Palin the Plumber;
Wardrobe Purchases Violate McCain-Feingold Law!
Young Turks on Sarah Palin's $150,000 wardrobe, purchased at Neiman Marcus and Saks Fifth Avenue out of campaign contributions by the Republican National Committee.
And, "wardrobe-gate" is illegal under the campaign finance law McCain helped write!
' 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.'
Oh, and it occurs to me that the last time Republicans had a big emphasis on plumbers it had to do with breaking and entering and grand theft.
posted by Juan Cole @ 10/24/2008 01:23:00 AM
|
Facebook
20 Comments:
I appears to me that the McCain Campaign looks in the mirror to see what it should accuse the Obama campaign of. At first, this behavior was amusing, but it's been going on for weeks now and the humor has turned to tragic farce. Even worse, too many people are gulled by it. The Soap Operas that are US presidential campaigns have long been sordid. But this time sordid is too weak an adjective, and my vocabulary cannot find a proper replacement.
On another note, the pseudo surprise shown by administration officials at Iraqi politicians demonstartes very well their response when faced by a democratic process they have no control over. In explaining this to another, I used an example from FDR's correspondence with Churchill during the Lend-Lease debates. In essence FDR said:
I have put forth my case to Congress and will continue to pursue it, but the bill's final shape will be honed by them, and ultimately I must take what they deliver. I could envoke the veto, but then I would risk getting worse or nothing. Such is the nature of our democratic system.
What is occuring in Iraq is no different. Almost every report I've read calls what emerged from the negotiations "a draft," and drafts are meant to be emended. That is how a democratic legislative process is supposed to work. Bush said he was bringing democracy to Iraq, so he has only himself to blame. And again, Bravo!! for the Iraqis!
It's been pointed out that, Governor Palin being a Wal-Mart shopper, the RNC could have saved quite a bit of money.
Palin bought her 7 yr. old a Louis Vuitton bag with some of the money. What does a 7yr. old need with a Louis Vuitton bag?! Palin is a greedy woman. The Republicans are just plain stupid. They want to present Palin as a down home, hockey mom, who says things like "you betcha" and"doggone it". Then they give her $150,000 to go on a shopping spree at Neiman Marcus and Saks. And they want us to believe McCain and Palin care about the average person; care about people losing their jobs and their homes; care about people who have had to declare bankruptcy because of medical bills? They want us to believe that?!!! The Republicans have become the very essence of hypocrisy. Sarah Palin has become their poster girl.
I hate to agree with the substance of what Anonymous said - since he seems to be a partisan, right-wing jerk - but those purchases are not illegal for two basic reasons:
a contribution or donation shall be considered to be converted to personal use
I think you could make the argument that the clothing spree was for Sarah Palin, VP candidate. You know, to project that all-important "hockey mom" image. Since the clothes are to be donated, you'd have a tough time saying it's for personal use.
Second, there's also this
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
In other words, the funds would have to be spent for something Palin would have purchased whether or not she was running for VP. Because the whole shopping spree came to be because the McCain campaign wanted her to project the "right" image (and it's working wonderfully for them, isn't it?) and Palin - apparently - would not have spent $150K on clothes for herself, wardrobe-gate is not illegal.
That Louis Vuittone bag, however, could be trouble if the 7 year old keeps it.
How about making the Palin make-up artist the highest paid staff member of your campaign? $22,800 for the first two weeks of October!! Finally somebody is putting the Nation FIRST. I feel so depressed about the financial news, but a wink from Palin puts a smile on my face
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/10/24/palins-makeup-artist-is-m_n_137513.html
Aww, anon is just hurt that his party has been exposed for being morally corrupt. I'd recommend getting more involved with the political party and trying to wrest it from the hands of the dimbulbs that seem to be running it right now. Make it more intelligent and solid... wait I can't believe I am saying this about Republicans... what the? They used to be so together... marched in lock step... The Steel Curtain. What the heck happened to your party? I once gazed in awe as they trotted out the newest and greatest affront to reason- "There are weapons of mass destruction, they are to the North, South, East and West...", "There are things we know we know...", "...and my pet goat...".
