Politics: Do we want to offer police protection only to candidates who can afford it?
I’ve been neglecting my duties.
Anyone who reads this blog can quickly figure out which politicians I prefer over others.
But I’d like to think that when the candidates I like take positions with which I strongly disagree, I will say so.
I’ve put off writing at length about the controversy over the “bill” some folks want to charge President Bush of the Aaron Schock Congressional campaign for the $38,000 in police and security services provided during the July 25 fund raiser.
Frankly, I’m not a fan of Schock. I think Democratic challenger Colleen Callahan would make a better Congressperson.
And I chortled to myself as Callahan and Peoria City Council member Gary Sandberg scored points with the voting public by complaining about the costs the city picked up providing protection during this rather elitist affair.
But I am somewhat amazed it’s getting as much traction as it has. Folks, I hate to break it to you, but it is the job of local police to provide assistance to the Secret Police when they are in town protecting the life of the the leader of the free world. This is true whether the event features a lame-duck incumbent raising cash by charging $5,000 a pop for a photograph at a closed-door event, or if it’s some junior senator (without a shot in Hell of winning his party’s nomination for President) stumping for a former colleague outside the Peoria County Courthouse.
Putting a dollar amount on the services of the men and woman of the Peoria Police Department cheapens their contribution to the city. They are not hired guns. They are not security guards. To be asked by the Secret Service to coordinate and cooperate in the protection of the president of the United States of America is both their duty and their privilege. It has nothing to do with politics. It has everything to do with protecting the public.
But if you want to take politics into the equation, consider this: Do we really want elections in which candidates have to pay municipalities for the protection they receive? If minor party candidates and independents like Ralph Nader, Cynthia McKinney or Chuck Baldwin had to pay even a fraction of $38,000 every time they made a campaign appearance, they wouldn’t be making a lot of campaign appearances.
During a presidential race, candidates might make eight stops a day. Some of them are fund-raisers not dissimilar to the one we’re discussing. Add that up over a year-long presidential campaign, and we’re talking about huge sums of money. I’d ask anyone griping about the elites who showed up for Schock’s Weaver Farms event to stop and consider how adding millions of dollars to the cost of a campaign will make for easier for non-elites to get involved.
It would be the easiest thing for the Schock campaign to just write a check (which is something I suggested as a way to end the controversy). But I’m thinking now that it would set a precedent, so let’s forget that idea.
And don’t worry, I’ll be going back to giving folks reasons to vote for Colleen Callahan soon.
September 29th, 2008 at 11:04 pm
Whether anyone here acknowledges it or not, paying for police protection is a new concept in this country. It doesn’t matter what the event if for and if it is political or not.
Everyone that is so indignant about this event in Peoria really ought to be consistent and be willinig to vote against Obama if he doesn’t reimburse the cities and towns for police protection in all of the places he had fundraisers. I’m waiting for the outcry.
I looked on Hillary, Obama and McCain’s finacial disclosure reports. NO REMIBURSEMENTS TO LOCAL GOVERNMENTS FOR POLICE PROTECTION.
They have been campaigning for over a year going to multiple cities every day. Every day they have fundraisers. Every day the Secret Service asks the local police for help. Obama has had large events charging the maximum $28,500 per person.
Some events are larger than others. Free events are designed to get votes. Fundraisers are designed to raise money to get votes. But even if only billing for fundraising events, if this new policy of pay-as-you-go policing for political events, those Presidential campaigns could owe local governments just under $100 million dollars each.
What happens when candidates like McCain who was down in the polls a year ago and his campaign was almost broke, or a candidate like Joe Biden who had an underfunded campaign from start to finish, couldn’t afford to pay for local police protection that the Secret Service required for their campaign fundraisers? Should they just drop out? Only well funded candidates should be able to run?
What happens if the Green Party nominee for President wants to come to Peoria for a fundraiser for himself or for Congressional candidate Sheldon Schafer and the Secret Service, that protects presidential candidates, reaches out to Peoria police for help. Since we are not talking about massive police presence that a President requires to protect, let’s say the cost is $4,000 but Shedon Schafer doesn’t have it, but the Secret Service says they need Peoria police to help keep the event safe. Does he not get to have the event unless he is willing to pay? Secret Service protection requirements are not optional for a campaign.
