 |
|
Add to My Group
|
October 23, 2008 at 05:40:24
Promoted to Headline (H2) on 10/23/08: by Steven Leser Page 1 of 1 page(s) |
|
 
|
1
In what has to be one of the most embarrassing turn of events for the McCain campaign thus far, it appears that in purchasing $150,000 worth of clothes for Sarah Palin and her family, McCain and his campaign and/or the RNC have violated the 2002 McCain-Feingold Campaign Finance Reform Act. A link to the entire text of the law and the relevant text are below. Only a lawyer would know for sure if this constitutes a breach of the law but the spirit of the law was definitely broken by the RNC, Palin and the McCain campaign: http://www.govtrack.us/congress/billtext.xpd?bill=h107-2356 SEC. 313. USE OF CONTRIBUTED AMOUNTS FOR CERTAIN PURPOSES. ...
(a) PERMITTED USES-
(b) PROHIBITED USE-
(1) IN GENERAL- A contribution or donation described in subsection (a) shall not be converted by any person to personal use.
(2) CONVERSION- For the purposes of paragraph (1), a contribution or donation shall be considered to be converted to personal use if the contribution or amount is used to fulfill any commitment, obligation, or expense of a person that would exist irrespective of the candidate's election campaign or individual's duties as a holder of Federal office, including--
(A) a home mortgage, rent, or utility payment;
(B) a clothing purchase;
(C) a noncampaign-related automobile expense;
(D) a country club membership;
(E) a vacation or other noncampaign-related trip;
(F) a household food item;
(G) a tuition payment;
(H) admission to a sporting event, concert, theater, or other form of entertainment not associated with an election campaign; and
(I) dues, fees, and other payments to a health club or recreational facility.'
.
.
.
Sec. 323
'(a) NATIONAL COMMITTEES-
'(1) IN GENERAL- A national committee of a political party (including a national congressional campaign committee of a political party) may not solicit, receive, or direct to another person a contribution, donation, or transfer of funds or any other thing of value, or spend any funds, that are not subject to the limitations, prohibitions, and reporting requirements of this Act.
'(2) APPLICABILITY- The prohibition established by paragraph (1) applies to any such national committee, any officer or agent acting on behalf of such a national committee, and any entity that is directly or indirectly established, financed, maintained, or controlled by such a national committee.
----------------------------------------------------
This puts McCain and his campaign squarely in the realm of slapstick comedy. Does anyone still think he has the managerial and leadership skills to be President? His first major decision was choosing Sarah Palin as his running mate, the most unqualified person on a major national ticket in over 100 years, now his campaign violates a campaign finance reform law that he himself wrote. It's hard to demonstrate incompetence any better than that. He makes Inspector Clousseau, Laurel and Hardy and Abbott and Costello seem adroit by comparison.
Will McCain and the RNC now stop whining about the money Obama has been able to raise? If they can afford to spend $150,000 on Palin's clothes, they obviously are not hurting for money. What does this say about the campaign's attempts to reach out to the 'Joe the Plumbers' and 'Joe Sixpacks' and 'Hockey moms' out there? Do those types of people spend $150,000 on clothes from Neiman Marcus and Saks Fifth Avenue? To think that Ann Coulter, Rush Limbaugh and various other denizens of the Conservative Right went ballistic over a $400 haircut for John Edwards. Edwards' expenditures are minor league compared to the McCain-Shoppin' ticket. You betcha!
McCain is now in the unenviable position of trying to convince the American people that he should be the Chief Law Enforcement official of the land when he doesn't even obey the laws that he crafted. If he were waging an issue based campaign and not hurling false accusations at Obama as fast as he could shovel, one would almost feel sorry for him. McCain had it right when he suspended his campaign a few weeks ago, but the reasons and duration were wrong. He should suspend it permanently because he clearly does not have the judgment or skills for the job.
The views expressed in this article are the sole responsibility of the author
and do not necessarily reflect those of this website or its editors.
 Contact Author |
Contact Editor |
 View Authors' Articles |
|
|
|
|
| 31 comments |
|
Read the small print!
