So when is Palin giving back all the clothes?

[Squink]

@eleanorigby

Here is an update on the clothes. (and I don’t envy this envoy his job)

Receiptrequiredforreturn

So, who is paying for the lawyer’s plane trip?
Who should pay for the nontrivial recovery costs being racked up here?

[flickster]

@stockton

Just in case you’re serious about this query, she paid for them herself.

She owns them.

If Palin’s campaign wardrobe was funded by the RNC - what’s the difference to the taxpayer, or you?

[Guinastasia]

@gonzomax

I lean slightly left and I do not care about her clothes at all. I do not care if she wears none. Wait, maybe I do care about that.
If the repubs actually went to Alaska to get back the clothes ,they are classless bastards.

Why? They weren’t her’s to keep. Again, they were funded by the campaign.

[MOIDALIZE]

Imelda Palin

[Dripping]

@gonzomax

If the repubs actually went to Alaska to get back the clothes ,they are classless bastards.

So if Palin promised to give the clothes back, then claimed to have “lost” a bunch of them, then absconded to Alaska with all the rest (resulting in legal action against her), what does that make her, exactly?

[Squink]

@flickster

If Palin’s campaign wardrobe was funded by the RNC - what’s the difference to the taxpayer, or you?

Well, then the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002 (McCain Feingold) has likely been violated, and someone needs to go to jail.
We all have an interest in seeing the laws of the nation enforced, right?

[flickster]

@Squink

Well, then the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002 (McCain Feingold) has likely been violated, and someone needs to go to jail.
We all have an interest in seeing the laws of the nation enforced, right?

Pointing out the section that has been likely violated might be helpful - don’t have the time, or interest, otherwise

[Guinastasia]

If this had been Michelle Obama, let’s face it-Rush and Co. would be screaming from the rooftops about it.

Remember how much bitching there was about supposed “vandalism” at the WH when Clinton left-pranks involving “W” key-covers missing? Don’t you think this is a lot worse?

[Squink]

@flickster

Pointing out the section that has been likely violated might be helpful - don’t have the time, or interest, otherwise

Busy dude, are you?

TITLE III–MISCELLANEOUS

SEC. 301. USE OF CONTRIBUTED AMOUNTS FOR CERTAIN PURPOSES.

Title III of the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971 (2 U.S.C. 431 

et seq.) is amended by striking section 313 and inserting the following:

``SEC. 313. <<NOTE: 2 USC 439a.>> USE OF CONTRIBUTED AMOUNTS FOR CERTAIN
PURPOSES.

``(a) Permitted Uses.--A contribution accepted by a candidate, and 

any other donation received by an individual as support for activities
of the individual as a holder of Federal office, may be used by the
candidate or individual–
(1) for otherwise authorized expenditures in connection with the campaign for Federal office of the candidate or individual; (2) for ordinary and necessary expenses incurred in
connection with duties of the individual as a holder of Federal
office;
(3) for contributions to an organization described in section 170(c) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986; or (4) for transfers, without limitation, to a national,
State, or local committee of a political party.

``(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;

[Tim_T-Bonham.net]

@flickster

If Palin’s campaign wardrobe was funded by the RNC - what’s the difference to the taxpayer, or you?

The RNC got $50 million of taxpayer money to put on that Convention. If it came out of that, then, yes, it is a concern to taxpayers.

[astro]

@Frank

I’m curious as to what is happening with the clothes too.

It was clearly stated by the Republican campaign that they were NOT Palin’s clothes, and that the campaign would donate them after the election.

What I expect is that that statement will turn out to have meant, “Wait until all the facts are in,” and that the next statement - after it turns out that Palin and her family kept the clothes - will be, “That’s old news; who cares?”

The only thing that will keep me from believing this to be the typical bullshit (on, I’ll admit, a minor scale) that we’ve listened to for the last eight years is a very public accounting of what happens to those clothes.

