A Legal Issue With Palin Couture?

An election lawyer will be able to help answer this, but can a candidate use campaign or party coordinated expenditures for clothing?

See 2 USC 439b(2)(B)

 

(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 title26;

(4) for transfers, without limitation, to a national, State, or local committee of a political party;

(5) for donations to State and local candidates subject to the provisions of State law; or

(6) for any other lawful purpose unless prohibited by subsection (b) of this section.

(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;

(B) a clothing purchase;

(C) a noncampaign-related automobile expense;

(D) a country club membership;

(E) a vacation or other noncampaign-related trip;

(F) a household food item;

(G) a tuition payment;

(H) admission to a sporting event, concert, theater, or other form of entertainment not associated with an election campaign; and

(I) dues, fees, and other payments to a health club or recreational facility.

 

Comments

We already know Palin doesn't care about trifles of legality. That is so beneath her.

Posted by Curtis | October 22, 2008 9:59 AM

(B) a clothing purchase;

I'm not a lawyer but it seems pretty clear that these were campaign related purchases -- it's not as if they were buying her sweatshirts and a pair of Levi's. They don't even have a Saks in Anchorage. As long as she doesn't keep the stuff, they're fine.

Posted by Robert Paulson | October 22, 2008 10:00 AM

Michelle Obama - $148 dress
Sarah Palin - $150,000 in 7 weeks

I bet Joe the plumber is rethinking his donation right about now.

Posted by Tyler Durden | October 22, 2008 10:05 AM

I'm an attorney, but not an election lawyer. Reading the law is reading the fine print, and I don't think there is an issue with this provision of the U.S. Code. Take a close look at the first sentence of para. (a) "A contribution accecpted by a candidate..." If the news reports of the shopping spree are correct, then it was RNC funds that were used NOT money from McCain, I think that is the difference.

Posted by Ellitot Ness | October 22, 2008 10:13 AM

Mr. Paulson,

You may be technically correct (I am not a lawyer) but what about purchases for a third party? I understand some (don't know the exact break down) of the purchases were at men's clothing stores (Atelier) would it matter if the expenses were for the candidate or a family member?

If donating the clothing after the election allows them to abide by the letter of the law I have no doubt they will do so, but we can't lie to ourselves and claim this doesn't violate the spirit. Especially coming from the campaign of McCain, Mr. Election Finance Reform.

Posted by Adolphus | October 22, 2008 10:13 AM

Here's my first-glance take.

Palin would argue that while clothing is an obligation or expense independent of campaign, nice/TV worthy clothing is an obligation only because of the campaign. Not implausible.

BUT, the language of the statute precludes that tack. It precludes clothing expenditures per se, not clothing expenditures "except those necessary to campaign." One might need a bigger house/mortgage payment to campaign (see subsec 2A), but that does not make it a legitimate expense.

Moreover, the statute recognizes that some types of expenses could be either campaign related or not, and specifically provides that they may be paid for by contributions when campaign related. Thus, subsec 2I precludes paying for admission to sporting events, etc., unless "associated with" the election campaign. The legislature could have had the same clause for clothing, but chose not too. Thus, we shouldn't read it into the clothing provision.

Again, rough take. I'd rate it an uphill battle for the RNC on the merits.

Posted by lawyer, but not election lawyer | October 22, 2008 10:17 AM

Tyler,

I am a lawyer as well. I agree with you that this section of the code does not apply, but this is one big loophole if the candidate's own campaign can't pay for clothing but the RNC can. Would this apply to the other things on this list as well including mortgage payments, rent, etc...? Why would the law not allow for a candidates own campaign to pay for this stuff, but allow the RNC to. It just doesn't make sense.

Posted by CM | October 22, 2008 10:20 AM

Others can argue the legality, but I think the couture during this time of financial meltdown shows a *remarkable insensitivity* to the lives and conditions of the "average Americans" who the Republicans claim to represent.

Posted by ET | October 22, 2008 10:24 AM

The September period would cover the convention, yes? Perhaps this came out of the less-regulated convention spending budget?

For example, if the GOP wanted to buy costumes for dancers that preceded each speaker at the convention, I imagine that would be allowed for coordinated/convention spending. The way conventions are trending in terms of showmanship, this is probably less hypothetical than it sounds.

