Banner ad

Monday, October 15, 2012

The Obama campaign treats their own debts like they do the federal debt

So which campaign pays its bills? This is a very telling difference. One town in Ohio is still owed over $10,000 for a 2008 stop by Joe Biden. And the Obama campaign hasn't paid its expenses for a stop in another Ohio community this summer.
As I reported in August, Copley Township is still owed $10,549 for the expenses it incurred during a 2008 campaign stop by then-vice presidential hopeful Joe Biden.

Copley’s fiscal officer, Janice Marshall, sent a bill to the “Obama for America” campaign but never received a penny.

And Fairlawn rang up $34,146 in police overtime and other expenses this summer when President Barack Obama brought his re-election campaign to town and spent the night at the Hilton Akron/Fairlawn.

Shortly thereafter, Fairlawn’s assistant finance director, Patricia Bertsch, sent a bill to the Obama campaign. She said at the time she wasn’t holding her breath. Good thing. She’d still be holding it.
In contrast the Romney has arranged to pay for a stop this past week in Akron.
[R]egardless of which party you favor, as a taxpayer you have to prefer Romney’s approach to campaign expenses, especially if you live in a small city or town.

The final cost of Tuesday’s rally in the Falls was $7,050, most of it for overtime and facility rental. That’s $7,050 that Cuyahoga Falls’ 49,473 residents won’t have to pay.

The city of Akron, run by a moderate Democrat mayor, said in August it had no intention of billing Obama’s campaign for his 25-minute speech at the John S. Knight Center. The city decided to eat $21,304 in expenses in exchange for what it called the privilege of hosting a sitting president.
It's rather typical of each campaign's approach to the federal debt to see how they pay their own bills, isn't it?

No comments: