I would go even farther and take all the campaign money away.
This would be replaced by Publicly Funded Elections.
If you think that publicly funded elections would be too expensive I would point out what costs we have received from our privately funded elections:
- the financial melt down
- laws that favor large donors but have caused issues like the oil leak in the gulf, tax breaks for taking jobs overseas, and lots of special laws for those that gave money...or invested money in a way that games the political machine.
If money is free speech I would like to hear what a $100 bill can say on its own.
Ron Paul and other members of the house use campaign dollars for personal use to the tune of Millions. Acceptable or not?
Assassin~ Badass Buzz Guru
2012/03/22 20:08:12
|
|
|||||
|
8 votes
|
|
24% | |||
|
25 votes
|
|
76% | |||
In the past two election cycles,
Americans donated close to $2 billion to candidates running for the
U.S. House. Their contributions not only went to fund core campaign costs,
but also to candidates' babysitters, five-star hotels in Athens,
six-figure salaries for candidates' family members and thousands of
dollars in interest payments to the candidates themselves.
A 347-page report on House campaign contributions released Thursday by Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington suggests that it pays to be related to a member of Congress.
Throughout the 2008 and 2010 election cycles, more than half of the
current members of the House - 248 to be exact - each spent more than
$10,000 in campaign cash to pay themselves and their family a combined
total of $5.6 million, according to the non-profit ethics watchdog group
Wanna see who? See the link below. I will give you a hint though. Ron Paul was the worst offender of all for giving donations out to his family members.
Yeah thats right, Mr. I think secret service is welfare.
Read More: http://news.yahoo.com/house-members-dole-millions-...
Top Opinion
-
2468 2012/03/22 20:16:56
Some of us have been trying to tell the Paulistas that Ron Paul isn't who he pretends to be. He is trying to reelect Obie, too.
Those family members were working for his campaign.
• Rep. Ron Paul (R-TX) paid six different relatives a combined $304,599.
6 relatives. Not only his son Rand.
It is no error on my part. The paragraph that included him was framed to elicit that response. If one moves to the back of the report - under the section that refers to Texas - it very clearly states that he paid 6 relatives SALARIES for their services to his campaign. And even your picture states that he paid 6 relatives - more relatives than any other candidate - a *Combined* amount of over $300k.
"Top five representatives paying the most *SALARIES* or fees to family..."
A salary is not the same as a donation, and the salary was paid by his campaign, not taxpayer dollars. The total amount of salaries paid to all 6 relatives was over $300k, which breaks down to around $50k per person and as the law states, he can only hire / pay relatives for REAL services to his campaign.
You just proved my point - you didn't even bother going to the section that outlines his expenses - you cherry-picked one sentence that was framed to elicit precisely your response.
They went to fund babysitters. Of course, if you attend a political function and need a babysitter, it is reasonable and ethical to pay out of the campaign fund.
That's not to say there are abuses, but attacking Ron Paul specifically is a friggin joke.
If you want to talk "worst offenders," I'd look here...
Top five representatives who earmarked to organizations affiliated with them or their family members:
Rep. Kay Granger (R-TX) earmarked $28,364,000 to her son’s project.
Rep. Lewis (D-GA) earmarked a combined $25,512,000 to three relatives’ organizations.
Rep. Bill Young (R-FL) earmarked a combined $16,580,400 to two son’s companies.
Rep. John Mica (R-FL) earmarked $13,000,000 to his daughter’s client.
Rep. Michael Simpson (R-ID) earmarked $12,498,639 to his wife’s employer.
As for Ron Paul...
"Rep. Ron Paul’s campaign (R-TX) paid six relatives salaries or fees, the most [relatives] of any member... Rep. Ron Paul (R-TX) paid six different relatives a combined $304,599...
If you want to talk "worst offenders," I'd look here...
Top five representatives who earmarked to organizations affiliated with them or their family members:
Rep. Kay Granger (R-TX) earmarked $28,364,000 to her son’s project.
Rep. Lewis (D-GA) earmarked a combined $25,512,000 to three relatives’ organizations.
Rep. Bill Young (R-FL) earmarked a combined $16,580,400 to two son’s companies.
Rep. John Mica (R-FL) earmarked $13,000,000 to his daughter’s client.
Rep. Michael Simpson (R-ID) earmarked $12,498,639 to his wife’s employer.
As for Ron Paul...
"Rep. Ron Paul’s campaign (R-TX) paid six relatives salaries or fees, the most [relatives] of any member... Rep. Ron Paul (R-TX) paid six different relatives a combined $304,599. Rep. Paul reimbursed family members $47,421.
Payments to Family Members and Affiliated Organizations:
As the law currently stands, campaign funds may be used to make salary payments to members of a candidate’s family only if the family member is providing a bona fide service to the campaign and is paid fair market value."
There were no earmarks of taxpayer money to his family or their projects, all of the money he paid to family came from his own campaign / committee and it was all for real services, accounting, postage etc. His was mostly for travel expenses. Sorry, but it looks like a pretty sloppy attempt at a gotcha. imo I would bet most of his supporters were already well aware of this.
There is a lot wrong with earmarking taxpayer dollars to family projects.
"Ron Paul was the worst offender of all for giving donations out to his family members."
Not true - he was paying a salary, not giving donations. And it clearly lays out the salaries. He himself made a contribution to his son's campaign. It's his campaign funds - not taxpayer dollars. He can hire whomever he wants and I'm quite sure his supporters expected him to contribute to his son's campaign. Nothing offensive whatsoever about that.
There were reps in there paying one relative 6 figure incomes - he paid 6 relatives a combined amount of **$304k.
There are plenty of people in this report wrongly using campaign, and taxpayer dollars. But Ron Paul isn't one of them.
Assassin, you should know better than to rely on one skewed statement in the article you read and regurgitate it without any research on your own part. The paragraph in the beginning of this report - where it states: "Some reps stick out, like RP who paid 6 relatives" - was designed to elicit exactly your response.
It used other candidates paying "6 figure incomes to relatives" (in some cases one relative) and vaguely tied his "6 figures" (a combined amount paid to ALL 6 of his relatives) to them. Only someone who read further into his expenses would see the unfair connection there.
It was framed that way - and I'm sure you're not the only one who made that presumption as we expect these types of "reports" to be unbiased. You're a reasonable person - if you go look at the outline of his expenses, you will probably agree with me that the paragraph was framed for shock value and his expenses were hardly comparable to those he was lumped in with.