One of the reasons why he lost here in Maryland was because it was exposed that he took something like a $96,000 annual salary from his campaign contributions. Will he do the same in Illinois? Or has he learned his lesson?
If I make a contribution to a candidate, I don't expect him to take the money to pay his electric bill.
Oh...yeah, I remember that.
Sheesh!
He will not. He didn't in '96 or '00. As a nationally-known and sought speaker, he no longer needs to.
If I make a contribution to a candidate, I don't expect him to take the money to pay his electric bill.
Just food for thought...That expectation all but guarantees a 90% incumbency retention rate. Incumbents get paid to campaign out of our tax dollars, while challengers most often (especially if they are in government or media, as Keyes was) quit their jobs in order to run. Under your guidelines, only the self employed and/or independently wealthy can run.
However, as I said, 2004 will not be like 1992.
That's standard practice during political campaigns. Howard Dean did it. Candidates are allowed by law to use campaign funds to make up the different in earnings they lose while they are campaigning for a public office.
Well, if he is campaigning full time, how do you expect him to pay his bills? Its not like Keyes is loaded with money like Mr. Ketchup or the Breck Girl.
As opposed to Kerry, who takes his full senate salary while campaigning full time.