Posted by Zach | October 22, 2008 10:32 AM

but we can't lie to ourselves and claim this doesn't violate the spirit.

I don't think what they've done violates the spirit. The spirit of the law is "don't use campaign funds for personal things not related to the campaign." The clothing would become personal things only if there's no campaign-related reason for buying them, or if you take campaign stuff and make it personal stuff.

These purchases all seem to cluster around early September right around the time of the Republican convention. If you remember the convention as it was televised the night of Sarah Palin's speech, her family's antics were a frequent target for television producers, and the Palin family did appear on stage at one point (they also appeared on stage the night of McCain's speech)-- all broadcast to 70 million people. I don't think you have to stretch or contort your reasoning to say that the campaign/RNC had an interest in making sure that these people looked adequate to the moment. Conventions are nothing if not a big television show at this point. If the Palin's keep the clothes, then they become 'personal' and would then seem to become problematic.

Posted by Robert Paulson | October 22, 2008 10:32 AM

When Palin's tax returns came out she didn't declare the reimbursements from Alaska for working at home --

Major Tax lawyers came out and said she owed taxes on that income. Why did the press not explore this?

They went after "joe" on back taxes due in Ohio but not a potential VP who has her taxes prepared at HR Block and does not disclose full information on her income?

But then again - not that she has to declare all this new "income" maybe we should just wait for one big lump sum review!

Posted by alison | October 22, 2008 10:36 AM

It appears that every comment is focusing on the legality of the issue. I am more concdeerned that the RNC felt a need to remake someone who is already in public life. It also appears to me that as Governor of Alaska, Pallin's wardrobe and dressing style would have past the litmus test for public appearances. Why was it necessary to remake her or was it that she did not fit the profile of the RNC's standards.

B. Shell
Monroe, Louisiana

Posted by B Shell | October 22, 2008 10:37 AM

Who cares if it is quasi legal or not. Buying $150,000 worth of clothes, cheating on your taxes, and then trying to convince the American people that you are just like them is a criminal activity all in itself.

Posted by flounder | October 22, 2008 10:38 AM

The trouble with the defense some are articulating is that Palin is a governor, and presumably a governor of what McCain always calls the nation's "largest state" can't dress like a slob either, as she must of course make numerous on-camera speeches and be on-call at a moment's notice to go on TV cameras in the event of a natural disaster or other crisis.

So the notion that Palin is exempt because, absent her role as VP candidate, she could wear sweats and flip flops, does not wash.

Now, if Joe the Plumber had been plucked from Steve Schmidt's ass to be McCain's running mate, he might be able to justify a large expenditure on suits and dress shoes.

Posted by RaymondA | October 22, 2008 10:39 AM

I remember the days of Camelot during the Kennedy adinistration and the uproar about how much Jackie Kennedy spent on designer clothing. Of course, once you saw Jackie and heard her smokey voice welcome you to the Blue Room at the White House, all was forgiven. Yes, I remember Jackie Kennedy, and Sara Palin, you are no Jackie Kennedy.

Posted by Bruce from Buffalo | October 22, 2008 10:50 AM

Nice to know that someone who is so "obviously not a Washington insider" has so quickly figured out where the insiders buy their clothes. Maybe she will soon figure where they read the Constitution and learn what it is the VP actually does.

Posted by S Rodar | October 22, 2008 10:52 AM

If this was just about making sure the Palin's had some decent clothes to wear for the convention, then why spend the obscene sum of $150k??? Why not rent designer for faaar less? Why not buy something a little less... extravagant? What's wrong with what Palin already owns?

Sorry, but after Palin's Republican cronies in her own state Legislature cited her for breaking Alaska's ethics laws, and her existing questionable use of travel, lodging and food perks, I simply cannot give Palin or the McCain campaign the benefit of the doubt here.

The simple fact remains: While Republican try to own the concepts of understanding and economic compassion with their words, their actions prove much the opposite... Bigtime.

Posted by Jasonhouse | October 22, 2008 11:03 AM

I would prefer a candidate and family who did not need a 'makeover'. Discussing the legality of the expenditure, while important, seems to be only part of the discussion. Impulsive and hasty decision making on the part of the McCain campaign underlies these purchases, as it underlies most of the Palin pick.

