Palin's RNC Shopping Spree Violates McCain-Feingold Act

[Ichingcarpenter]

Let's examine the McCain-Feingold Campaign Reform Act of 2002:

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.'

Pretty clear, isn't it? Organizations like the RNC are prohibited from converting campaign contributions for personal use, including (explicitly) with respect to "clothing purchases".

http://www.govtrack.us/congress/billtext.xpd?bill=h107-2356


I know now they are saying they will give it away to charity but it is already
used goods, used goods, used clothing get it? It was used for clothing


I will add this section also thanks to redstate:


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.

[OneGrassRoot]

1. Holy shit, that's the ultimate embarrassment for McCain....

No wonder he looked like he wanted to throw up sitting next to her.

He quite obviously can't stand her, nor can he stand Cindy.

[ShadowLiberal]

18. It sure is, we need this on the news NOW, no more 'questionable legality' claims about the clothing

All day I've been hearing and reading that it's of 'questionable legality' but 'probably not illegal, but close to it'.

This is awesome. :)

[Tigress DEM]

28. I would LIKE to agree, but they skirted the issue. RNC is not tax deductable.

If it came from McCain's actual campaign funds from actual taxpayers, yes.

Is it still slimmy to the 9th degree. Yes.

If Hil can buy her own clothes and makeup, then so can Palin.

[Loge23]

54. I get that impression also

His face does all kinds of fidgetty stuff when she's speaking.
As for Cindy, Palin is below her pay rate.

[vaberella]

2. Send it to KO and Rachel make it viral.

I knew that shit was illegal and unethical, thank you for finding the proof. They need to realize what the hell they did wrong and what makes this doubly wrong is the fact McCain's name is on this act.

[NorthCarolina]

74. To be honest, I'm surprised the likes of KO or RM weren't immediately aware of this

or at least someone in the news media should have been aware...wouldn't you think?

[mallOUf]

3. Rut Rohhhh..nt

Peace

[BanzaiBonnie]

mallOUF, welcome to DU

[MNDemNY]

4. Does this apply to RNC funds,

or only candidate campaign funds?

[sfam]

7. Only candidate campaign funds...which is why the RNC did this...nt

Caribou Barbie complete with $150K in accessories may be embarrassing but its not illegal.

[Ichingcarpenter]

9. I'm just a simple caveman lawyer

Your world frightens and confuses me! Sometimes the honking horns of your traffic make me want to get out of my BMW.. and run off into the hills, or wherever.. Sometimes when I get a message on my fax machine, I wonder: "Did little demons get inside and type it?" I don't know! My primitive mind can't grasp these concepts.





I don't know, but it sure is fun to throw it out there because the Bill has McCain's name on it!!!

[MNDemNY]

12. May not be true, but true "enough" for a robo-call!!!!

[life_long_dem]

31. Joe the caveman lawyer.

Classic SNL. Thanks.

[No Elephants]

46. LOL! It's certainly truer than most of the things the McCain Palin campaign throws out there.

[redstate_democrat]

26. It appears so.

[David Dunham]

5. This regulation seems to apply to individual candidates not the RNC or DNC

[redstate_democrat]

21. Would this section have any bearing on your conclusion?

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.

[Ichingcarpenter]

33. I added that to the OP thanks..... seems that sort of sums it up

pretty clearly.

[klyon]

67. What is the penalty for this?

[HughMoran]

6. Interesting

I'd be interesting to find out if this is technically a violation.

[tridim]

8. Laws don't apply to Republicans.

Even if that Republican co-authored the law.

[Tigress DEM]

29. McCain types make laws AND loopholes.

It's still disgusting and people who contributed to the RNC are mad anyway.

[zulchzulu]

10. EXCELLENT FIND!

That is a lethal blow to McCain. WOW.

[zulchzulu]

11. Dupe

[AZBlue]

13. It doesn't matter what will happen to it later, what matters is what money was used to buy it now.

But do those rules apply to the RNC or did they skirt the technicality by buying them instead of the campaign itself?

