loan request necessary to support the ongoing operations of the Applicant.” Borrowers must make this certification in good faith, taking into account their current business activity and their ability to access other sources of liquidity sufficient to support their ongoing operations in a manner that is not significantly detrimental to the business. For example, it is unlikely that a public company with substantial market value and access to capital markets will be able to make the required certification in good faith, and such a company should be prepared to demonstrate to SBA, upon request, the basis for its certification.

>I ask because by your logic you're saying that the rules of
>supply and demand should justify the PPP and not the earnings
>of the company
>


Nope. Doesn't logically follow from what I am saying. I only brought up demand because your company is not a good example of how to treat employees during the downturn if they are actually doing well and need more workers.

>So by your logic essential businesses will need to absorb
>operational losses at cost
>
>While non essential businesses will be afforded payroll
>protections with low or no operational costs.


Nope. Made no such point. doesn't logically follow and I have no idea where you are getting this.

>
>
>Meanwhile ............................ according to the SBA
>it's about business financial needs to continue operating, not
>subsidizing losses

Yeah, no one ever said that it was. You fundamentally don't understand what I am talking about.


>
>
>
>-----------
>
>
>Question: Do businesses owned by large companies with
>adequate sources of liquidity to support the business’s
>ongoing operations qualify for a PPP loan?
>
>
>Answer: In addition to reviewing applicable affiliation rules
>to determine eligibility, all borrowers must assess their
>economic need for a PPP loan under the standard established by
>the CARES Act and the PPP regulations at the time of the loan
>application. Although the CARES Act suspends the ordinary
>requirement that borrowers must be unable to obtain credit
>elsewhere (as defined in section 3(h) of the Small Business
>Act), borrowers still must certify in good faith that their
>PPP loan request is necessary. Specifically, before
>submitting a PPP application, all borrowers should review
>carefully the required certification that “urrent
>economic uncertainty makes this loan request necessary to
>support the ongoing operations of the Applicant.” Borrowers
>must make this certification in good faith, taking into
>account their current business activity and their ability to
>access other sources of liquidity sufficient to support their
>ongoing operations in a manner that is not significantly
>detrimental to the business. For example, it is unlikely that
>a public company with substantial market value and access to
>capital markets will be able to make the required
>certification in good faith, and such a company should be
>prepared to demonstrate to SBA, upon request, the basis for
>its certification.


**********
"Everyone has a plan until you punch them in the face. Then they don't have a plan anymore." (c) Mike Tyson

"what's a leader if he isn't reluctant"

If profits go down, increasing indirect costs without increasing prices is a multiplier loss

(i think, cuz i'm not exactly sure what Buddy is saying)

i understand that Yeezy didn't break the rules.

what i'm saying is they should have never applied (if they had any morals/ethics).

AND, looking past that point, even as applicant, they should be considered last in line when actual small business (i don't care how Yeezy is classified, 1.3 billion in revenue ain't small biz) have had to shutter their doors just cuz they couldn't get 50K out of the program.

edit: and yes, obviously the rules suck and should be re-written be reflective of reality.

But I think the money should de doled in such a matter that it saves the most jobs. For example, I would be fine with it going to a company owned by a rich person to save 100 jobs versus a company owned by a not rich person to save 10 jobs.

But this is all hypothetical because there isn't that sort of zero sum scenario because all of the original PPP money hasn't even been spent yet.

https://www.cnbc.com/2020/06/11/why-businesses-arent-rushing-to-claim-the-130-billion-in-ppp-loans.html#:~:text=There\'s%20about%20%24130%20billion%20left%20in%20the%20PPP%20pot.


>do you think that if Yeezy needed the the loan to not lay off
>15 people they should have got that money
>
>vs.
>
>15 small businesses that could have stayed open period that
>got nothing and had to close?
>
>


**********
"Everyone has a plan until you punch them in the face. Then they don't have a plan anymore." (c) Mike Tyson

"what's a leader if he isn't reluctant"

just because he himself is rich? that isnt how business works.

wanna chime in?

