Bachmann Playing With House Money

[Synthaholic]

Bachmann Playing With House Money

Bachmann’s Congressional Spending Shows Close Links to Political Activity

http://www.rollcall.com/issues/56_141/bachmann-plays-with-house-money-206599-1.html?zkPrintable=true



On Nov. 5, 2009, at the behest of Rep. Michele Bachmann, thousands of tea party activists descended on the Capitol to vent their rage over the health care overhaul bill pending before Congress.


The assembled activists chanted, "Kill the bill! Kill the bill!" and waved signs opposing a government takeover of health care — but they may not have known that the same government was paying for the event.


According to House expense reports, Bachmann and three conservative GOP colleagues — Reps. Tom Price (Ga.), Steve King (Iowa) and Todd Akin (Mo.) — each paid $3,407.50 that day, a total of $13,630, to a sound and stage company called National Events, apparently for the sound system used at the rally.


The money came from the Members' taxpayer-funded office accounts, despite House rules prohibiting the use of these funds for political activities. Bachmann's office insists the expense was a proper use of official funds.


Bachmann billed the event as a "press conference," which can be funded from official accounts. But no questions were taken from the press and, unlike most press conferences, it opened with a prayer, the national anthem and a recitation of the Pledge of Allegiance.


A few days earlier, the Minnesota Republican had appeared on a Fox News talk show and made an appeal for activists to come to D.C. for the event, promising to help them lobby Congress against the bill.

 

[Polk]

I'm sure they'll be in with a list of reasons why this is a-okay.

 

[oreo]

Bachmann Playing With House Money

Bachmann’s Congressional Spending Shows Close Links to Political Activity

http://www.rollcall.com/issues/56_141/bachmann-plays-with-house-money-206599-1.html?zkPrintable=true


On Nov. 5, 2009, at the behest of Rep. Michele Bachmann, thousands of tea party activists descended on the Capitol to vent their rage over the health care overhaul bill pending before Congress.


The assembled activists chanted, "Kill the bill! Kill the bill!" and waved signs opposing a government takeover of health care — but they may not have known that the same government was paying for the event.


According to House expense reports, Bachmann and three conservative GOP colleagues — Reps. Tom Price (Ga.), Steve King (Iowa) and Todd Akin (Mo.) — each paid $3,407.50 that day, a total of $13,630, to a sound and stage company called National Events, apparently for the sound system used at the rally.


The money came from the Members' taxpayer-funded office accounts, despite House rules prohibiting the use of these funds for political activities. Bachmann's office insists the expense was a proper use of official funds.


Bachmann billed the event as a "press conference," which can be funded from official accounts. But no questions were taken from the press and, unlike most press conferences, it opened with a prayer, the national anthem and a recitation of the Pledge of Allegiance.


A few days earlier, the Minnesota Republican had appeared on a Fox News talk show and made an appeal for activists to come to D.C. for the event, promising to help them lobby Congress against the bill.

Where's your LINK on this article. I see you've linked the web-sites of these representatives but there is no LINK to this article--to verify it.

 

[Polk]

The header of his post is a hyperlink (he could have been clearer).

 

[oreo]

The header of his post is a hyperlink (he could have been clearer).

Thanks--I have never see anyone use the title of a thread for a link.

Here in the linked article it specifically states:

House rules prohibit the use of official resources for political purposes, but the definition of what is political is murky. The House Ethics Manual notes that "no specific definition of bona fide campaign or political purposes exists in the rules" and that "Members often have discretion in determining whether an event will be 'political' or 'official.'"

The ethics watchdog group Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington filed a complaint with the Office of Congressional Ethics at the time, claiming Bachmann had violated a clearer directive from the House Administration Committee that Member websites "may not include grassroots lobbying or solicit support for a Member's position." Bachmann had posted a release on her site announcing the event. The ethics office apparently investigated the complaint and dropped it.

--

Therefore--this money was investigated by this committee and found Nothing wrong--or inappropriate with the use of these funds.

 

[8537]

The header of his post is a hyperlink (he could have been clearer).

Thanks--I have never see anyone use the title of a thread for a link.

Here in the linked article it specifically states:

House rules prohibit the use of official resources for political purposes, but the definition of what is political is murky. The House Ethics Manual notes that "no specific definition of bona fide campaign or political purposes exists in the rules" and that "Members often have discretion in determining whether an event will be 'political' or 'official.'"

The ethics watchdog group Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington filed a complaint with the Office of Congressional Ethics at the time, claiming Bachmann had violated a clearer directive from the House Administration Committee that Member websites "may not include grassroots lobbying or solicit support for a Member's position." Bachmann had posted a release on her site announcing the event. The ethics office apparently investigated the complaint and dropped it.

--

Therefore--this money was investigated by this committee and found Nothing wrong--or inappropriate with the use of these funds.

I think what you meant to say was "This money was investigated by the committee and they thought "hey, what a clever way to get around the law. I gotta try that! So let's not call it an inappropriate use of funds - even though the law is pretty clear".

The ethics committee in the house doesn't want to bite the hand that feeds it, regardless of whose in charge.

 

[Stephanie]

The ethics office apparently investigated the complaint and dropped it.

just gotta LEAVE this part out of the article posted.

 

[newpolitics]

The ethics office apparently investigated the complaint and dropped it.

just gotta LEAVE this part out of the article posted.

This is illegal. Who cares the ethics committee says? Just because they are called 'the ethics committee' doesn't mean they are truly ethical. It is only a title, and they can get paid off and dragged into politics like any other entity, so don't take their ruling as absolute truth. That's ridiculous. It's funny how you decide to conveniently trust government institutions when it suits you, but other times you rail against government as being the problem in and of itself. Make up you fucking mind, conservative.

 

[Avorysuds]

Better for Ron Fuckin Paul, the last guy the Dems need in a debate with Obama~