[cui bono]

14. I believe it was Lawrence O'Donnell who brought this up on MSNBC earlier.

So is this something he can get fined for? Or better yet, indicted? :evilgrin:

Of course he already broke campaign finance laws but there's no one in place to enforce them so...

[pinto]

15. Good catch.

:thumbsup:

[Mariana]

16. Do you really believe that McCain wrote this law,

McCain-Feingold, without making sure there were plenty of loopholes for himself?

[dchill]

25. Good point - he IS still making use of the wife's...

plane and money, isn't he?

[jeanmarc]

17. The amounts spent were excessive...but....

I really hate these sorts of stories.

This story really dumbs up America.

[stevenleser]

19. forwarding far and wide. I may also make an article out of this. Would that be OK?

pm me please

[Ichingcarpenter]

20. No problem spread around its from the government site

You can even use what I wrote.

[sohndrsmith]

22. Very well done. Especially in that you included specific legal wording

I wish this wasn't an issue, but it is. Particularly considering how this troupe has presented themselves, and what they say they stand for and care about. I don't know about anyone else, but it takes a LOT OF EFFORT to spend that much money in this short period of time - which makes me wonder how the Gov. of Alaska and her running mate have prioritized how she uses her time. Even if she wasn't there for these "shopping sprees" she would have to be there for fittings and alterations (because she wasn't there for the actual shopping sprees). And there are charges for baby clothes, strollers, etc. too.

No one can recall or describe an expense of this type for other candidates being either necessary or purchased through the national committee through contributor funds.

It is * perfectly * reasonable to have hair and make up pros on hand, as well as clothing/wardrobe managers. But spending at a rate of $2,777 a DAY for all this (or more alarmingly, shopping sprees to the tune of $75,000 - in ONE day) is absolutely unreasonable.

How does that fit with the "small town, plain talking" " REAL" America that this person is trying to project?

it doesn't. Embarrassment is the least of their problems. Being viewed with disgust and legal ramifications should be of concern.

[dchill]

23. What we are going to see is a W I D E interpretetion...

of this phrase: "...that would exist irrespective of the candidate's election campaign." IANAL, but, of course, I did stay at a Holiday Inn Express last night...

[Rosa Luxemburg]

24. does that mean that they are disqualified from the race?

[myrna minx]

27. I wish Norm Coleman would be held to his questionable contributions too.

Look at the budding Scotty McClellan:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VySnpLoaUrI

[Historic NY]

30. They're Republicans they can do anything..the"rule of law" does not pertain to them.

[bushisanidiot]

32. Brilliant Find!! McHate is a complete and total hypocrite!!

he will lie, steal and cheat to win just like his party has always done.
apparently, spending big bucks to dress his VP like a hooker for votes is a-ok with him as well.

barf!

[boppers]

34. Holy...

I just went to add:

"`(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."

And whoosh, it was put in to the parent post before I could!

:D

[Melinda]

35. Sorry, but this doesn't apply. The out: "...shall not be converted by any person to personal use."

"...shall not be converted by any person to personal use."


Palin's goodies are/were not personal, they are/were for the aggregate benefit of the campaign.

The argument: there is no personal conversion -- the makeup, hair styling, and clothing were/are all of benefit to the campaign as a whole; what didn't wear off or wear out will be 'donated' to charity, and not "personally" kept by Palin.

[dbmk]

39. Yep.

For a violation to exist, the argument and proof as to be made that the purchases are for personal use as well, as far as I can tell.

Which would be pretty hard to do until after the election, giving the campaign ample time to respond to this in terms of compliance.

Doesn't hurt that it is being questioned, but I woud probably refrain from making the claim that the law was broken, as that can be easily shot down at this point.

[redstate_democrat]

40. Is clothing for her kids and husband not personal?

The law clearly says that any item that is purchased, that would normally be something that the candidate would need to have anyway, despite the campaign, is personal use. Clothing on your back is needed regardless of whether or not one is campaigning.

