Story here
You Have to Pay for That’: California City Bills Obama $35K After Campaign Fundraiser
Another story on same topic here -
Of course he should, the state wouldn’t have had the expense otherwise and he was there for a self-serving purpose not for an event related to his duties as president. What arguments are there that he shouldn’t?
I’m actually surprised this is news: I figured that both he and Romney were regularly charged for the extra security costs they cause locations they fundraiser in. Does this mean places normally get saddled with bills related to campaigning then?
I too feel like he should pay since it was not presidential business that incurred the expenses.
I’d be interested to know what the standard procedure is here.
However, the proper thing would be for the POTUS to pay for expenses he causes local communities to incur related to his campaigning or fundraising activity. Same goes for Romney’s campaign.
For some big sporting events or concerts I know that uniformed police are around to help direct traffic and such before and after the event. Do cities customarily just eat that expense? Although that’s really not the same thing since the municipality benefits from those sort of events, private fundraisers don’t really bring that much money if any into local businesses or do anything for the taxpayers there, and just impose a large expense on their police departments.
I agree that the campaign should pay, if, either that’s the usual practice, or if it is not, the city told them in advance that they would need to do so. But if it’s not customary to charge the campaign, and the city didn’t tell the campaign in advance that it would charge for this, then it’s not appropriate.
No. If the police can bill people for events that the police choose to send bills to, then they can send bills to those holding free speech events and shut down that free speech. Fundraising for politics is part of free speech. This is just another punishment for using free speech rights.
Your objection doesn’t really make sense because they’re talking about billing an organization that made several million dollars off of the event. This is one of those situations where talking in generalities is not useful, I don’t think anyone believes police should get to charge anyone doing stuff in public that might cause some police overtime, so that’s a total non-sequitur.
FWIW the President reimburses the government for lots of stuff as a matter of course, and they always have. It’s not uncommon at all for various personal perks or benefits the First Family receives to be paid for by the First Family’s private funds. Campaigning also is generally not “gratis”, as the incumbent President reimburses the government for things like Air Force One trips related solely to campaigning.
Your concerns are really unfounded because additionally, a citizen oriented “gathering” for example would not really have anyone you’d be able to bill in the first place. What would the police do, somehow track down everyone who was at a citizen event and charge them a portion of the costs?
It’s odd that you are generally against making people and corporations that are making tons of money foot their bills in fees and taxes, but here, where it is entirely political speech and the behavior of the police entirely optional, you are for it.
Oh, wait, “odd” isn’t the word. The word is hypocritical.
Hahahaha!
Sorry, this is my home region, and you’d be hard-pressed to find a more faithful bulwark of the Republican party anywhere in California. Or a more affluent area. So it strikes me as being just a smidge political, if-you-know-what-I-mean…
I love that you’re making an argument I’ve never made and then calling me a hypocrite for having made it. I’ve never had any problem with people paying taxes. You’re confusing anyone who isn’t a Democrat with some Cato Society card-carrying lunatic and/or a member of the Tea Party. That’s your problem, not mine. I’ve always been on the side of sound fiscal policy which necessitates the paying of taxes.
So they send him a bill and he refuses to pay. What’s the next step; small claims court?
So you kinda do support a flat tax, not taking those on ability to pay more because they are raking in more. Kinda the opposite of what you said about he can afford it. So your opinion when it is Obama is kind of different when it is everyone else. That isn’t odd.
This thread brings up an interesting question. Even if the President of the United States was in California on Federal business, why should the state have to foot any part of the bill?
I, for one, would like to see this handled by Judge Marilyn Milian.
Protecting citizens is the job of the police and of the State of California. They certainly could legally choose to deploy their officers doing other things. Just ask Dallas how that goes.
Has this always been standard proceedure with this city? (no)
Did the city tell them before or after the event?
What bugs me is; There sure are a lot of ‘firsts’ for this President.
And I don’t mean that in a good way:
First with the birth certificate. First president that will have voter restriction laws in many states. First with the Debt ceiling bull shit… and other stuff that I’m sure is slipping my mind right now.
Yes, he should pay the bill, but still… :rolleyes:
He should only pay the bill if is was agreed upon before the visit.
7 officers over time is 35k? I’d like to see some more details on this bill.
The video in my first link has some pics of the invoice breakouts.
The daily cost? Those officers would have been on normal duty. So no to that. They are padding the bill.
This is complete bullshit and that city should be ashamed of themselves.
Agreed. If the city had to incur extraordinary expenses (overtime, cancelled leave, equipment getting damaged) that I can see. But “daily cost” (compensation for personnel and depreciation on the equipment) is regular budget.