Blog Archives

A HuffPo clip from an article about the RNC’s “Creative Definitions Of ‘Office Supplies'”

It’s really worth it to go in and read the whole thing…

clipped from
It’s been a rough week for the Republican National Committee. When news broke that the RNC spent nearly two grand at a “bondage-themed” Los Angeles nightclub, a whole ton of resentment and disgruntlement bubbled up to the surface.
Lindsay Beyerstein has taken a deeper dive into the RNC’s filings with the Federal Election Commission, and based upon the organizations procurement habits, and the specific goods that are characterized as “office supplies,” it’s pretty clear that the RNC is still a fun place to work.
The RNC told the FEC that it spent $982 of its donors’ money on “office supplies” from the Boyden Valley Winery last December. “We do not sell office supplies; we are a legal winery operating since 1991 in Cambridge, Vermont,” co-owner Linda Boyden told AlterNet.

Between December and February, the RNC bought over $700 worth of so-called “office supplies” from Congressional Liquors, a booze and sandwich shop on Washington, D.C.’s Capitol Hill.
  blog it
Here’s more listed under “Meals”:

In December, RNC reimbursed [RNC Deputy Finance Director Debbie] LeHardy for $453 worth of “meals” from Henri Bendel, a posh boutique on New York’s Fifth Avenue. Bendel’s is an upscale source for costume jewelery, handbags and make-up. The store bills itself as a “Girls’ Playground for trendsetting young women from around the world.”

“[W]e do not have a restaurant in the store so I don’t know how she would have spent $450 on meals,” spokesperson Jodi Mellman wrote in an e-mail.

Courts Roll Back Limits on Spending in Election Law

From the NY times…will this have a negative effect on the next Presidential campaign. Here’s a clip, but I encourage you to read the whole article:
clipped from
Even before a landmark Supreme Court ruling on campaign finance law expected within days, a series of other court decisions is reshaping the political battlefield by freeing corporations, unions and other interest groups from many of the restrictions on their advertising about issues and candidates.
Legal experts and political operatives say the cases roll back campaign spending rules to the years before Watergate. The end of decades-old restrictions could unleash a torrent of negative advertisements, help cash-poor Republicans in a pivotal year and push President Obama to bring in more money for his party.
If the Supreme Court, as widely expected, rules against core elements of the existing limits, Democrats say they will try to enact new laws to reinstate the restrictions in time for the midterm elections in November.
“It will be no holds barred when it comes to independent expenditures,” said Kenneth A. Gross, a veteran political law expert at the firm of Skadden Arps in Washington.
  blog it