Posted by AYC | October 22, 2008 11:08 AM

Why didn't they save 149,500 and just outfit her with the Hockey jerseys from each swing state she visited?

Posted by Neil | October 22, 2008 11:13 AM

I am college graduate with 3years post graduation experience. I earn about $48000 pa annum from my regular job and about $10000 from my weekend job which is going toward paying my student loan.
After reading this article, I realized the next thing for me is to go and donate to the Obama campaign. If RNC can spend $150,000 to cloth a state governor, I think I deserve that tax cut from Obama that has been termed wealth re distribution by the McCain campaign
Being legal does not make it right.

Posted by AnnualIncome | October 22, 2008 11:16 AM

One thing we can all agree on: the RNC should put Palin's clothing on ebay (and, of course, then giveaway the proceeds). It would only be appropriate.

Posted by Robert Paulson | October 22, 2008 11:17 AM

WILL YOU GUYS PLEASE stop reporting on Palin- She won't give a PROPER PRESS CONFERENCE, SO WHY GIVE HER THE TIME OF DAY?

Posted by Jon | October 22, 2008 11:20 AM

Can you imagine the outcry if this had been discovered on Obama's campaign expenses?

Am I supposed to believe that this dangerously ambitious Wasilla wanna-be is going to leave those clothes behind and return to her closet full of polar fleece and Jones New York? Don't think so.

Posted by BJA | October 22, 2008 11:21 AM

I understand clothing for a candidate but that kind of money could of bought 2 houses in my part of the country during this recession. I know 2 familys who wish they could have her clothing allowance DONATIONS.

Posted by johnbyington | October 22, 2008 11:21 AM

I don't get it. WHY DIDN'T MCCAIN JUST PAY OUT OF HIS OWN POCKET???

weird.

Posted by mm | October 22, 2008 11:22 AM

Although I am a complete democrat and would not vite for sarah Palin if she were wearing LL bean cast-offs, it is entirely ok for the party to dress the candidate or even the candidate's wiffe for the hundreds of appearances she had to make. She has to look good, she has to wear different things every few times and why not?
one would hope she would pay for some of it herself since it is her career being advanced.. but the RNC must have had a stylist take her shopping or even shop for her and " dresss" her as we did the wife of the governor of New jersey whose clothes were in terrible taste until they got her a stylist.. she had to look chic.
so did sarah.. the choices have been much more attractive than her opinions or her speeches.. I wonder if they will really give these clothes away though.. she is going ot have an awful lot of speaking engagements., and dressing the kiddies.. that's a little over the line.. shge does have SOme money.
disgusted as always

Posted by jo ann | October 22, 2008 11:22 AM

The average American is watching, horrified, as their retirement
funds go up in smoke, the price of living soar above their income
and their American dream become a nightmare.

As a governor, it would be reasonable for one to assume Ms. Palin already had a suitable "public appearance wardrobe," no?

At the moment, their are people living in their cars, under bridges and in squatter situations. Parents are unable to afford
health care for their children, college tuition and often basic
nutritious meals to feed their children.

This blatant show of wasteful spending is nothing more
than the pinnacle of insensitivity and the GOP mockery of the
people they claim to represent. If Sarah is like us, then she
would most likely be wearing the rags from her local Goodwill
store and crappy shoes from the local Target.

I'd love to have that much money to spend on clothes-
but like other Americans, at the moment I am more concerned
about paying for groceries and keeping enough gas in the tank to get to work.

The hypocrisy of the people in Washington never fails to
stun the average American- What is surprising is that
the citizens accept it.

BHN

Posted by BeHereNow | October 22, 2008 11:24 AM

No question Palin needed a new wardrobe for the trail... but the smart thing would have been for Cindy McCain to outfit her, at her own expense, as a personal gift. People might still have seen it as wasteful, but there'd have been no impropriety or appearance thereof.

Something tells me that Cindy wouldn't have been too happy about that idea :)

Posted by Zach | October 22, 2008 11:25 AM

I think the attempts to justify the purchases as possibly legal miss the point. Republicans made a big deal out of Edwards $300 haircut. Where's the outrage now? furthermore, they call Obama an elitist, and yet none of the Dem candidates have spent $150,000 on clothes. How can anyone justify this kind of behavior, and then hypocritically slam the other side for significantly less egregious behavior. Talk about out of touch.