Maybe, just maybe 'anon' all of us are finally starting to get a bit smarter than blindly reacting to fear, of being so accepting of just words and posturing. Maybe we are finally getting our sense of reason back. Maybe that is why the actual problem isn't that the whole thing is illegal under the campaign finance law that McCain co-authored (they and she were NEVER going to give those clothes back and you know it- at least the rest of us know it because we have this new found 'reasoning'), it is that they have been trying to sell Palin as the pig/pit bull/other lowly four-legged creature they put lipstick on. That she is this middle class main street normal gal... with a separatist past and hubby who thinks we should take up arms against our own country... and a penchant for using her power for retribution... and a love of pork barrel spending... and getting paid by the government for living in her own house... that demanded that the government give her an SUV for no good reason...
Anon- it's reason that leads us to realize that just like the Bush administration, we have seen this type of dissonance between word and action for long enough- so has the world- and we are over it.
Sorry, but they had no intention of giving those clothes back until they were caught. I have a seven year old, and imagine if I told him that that entire set of Pokemon cards would have to be donated to charity on November 5th. He'd disown me.
What's better is now it's being reported that some of the stores where they supposedly shopped don't have a record of them shopping there.
Sounds to me like the RNC was laundering a little money, maybe to pay someone to do something crazy, like scratch a backwards B on her cheek and claim she was attacked by an Obama supporter.
"Palin is...ACTUALLY from the middle class and NOT rich."
Since when does an ordinary joe-six-pack/hockey mom have a lakefront home with their own float plane docked in front, two vacation homes, an annual income of $200-250,000 and well over a million dollars in assets?
And since when does she need $150,000 worth of $3-5,000 designer jackets, $1,000 shoes, and $1500-2000 skirts to look presentable. There are plenty of lovely jackets that cost no more than $500-1,000. And it seems to me that if you want her to project the "hockey mom" image, dressing her like a billionaire is not the way to do it.
Oh yes - and by the way they did not just hand her a credit card and tell her to go shopping. One of the first things they did when they selected her was to hire an image consultant to dress her and do her hair and makeup as well as coach her on her persona. Unfortunately, the small-town hick persona they chose for her (and she can turn that hokey accent on and off at will) does not match the designer-clad rich lady exterior, so that image consultant failed to create a consistent image.
Oh - and I REALLY believe they intended to donate all those goodies to charity after it was all over........NOT.
I can just see them ripping that Louis Vuitton bag out of the weeping seven-year-old's hands (not to mention ripping the Valentino jackets out of Sarah Palin's clenched fists).
Oh yes, and then yesterday there was Palin's oh, so sincere insistence that she and Todd are suffering "just like you are". Well, let's check eBay and see if she has put that float plane and the two vacation homes up for auction there, shall we?
Anonymous accuses the Palin's of being "middle class and NOT rich." That is patently false. The Palin's net worth is over $1.2 million, which is certainly NOT middle class and IS rich--they're Millionaires!! They most certainly are NOT "trailer trash," and are actually an affront to the many I know who live in trailer parks and RV resorts.
Gee, I wish I were so "middle class" as to have a float plane, 2 vacation homes and an income of over $200,000 a year.
No, I guess I'm merely "poor"; I only have a Silicon Valley mortgage on a 2000 square foot home and 2 used cars, and am still trying to figure out how I will afford to send my children to college.
Trying to get around the McCain Feingold law by claiming "it's all going to go to charity later" is BS. The prohibition was NOT created with the idea of letting people pull these shenanigans. Looks like McCain conveniently "forgot" his own bill, or hoped no one would remember an "obscure 2002 law"...
What happened to the prudent and fiscally responsible GOP we USED to know?
"The USE of the clothes is obviously legal and is a permitted use under the campaign finance laws. She just can't keep the clothes" ~~anonymous coward.
The clothes are for Palin. They are her property: she's the only one wearing them. It doesn't matter that she will give them up later (which is her right, she can do what she wishes with her property). The law doesn't say that if a politician gives up the donation of clothing after they used it on the campaign that their wearing it wasn't illegal in the meantime.
She shouldn't have taken possession of the clothes or worn them. When she did do that, her campaign broke the law. It's in black and white.
Ignorance of the law is no excuse.
There is so much partisan misinformation being thrown around here, that I don't know where to start.
1) Palin is by far the poorest of all the candidates. Yes, she lives in a nice house and makes a good salary. But that is because she is a SITTING GOVERNOR. Between McCain/Obama/Biden and herself, she is the only one that isn't independently a millionaire.
2) Some people here seem to think she's rich because she has a floatplane. Are you serious?? They really aren't as expensive as you might think. Don't know how much hers cost but you can often buy them for less than the price of a new car. Anyway, one reason why she needs it is that she sold off the previous Governor's jet!