I am pretty sure that it has a disclaimer that the law applies only to non-Republican politicians. by Hayesml47 (6 articles, 0 quicklinks, 4 diaries, 540 comments [10 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Thursday, Oct 23, 2008 at 11:54:50 AM  (0+)
|
|
My, my..
Wow! uh -- think we'll be readin' about this in the MSM? by Wisewoman (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 47 comments [4 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Thursday, Oct 23, 2008 at 12:54:37 PM (0+)
|
|
Reply: Sarah's clothes
Don't worry, the folks at the allegedly "conservative biased" Associated Press room are foaming at the mouth over Governor Palin's clothes. So much more important than those pesky "issues". by Starbuck (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 71 comments [2 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Friday, Oct 24, 2008 at 10:46:54 PM (0+)
|
|
Reply: You are kidding me, right?
Compared to the coverage of Edwards' $400 haircut, the Palin $150,000 clothes purchase has received no coverage at all. So, YES, the mainstream media is biased towards conservatives. If Obama or Biden had spent $150,000 on clothes, that is all we would be hearing about for the remainder of the campaign. by Steven Leser (255 articles, 58 quicklinks, 38 diaries, 2147 comments [63 recommended, 2 rejected]) on Saturday, Oct 25, 2008 at 10:51:56 AM (0+)
|
|
Reply: Oh the irony
What is most ironic is that I found opednews based on a search for "Associated Press Bias", after I observed that for the last two weeks the top news lines have had an AP-written Palin hit piece pretty much every day. This barrage has been constant to the point it is beyond belief that even the most left leaning person would miss it. And Palin is NOT EVEN THE PRIMARY CANDIDATE. Whether it be her clothing, her down syndrome son or her so called inexperience (never mind Obama's) AP is right there with their shovels. And isn't it interesting that just about every time AP mentions Palin they throw the word "inexperience" in there somewhere. Today, finally they mention Obama and McCain with this opener: "Democratic candidate Barack Obama began his closing argument for the presidency Saturday by asking voters to look to the future while Republican rival John McCain continued to attack Obama on taxes." Not exactly a statement favoring McCain wouldn't you say? by Starbuck (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 71 comments [2 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Saturday, Oct 25, 2008 at 11:47:32 AM (0+)
|
|
Reply: AP INVESTIGATION
Here is a little experiment for you to try: Google the term "AP INVESTIGATION". I tried this and got 10 pages of entries on Sarah Palin. There were more, but after 10 pages I stopped and decided to try "AP INVESTIGATION OBAMA" and "AP INVESTIGATION BIDEN". Still the same thing. All articles were about Sarah Palin. Not ONE SINGLE article about Obama, Biden or even McCain. So where is your anti-Obama AP evidence? by Starbuck (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 71 comments [2 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Saturday, Oct 25, 2008 at 12:01:25 PM (0+)
|
|
Reply: Don't try to inject something new...