Posted by ESL | October 22, 2008 11:27 AM

Many people seem to be missing the issue here when they say that it is appropriate for the RNC to purchase the clothes because it is part of her job to look good. As a lawyer, it is also helpful for my job to look good. I have suits that I bought specifically because I am a lawyer and want to make a good impression. However, neither I nor my firm can write the cost of these suits off on my tax returns.

The law above seems very clear with regard to what a campaign can do. Even though clothes undoubtedly are important and necessary for a candidate, the candidate's campaign may not pay for the clothes. Why should the rule then allow for the RNC to buy the clothes for her? In other words, does it make sense that her own campaign can't buy the clothes for her but the RNC can? If this is possible, it clear violates the spirit of the law.

Posted by CM | October 22, 2008 11:42 AM

People who are saying: "But the RNC paid for the clothes, not the McCain Campaign."

How do we know? The RNC and the McCain campaign are so intertwined, think McCain-Palin Vicory Fund'08. That's run WITH the RNC.

Posted by brynb2 | October 22, 2008 11:43 AM

But $300 at a high-end baby store? I guess the RNC can justify this, too, since that poor baby has been pretty much a campaign prop.

Posted by KM | October 22, 2008 11:45 AM

As an election lawyer, let me say the FEC makes it pretty darned clear that political contributions can't be used to pay for a candidate's wardrobe. It specifically defines "personal use" to include "clothing, other than items of de minimis value that are used in the campaign, such as campaign 't-shirts' or caps with campaign slogans." 11 CFR 113.1(g)(1)(i)(C). A candidate can't convert political funds to personal use. The FEC doesn't make an exception for clothing that's only worn at campaign events and then is later donated to charity.

The FEC puts clothing on the same level as "household food items," "funeral, cremation or burial expenses" (unless the candidate or a volunteer is killed in the course of a campaign activity), concert tickets (unless part of a specific campaign or officeholder activity), health club dues, tips at a country club, and mortgage payments on a candidate's home (where the home is not used for the campaign).

The rules are pretty clear-cut. This isn't the type of thing where election lawyers are asking the FEC for advisory opinions because it's a murky rule that needs more explanation.

Posted by AllenM | October 22, 2008 11:45 AM

It's illegal unless Palin reports the gifts as income. The Bush DOJ indicted Puerto Rico Governor Aníbal Acevedo Vilá in March for this exact offense (using funds from political supporters to bestow a wardrobe on him, without tax payments).

The McCain campaign is trying to say the clothes are RNC property and will be donated later. This may be legally shaky in the first place (Ted Stevens-style casuistry aside, it's hard to imagine a more personal possession than the clothes you wear). Even if this passed the smell test, Sarah Palin would owe taxes on the use value of this wardrobe for the campaign--which is a lot, if you consider that it's the price of a 2BR house in many of the less bubbly markets of this country.

Posted by T.W. | October 22, 2008 11:49 AM

AllenM,

I am glad to see that I am not the only one who thinks at a bare minimum the story here is the blatant violation of the spirit of the law if not in fact the law. The RNC is claiming that this was a coordinated expenditure and that the clothing will be auctioned off to charity at the end of the election. Does that get them around the law?

Posted by CM | October 22, 2008 11:53 AM

Foreign Affairs Officers and other people in diplomatic positions get clothing allowances for work. It's just a cost associated with being in a visible position. You must look good, you represent your country. So while the amount and content (high $ couture) is over the top, it is not wrong in principle for the campaign to buy her clothes. She should not be able to keep them, though, without purchasing the pieces for herself, because this is just a campaign. So logically it all makes sense, even if it feels a little skeevy. They could have outfitted her well enough for a fraction of the cost.

Posted by Siryn | October 22, 2008 11:55 AM

The story here is not how much her clothes cost.

The story is that the RNC was dumb enough not to get someone else (a 'benefactor' - Zach suggested Cindy McCain) to pay for it all. The story is that the RNC is dumb enough to have this kind of stuff on the books for all to see.

I guess we really know how moronic they truly are in running this joke of a campaign, right?

