Wow, thank you to the RNC
10-23-2008, 10:10 AM
#1
٩(̾●̮̮̃̾•̃̾)۶
Thread Starter
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 21,807
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Wow, thank you to the RNC
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1008/14805.html
Cliffs: The RNC has spent $150k on clothes for Palin and her family.
I'm so excited that almost half of our nation think that McCain and Palin are a good choice. So if they win, not only will we be spending billions more on Iraq, but more to dress Palin.
Good choice.
[b]RNC shells out $150K for Palin fashion Sarah Palin, in a red leather jacket, waves as she steps on stage before a crowd at a baseball field in Grand Junction, Colo., on Monday.
<br>The Republican National Committee has spent more than $150,000 to clothe and accessorize vice presidential candidate Sarah Palin and her family since her surprise pick by John McCain in late August.
According to financial disclosure records, the accessorizing began in early September and included bills from Saks Fifth Avenue in St. Louis and New York for a combined $49,425.74.
The records also document a couple of big-time shopping trips to Neiman Marcus in Minneapolis, including one $75,062.63 spree in early September.
The RNC also spent $4,716.49 on hair and makeup through September after reporting no such costs in August.
The cash expenditures immediately raised questions among campaign finance experts about their legality under the Federal Election Commission's long-standing advisory opinions on using campaign cash to purchase items for personal use.
Politico asked the McCain campaign for comment on Monday, explicitly noting the $150,000 in expenses for department store shopping and makeup consultation that were incurred immediately after Palin’s announcement. Pre-September reports do not include similar costs.
Spokeswoman Maria Comella declined to answer specific questions about the expenditures, including whether it was necessary to spend that much and whether it amounted to one early investment in Palin or if shopping for the vice presidential nominee was ongoing.
“The campaign does not comment on strategic decisions regarding how financial resources available to the campaign are spent," she said.
But hours after the story was posted on Politico's website and legal issues were raised, the campaign issued a new statement.
"With all of the important issues facing the country right now, it’s remarkable that we’re spending time talking about pantsuits and blouses," said spokeswoman Tracey Schmitt. "It was always the intent that the clothing go to a charitable purpose after the campaign."
The business of primping and dressing on the campaign trail has become fraught with political risk in recent years as voters increasingly see an elite Washington out of touch with their values and lifestyles.
In 2000, Democrat Al Gore took heat for changing his clothing hues. And in 2006, Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-N.Y.) was ribbed for two hair styling sessions that cost about $3,000.
Then, there was Democrat John Edwards’ $400 hair cuts in 2007 and Republican McCain’s $520 black leather Ferragamo shoes this year.
A review of similar records for the campaign of Democrat Barack Obama and the Democratic National Committee turned up no similar spending.
But all the spending by other candidates pales in comparison to the GOP outlay for the Alaska governor whose expensive, designer outfits have been the topic of fashion pages and magazines.
What hasn’t been apparent is where the clothes came from – her closet back in Wasilla or from the campaign coffers in Washington.
The answer can be found inside the RNC’s September monthly financial disclosure report under “itemized coordinated expenditures.”
It’s a report that typically records expenses for direct mail, telephone calls and advertising. Those expenses do show up, but the report also has a new category of spending: “campaign accessories.”
September payments were also made to Barney’s New York ($789.72) and Bloomingdale’s New York ($5,102.71).
Macy’s in Minneapolis, another store fortunate enough to be situated in the Twin Cities that hosted last summer’s Republican National Convention, received three separate payments totaling $9,447.71.
The entries also show two purchases at Pacifier, a top-notch baby store, suggesting $196 was spent to accommodate the littlest Palin to join the campaign trail.
An additional $4,902.45 was spent in early September at Atelier, a high-class shopping destination for men. Editors' note: In earlier versions, a purchase at Steinlauf & Stoller was inaccurately described as a baby item.
<br>The Republican National Committee has spent more than $150,000 to clothe and accessorize vice presidential candidate Sarah Palin and her family since her surprise pick by John McCain in late August.
According to financial disclosure records, the accessorizing began in early September and included bills from Saks Fifth Avenue in St. Louis and New York for a combined $49,425.74.
The records also document a couple of big-time shopping trips to Neiman Marcus in Minneapolis, including one $75,062.63 spree in early September.
The RNC also spent $4,716.49 on hair and makeup through September after reporting no such costs in August.
The cash expenditures immediately raised questions among campaign finance experts about their legality under the Federal Election Commission's long-standing advisory opinions on using campaign cash to purchase items for personal use.
Politico asked the McCain campaign for comment on Monday, explicitly noting the $150,000 in expenses for department store shopping and makeup consultation that were incurred immediately after Palin’s announcement. Pre-September reports do not include similar costs.
Spokeswoman Maria Comella declined to answer specific questions about the expenditures, including whether it was necessary to spend that much and whether it amounted to one early investment in Palin or if shopping for the vice presidential nominee was ongoing.
“The campaign does not comment on strategic decisions regarding how financial resources available to the campaign are spent," she said.
But hours after the story was posted on Politico's website and legal issues were raised, the campaign issued a new statement.
"With all of the important issues facing the country right now, it’s remarkable that we’re spending time talking about pantsuits and blouses," said spokeswoman Tracey Schmitt. "It was always the intent that the clothing go to a charitable purpose after the campaign."
The business of primping and dressing on the campaign trail has become fraught with political risk in recent years as voters increasingly see an elite Washington out of touch with their values and lifestyles.
In 2000, Democrat Al Gore took heat for changing his clothing hues. And in 2006, Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-N.Y.) was ribbed for two hair styling sessions that cost about $3,000.
