Posted on 02/18/2012 5:53:14 AM PST by no dems
When Newt Gingrichs campaign disclosed in October it planned to pay the candidate $70,000 for travel expenses in the third quarter, the transfer was an anomaly among presidential campaigns.
But weeks ago, the former House speaker revised his third-quarter bill: He actually expected to personally receive $115,000 of the funds donated to his campaign to reimburse himself for expenses during that period.
The campaign would not explain how the candidate forgot about $45,000 in receipts, what they were for or why the campaign wasnt simply paying the invoices directly, as other campaigns do. Far beyond that payment, the uses of donations to Mr. Gingrichs campaign are being obscured on a massive scale by the unprecedented use of a legally questionable tactic, The Washington Times found one that has accompanied the flow of the better part of a million dollars in unexplained cash to Mr. Gingrich, family members and top staffers.
(Excerpt) Read more at washingtontimes.com ...
In the end he seems to always be “technically” correct, because he is good at reading the fine print of a law and skirting it “just enough” to be legal.
But the impression left with those made aware of the situation is that he did something illegal or unethical. Sometimes you have to avoid even the appearance of impropriety.
I think a revision is in order:
I am not attacking Gingrich (honestly I am not)... but the press does seem to have a long history of doing this type of thing to him.
Just sayin'
Sounds like my expense reports. I’m always forgetting to put something on them and then I have to go back a couple of months later and recoup.
I wonder what kind of investigation Lou did on Obama’s 2008 campaign finances.
But when you’re dealing with a multi-million dollar campaign, where small acts can contribute to throwing your message off the mark,...
..., is it really worth pursuing a couple of thousand dollars so that you squeeze every last dime from your campaign?
I think, unless it’s going to be big money involved, let it go if you neglected to dot all your i’s and crossed your t’s when you should have had the first time around.
good point.
Your Post #2 is spot on. As a matter of fact, I read something like that Somewhere. “Abstain from all appearance of evil.” (I Thessalonians 5:22).
I’m back in Newt’s Camp. (See my tagline.) I guess it’s good that we’re getting all this out there now before people, other than us political junkies, start paying attention and before the GE.
LOL! Love your wit and humor.
Many of those donors, however, are repeat contributors, meaning that their aggregate donations over the past year would exceed $250. Still, the nonpartisan Campaign Finance Institute, which analyzes contributions, found that small donors, those whose aggregate contributions amounted to less than $200, accounted for 48 percent of Obama's campaign income in 2011.
That more than doubles the small donor contributions to his campaign in 2007, as he mounted his first campaign for president. What's more, the institute found that small donors accounted for only 9 percent of 2011 fundraising for Republican Mitt Romney, who is battling for front-runner status in the GOP presidential primary and is the top fundraiser in the Republican contest. ...
Hmmmm...
Last time, Zero hid the names of these small donors (absolutely forbid their release), but research found tons of "cash cards" being used and donor names like donald Duck and Snoopy. It was/is suspected this is either Middle Eastern monies or Soros-type interference with the "system".
...The January numbers were being reported as Obama concluded a three-day swing of California and Washington that included eight fundraisers, most of them high-dollar events. All told, the president was expected to raise more than $8 million during the trip.-US News
-"C'ya suckers"
Just another cheap shot fired across the bow of Pubbie candidates. Desperation is; "looking for fly fecal matter in the pepper."
I would love to see who’s paying for Zer0’s flying around the country campaigning. Should I even wonder? Us!
Grifters gotta grift.
If Newt didn’t want to be attacked because of this massive amount of petty cash, he could have itemized it on his expense forms.
It was his choice to put that ammo out there. It is not the media’s fault for reading his report and telling the country what’s in it.
newt would never do anything unclean...he has changed and admitted his shortcomings and given glory to god and stuff
ahhh yes the mean old press doing it to him..
The Washington Times must be for Romney just like Drudge, WSJ, Coulter, NRO and Fox. I remember the bogus 84 ethics charges David Bonior slapped on Newt and how the IRS exonerated him. I question those who are bashing Newt right now. Even so called conservative media. I furthermore question what they try to pin on Rick Santorum. The so called conservative media are now more suspect in my eyes than the candidates they are bashing because they want Romney so much they are willing to sell their credibility down the drain.
Gingrich will be exonerated...after the campaign.
If they really want to spend some quality time, I’d like a gander at an itemized list of Moochelle’s expenses since Obama took office.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.