Posted by Jennifer | October 22, 2008 11:55 AM

Jennifer,

I doubt Cindy could buy her the clothes without violating FEC laws. I don't think for the purpose of Palin that the law treats Cindy's money any different than an other donor's

The interesting thing here is that if what the RNC did is okay, then they could seemingly pay for all of the clothes and expenses of all Republican candidates. It just doesn't smell right.

Posted by CM | October 22, 2008 11:59 AM

Ben Smith says an election lawyer says it is legal. Still ridiculous though.

http://www.politico.com/blogs/bensmith/1008/Clothes_and_the_law.html?showall

Posted by CM | October 22, 2008 12:02 PM

Palin is a poor excuse for a vice-presidential candidate. She should stick to pagents where she can really "perform". This "maverick reformer" has submitted receipts for her children's travel on the taxpayers dime, she has garnered a $150,000 wardrobe on the contributers dime...maverick..yeah she's a real reforming maverick. OPEN YOUR EYES she is just another scheming Republican. I hope we all remember this when she is running for President in 2012.

Posted by Chester | October 22, 2008 12:09 PM

I was actually thinking a bunch of private benefactors - not just one.

Picking on Palin for spending someone else's money on a new power suit for her many daily appearances (but not interviews) plays straight into the hands of 'Joe the Plumber.'

It just magnifies the fact that Palin and her family make far less money than the McCains - and even the Obamas. As much as I hate to say it, she's a bit of an outsider in this regard.

She may even qualify for a tax break under Obama's plan. Am I wrong?

Posted by Jennifer | October 22, 2008 12:10 PM

The RNC simply has to say that this is a “Costume” and not clothing.

Posted by Mike Conwell | October 22, 2008 12:18 PM

Is this really any different than so many other trapping that are paid for by both campaigns....

Things like....
Those idiotic columns at Mile High Stadium
Painting campaign planes
Painting campaign buses
Makeup for TV interviews
As someone said earlier...having your own TV channel

Then general purpose is to make the campaigner look better. If the thought is that they need a new wardrobe that will be then donated to charity then that is what it takes. It wouldn't surprise me at all if there were some wardrobe needs that the Palins weren't prepared for when they took on the job. It is an awful lot of ado about nothing to me...but it is anti-Palin so it must be news.

BTW has anyone looked to see if campaigns bought anything of interest for the other 3 candidates.

Posted by JB | October 22, 2008 12:19 PM

She does not give a damn to the law or to ethics or to corruption or to taxpayers. She is a unique fraud.

She must be the only VP candidate in our history who has been:

* found guilty of ethics lapses

* shown to be corrupt for spending taxpayers money on her kids travels and expenses

* fleeced the state by charging state per diem while staying at home

* breaking election law by spending $150,000 of campaign money on buying high fashion dresses

Posted by Amen | October 22, 2008 12:20 PM

I think if some of these people would tend to thair buissnes and leave other peoples alone they would improve thair selfs.

Posted by Florence Mitchell | October 22, 2008 12:22 PM

Fashiongate!

Oh I don't know if I can handle it...

Posted by Tessa | October 22, 2008 12:27 PM

Eventually, the RNC will find some loophole to justify this purchase or merely play on the ignorance their supporters that this is no big deal. Whatever they come up with to try to explain this... it does not diminish the overall audacity of these purchases and expenses.

Its ridiculous to think that such a purchase in a time of financial crisis for this country would have even been authorized considering the republicans platform.

Palin is a quasi-VP Candidate that they've tried depereately to makeover from top to bottom, and inside and out in an effort to convince the country that she is the real deal. (Smoke and mirrors and designer outfits does not a VP candidate make). She lacks true substance, and substance cannot be bought at a boutique or derived from attack-centric speeches.

Posted by AM | October 22, 2008 12:28 PM

I understand she needs to look good, but I think the 150K would have been better spent bombing peasants in Afghan villages.

Remember, Palin buys her clothes over there so she doesn;t have to buy them back here!

Posted by scott | October 22, 2008 12:30 PM

More than anything else, this strikes me as another example (there are many) of how Palin is treating this opportunity as her own personal lottery win. She's not so much running for VP as a supportive and coordinated part of the ticket as she is building the SARAH! brand as aggressively as she can while raking in all the goodies that are made available.