A baby sling is personal.

A Louis Vuitton purse is personal.

A suit for your First Dude is personal.

Underwear is personal.

[Melinda]

44. Not in this instance... (uuuuh - underwear?)

You said:

"The law clearly says that any item that is purchased, that would normally be something that the candidate would need to have anyway, despite the campaign, is personal use. Clothing on your back is needed regardless of whether or not one is campaigning."

And you are correct in this regard, BUT -- the clothing and other items purchased for Palin are not items she would wear or use in her normal day to day activities or employment which is why and how they are skirting the statute. Palin would never shop at nor wear items from Saks, Nordstroms, et al, hence she gets to enjoy them now.

The pertinent part of the statute:

(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..."

<end snip>

Granted, that while the need for the baby sling and underwear seems to exist irrespective of Palin's campaign, the argument could be made that the baby sling would not be needed if Palin were not campaigning (I've seen pics of her in AK w/a sling on tho). As to the undies, foundation garments may be required accoutrement for the couture... however, this area seems to be a bit of a stretch.

The rest of the argument goes like this: A properly attired 1st Dude is needed for the campaign, and Sarahcudda's personal appearances on the campaign trail necessitate that she not only show well, but show as well as the potential 1st Lady, ie; she gets to carry the Vuitton purse for at least another 13 days (really, they got her a Vuitton bag? -- mind-blowing).

Now, if she keeps any of these items after the campaign... that's another story. ;)

[klyon]

69. I imagine all these items can be sold on e-bay at a profit after

the campaign. Who pays for King George's expensive black suits? And does he get to keep them?

[Blue Diadem]

48. It would be illegal if it came from McCain's campaign fund, but because the RNC

provided the money, it puts it in a fuzzy area according to this article.

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1008/14840.html

snip:
Campaign finance laws prohibit candidates from spending donor cash to their authorized personal campaign committee on costs “that would exist irrespective of the candidate’s election campaign,” including clothing, vacations and gym memberships.

But the law does not prohibit such expenditures by party committees, and Congress has killed legislation to expand the personal use ban to those and other types of political committees.

The fuzzy part in the Palin case is that the RNC used money from an account designated for “coordinated,” or shared, expenditures with the McCain-Palin candidate account.

The Federal Election Commission, which interprets federal campaign finance laws, has never been asked to address this issue. And legal experts say the key question is: From which side of the joint account was the money drawn?
-------------------------------------------
According to a lawyer who advises Republican candidates, Palin may still have to declare the clothing as gifts and pay taxes on it minus the fair market value at the time she donates the clothing to charity.

[thereismore]

50. So Palin is considered a non-person, a prop, of the campaign? nt

[Melinda]

59. No, just her 150k wardrobe... the one she's never previously bought for herself. eom

[JPZenger]

52. So as long as she only wears the clothes to rallies, its OK?

This action certainly violates the spirit of McCain's prized accomplishment.

[Melinda]

60. Yes. as long as she wears the wardrobe while campaiging... I'd like to see the receipts to check ...

for lingerie tho... that would be a no-no unless she'd decided to do a scantily clad 'campaign' centerfold for Moose Monthly Magazine.

[treestar]

56. Paragraph 2 says it shall be considered to be converted to personal use

if it is used for any expense the person would have regardless of the campaign. Phailin would need clothes whether she were campaigning for VP or not.

[Melinda]

58. In this instance, clothing isn't clothing & campaign expenses aren't normal personal expenses....

No doubt the most high end fashion shopping Ms. Palin has ever done in her life was a trip to TJ Maxx and it is preceisely for this reason that the high end purchases are exceptional to the personal use rule.

Now if her wardrobe had been bought at Walmart... and therein lies the difference. Mark my words, it's because they bought her items she could never personally buy that makes it allowable.

[Essene]

62. exactly. there is no violation going by that clause

especially if they made sure to announce it will all be donated to charity.

the issue there, however, are the clothing for the children.

