[Statutory Interpretation] Can Any Wire Communication Be Wire Fraud Based on The Mental State of the Person Making It, Without Any Actual Fraud?

LOCATION: US

The wire fraud statute states: "Whoever, having devised or intending to devise any scheme or artifice to defraud, or for obtaining money or property by means of false or fraudulent pretenses, representations, or promises, transmits or causes to be transmitted by means of wire, radio, or television communication in interstate or foreign commerce, any writings, signs, signals, pictures, or sounds for the purpose of executing such scheme or artifice" shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than 20 years, or both.

If I am reading this correctly, ANY wire communication can be wire fraud so long as the person making it makes the communication "for the purpose" of executing a scheme they are "intending to devise". There doesn't seem to need to be a fraudulent nexus to the communication.

For instance, suppose person A has devised a Ponzi scheme in their head. They don't actually defraud anybody, but merely wish to in their mind. This would appear to satisfy the "intending to devise" part of the statute. For some reason, they believe that searching up "pizza" on Google will magically move their scheme forward, and because of this, they search up "pizza" on Google. The intended scheme has nothing to do with pizza (obviously), but person A believes that searching "pizza" will further their scheme. Therefore, they appear to have just made a wire communication "for the purpose" of executing their scheme, since "purpose" means the "reason" that something was done, and their mental reason was to execute a fraud scheme.

Indeed, see Baddars v U.S.: “Intent may make an otherwise innocent act criminal if it is a step in a plot. The acts alleged have been found to have been done for the purpose of executing the scheme, and there would be no ground for contending, if it were argued, that they were too remotely connected with the scheme for the law to deal with them.”

But a 20-year felony for searching up "pizza" seems patently absurd, and I have never read any case law that suggests that such an interpretation has ever been pursued, and some case law softening my wooden textualist interpretation seems to exist:

Schmuck v U.S. for instance established that for mail fraud, the mailings must be either a “step in the plot” or “incident to an essential part of the scheme.”

So my questions are 1) whether this is the correct way to interpret the statute and 2) if not, what is?