She knows they're going to lose. She may even be glad -- HER CHANCE will come that much sooner without any icky foreign funerals to go to in the meanwhile!

Posted by John from Concord | October 22, 2008 12:47 PM

What a slap in the face to all women!! Dress her up to make her look good thinking we airheads (women in general) will swoon & croon over her regardless of her lack knowledge of governmental affairs. How stupid does the GOP think we are?

Posted by Mary | October 22, 2008 12:47 PM

Forget the legalease! Here is a candidate for Vice President of the United States, who on one hand criticizes the opposing party for future excessive spending, and champions herself as a "Good steward of the goverment dollar" pulling a stunt like this! It's just stupid and in POOR TASTE, and lends questions to her (and the guy who selected her) judgement!

Posted by Will D | October 22, 2008 12:49 PM

As a woman and a hick, living as I do in a wide open rural county so like Palin's, I can testify that my clothes are outdated and well-worn. If I had found myself, without a blink, turned into a national figure, I'd have to go shopping too.

While I'm not very interested in the legalities of her $150,000 her wardrobe, I am very interested in everything there is to know about Palin's shopping spree.

Did she have a personal shopper? Or, maybe a committee from the very frumpy DNC? Or, maybe the wardrobe champion of the universe, Cindy McCain? I'm thinking that as an ex-second rate beauty contestant, Palin never forgot her labels and her sizes. This is a subject you can betcha' interests her and always has.

How long did it take? Was she dropped off at the entrance of Neiman Marcus and told that she could keep (pending the alleged donation to charity) anything she can grab in an hour? Three hours? All night?

Where does she keep it all? Did the First Dude and his contractor buddies slap a new closet onto the master bedroom? Or, does she haul everything with her wherever she goes, just like Trig?

We women are interested in these things and in the whole Cinderella scenario. In this case, the dumbest, meanest sister fit the shoe and pretty soon she is going to turn back into a frog.

But still. It's a good story.

Posted by Casey | October 22, 2008 1:01 PM

By the way I fully support RNC for their decision to get some appropriate outfit for her position, and I think even if RNC spend ten times more for her outfits she will still not be close fit to her position.
In contrary if she was running for Hunting Organization VP, I’m sure she already has all the outfits she need for each specific occasions. Such as Moose shooting, baby seal beating, polar bear trapping , Just I’m not sure if she will able to find a place for each of these unique outfit to use in Washington?

Contrary of many of you I think Mccain still have a shot to win. The only way he will even have a chance to win is to dump this bad joke(insult) to the all Americans to the woods, where he picked up her. That way at least he can prove that he can make some serious jokes, and he is mature enough to accept his mistake .
Don’t miss understand me please, I love nature loving people, who lives in the wood, nature, Alaska etc However, I’m a firm believer of letting people to live where they feel more comfortable and they have enough outfit for it.
Please just stop the insult/joke to all Americans, and let people live where they love and belongs to.

Posted by Fred | October 22, 2008 1:06 PM

Oh yeah, right. Once Sarah Palin is elected Vice-President, she's going to give her $150k wardrobe away and go back to shopping at Kohl's? Because a vice-presidential CANDIDATE needs a designer wardrobe, but an actual vice-president does not? "It was always the intent to donate the clothes to charity" is a euphemism for "quick, we've got to find a lame excuse to make this seem less outrageous."

As for why the First Dude and the kids are getting new clothes out of this too, I can only note that its consistent with Palin's predilection for charging the state of Alaska for her children's travel expenses -- including out of state travel expenses to events to which the children were not invited (until after Palin "supplemented" the expense reports).

Posted by litigatormom | October 22, 2008 1:23 PM

I'm voting for Obama, and I don't really care if they spent 200,000 on her clothes. Just PLEASE let her keep taking interviews where she has to talk and formulate ideas! Heck, buy her 500,000 in clothes and make up! PLEASE! Just keep her talking....actually I am more concerned with her abuse of power in Alaska, and her changing the expense reports. She is certainly not "normal America."