Even though Obama has the most well funded campaign in history, even he cannot afford to pay $150,000 or more per day over a year and a half to remimburse local governments for police protection the Secret Service asks for because they deem it necessary to protect the crowds and candidates at events. Remember, mulitiple events in muliple cities each requiring presidential candidate level police protection to complement the Secret Service.
This policy if uniformly applied would keep our Presidents (including a possible future President Obama) in the White House and off the campaign trail. More importantly, it would keep presidential candidates from going around the country. Because not even the Obama campaign could routinely afford to pay for local police protection for all its events.
And why should only political fundraisers have to reimburse local governments for police protection? Why not things like police escorts for the former CIA Director to speak at the Washgington Day Banquet to benefit the Creve Coeur Club? Why not police escorts and extra crowd control for major concerts at the Civic Center? Why not for March Madness. Tickets are not free. Tons of police are required to police the comings and goings of the crowds. Should the basketball association or the Civic Center reimburse the city for the police protection? It’s a huge event. A huge money maker. Not open to anyone without a ticket.
Are political campaigns not an integral part of democracy and therefore Constitutionally in a different category for police protection than basketball tournaments or concerts?
Where does fairness in billing for police protection start and end? Don’t we already pay taxes to protect our democracy and free speech and freedom of asociation for all? Aren’t our elections a vitally important part of who we are as a country and worthy of protecting from derraged individuals or terrorists?
Councilmen Sandberg and Spears say public rallies that close city streets are OK but private fundraisers are not. How convenient. How selective to design the policy to fit around events they spoke at but not for an event for Aaron Schock. Their selective outrage is itself an outrage.
(In their mind city streets close themelves with no public works employees or police and it is so convenient how they rationalize the crowd overflowing to the public street–it was that way by design–and by design the event needed extra police, not massive but certainly extra police).
Pictures at the event of Sandberg and Koehler show Sandberg giddy, not outraged at the public expense incurred. Now after being called on his hypocrisy, Sandberg is willing to ask for a determination of the costs and seek reimbursement–two years later.
OK, if the fundraising aspect is what compels how you feel on this issue–then again–what about commerical basketball tournaments and concerts?
What if Bradley University has President Obama in Peoria for a fundraiser for the university? Yes? No? Bradley pays for the police protection?
What about political protests that cause the need for extra policing? Should the organizations be charged for the policing they cause the need for?
But all you Obama supporters who have blogged on here, speak up. Should Obama pay municipalities for the extra police protection each of his fundraising events have caused the need for? And if he doesn’t pay are you willing to vote against him? Mr. Sandberg, for the record, how about a direct answer to those last two questions?
September 29th, 2008 at 11:36 pm
A lot of people commenting keep mixing apples and oranges. The Shock event was NOT a George Bush event. It was not a presidential function or a presidential campaign stop.
Bush came in to town to raise money for a candidate. He did not come in to town to make a speech, visit or see the sites or make an announcement of some sort.
I wish someone wiser than all of us who is knowledgeable about Federal campaign laws would comment because I believe I have read in the past where certain candidates to have to pay for things when they mix things like governmental actions with that of campaigning. I thought I have read in the past where candidates have reimbursed fees for some things, but what I’m thinking of might be that of when candidates use private planes or something.
On top of that FAIR asks questions that Sandberg has answered elsewhere and tries to muddy the water with still more mixing of non-comparables.
September 30th, 2008 at 12:01 am
$10 says FAIR also goes by the name Steve Shearer. Only he could write a post that would make Dr. Carroll’s posting look short and concise.
September 30th, 2008 at 12:07 am
sctobrien, I asked if you want to apply the same standard of paying for local police protection to complement the Secret Service in protecting fundraisers for presidential candidates. That is apples to apples. Paying for local police protection for FUNDRAISERS of federal candidates.
Do you think a Schock fundraiser should have to reimburse the city for police protecting the president but when local police protect presidential candidate Obama at one of his many fundraisers that his campaign should not have to pay for that? Have we now come to such a blatant double standard? Schock yes, Obama no???
And no, Gary Sandberg has not answered if he will withhold his vote for Barack Obama if Obama does not reimburse municipalities for police protection for his fundraisers Or if he thinks Barack Obama should reimburse all municipalities that provided police protection for his campaign fundraisers.
There has been a bi-partisan agreement in effect for 25 years requiring the candidate’s campaign to reimburse the federal government for the fuel for Air Force One. No such policy has ever existed for paying municipalities for local police assisting the Secret Service in protecting presidents for presidential candidates, no matter which party was in power.
