As the Los Angeles Times reported on Sunday, however, in financial disclosure forms, Bachmann reported receiving between $32,503 and $105,000 in income from the farm, at minimum, between 2006 and 2009.
Why the discrepancy? This is what bothers me about Bachmann - she apparently feels no obligation to address issues such as this, and would rather just pretend they don't exist.
The rules on what constitutes a financial interest that must be disclosed can be different than what actually benefits, or provides revenue, to a person.
It’s completely possible neither she nor her husband got a penny from the father-in-law’s farm, yet it was still required to be disclosed as a potentail financial interent.
It happens.