Posted by Matt in SB | October 22, 2008 1:39 PM

1. "Donating clothes" to charity means "you own them" -- otherwise you can't donate them.
2. You probably could have spruced up your governor's wardrobe for less than a third of that amount.
3. You could do it on your own dime, like the rest of the average Joes and Joannes do, especially if you pretend to represent them and their interests.
4. You could even have found an up-and-coming designer who doesn't yet command top prices, especially one with an interesting "up from poverty" story to tell, and give them an opportunity while at the same time improving your wardrobe -- kill two birds with one stone -- but that would be too creative.

Posted by Pam | October 22, 2008 2:19 PM

The latest uproar over Governor Sarah Palin’s $150,000 clothing expenditure reminds me of a saying they have in the restaurant business: “You sell the sizzle, you don’t sell the steak.” That’s what Sarah Palin’s candidacy is all about. The sizzle. Her resume may be adequate for a mayor of a small town in Alaska , but not for a governor of a state of the most powerful nation in the history of the world—let alone for a vice president of the United Sates of America.

The RNC is putting Nieman Marcus clothing on a TJ Maxx candidate.

Just because the law does not prohibit the RNC from spending the money on Ms. Sarah's wardrobe, does not mean they should.

I suppose we should be grateful for one thing: in their zeal to "pimp-out" Sarah Palin in hot outfits, at least we have been spared a bra malfunction a la Janice Jackson.

Posted by Bruce from Buffalo | October 22, 2008 3:16 PM

I'm with Casey on this!

Part of me is outraged ($150,000!!!), part of me is bemused (for clothes???), but most of me is dying to know - what did she buy? How many outfits is that? Where the heck is she keeping all this stuff?

I want to see the "Sarah Palin Makeover" TV reality show. I want Before and After photos. I want designer names, and prices and all that good stuff.

Maybe there are a few more reality TV episodes here. What about the "First Dude Makeover"? The "Unwed Teen Mom and Drop-out Teen Dad Makeover"? The "Incredibly Cute Preteen Makeover"?

I know this all reflects very badly on my taste and sensibilities. On the other hand, since it was campaign contributions that funded this, I can be comfortably certain that *I* didn't waste a dime of my money on this. (Unlike certain bridge projects...)

Posted by JB | October 22, 2008 3:33 PM

Palin has shown that she is way too greedy. She nickled and dimed the state of Alaska for everything she could cram onto an expense report (including the much discussed per diem expenses and travel for her entire family). It's been reported that as soon as she became mayor of Wasilla she spent $50k redecorating the mayor's office. It doesn't surprise me that she went on a shopping spree as soon as she got the nomination. This all just shows that she's an opportunist and doesn't care how things look in the long run. It also shows that she's so egotistical that she doesn't care what people think of her actions. I hope she and McCain get their asses kicked on Nov. 4 and we never hear from her again.

Posted by JSL | October 22, 2008 5:53 PM

Obama used campaign funds for his hair and makeup costs.

Obama has made 10 million from his books he can afford to pay for it unlike Palin.

At the end of the AP piece here is what it says.

As for Obama, his campaign says it has paid for hair and makeup costs associated with interviews or events.

http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5gN2UuEbyF64GtuHQfJzWDqDg7PqgD93VQJE00

FEC records each month going back to 2007 hopefully will be vetted to find out how much the Obama campaign paid for makeup out of campaign funds.

Obama campaign used their funds not the DNC like the RNC money was used.

Michelle Obama also had hair and makeup expenses paid by campaign funds.

This is the most biased election in the history of our lives. The media wants a one party system.

Posted by Jeff | October 22, 2008 10:07 PM

http://news.aol.com/political-machine/2008/10/22/obamas-expensive-designer-suit-habit/3
Tonight, Barack Obama will wear a navy blue, worsted wool two-button suit that Hartmarx custom made just for him. Hartmarx is a 121-year-old Chicago-based manufacturer of high-end men's suits. Obama, who wears a 40 long with a 33-inch waist, has worn Hart Schaffner Marx suits but always off the rack, said an inside source. He favors the Gold Trumpeter collection. His new custom suit is 97 percent merino wool and 3 percent cashmere, has pleated plants with a 1 1/2-inch cuff and would cost about $1,500 off the rack.

Palin's clothes are mocked while the left portrays Obama as a typical working guy who has bad shoes.