.

That loopholes and carve outs are exploited doesn't change the ethics or morality behind the rules
Ethics exist.

**********
"Everyone has a plan until you punch them in the face. Then they don't have a plan anymore." (c) Mike Tyson

"what's a leader if he isn't reluctant"

Conflicts of interest, nepotism, discrimination, environmental safety just to name a few off the top of my head.

I said there is no ethical dilemma here. "Here" was cut off.

My first sentence was literally there are definitely ethics in business. It would be very odd for the next sentence to be there are no ethical dilemmas.

>Conflicts of interest, nepotism, discrimination,
>environmental safety just to name a few off the top of my
>head.
>
>


**********
"Everyone has a plan until you punch them in the face. Then they don't have a plan anymore." (c) Mike Tyson

"what's a leader if he isn't reluctant"

Corporations haven't always been solely focused on maximizing shareholder value and they don't have to be now.

It's a high priority in publicly traded companies but most try to be more socially responsible these days.

And many companies stay private when they could've gone public so they can better balance profitability with other goals.

why pay for the food i serve in my casino when Meals on Wheels will make it for free!?!?!?

Seems like a weird mindset.

Oh. And all of these “exploits” they’re gaming come directly from their taxes, the federal reserve, and cuts to government services

They’re really in here keekeeing off being taken advantage of by the people that need it the least.

imagine putting on a cape for millionaires and billionaires. you hate to see it.

and that's not me saying there should be no millionaires (i'm torn on whether anyone should have billions or even hundreds of millions) but going "woe is me" for those people? c'mon.

and of course, in a not-so-hilarious turn, it's these same business owners that cry from the hills about government handouts, etc. that were first in line.

I wish there was a more debate heavy society, where minds could actually be changed rather than everyone digging into their starting point and shouting the loudest.

My position on this is immutable, and it seems theirs is too.

...where minds could actually be changed

Also You: My position on this is immutable...

SMH.


**********
"Everyone has a plan until you punch them in the face. Then they don't have a plan anymore." (c) Mike Tyson

"what's a leader if he isn't reluctant"

A debate heavy society has shared values and argues over nuances.
That we need to argue over fundamentals leaves no room for compromise.

I don't know what to say.
**********
"Everyone has a plan until you punch them in the face. Then they don't have a plan anymore." (c) Mike Tyson

"what's a leader if he isn't reluctant"

And there's no way to actually debate with you that won't spill into personal insults.
My position is immutable, not because of this specific program. But because my position starts with a fundamental belief about what wrong is.
There's nothing ironic about that

by saying you don't share my values. T

>And there's no way to actually debate with you that won't
>spill into personal insults.
>My position is immutable, not because of this specific
>program. But because my position starts with a fundamental
>belief about what wrong is.
>There's nothing ironic about that


**********
"Everyone has a plan until you punch them in the face. Then they don't have a plan anymore." (c) Mike Tyson

"what's a leader if he isn't reluctant"

And I can’t actually say that to my friends that work at Raytheon without insulting them

In their application, businesses have to certify that "current economic uncertainty makes this loan request necessary to support the ongoing operations of the applicant"

The spirit of PPP is such that in the absence of a loan, you would be forced to lay folks off. If that isn't the case, then you shouldn't apply.

But it is impossible to verify this. And, as far as I know, there are no attempts to try to verify it.
As a result, everyone who qualifies under the technical details will apply and get the money. And I bet a whole bunch of companies are abusing the program in this regard.

In that sense, I think the food bank analogy that was mentioned earlier fits. You don't have to be in need of assistance to use most food banks. But they usually have you self attest to it in good faith.



I wouldn't expect wealthy owners to put their own money into the business. It would be nice and charitable, but definitely not expected. The business finances are structured to be separate from their personal finances.