There has been no policy in America for candidates to reimburse police for protection at political events. Not in Peoria, not anywhere. If so, Obama would have about $100 million less in his campaign account.
September 30th, 2008 at 12:42 am
FAIR,
Yes, if Barack Obama, or any presidential democrat, flew into Peoria for the explicit reason for raising funds for others than himself and restricted access, he or the recipient should reimburse the local government for costs.
As I asked in another post, imagine if David Ransburg threw a private birthday for his wife and invited Bush. Should taxpayers have to pay for security to that?
And the Obama/Koehler function has been explained by Sandberg as something quite different.
Lastly, whether you agree or not, there is quite a difference when it comes to paying for the mere appearance of a politician contrasted to that of a private fund raiser.
I do see your points, but when it comes to things other than say crowd or traffic control, beyond that, I agree with Sandberg that some sort of reimbursement is in order to the public coffers.
September 30th, 2008 at 6:55 am
Thank you, Fair. You have put into words exactly what was bothering me about this deal, which is, extreme partisans trying to instate rules retro-actively that are least favorable to the opposite party but most favorable to their own – all under the heading of “I’m looking out for the taxpayer”.
If its a Presidential candidate, it’s OK. If its a congressional candidate, it’s not. If its a political rally, it’s OK, if it’s a fundraiser, it’s not. If it was county expense, it’s OK, if it’s city expense, it’s not. If I didn’t get my picture taken, it’s OK, if I did, it’s not. If it cost a little, it’s OK. If it cost a lot, it’s not. It makes my flippin head spin.
September 30th, 2008 at 6:59 am
Two questions were put before the readership.
Here they are again:
Should Obama pay municipalities for the extra police protection each of his fundraising events have caused the need for?
And if he doesn’t pay are you willing to vote against him?
September 30th, 2008 at 7:37 am
One of the comments raised a very good question which I have not seen answered anywhere. When V.P. Cheney visited in 2000, did the city charge for that rally on the riverfront which was restricted access? A simple FOIA should answer the question of apples to apples precedent unless the essential component to this is not cost, or open access to the public, but the fundraising component of this. And if the City wants a new policy moving forward, then fairness dictates that it be prospective only.
September 30th, 2008 at 8:37 am
The bottom line is this. The Secret Service asked the police for protection of the President. The city could seek reimbursement from the Feds. The city council members were aware of the event and purpose ahead of time. There were no negotiations prior to the event for reimbursement. There is no ordinance. “Congress shall make no ex post facto laws”. Last time I was at a council installation they are specifically sworn to uphold the Constitution of the United States. Although it appears some pick and chose.
If any of us recieved a bill for a service that we did not negotiate, nor was implied in the giving of it, we wouldn’t pay for it. Sorry. If any council member was concerned about this ahead of time, then was the time to act.
This is politics at it’s worst. I don’t think Aaron should pay. I wouldn’t under these circumstances. If the council wishes to draft an ordinance for future situations, so be it. But it will kill the election process. No candidates will want to come to Peoria or even sitting Presidents.
The police serve and protect. there are not stipulations. they even have to protect the bad guys as well. It’s part of our system.
I ask when the city is going to charge bad landlords and tenants for the significant costs of police, code enforcement, zoning, etc. for maintaining thier crappy properties in the neighborhoods. That I would guess is a 7 digit figure every year. But then to quote a councilmember “we must not vieify landlords”. That is budget impact of real concern, but am certain there will never be action upon it.
September 30th, 2008 at 9:21 am
“Extreme partisans…”
I ought to call the kettle. He’d get a kick out of this.
September 30th, 2008 at 9:28 am
I’m not the one trying to make up rules after the fact, Reno.
But really, is that the best you can do? How about answering the questions.
September 30th, 2008 at 9:42 am
If we are going to do this retroactively, the question is ‘How far back do we go.”
I imagine Peoria provided at least some protection during the Lincoiln Douglas debate. I wonder how much interest we can charge for that still-unpaid bill?
September 30th, 2008 at 9:59 am
That’s just it, nobody seems to know what the rules are. If sctobrien can point out where he found the information he mentioned, I’d say it’s a clear-cut issue. If not, we ought to look at precedent.
I haven’t taken a hardline stance one way or another, but I have made it clear I think it’s shitty for the rest of us to have to pay for some jerk’s elitist private fundraiser.