Then, there was Democrat John Edwards’ $400 hair cuts in 2007 and Republican McCain’s $520 black leather Ferragamo shoes this year.
A review of similar records for the campaign of Democrat Barack Obama and the Democratic National Committee turned up no similar spending.
But all the spending by other candidates pales in comparison to the GOP outlay for the Alaska governor whose expensive, designer outfits have been the topic of fashion pages and magazines.
What hasn’t been apparent is where the clothes came from – her closet back in Wasilla or from the campaign coffers in Washington.
The answer can be found inside the RNC’s September monthly financial disclosure report under “itemized coordinated expenditures.”
It’s a report that typically records expenses for direct mail, telephone calls and advertising. Those expenses do show up, but the report also has a new category of spending: “campaign accessories.”
September payments were also made to Barney’s New York ($789.72) and Bloomingdale’s New York ($5,102.71).
Macy’s in Minneapolis, another store fortunate enough to be situated in the Twin Cities that hosted last summer’s Republican National Convention, received three separate payments totaling $9,447.71.
The entries also show two purchases at Pacifier, a top-notch baby store, suggesting $196 was spent to accommodate the littlest Palin to join the campaign trail.
An additional $4,902.45 was spent in early September at Atelier, a high-class shopping destination for men. Editors' note: In earlier versions, a purchase at Steinlauf & Stoller was inaccurately described as a baby item.
I'm so excited that almost half of our nation think that McCain and Palin are a good choice. So if they win, not only will we be spending billions more on Iraq, but more to dress Palin.
Good choice.
10-23-2008, 10:30 AM
#3
CBOTY 2010
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: MI
Posts: 34,786
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
and you dont think the democrat party isnt spending money on obamas wardrobe and makeup? or bidens?
this is nothing surprising, besides its the parties prerogative what they do with the campaign funds so long as its within the legal guides ... and image means alot in elections.
if obama wants to spend 100G on his image and his families image on tv then so what. makes sense
this is nothing surprising, besides its the parties prerogative what they do with the campaign funds so long as its within the legal guides ... and image means alot in elections.
if obama wants to spend 100G on his image and his families image on tv then so what. makes sense
10-23-2008, 10:32 AM
#4
ZOMG Pew Pew Laserbeams
Join Date: Jul 2002
Posts: 7,451
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Ok let's set the record straight, Palin does not own those clothes, the RNC does. Whatever they do with their money it is funded by republican supporters and not tax dollars. Although it was a poor choice to spend exorbitant amounts of money on clothing for Palin and her family, it is their money to do whatever they wish to do. However if I were a supporter and donator to the Republican party I would be somewhat outraged my money went to that instead of something more purposeful.
Actually they don't Jessie, he spends his own money on his clothes, just like Clinton did on her pantsuits. The big issue that arose was that they were spending campaign money to dress her, that's why there is such an uproar.
and you dont think the democrat party isnt spending money on obamas wardrobe and makeup? or bidens?
this is nothing surprising, besides its the parties prerogative what they do with the campaign funds so long as its within the legal guides ... and image means alot in elections.
if obama wants to spend 100G on his image and his families image on tv then so what. makes sense
this is nothing surprising, besides its the parties prerogative what they do with the campaign funds so long as its within the legal guides ... and image means alot in elections.
if obama wants to spend 100G on his image and his families image on tv then so what. makes sense
10-23-2008, 10:34 AM
#5
CBOTY 2010
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: MI
Posts: 34,786
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
it's an image thing though
i doubt obama personally pays for his makeup people though :dunno:
i dont know i guess i just dont see the big deal as long as its campaign money being spent not tax dollars. i understand needing to project a certain image and that stuff isnt cheap. i havent seen an uproar, except media reporting and liberals pointing it out but then i could care less myself like i said
although i will say palin does seem to like to have the govt foot whatever bills she can, she was good at doin it in alaska too
i doubt obama personally pays for his makeup people though :dunno:
i dont know i guess i just dont see the big deal as long as its campaign money being spent not tax dollars. i understand needing to project a certain image and that stuff isnt cheap. i havent seen an uproar, except media reporting and liberals pointing it out but then i could care less myself like i said
although i will say palin does seem to like to have the govt foot whatever bills she can, she was good at doin it in alaska too
10-23-2008, 10:44 AM
#6
ZOMG Pew Pew Laserbeams
Join Date: Jul 2002
Posts: 7,451
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
it's an image thing though
i doubt obama personally pays for his makeup people though :dunno:
i dont know i guess i just dont see the big deal as long as its campaign money being spent not tax dollars. i understand needing to project a certain image and that stuff isnt cheap. i havent seen an uproar, except media reporting and liberals pointing it out but then i could care less myself like i said
although i will say palin does seem to like to have the govt foot whatever bills she can, she was good at doin it in alaska too
i doubt obama personally pays for his makeup people though :dunno:
i dont know i guess i just dont see the big deal as long as its campaign money being spent not tax dollars. i understand needing to project a certain image and that stuff isnt cheap. i havent seen an uproar, except media reporting and liberals pointing it out but then i could care less myself like i said
although i will say palin does seem to like to have the govt foot whatever bills she can, she was good at doin it in alaska too
Here's the article I was talking about Jesse:
http://www.suntimes.com/news/politic...side23.article
Anyways I don't think it was a good idea to spend that much money, since it's campaign money it has to be itemized and logged. If it were her own money I don't believe anyone would care. It's really a non-issue but since people are hurting now with the economy it makes big news.