It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


FEC Ruling - No use of campaign funds for clothing

page: 1

log in


posted on Jul, 18 2009 @ 07:45 AM
Media or Politics? Not sure which forum ...

Story Here - from the Washington Times

After a series of high-profile candidate wardrobe moments, the Federal Election Commission has concluded that using money from federal campaign committees to buy clothing for candidates violates campaign finance laws that prohibit the conversion of political donations for personal use.

The most ballyhooed political wardrobe moment occurred during the 2008 presidential campaign, when the Republican National Committee (RNC) paid about $150,000 for clothing at Saks Fifth Avenue and Neiman Marcus for Mrs. Palin and her family.

The new ruling doesn't cover that case because as a political party, the RNC was allowed to buy the clothes, which Mrs. Palin said would be returned or donated to charity. If Mrs. Palin had used funds from the McCain-Palin presidential committee, she would have run afoul of the law.

More info at the story.

And before anyone says anything .... I did NOT vote for McCain/Palin.

Sorry but I've gotta disagree with this ruling. Having a candidate use funds to dress nice for the TV cameras is no different then a candidate using campaign funds to build a fake greek temple to accept a nomination in. Palin and Obama both did the same thing - made themselves look nicer and made their presentations better for the voters. Once a person donates their money to the candidate of choice, that money is no longer theirs to determine what gets done with it.

If you $$ donate to someone, it's theirs. If they use it to look nicer for the cameras in order to give a good impression and to get elected, that's their business. Once you give it away, it's no longer yours to have a say in.

In this day of HDTV the candidate HAS to look good because the TV cameras pick up EVERYTHING. In this day of paparazi press, the candidate has to look good otherwise they will be torn apart be made a mockery of. Looking good and dressing confident is part of the image that a candidate wishes to present. If campaign funds are used to achieve that goal, then there is nothing wrong with that.


posted on Jul, 18 2009 @ 07:19 PM
I didn't have so much of a problem with that as I did with how she didn't want it. I remember hearing Sarah Palin didn't really want those clothes or John McCain just got her them because he felt she needed them. It's just when they're wasted that's the problem. I have nothing wrong with a candidate- a women candidate using the money she gets from people who spend money out of their own hard earned cash knowing what they're going to spend money on- with them using it for clothes, or, for a male getting it for female if they want it, or, for a male candidate using the money for clothes. Just as long as it's not with our tax dollars I see nothing wrong with this.

posted on Jul, 19 2009 @ 06:33 AM
She donated much of them to charity. I'm sure they were probably auctioned off and they'll bring in more money because they were worn by someone famous.

Clothing is no different then faux-greek collumns on a stage.
It's all to make the candidate look better.
The money was donated so the people should be able to do with it as they see fit.

new topics

log in