Obama is not part of this discussion, Palin and Edwards are what we are discussing because they have related 'issues'. Edwards $400 haircut is part of the political lexicon. Everyone who has an ounce of political knowledge knows about the haircut because it was discussed ad-infinitum by the conservative media. If Obama or Biden had spent $150,000 on clothes, that is all we would be hearing about. Of course, since there has been no recent scandal regarding Obama or Biden (recent in the political landscape is three weeks) of course there is more negative coverage of Palin than Obama. You might as well ask us to go back to 1973 and ask why in that year there is more negative coverage of Nixon than McGovern or Carter. by Steven Leser (255 articles, 58 quicklinks, 38 diaries, 2147 comments [63 recommended, 2 rejected]) on Saturday, Oct 25, 2008 at 12:34:12 PM (0+)
|
|
Reply: Don't avoid the point after you opened the door
You made the claim that the media would rip Biden apart for pretty much anything they could dig up. You therefore opened the door for a response refuting your claim..which I did. AP is attacking Palin daily while ignoring Biden. Do the Google search. The proof is clear. The evidence contridicts your statement. by Starbuck (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 71 comments [2 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Saturday, Oct 25, 2008 at 1:30:28 PM (0+)
|
|
Reply: That's right, dont YOU avoid the point
Once again and with feeling, if Obama or Biden had spent $150,000 on clothes, there would be no other story on any news channel for the remaining days to the election. Since it is Palin, a Republican, it is a 2-3 day story at most. Republicans and Republican pundits are STILL talking about a $400 Edwards haircut and everyone in America has heard about it. They will still remember it a year from now. Two weeks from now, no one will remember Palin's $150,000 clothing shopping spree. Again, this is something you have not and cannot refute. Game, set, match. by Steven Leser (255 articles, 58 quicklinks, 38 diaries, 2147 comments [63 recommended, 2 rejected]) on Saturday, Oct 25, 2008 at 5:44:59 PM (0+)
|
|
Reply: hold the bell
It ain't over til it's over, Mackinroe, so hold the Game Set and Match shtuff. Of course you are correct; I have no reason to refute Republican pundits and haircut-gate. Admittedly the only haircut I know about is Bill Clinton's LAX runway cut that delayed flights for a matter of hours, but I have no doubt that Edwards must have gotten this $400 haircut. All that proves is he's nuts because no sane man pays that kind of money for a haircut. But John Edwards is yesterday's news and they are wasting their breath. Who really cares at this stage of the game? The argument isn't what Republican pundits are saying it is where they are saying it. And it ain't in the mainstream news rooms. Most of them are at FoxNews which is the only News Agency that tolerates more than a few token Republicans. What we remember a year or two down the road no one really cares about. Its what voters remember on November 4 of this year that is important. So left leaning news agencies like AP will find something new to harp on daily, as they have for the past two weeks. Doesn't matter how trivial or grandiose it might be. In this game, quantity wins out over quality (or accuracy). Again, you are correct; the average voter will forget about it in the forefront of their mind. But the daily barrage (and the search I provided is clear proof that it is indeed a daily anti-Palin barrage) of different little digs will nag at the back of the voter's mind. Specifics will be forgotton. But that nagging feeling that there is just something wrong will be there. And they dont even have to go after the key candidate to do it. They pick off the secondary target and the main target falls as collateral damage. So I agree with you on many points but the conclusion is based on the evidence presented. Checkmate :) by Starbuck (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 71 comments [2 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Sunday, Oct 26, 2008 at 3:08:00 AM (0+)
|
|
Reply: Thank you for acknowledging my being correct...
next time dont doubt me. by Steven Leser (255 articles, 58 quicklinks, 38 diaries, 2147 comments [63 recommended, 2 rejected]) on Sunday, Oct 26, 2008 at 7:14:24 PM (0+)
|
|
Reply: No, YOU should read
