Posted on 12/29/2010 2:05:58 PM PST by freespirited
I’d like to be on that email list.
“The law is crystal clear on this issue and that is not allowed.”
Do you have an excerpt and link to the law?
Yeah, right.
Sarah should have supported the liberal, left of the democrats, RINO Christopher Coons who sold us out in the Lame Duck session.
Over 70% of the candidates Sarah backed won, many in democrat districts or replaced establishment RINO’s. Little (actually nothing) is mentioned about her “Take Back 20” campaign that targeted 20 specific Democrat held house seats. (Winning 19 of them)
The press makes a big deal out of about three of the losses they have chosen to focus on (ignoring ALL the wins, like Marco Rubio, Susana Martinez, Rand Paul, Nikki Haley, etc). They never mention the millions Romney and the GOP spent on losing candidates like Meg Whitman, or Dino Rossi, etc.
What this shows is Palin isn’t afraid to buck the establishment out of principle, even if the odds are long.
Was O’Donnell a flawed candidate? Probably. Would she have done a better job for America than Chris Coons? Absolutely.
This is actually a sign of Palin’s character, despite the media’s constant derision.
Don’t let the media herd you around like such a sheep. All you are doing is parroting their narrative.
Sad.
Regulations are here:
http://www.fec.gov/law/cfr/11_cfr.pdf
http://www.fec.gov/law/cfr/cfr.shtml
§ 113.2 Permissible non-campaign use of funds (2 U.S.C. 439a).
In addition to defraying expenses in connection with a campaign for federal office, funds in a campaign account or an account described in 11 CFR 113.3:[...]
(e) May be used for any other lawful purpose, unless such use is personal use under 11 CFR 113.1(g).
[...]
§ 113.1 Definitions (2 U.S.C. 439a). When used in this part—And the law is here: 2 U.S.C. § 439a : US Code - Section 439A: Use of contributed amounts for certain purposes:[...]
(g) Personal use. Personal use means any use of funds in a campaign account of a present or former candidate to fulfill a commitment, obligation or expense of any person that would exist irrespective of the candidate’s campaign or duties as a Federal officeholder.(1)(i) Personal use includes but is not limited to the use of funds in a campaign account for any item listed in paragraphs (g)(1)(i)(A) through (J) of this section:(A) Household food items or supplies.
[...]
(E) Mortgage, rent or utility payments—
(1) For any part of any personal residence of the candidate or a member of the candidate’s family; or(F) Admission to a sporting event, concert, theater or other form of entertainment, unless part of a specific campaign or officeholder activity.
(2) For real or personal property that is owned by the candidate or a member of the candidate’s family and used for campaign purposes, to the extent the payments exceed the fair market value of the property usage.
(G) Dues, fees or gratuities at a country club, health club, recreational facility or other nonpolitical organization, unless they are part of the costs of a specific fundraising event that takes place on the organization’s premises.
(H) Salary payments to a member of the candidate’s family, unless the family member is providing bona fide services to the campaign. If a family member provides bona fide services to the campaign, any salary payment in excess of the fair market value of services provided is personal use.
[...]
[...]
(b) Prohibited use
(1) In general
A contribution or donation described in subsection (a) of this section 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;
[...]
Note, formatting is not exact, but I'm not going to spend any more time on it. The links are there and you can check it out in the original. :-)
Also, I included some of the part that references other possible charges in the complaints, such as the bowling outing. But I did not include the Tea Party stuff.
Thank you for that law, but it appears no law was broken:
“ROBERTS: But not just one, but two former people from your campaign are making these allegations, Christine.
O’DONNELL: Right. And the other one is someone who was fired after a week and a half. So, you know, you have to look at the credibility of their sources. And as these two fired, disgruntled, former people involved with my campaign have started making these allegations, even more people who were involved with the 2008 campaign have risen up to say, hey, you know, I was involved with her for months, more than just a week and a half, and didn’t see this.
snip
ROBERTS: But not just one, but two former people from your campaign are making these allegations, Christine.
O’DONNELL: Right. And the other one is someone who was fired after a week and a half. So, you know, you have to look at the credibility of their sources. And as these two fired, disgruntled, former people involved with my campaign have started making these allegations, even more people who were involved with the 2008 campaign have risen up to say, hey, you know, I was involved with her for months, more than just a week and a half, and didn’t see this.
snip
SMITH: -and people want to know - I know you have a book deal now - but over the last 18 months, did you use campaign money to-
O’DONNELL: No.
SMITH: -pay your rent or pay your personal expenses?
O’DONNELL: Absolutely not. There has been no impermissible use of campaign funds. And, you know, you got to look at how many ridiculous accusations have been taken out of context. Even though it is legally permitted, I have never taken a dime in salary from the campaign.