[FLyellowdog]

36. Actually, Palin violates her act as a decent human being.

[Undercurrent]

37. Loophole?

The MSM is starting to question the legality of this.

--

A Legal Issue With Palin Couture?

22 Oct 2008 09:52 am
An election lawyer will be able to help answer this, but can a candidate use campaign or party coordinated expenditures for clothing?

http://marcambinder.theatlantic.com/archives/2008/10/a_legal_issue_with_palin_coutu.php

--

Receiving more than $150,000 in clothing and accessories from the Republican National Committee last month doesn't just run counter to Gov. Sarah Palin's image as a "Wal-Mart Mom from Wasilla," it also might have violated the spirit if not the letter of a campaign finance law co-authored by her running mate Sen. John McCain...

...However, in May 1993, McCain said "The use of campaign funds for items which most Americans would consider to be strictly personal reasons, in my view, erodes public confidence and erodes it significantly."

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2008/10/22/MN5Q13MAOF.DTL&type=politics

--

When news broke that Gov. Sarah Palin and her family managed to spend $150,000 of other people's money on clothes after joining the McCain ticket, many scratched their heads. Is that legal?

Thanks to a loophole in federal law the answer, experts say, is yes.

Handily, the loophole was codified into law by the landmark campaign finance law passed by her ticketmate, Sen. John McCain.

It would be illegal for the McCain-Palin campaign to buy a new wardrobe for Palin and her husband, say campaign finance lawyers contacted by ABCNews.com. But the law is silent on whether such purchases can be made by the Republican National Committee (RNC).

"The party committee has much greater latitude," said Kenneth Gross, a federal election lawyer. "I think it is permissible for the party committee to make that judgment."

http://abcnews.go.com/Blotter/Vote2008/story?id=6089060&page=1


--

However, at the very least, Palin may be stuck with a big tax bill! :evilgrin:

--

Palin's $150,000 makeover may raise her tax bill
By Ryan J. Donmoyer
Bloomberg News
Tucson, Arizona | Published: 10.22.2008

Republican vice presidential nominee Sarah Palin’s costly makeover may raise her tax bill.
The Republican National Committee disclosed spending more than $150,000 through Sept. 30 for designer clothes, shoes, makeup and other accessories for Palin, or the equivalent of about $5,000 per day since John McCain picked her as his running mate in August. After the expenditures were reported by Politico, the campaign said it had always been the intention to donate the clothing to charity.

As for her taxes, Palin earned $166,080 last year, according to her IRS returns. Under some circumstances, the Internal Revenue Service may consider the clothing taxable as income to her, experts said. As a former Goldman Sachs Group Inc. banker learned last year, the write-off for donating used designer clothing can amount to a fraction of their retail value.

“This is clearly income,” said Paul Caron, associate dean of the University of Cincinnati School of Law and editor of TaxProf Blog. “The charitable deduction will not eliminate all, or most, of the income.”

http://www.azstarnet.com/sn/hourlyupdate/263691.php

[davidpdx]

38. Someone needs to blog this and then put it on Digg

in order to get it out there. If it is talked about enough, it is possible the MSM will pick that up.

[davidpdx]

41. According to Ben Smith, he consulted an elections law expert

who said it wasn't illegal. I still think this is a story to push though.

http://www.politico.com/blogs/bensmith/1008/Clothes_and_the_law.html

Daily Kos also weighs in:

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2008/10/21/214644/85

[genna]

43. What was the intent of the law in the first place? Why is it alright for the party but not for the

candidate?

If the intention is not convert campaign dollars to personal use, then the clothes on your back are a conversion, right?


If it is a loophole, what justifies the restriction for the candidate but not for the party. If the candidate can work around the law by getting the party to do what would be illegal for the candidate, what good is the original law?