Once again and with feeling: Sec. 323 '(1) IN GENERAL- A national committee of a political party (including a national congressional campaign committee of a political party) may not solicit, receive, or direct to another person a contribution, donation, or transfer of funds or any other thing of value, or spend any funds, that are not subject to the limitations, prohibitions, and reporting requirements of this Act. '(2) APPLICABILITY- The prohibition established by paragraph (1) applies to any such national committee, any officer or agent acting on behalf of such a national committee, and any entity that is directly or indirectly established, financed, maintained, or controlled by such a national committee. by Steven Leser (255 articles, 58 quicklinks, 38 diaries, 2147 comments [63 recommended, 2 rejected]) on Thursday, Oct 23, 2008 at 2:16:20 PM (0+)
|
|
Reply: That is not correct, other campaign finance laws define that
For the purposes of Campaign Finance laws, the only clothing permissable to be purchased are "items of de minimis value that are used in the campaign, such as campaign ‘‘T-shirts’’ or caps with campaign slogans." See below for the relevant passage and links. You cannot weasel Palin/McCain/the RNC out of this. From the Federal Register (page 76978, Federal Register, Vol. 67, No. 240, Friday, December 13, 2002, Rules and Regulations. See page 17 of the following PDF: http://www.fec.gov/pdf/nprm/disclaimers_etc/fr67n240p76... ) by Steven Leser (255 articles, 58 quicklinks, 38 diaries, 2147 comments [63 recommended, 2 rejected]) on Friday, Oct 24, 2008 at 1:49:23 AM (0+)
|
|
The
McCain camp knows that this is a clear breach of the law, using money to buy clothing. This is why they have already been digging themselves deeper and more foolish by stating that it was always their intention to give the clothing to charity, to the "Iraqi Mothers of Orphans Society." by Karen Fish (55 articles, 14 quicklinks, 41 diaries, 106 comments) on Thursday, Oct 23, 2008 at 3:14:10 PM (0+)
|
|
Reply: PALIN'S CLOTH'S
HAHAHAHA, TO THE PEOPLE IN IRACK, THEY DON'T WEAR THSES KIND OF THING'S it is a lie from the beginning to the end, they are trying to make it look good, knowing they did wrong,in the first place,why should she need such costly cloth's any way, except she wanted to keep them, and McCain, is stupid to spend that kind of money, what doe's his wife say. what is he doing, buying Palin to lie like him by EVELYN CONLEY (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 27 comments) on Thursday, Oct 23, 2008 at 4:19:43 PM (0+)
|
|
PALIN CLOTHS
P P S, I CAN'T EVEN AFFORD TO BUY A $10.00 DRESS RIGHT NOW BEING ON FIXED INCOME LOL by EVELYN CONLEY (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 27 comments) on Thursday, Oct 23, 2008 at 4:21:00 PM (0+)
|
|
Thanks for this one
I really enjoyed reading this one, Steve. What a numbskull McBlinky is proving himself to be. by Hope Hofmann (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 17 comments) on Thursday, Oct 23, 2008 at 6:04:01 PM (0+)
|
|
OBAMA
Have any of you heard about the lawsuit against your beloved Barack Hussein Obama? If not maybe you should. It is believed, not by just a few, but by millions that it is not legal for him to run for the president of OUR country? There are more than one reason. Why don't you look them up? There have been lawsuits filed for over two months and there has been no answer, therefore, he is unable to run our country, legally. The deadline for answers was 30 days. Why is it that this news has not hit the MEDIA? Because they do not want anything detrimental told about him. I do wish we had some media who was not partial and gave the news as it really is. by Margaret Denson (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 25 comments) on Thursday, Oct 23, 2008 at 10:28:59 PM (0+)
|
|
Reply: That was debunked 6 months ago...
... as it was raised during the early primaries by the Clinton campaign. It was investigated and discarded. Snopes, which is well regarded by all as one of the most trusted evaluators of internet rumors has dealt with this already: http://www.snopes.com/politics/obama/citizen.asp --------------------------------- Nice try at changing the subject.... NOT! by Steven Leser (255 articles, 58 quicklinks, 38 diaries, 2147 comments [63 recommended, 2 rejected]) on Friday, Oct 24, 2008 at 1:54:09 AM (0+)
|
|
Reply: Actually not true...........
This suit has not gone away and is in the hands of a federal judge as we speak. by larry booth (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 303 comments) on Friday, Oct 24, 2008 at 1:35:22 PM (0+)
|
|
Reply: Yes, it IS true, it has been debunked a LONG time ago...