The upshot is that they gave a very aggressive person a free ticket to what now appears to be almost $ 200,000 worth of clothing expenditures. They thought they were handling her, and she was handling them. Given the amount and level of clothing purchased she can easily give back a number of items and claim it’s a done deal, but is anyoine is niave enough to think the best itmes will not stay securely ensconced in her and her family’s closets you are very mistaken.

[gonzomax]

@Guinastasia

Why? They weren’t her’s to keep. Again, they were funded by the campaign.

What are they going to do with used clothes? it is petty. It just says what they really think of her. It is not much. If she actually looked like someone they wanted to follow,they would have never mentioned the clothes.

[Guinastasia]

@gonzomax

What are they going to do with used clothes? it is petty. It just says what they really think of her. It is not much. If she actually looked like someone they wanted to follow,they would have never mentioned the clothes.

They auction them off for charity-which was the original plan. Or she pays them back. Either way, what she did was selfish and technically stealing. If I read right, she also spent the money of several campaign workers.

Either way, she’s a diva, and I’m glad she’s nowhere near DC.

[Dripping]

@Guinastasia

They auction them off for charity-which was the original plan.

It was?

So she spent all this time on the obscene shopping spree, even buying Gucci shoes and handbags for her children, knowing full well she could not keep a single sock? Wasn’t that kind of mean to do to the kids?

[astro]

I dare anyone to try and get those clothes back. I double dog dare you.

[Measure_for_Measure]

@Skald_the_Rhymer

Accountable to whom, may I ask? I see no reason that Governor Palin and Senator McCain should be accountable for their spending of campaign funds to anyone other than the Republican National Committee and their donors.

A reasonable question. There are 3 levels of accountability.

1. As you noted, spending about $200,000 on clothes for her and her family when $25,000 - $35,000 is budgeted represents an issue for Republican donors.

2. There’s also the matter of obeying the law. Slush funds were successfully curbed in the 1970s and I for one don’t wish their return. If Palin keeps her clothing, this represents noncash income for the IRS and a possible violation of Federal Election Commission rules. (See the CREW complaint.)

3. Finally this liberal believes that words matter: you don’t just get to make shit up on the campaign trail. If McCain and Palin say one thing, it is a matter of public interest if they break their word, especially when the subject involves nonpecuniary payolla. Responsible citizens use such character guidelines when evaluating claims, assertions and apologies offered by politicians.
   This is certainly not the most important issue facing America. And we could just let the matter drop. But that would be immoral.

[Ale]

@Dripping

So if Palin promised to give the clothes back, then claimed to have “lost” a bunch of them, then absconded to Alaska with all the rest (resulting in legal action against her), what does that make her, exactly?

It makes her a very well dressed maverick?

Be it clothes or whatever the relevant thing is the light this casts on Palin’s character; entitled, vain, predatory and spoiled to name a few.

[Cheesesteak]

@Measure_for_Measure

you don’t just get to make shit up on the campaign trail. If McCain and Palin say one thing, it is a matter of public interest if they break their word,

It’s doubly bad if they say they will do X once the campaign is over, then don’t do X claiming “Who cares? The campaign is over!”

She was caught doing something inappropriate with donated funds, the campaign promised to make good on it, I expect them to follow through.

[BobLibDem]

@flickster

If Palin’s campaign wardrobe was funded by the RNC - what’s the difference to the taxpayer, or you?

If she does not return them and does not declare them as income, then she’s evading income taxes. If she returns them, auctions them off for charity, or donates them to a museum then she’s square with the house.

[Death_of_Rats]

@Guinastasia

Because presumably, he paid for his clothes himself.

As did Joe Biden and John McCain. Part of the reason this blew up the way it did is because these purchases were so out of the norm for campaigning. It also added to the conviction that she was completely unprepared for being the VP candidate. No one else had to have a wardrobe bought for them. No one in recent past campaigns had to have the party buy a wardrobe for them.