It's still a loan. You still have to pay it back. No one here has been talking about the forgiveness aspect of the loan and that's where the scrutiny should be.



**********
"Everyone has a plan until you punch them in the face. Then they don't have a plan anymore." (c) Mike Tyson

"what's a leader if he isn't reluctant"

Not everything needs a grey area.

For example, if a business owner could sell his 2M home to avoid laying off employees of a business he is a 51% owner of, do you think that business should not get the loan?




**********
"Everyone has a plan until you punch them in the face. Then they don't have a plan anymore." (c) Mike Tyson

"what's a leader if he isn't reluctant"

If a business owner has 2M cash on hand, not in assets, I'd say not for them

2 million dollars can pay 26 people 75,000 for an entire year.

It's not out of the realm of my expectation that in a situation where every person in the country has to collectively sacrifice time, money, family to try to handle life with a growing pandemic that those with means would also do so.


That you've gotten down to a half stake owner with a large cash asset from people with self declared million and billion dollar personal wealth extract millions from the government, at cost from you, at the expense of actual small business owners is a huge leap.

You want to talk about the repayment process, but that's not going to bring shuttered businesses back and in the meantime the very same government and these rich people will be talking about austerity measures and cutting the safety net as soon as the money comes.

How many businesses need to close for a high end fashion line to have a line a credit that doesn't need?

Let's say a 51% stakeholder has 2M cash in the bank, do they get the loan?

What if rather than invest in the business, if they didn't get the loan they would shudder the business, would you give them the loan?



>If a business owner has 2M cash on hand, not in assets, I'd
>say not for them
>
>2 million dollars can pay 26 people 75,000 for an entire
>year.
>
>It's not out of the realm of my expectation that in a
>situation where every person in the country has to
>collectively sacrifice time, money, family to try to handle
>life with a growing pandemic that those with means would also
>do so.
>
>
>That you've gotten down to a half stake owner with a large
>cash asset from people with self declared million and billion
>dollar personal wealth extract millions from the government,
>at cost from you, at the expense of actual small business
>owners is a huge leap.
>
>You want to talk about the repayment process, but that's not
>going to bring shuttered businesses back and in the meantime
>the very same government and these rich people will be talking
>about austerity measures and cutting the safety net as soon as
>the money comes.
>
>How many businesses need to close for a high end fashion line
>to have a line a credit that doesn't need?


**********
"Everyone has a plan until you punch them in the face. Then they don't have a plan anymore." (c) Mike Tyson

"what's a leader if he isn't reluctant"

I’m a person that when changing their job last year was specifically looking for a company that adds good to the world, and that’s subjective

So to me a 51% stake holder with 2M running a daycare is different than a person running a sneakershop.

And again, that’s subjective

But we got here from talking about a self declared billionaire, with a billionaire dollar valuation for their company, who just last week we were talking about having gotten even more money from the GAP contract ... how he reached out to bilk a fund to help with payroll for his high end fashion brand
And subjectively, that doesn’t sit right with me.

1). PPP has an interest rate of 1% and no borrower requirements (no credit standards, no collateral, no covenants). A typical business loan will be something like 6% with all kinds of restrictions and requirements.
So for all intents and purposes, this is a free loan. I.e. government charity.


2). Forgiveness seems relatively easy to get. Keep employees in place for 8 weeks following the loan disbursement. Do that, then the government is paying for their wages and other stuff (rent, utilities, etc).
I.e. charity

The food bank analogy comes in here: what if your business wasn't affected by covid? You weren't going to lay anyone off. Do you utilize the food bank (PPP)?

"Will my action cause harm to the less fortunate" should be a fundamental center.

Any rule change that you would propose to keep the underserving, as far as your ethical standard, from receiving money would harm countless companies that employee people and people would lose jobs...all for what?!!?

Your idea of how this should all work would hurt working people. That's what you don't seem to get.


>"Will my action cause harm to the less fortunate" should be a
>fundamental center.