McCain has been going after Obama for choosing not to do townhalls or stick to the public campaign finance spending limits. For me who believes that politicians will ensure good government when they AVOID having a donor incentive, Obama shot a flaming dart into the heart of Campaign Finance Laws by opting out. I accepted it because I knew the Wright, he's black meme, and Ayers/Rezko/any other character question by association screed would force Obama to confront the detractors. Here, McCain has shown a level of deceit that is heretofore unthinkable: reform maverick who seeks to work around his maverick legislation.


I pity you McCain. This is no Keating 5 situation. It does suggest your reputation is going to take a BIG HIT.

[mwei924]

42. Don't you know?

That law was written by the late Socialist John McCain.

[KnaveRupe]

45. You gotta wear fancy clothes to be a Maverick!!!!

[npincus]

47. HA HA... sent link to OP to Huffpo

:rofl:

[babsbunny]

49. Feingold should get on the T.V. machine and say something!

:grr: :grr: :grr: :grr: :grr: :grr: :grr: :grr: :grr: :grr: :grr: :grr: :grr: :grr: :grr:

[elbram]

72. I hope Feingold submits to remove McCain from the title

...or at least switch it to read Feingold-McCain.

[Poiuyt]

51. Great catch!

[pleah]

53. K&R! Failin, the gift that keeps giving.

[robertpaulsen]

55. K & R! This is too rich!

:kick:

[Ichingcarpenter]

57. CREW says the clothing purchases violate the Federal Election Campaign Act,

An open government group is requesting an investigation by the Federal Election Commission into the reported $150,000 in campaign donations spent to outfit Republican vice presidential nominee Sarah Palin.

Reports emerged this week that the Republican National Committee spent more than three-times the median US family income to buy Palin clothes at posh department stores like Nieman Marcus and Saks Fifth Avenue. Critics say the six-figure wardrobe budget undercuts Palin's "average American" image, and some are questioning whether the purchases also violate federal election law.

“It is ridiculous that RNC would spend $150,000 to outfit a vice presidential nominee and her family at any time, but it is more outrageous given the dire financial straights of so many Americans and the state of our economy," said Melanie Sloan, executive director of Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington. "As if that isn’t bad enough, the expenditures violate campaign finance law. The FEC should investigate immediately.”

CREW says the clothing purchases violate the Federal Election Campaign Act, which prohibits a candidate converting campaign funds to personal use, including clothing. Republicans have said they planned to donate the clothes to charity after the campaign season is over.

"If the RNC had an extra $150,000 to throw around, there were better alternatives than pricey designer clothes," Sloan said. "For example, $150,000 could fund three Alaska teachers’ yearly salaries; library books for the Juneau, Alaska School district for nearly two years; health care premiums for 31 working Americans or 12 families; flu vaccinations for just over 6000 people, or pay the heating bills for 131 low-income households this winter."

http://rawstory.com/news/2008/Group_wants_FEC_probe_of_...

[livetohike]

61. K & R

:kick:

[Alcibiades]

63. We need to say it loud and often

Who wouldn't denounce such clearly unethical behavior? It is clearly designed to skirt McCain-Feingold. And so we come full circle--McCain violates the one legislative accomplishment he could point to as reform.

[shagsak]

64. Oops!

Does this mean the media will finally stop covering it? Since she obviously broke rules and when repugs do that it rarely gets coverage.

[SemperEadem]

65. see the problem with things like this

is that it's written to hogtie the opposing party, but it hogties the thugs just the same and there are no exceptions written into the language of that act to exclude the thugs.

[L. Coyote]

66. Error: you can only recommend threads which were started in the past 24 hours

[bobd0]

68. Juan Cole is all over this today.

http://www.juancole.com/2008/10/palin-plumber.html

[elbram]

70. ...not sure why I am surprised

I know he co-authored it, but it makes me wonder if McCain even read it.

...he seems like the "Cliff's notes" kind of guy to me.

[meow2u3]

71. McLamebrain broke his own law!

:evilgrin:

[Politicub]

73. The language is plain and simple

Easy for folks to understand. It's too sweet that McCain's own name is attached to this law.

[OneBlueSky]

75. ROFL . . . now THAT's funny! . . . n/t

.