What hypocracy. Michelle Obama also said to use the rebate check to buy 600 dollar earrings.

Posted by Steve | October 23, 2008 4:48 AM

The McCain campaign says these clothes will be donated to charity. Isnt that rich? Any one wanna bet that this decision was made AFTER it got into the news? Otherwise, Sarah Palin would be prancing around Wasila with the designer duds. The difference here: Obama isnt using Party or Government cash to make his purchases. In addition, the reading of the rules implies it was illegal to make the purchases in the first place. Its like a bank robber stealing money, and then saying "I was gonna give it to charity". HOGWASH!!! McCain and Palin are BOTH corrupt

Posted by Andy Stanley | October 23, 2008 6:10 AM

Just thinking aloud here,
1. Apparently Sarah Palin has enough money to pay for her own clothes, after all she could afford to buy a $35,000 tanning bed--but who paid for her redecoration of the governor's mansion? Maybe that's not important. Or, maybe she didn't buy it and just forgot to disclose it as a gift. If she'd done that then she would have had to pay taxes on it...hmm, maybe she does have a lot in common with Joe the plumber and his unpaid back taxes.

2. Let's see, $150,000.00 would pay for how many rape kits at $1,500.00 dollars each...

3. And what about all those earmarks that Washington lobbyist helped her get so she could buy nice things for her little community of Wasilla, which made her really popular and then when she became governor she could spread the wealth by giving all the residents of Alaska a rebate (because Alaska gets lots and lots of financial support from the Federal Government), that was a neat trick...but wait, wasn't that our tax money?

Posted by DM Perkins | October 23, 2008 11:56 AM

Some people are suggesting that Cindy McCain should have bought Palin the clothes ... hmmm well I don't think Cindy wants to help Palin 'look that great' .... Remember, she married an adulterer, so she has to be a bit uncomfortable with sexy sarah on the ticket ....

I think Palin is a dunce, but gotta admit, as long as she keeps her mouth shut she looks great .. now .... does she look $150,000 worth of great ???? Glad it's not MY MONEY DONATION that was used !

Posted by Suzanne | October 23, 2008 9:20 PM

I am not an attorney, but I am a certified Paralegal and I would question, while the RNC paid for the shopping spree, not the "candidate" one would question whether the RNC and DNC have the right to spend "donations" any way they wish. I am assuming that the Republican Party is a nonrofit corporation and accepts personal donations to be used for the advancement of the Republican Party's interest of the Federal Government. From a legal standpoint I would argue the position that while there would seems to be a technicality as to whether the candidate or the RNC actually paid, the code is clear in it's 'intent' that donations from taxpayers not be misused for personal gain. I have heard in the media that the clothing would be donated to charity. From an accounting point of view, I wonder whether Ms. Palin received the use of the clothing, jewelry, etc. and while she did not pay a rental for the clothing used by her and/or her family, I believe she might have an obligation to the IRS for the benefit of the value of the 'use' of the $150,000.00 worth of clothing which she and her family enjoyed. It would be of interest to know who, if anyone will get the tax write-off. I believe under the Nonprofit Corporation Codes one cannot use Corporation funds for personal gain and that might also be of interest to explore.

Posted by Viv | October 24, 2008 1:43 AM

I did some research on this article since my last entry. I found the above-quoted USC 493b(2)(B); to actually be in the Federal Election Campaign Laws; compiled by The Federal Election Commission, dated April 2008 under Sec. 439a. 'USE' OF 'CONTRIBUTED' AMOUNTS FOR CERTAIN PURPOSES; and (b) PROHIBITED USE.

While the dissertation has been on whether the "candidate" or the RNC bought the clothes for Ms. Palin, the focus intended in this law is obviously not on the entity who bought the clothes, but rather the PROHIBITED USE of the CONTRIBUTED funds by either Federal entity.

Posted by viv | October 24, 2008 4:28 PM

I wonder if she ended up keeping the clothes. Regardless, either she was lying when she insisted the clothes were forced upon her or McCain's staff is, now, saying she went on an unauthorized spending spree.

It's left me wondering how it is so many talented liars end up as our political leaders. Is that a quality we desire, then?

Posted by Dennis Osborne | November 6, 2008 6:56 PM