Taxpayer expense for political fundraising

Should the DNC reimburse expenses for local police/fire for political rallies that raise millions of dollars.

Quote:

---

"It is shameful that President Obama believes the taxpayers of Westport should pay for $14,812 of expenses incurred for his political campaign fundraising events. The Obama campaign should immediately reimburse the town for those costs," he said. "It's bad enough to close down a public beach and a state park in the middle of a heat wave in order to park the helicopter for a campaign event, but to expect the town taxpayers to also foot the bill -- for events which raised millions of dollars for partisan events that relate solely to Obama's re-election -- is over the top."

Joseloff tells CBS New York he knew not to expect reimbursement for security costs during a private presidential visit, but pointed out the president raised $2 million for his re-election campaign during the trip.

"I think if somebody really wanted to do a good deed for the president, they could make a donation to cover the cost, get a tax deduction," Joseloff said according to CBS New York. "We'll be happy and hopefully they'll be happy."

This isn't the first time local officials have gotten in a dispute over payments for security costs to accommodate presidential candidates. The city of Newport Beach, Calif., for months has been trying to get the Obama campaign to pay $35,000 in security costs for a fundraiser earlier this year. According to the Los Angeles Times, though, the Romney campaign did reimburse the city for security costs at a Republican fundraiser.

---

Read more: DNC refuses to reimburse town for thousands of dollars of overtime costs during Obama visit | Fox News

Yes, I think the town should be reimbursed for expenses through raised campaign funds. I can't see how it's fair for any place to foot campaigners' bills.

If residents had to pay for cops for Whitney Houston's funeral they can accommodate security for the POTUS. Do they realize the money a visit brings in to the town? To the surrounding area?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jessica80

If residents had to pay for cops for Whitney Houston's funeral they can accommodate security for the POTUS. Do they realize the money a visit brings in to the town? To the surrounding area?

---

Yes. Canadian taxpayers paid more than a billion dollars in security costs for the G8 and G20 summits a couple years back, and I shudder to think what we paid for security when Kate and Will honeymooned here. BUT, the tourist revenue created far eclipsed the money spent for security. Putting money back into the economy is never a bad thing.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jessica80

If residents had to pay for cops for Whitney Houston's funeral they can accommodate security for the POTUS. Do they realize the money a visit brings in to the town? To the surrounding area?

---

I think Whitney's estate should have to pay for her necessary funeral arrangements. Whatever security is not the normal security needs of a person of the average person that is, then the difference should be paid.

And the POTUS is campaigning for his potential future position, not acting in his current position. So all campaigners should pay their own bills.

It doesn't matter. We as taxpayers, will pay for security for Obama for the rest of his life. Whether he is campaigning or not he needs extra security wherever he goes. As the current POTUS we should be paying for it.

Yes, I agree on WH but I was using that as an example of how crazy this country can get with what is acceptable and not with taxpayer money.

In Westport, Joseloff added the president also had the opportunity to soften any hard feelings in the town about the visit's costs by holding a public event, such as visiting a nearby 9/11 memorial. He noted that though the memorial was just yards from where the president's helicopter landed, Obama did not visit it.

They should be reimbursed for the expenses.

I thought the general rule was that if is was an official visit it was paid for by the taxpayers and if it was a campaign stop it was paid for by the campaign?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jessica80

It doesn't matter. We as taxpayers, will pay for security for Obama for the rest of his life. Whether he is campaigning or not he needs extra security wherever he goes. As the current POTUS we should be paying for it.

Yes, I agree on WH but I was using that as an example of how crazy this country can get with what is acceptable and not with taxpayer money.

---

Exactly, and see this is what drives me crazy because on one hand we are being told we won't have SS retirement in our lifetimes and yet we manage taxpayer money this way. I just feel like the whole attitude of spending and poor budgeting starts from the top and trickles down. Every single aspect of our American life is spent like we have so much to spend.

I get it that we'll have to pay for his security as exPOTUS at some point, but I think campaign rules should apply to everyone. If you want to travel extra to campaign, pay for it just like anyone else should have to.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by wlillie

In Westport, Joseloff added the president also had the opportunity to soften any hard feelings in the town about the visit's costs by holding a public event, such as visiting a nearby 9/11 memorial. He noted that though the memorial was just yards from where the president's helicopter landed, Obama did not visit it.

They should be reimbursed for the expenses.

---

That was awfully noble and vote worthy of him. I was an Obama supporter in the beginning. But, I just am failing to see what difference he's made and what progress we've made. Maybe I am just pregnant and having such a foggy brain. So if he's done some spectacular things I'd like to be reminded =) I'm not fond of anyone at this point so I have no clue who I'm going to vote for.