3) As someone else pointed out, the clothes don't violate McCain/Feingold since they will be donated after the campaign is over, regardless of who wins. "Moof" seems to think he/she has enough "reasoning" that he/she knows they originally had no intention of giving them back. Well, I don't believe you because I don't believe in mind-reading. In any case, it doesn't matter - if they use them for the campaign only, then they are following the law. Period.
4) And Moof - Todd Palin wanted to take up arms against his own country? And you call others "dimbulbs"?. He once belonged to a party that advocated Alaskan separation (most on the left thought it was cute when some Vermont towns started calling for the same thing). But nothing in there about an armed revolt. Anyway, if you're going to judge guilt by association, then should we talk about Ayers and Rezko?
I'm old enough to remember Pat Nixon's "good Republican cloth coat"!
Puleeeeeze! Sarah and Todd Palin are not poor.
And you forgot to mention the two vacation homes and the million-plus net worth, didn't you? That does not qualify anyone as poor even in the San Francisco Bay area. In Alaska it is even farther from poor than it is in California.
And by the way, that whole hockey mom shtick is so much BS. Sarah Palin's vast hockey mom experience is limited to a year or two ten years or more ago when her oldest son played a little hockey.
Oh yes, and selling that plane - at a significant loss. Big deal compared to her exploitative use of the State's money - collecting a per diem to live in her own house? Way to enhance your income, governor!
The woman is a liar, a fraud, a cheat, an ignoramus, a bigot, and a fanatic. She is an international joke. The fact that she is the first female candidate for VP is a huge insult to every woman who actually IS intellectually and experientially qualified for the job, and a slap in the face to women in general.
And from what I am hearing, as they learn more and more about their governor, fewer and fewer Alaskans don't really want her back.
And before you drag out the "partisan" BS again, I am saying all this as a non-Democrat who has never supported Barack Obama or Hillary Clinton (although watching Sarah Palin has made me appreciate Hillary's positive points in a way I never did before).
RE: The seven year old with a LV Bag, First off when she carries the 10 month old on her hip during the handshaking part of a rally, Her kids become the opposite of off limits.
Word on the fashion blogs, and that counts as research for something like this, is that the fashion world has come to the concensus that the bag is a counterfeit. Included were comparisons between her bag and real LV bags
So the good news is they didn't spend 3Gs on a child's purse. They instead spent significantly less with a company they knew was deliberately infringing on LV's copyright.
Btw Anon...
Hair and makeup are also part of the expenses,
How do you donate hair and makeup to charity?
On the $11,200 per week makeup services, here's a suggestion:
Hire a team of big-name TV makeup artists and pay them $11,200 each per week for two months to give free makeup services in homeless shelters, women's shelters and soup kitchens in inner cities.
Or better yet, for every dollar wasted on Sarah's hair and makeup services, donate two dollars for Iraqis to rebuild Iraqi homes destroyed by American bombs.
@John
Shall we talk about it then? How's Mr. Chryson fit in to this argument? Got enough guns in his basement to start a small army he does... 10/10/2008- Palin's career was launched in his house.
"Palin backed Chryson as he successfully advanced a host of anti-tax, pro-gun initiatives, including one that altered the state Constitution's language to better facilitate the formation of anti-government militias. She joined in their vendetta against several local officials they disliked, and listened to their advice about hiring. She attempted to name Stoll, a John Birch Society activist known in the Mat-Su Valley as "Black Helicopter Steve," to an empty Wasilla City Council seat. "Every time I showed up her door was open," said Chryson. "And that policy continued when she became governor.""
Now, Mr. Ayers what exactly is that relationship to Obama? They served on a board to get school kids books and Ayers was one of dozens who held a coffee for Obama's campaign- not where Obama launched his political career.
Ok now that is clearly, factually over- what else?
@John
I am sorry I forgot to follow up on your point in #3. I arrive at that conclusion based on current behavior of the candidates to this point. It is a reasonable conclusion that they had never planned to donate the clothes to charity. It is highly unreasonable to suggest that they had thought about it for an instance before they were caught- or they would have said something about it.
But that isn't the whole point there is it? The most fundamental is that the party failed to promoter her correctly- lipstick on pig... in a $5000 dress she is not a hockey mom- with her million and a half worth and powerful seats in Alaska and now the larger stage- she is not just a hockey mom. This failure on the part of the party is but the tiniest example of how bad it has gotten.
Post a Comment
<< Home