[Mears]

Say what you want but I don't see any problem with this at all.

The cities are in tough shape(and deservedly so in many cases) but why should the taxpayers pick up the bill for all the extra security?

These visits areen't something they can plan for in the budget,they are usually given last minute notice about the visit for security reasons.

[hunter112]

I'm with you, I think ALL Presidential campaigns should pay for extra security required by a visit. And I mean, with a deposit in advance. That should stop any in-your-face visits by Dennis Kucinich to cattle country!

[SC Swamp Fox]

Say what you want but I don't see any problem with this at all.

This was my initial reaction as well. But then I started thinking about how this would stack up against the constitutional "smell test". It doesn't.

You want a candidate to pay for his freedom to speak in some location because his thoughts are unpopular with the anarchists and leftist in that city? The more violent and unreasonable the protest, the more the target of the protest pays. Bad idea.

[Naspino]

Say what you want but I don't see any problem with this at all.

This sounds almost corrupt though. A leftist mayor with an interest in billing her hated opponent. Conflict of interest if you ask me. She could very well spur protests and make them larger with the overall goal of hurting Bush.