SMITH: All right.
O’DONNELL: They’re taking things out of context like, like expenditures for volunteer appreciations, or, or the rent for our campaign office. This is what’s being twisted in order to slander my reputation.
SMITH: Christine O’Donnell, we thank you for your time this morning, appreciate it.
O’DONNELL: Thank you, Harry.
snip
but then, the U.S. attorney’s office has since now confirmed that there is, in fact, an inquiry, a reviewing of a complaint made about your campaign spending. Have you been contacted? And what is your response to this news?
CHRISTINE O’DONNELL: No, we still have not been contacted, and I find it very suspicious that the AP was tipped off before my lawyer or any formal notice has been made to my campaign. But you can see right through these, if you look closer. That soundbite that you played from Kristin Murray, who was fired from my 2008 campaign after a week and a half of working on the campaign, these allegations, these false accusations of using funds for rent the CREW complaint states 2009. She worked in 2008 on the campaign, so that soundbite that you played where she said, oh, I saw that she was using it for rent. What, you saw into the future with your crystal ball? I mean, this is exactly why we had to fire her. And if you look closer, this is the same CREW complaint that was filed several months ago by Melanie Sloan, a former Biden staffer from CREW, which is a George Soros, left-wing organization, and their key witness here, this is what’s most telling, their key witness was a volunteer from 2008, who was also let go, who has since become so obsessed with this whole thing he’s posting pornographic statements abt me on Facebook, so-
CURRY: Now, let me interrupt you here because people don’t know what CREW is. CREW is Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington and saying that you’ve misused more than $20,000 worth of campaign funds, quote, “as your own personal piggy bank” for things like rent and gas and meals and even a bowling outing. So let me ask you now point blank, have you ever used any of the campaign funds you have raised - and you’ve raised millions - have you ever used any of your campaign funds for personal use?
CHRISTINE O’DONNELL: No.
CURRY: Not for rent?
CHRISTINE O’DONNELL: There has, there’s, no, the rent they’re talking about is the townhouse that is our office, and we’ve, you know, we housed the staffers who are from down state and out of state. We’re talking about volunteer-
CURRY: But weren’t you living in that townhouse, Christine?
CHRISTINE O’DONNELL: No, I was using that, here’s where the miscommunication comes in. Because my home was vandalized and eggs thrown at my house, I paid the campaign, I paid the campaign money to use the townhouse as my legal residency. Not the campaign pays me. So they’re taking it totally out of context, something innocent, they’re trying to twist as negative in order to further this slanderous attack.
CURRY: Now, you mentioned Kristin Murray, and I’m going to interrupt you here because I want to get to this other statement made, in fairness to you, your 2008, again it’s 2008, but he was your campaign finance director, as you know, David Keegan. He told the New York Times in September - let me just get this out - that he quote, “was consistently trying to hold you back from spending,” and that you were quote, “financially completely irresponsible.” This seems to be, you know, his statement and Christine’s statement and the Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington, seems to be sort of the source of all of this. What’s your response to that?
CHRISTINE O’DONNELL: Right, well, again, he was not a finance director, he was a volunteer who organized a fund-raiser at his home, and he gave so many people on the team the creeps that we had to let him go. By late August, he was not invited to any more campaign events, and it was an ongoing issue in 2008. Again, Kristin Murray, we fired her. She was fired from the Delaware GOP. We tried to give her a chance, and she was fired after a week and a half for incompetence.
CURRY: You’re saying this is really disgruntled employees and politically motivated?
CHRISTINE O’DONNELL: Absolutely.
CURRY: But let me ask you this then-
CHRISTINE O’DONNELL: And since then, well, let me finish on this-
CURRY: Okay.
CHRISTINE O’DONNELL: -because since then, since then, many people involved with the 2008 campaign, including a real campaign manager, John Mosley, have stepped up to the plate and say, look, I was involved much longer than Dave Keegan, much longer than Kristen Murray, and saw them for what they were. We’ve had numerous people step up and say look at this for what it is, people involved in 2008. So, you know, again, these are disgruntled employees, and look at the source, check out their credibility. Again, Kristin Murray is saying she saw something. The CREW complaint says that in 2009, I was misusing funds. She worked for us for a week and a half in 2008. So, again, what, she saw it through her crystal ball? Look at this for what it is”
read more: http://www.mrc.org/biasalert/2010/20101231031008.aspx
I'm getting really sick of her victim mentality, too.
I really wonder how dishonest and nuts a so-called "conservative" con artist would have to be before blind knee-jerk support of her would break down.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.