LOn Tue, 27 Apr 2021 07:13:31 -0700 (PDT), "Peter T. Daniels"
Post by Peter T. Daniels Post by Peter Moylan Post by Tony Cooper
On Mon, 26 Apr 2021 09:49:20 -0700 (PDT), "Peter T. Daniels"
Post by Peter T. Daniels Post by charles Post by John Ritson
During the expenses scandal of 2009, it was revealed that
Members of Parliament occupying two properties (normally one
in their constituency, one near Westminster - though there
were some very interesting variants) would designate one as
their secondary residence, occupied only to fulfil their
parliamentary duties. The House of Commons would pay for
rent/mortgage, repairs, utilities and furniture for this
You mean "The taxpayer" pays. The HoC doesn't have its own money.
See? That's one of the advantages of campaign contributions
ostensibly for advertising. You can use what's left over for, e.g.,
decorating your office. (Or -- Matt Gaetz -- other things.)
Advantages? In the US, the campaign contributions that come from
corporate entities are bribes from those entities to ensure that the
legislators enact and support laws that favor those entities. The
final cost is paid by the general public (aka: taxpayers) in the
form of product and rate (as in utility rates) costs.
Some of us would prefer to have the taxpayer pay for campaign
advertising, on condition that (a) the budget is limited in some way,
e.g. a fixed amount per candidate, and (b) political donations from all
other sources are banned.
The tricky part would be blocking donations in kind, e.g. campaigns run
by a newspaper to support one political party and heap shit on the
opposition. Under-the-table donations are also troublesome, and very common.
We don't need all those subterfuges (and newspapers are not in the
fund-raising business), because in 2010 SCOTUS decreed that "money
is speech" (Citizens United decision), meaning that corporations (which
are people) are free to give all the money they care to (not directly to
candidates, but) to "PACs" (political action committees) that hand out
Apparently Mr. Cooper is completely blind to the fact that he has lived
for decades in one of the most corrupt states in the country, where money
talks and donors can buy whatever legislators they choose, whether or not
such buying (you've sometimes used that quaint word "bribing") anyone
who'll do what they tell them to. Apparently he thinks that if there's a law
on the books, no one will try to find ways around it.
A rather laughable defense line taken, there. What has the fact that
I've chosen to live in Florida have to do with anything being
discussed here? My choice to move from the Chicago area to Florida
was a job-related decision. I would not think a former New Yorker and
Chicagoan, and present New Jerseyite, would use residence location as
an attack of this sort. That's a bridge too far.
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Also, he doesn't seem to know that politicians don't have an office just
adjacent to the capitol where they spend a few weeks or months a year.
Still haven't done your homework, eh? The district office furnishing
expenses come out of the politician's MRA, and it is illegal to use
campaign funds for this purpose. You've been provided with cites on
Post by Peter T. Daniels
And couldn't figure out that I was being metonymic (although the reference
to his state's latest nefarious congressman might have been a hint, who is
documented as having paid for sex with underage girls (though not quite
so underage as the late Mr. Epstein preferred).
Off you go down Strawman Path. Matt Gaetz is a slimy fucker who
should be kicked out of the House, but the investigations into his
alleged crimes have not yet had anything to do with misuse of campaign
funds for the sex-related activities. So far, it his payments from
personal funds for sex, drugs, and possible trafficking that are under
investigation. Nor has the underage aspect been "documented". It's
been alleged, but the age of the girl (not girls) at the time has not
been determined. She refuses to cooperate with the investigation.
The only campaign fund misuse that has come up so far is his payments
for legal defense from campaign funds. Campaign funds may be used for
legal expenses relating to the politician's official duties, but not
his/her personal indiscretions.
What might come up in the future is a different subject.
Look...you made a mistake when you wrote "See? That's one of the
advantages of campaign contributions ostensibly for advertising. You
can use what's left over for, e.g., decorating your office. (Or --
Matt Gaetz -- other things.)"
It was just a mistake based on ignorance of the fact that MRA pays for
office (DC and District) space and furnishings, and that this is
similar to the UK system.
It was a forgivable mistake if you had shut up about it once you were
informed of the MRA. That was the time to retreat from the
discussion with a shred of dignity.
But you didn't. Typically, you have compounded the mistake by an
inept scattershot defense with more mistakes.
I'm too realistic to ask for your apology or a retraction or an
admission of error, but stop now before you further embarass yourself.
Tony Cooper Orlando Florida