... once again, see the information in the Snopes link. by Steven Leser (255 articles, 58 quicklinks, 38 diaries, 2147 comments [63 recommended, 2 rejected]) on Friday, Oct 24, 2008 at 10:14:03 PM (0+)
|
|
Reply: And more proof for the conspiracy minded
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/article/2008/jun/27/obamas-birth-certificate-part-ii/ by Steven Leser (255 articles, 58 quicklinks, 38 diaries, 2147 comments [63 recommended, 2 rejected]) on Friday, Oct 24, 2008 at 10:55:46 PM (0+)
|
|
Hmm
Technically, if the clothes are to be worn for campaign appearances and are needed because the RNC deems the attire owned by Palin and family are unsuitable for this purpose, and if the clothes are returned after the campaign and not kept for personal use, or is purchased by Palin at fair value (not cost because they will be used clothing), then there is no problem. by pft (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 601 comments [7 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Friday, Oct 24, 2008 at 1:15:26 AM (0+)
|
|
Reply: Not correct. See my above response to leep
where allowable 'clothing' is further defined. by Steven Leser (255 articles, 58 quicklinks, 38 diaries, 2147 comments [63 recommended, 2 rejected]) on Friday, Oct 24, 2008 at 1:50:50 AM (0+)
|
|
Reply: I read the article and consulted several attorney friends
Lawinfo.com is wrong. by Steven Leser (255 articles, 58 quicklinks, 38 diaries, 2147 comments [63 recommended, 2 rejected]) on Saturday, Oct 25, 2008 at 12:37:18 PM (0+)
|
|
Reply: That's right, thanks for noticing.
You should listen right away next time. by Steven Leser (255 articles, 58 quicklinks, 38 diaries, 2147 comments [63 recommended, 2 rejected]) on Saturday, Oct 25, 2008 at 5:45:41 PM (0+)
|
|
What were they thinking
I'm definitely an undecided - I don't like any of the candidates, but spending $150k on clothing is just asinine. Talk about an elitist mentality. I'm definitely less inclined to vote for McCain/Palin now because they clearly don't use good judgement. And if the RNC is who put up this money, well their judgement isn't so good either. It may seem silly to make my decision based on this, but I was leaning a little towards McCain before this incident, and now I'm thinking, Maybe they don't have a lot of sense, and I find myself leaning a little towards Obama. by Bobby Guest (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 1 comments) on Friday, Oct 24, 2008 at 10:15:46 AM (0+)
|
|
Hate to rain on your parade, but...
"(E) a vacation or other noncampaign-related trip;" That would make Obama's trip to visit his grandmother on the campaign jet a violation as well. by Robert Sargent (10 articles, 0 quicklinks, 26 diaries, 318 comments) on Friday, Oct 24, 2008 at 12:00:48 PM (0+)
|
|
Reply: Not if he makes a campaign appearance in Hawaii...
... which I am sure he will. by Steven Leser (255 articles, 58 quicklinks, 38 diaries, 2147 comments [63 recommended, 2 rejected]) on Friday, Oct 24, 2008 at 1:29:10 PM (0+)
|
|
Just Like Bush...
It's clear that Palin has the same "law-be-damned" attitude of the Bush administration. She violated Alaska statute in pressuring for the firing of an Alaska state trooper, and now, ironically, McCain-Feingold. I certainly hope we don't forget this when she inevitably runs for President sometime in the future. by Gary Anderson (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 1 diaries, 17 comments [8 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Friday, Oct 24, 2008 at 12:24:40 PM (0+)
|
|
Reply: LOL, let's inject Clinton into this!
There is a new logical fallacy Republicans like to use whenever they are on the losing side of the argument. The well known fallacies are listed here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_fallacies But thanks to Republicans, we have a new one, Argumentum ad Clintonum also known as reductio ad Clintonum. Whatever Republicans do can be excused and explained away if Clinton ever did something remotely similar. At the heart of this phenomena is that Clinton is the most successful President since Roosevelt and the Republicans cannot stand it. He oversaw a booming economy that paid down the debt (as opposed to the Reagan bull market that was built on massive deficits),excellent foreign relations, etc. Just thinking about Clinton is the equivalent for Republicans of a bull having a red cape waved in front of their faces. Hence, Argumentum ad Clintonum. by Steven Leser (255 articles, 58 quicklinks, 38 diaries, 2147 comments [63 recommended, 2 rejected]) on Saturday, Oct 25, 2008 at 5:51:19 PM (0+)
|
Want to post your own comment on this Article? 
|
||||
|
||||||||||||||
Must Read (0) 
News (0) 
Touching (0) 
Funny (0) 
Supported (0) 
Interesting (0) 
Inspiring (0) 
Valuable (0)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Tell a Friend:
|
Copyright © 2002-2009, OpEdNews |