**********
"Everyone has a plan until you punch them in the face. Then they don't have a plan anymore." (c) Mike Tyson

"what's a leader if he isn't reluctant"

That was the last round because the funds were dried up, people had to make those choices then based off the uncertainty.
The list of people and companies that we’re seeing is from that time
In the very article this post is about 700,000 small businesses and nonprofits were waiting on funds at the time

People with the least needed bled the funds dry, while people with the most needs had to wait and make decisions with more uncertainty and less time to do so.

The government is loan money that it prints to keep people employed. A bi-product of it is that some people who probably don't absolutely need it get some money. I think the program is worthwhile because those people who don't absolutely need it doesn't diminish the people who absolutely need it from getting it. Like I said before, there is still money available to this day.

This "experiment" has turned me into a UBI believer and I don't think you would throw away the concept of UBI just because some people who don't absolutely need might get it if it benefits so many people who actually need it.

It also reminds me of the auto industry bailout. There was a very good argument that Obama should have just let them fail and it was a crisis of their own making and they didn't deserve "free loans" but Obama saw the bigger picture and he managed to save the industry, got the loans repaid with interest, and that reaped more benefits hten the moral hazards of bailing out that industry.


So going back to your Foodbank analogy. To make it more accurate it would have to be a Foodbank that had a limitless supply* and by virtue of taking from the Foodbank you help the food producers by creating demand, if that were the case yes I think people who don't need the foodbank should still use the foodbank.

Again, I think the program can be improved and more done to actually make sure jobs are preserved but that's a more nuanced issue than people are discussing here.


>1). PPP has an interest rate of 1% and no borrower
>requirements (no credit standards, no collateral, no
>covenants). A typical business loan will be something like 6%
>with all kinds of restrictions and requirements.
>So for all intents and purposes, this is a free loan. I.e.
>government charity.
>
>
>2). Forgiveness seems relatively easy to get. Keep employees
>in place for 8 weeks following the loan disbursement. Do that,
>then the government is paying for their wages and other stuff
>(rent, utilities, etc).
>I.e. charity
>
>The food bank analogy comes in here: what if your business
>wasn't affected by covid? You weren't going to lay anyone off.
>Do you utilize the food bank (PPP)?


**********
"Everyone has a plan until you punch them in the face. Then they don't have a plan anymore." (c) Mike Tyson

"what's a leader if he isn't reluctant"

.

They always try to make a Black face the poster of their nefarious and evil ways.

Yall fall for the okeydoke EVERY TIME....

You don't seriously believe JK got 800M in PPP Loans do you?


**********
"Everyone has a plan until you punch them in the face. Then they don't have a plan anymore." (c) Mike Tyson

"what's a leader if he isn't reluctant"

FIX IT JESUS

www.engadgethd.com - the other stuff i'm looking at

How do you know who Kanye has on his payroll?

Why is Kanye getting a PPP loan big news but the several other WHITE HEADED corporations are not?

Oh thats right because making Black people the face of your BS is Western PROPAGANDA 101.

And don't waste your time trying to defend the indefensible.

How can all of the Joe the Plumber's in this thread defend this, damn?

It’s the job creators that keep this country going!!

>It’s the job creators that keep this country going!!


People falling on the sword for job creators like Grover Norquist foundation and The Ayn Rand Institute. Newsmax

https://www.forbes.com/sites/andrewsolender/2020/07/06/vocal-opponents-of-federal-spending-took-ppp-loans-including-ayn-rand-institute-grover-norquist-group/#3795baa93d53

https://apnews.com/00a34243825661313f2cb6a0f6a21720

Not Saying it’s right or wrong, saying it was taken by just about everyone in entertainment

https://www.rollingstone.com/pro/news/eagles-pearl-jam-guns-n-roses-ppp-loans-1025111/

https://www.washingtonpost.com/sports/2020/07/07/tom-bradys-tb12-floyd-mayweathers-promotions-company-among-ppp-recipients/