Here’s the answer you asked for: For public-access events, no, neither the Obama campaign, the McCain campaign or even the Schock campaign should be held accountable. If it was a private event which only a certain few were allowed to attend but still used taxpayer money, then yes, a candidate ought to reimburse.
Two good things come from this: 1) it makes the candidate more accessible to their constituency and adds another type of transparency to their campaign so we can actually see what they’re trying to sell us. 2) it might possibly cut down on the types of big money events where special interests can essentially be allowed to buy a piece of the candidate.
I’ll be honest enough to admit that if Obama doesn’t pay for events meeting the criteria I described, he wouldn’t lose my vote. Not this time, at least. Frankly, the Republicans have run things into the ground with jaw-dropping magnitude and they deserve to lose this election.
September 30th, 2008 at 10:53 am
As i said last week . Splitting hairs. You do know Sandberg must be thinking about re running for council because he does this way before voting time . Rattle those cages …. We need to move on with this . Paul always gets it . And i don’t think Steve S has the time to post, he’s a very busy man.
September 30th, 2008 at 11:02 am
Please point out what “hairs” are being split.
September 30th, 2008 at 11:13 am
Sandberg gives Peoria a bad name.
September 30th, 2008 at 2:07 pm
Larger issue.
Should concerts that commercial promoters have at the Civic Center be charged for the extra police required to ensure the safety of those events? Someone is making money off of them and they are only open to people who pay for a ticket. How is that different from Schock’s fundraiser?
Should the basketball association or the Civic Center pay for the massive extra policing required for March Madness? Again, it is only open to those who purchase tickets. It’s not a free game out in the open. When I go, I notice a massive police presence. So should the city pay for policing that and not a political fundraiser? Both are open to only those who buy tickets.
This is the logical conclusion of fair, broad-based pay-as-you-use-it policing.
Laws need to apply fairly for all, not just to a candidate you don’t support.
I do respect sctobrien for admiting he would not vote against Obama for not reimbursing local governments for police protection for his political fundraisers, some at the max level of $28,500 per person. Most of the people clamoring against Schock on this issue just saw this as an expedient way to take a cheap shot at someone they don’t like, even though they are not willing to apply the policy further than Schock.
It’s called selective indignation and selective application of ex post facto law. In short, hypocrisy.
September 30th, 2008 at 2:26 pm
I’m in total agreement with you on this one, Bill. The way this should be looked at….go back to the 2004 election. At the time, George W. Bush was a sitting President while he was campaiging. During the time, every stop he made on the stump was not an official government stop. It was purely political. Did the Bush campaign ever, at any point, have to reimburse a city for police protection at that time?
I covered a stump in Davenport, IA which cost that city thousands of dollars in manpower just like this purely political stop in Peoria.
During that campaign, there were also stops that were fundraisers and not open to the public. Those are the stops we need to be comparing. I bet it’s safe to say, the Bush campaign never reimbursed any city along the way for police protection.
September 30th, 2008 at 2:31 pm
Postsimian,
define private event? Aaron’s event was mentioned on at least WHOI with information on how to attend. you buy a ticket, you go. Callahan’s fish fry was $15. you buy a ticket you go. If POTUS had gone to the fish fry there would have been similiar security measures. There were numerous Peoria residents in attendance. The fact is that the President is a target. They were not only protecting him, but also those who attended. Granted some of you may not think that my hide is worth the money spent, but such as it is, the protection was required by the Feds and local tax payers benefitted from the protection as we would expect to be in our own homes, the mall, crossing the street to city hall or yes, even a fish fry. It’s a matter of degree, but again required by the presence of the president. Is the councilman going to suggest that I also owe the city of Peoria additional funds for my protection?
September 30th, 2008 at 2:38 pm
FAIR – I’m pretty sure that the Civic Center and/or concert promoters DO reimburse the city for extra protection/police service. They hire their own security people anyway.
I don’t know, does Obama or McCain or whoever reimburse the cities they visit for police protection at fundraising events closed to the public? Can you find out?
Though it would take a severe brain injury or the like for Obama to lose my vote. And utter change in the fiber of my being is more likely.
September 30th, 2008 at 2:43 pm
FAIR – That is a strawman argument. You’re comparing a concert and March Madness, which draw thousands of people each time, to a private, limited gathering that costs $500 to get in.
First off, it does not cost $500 dollars to attend a concert or March Madness. Apples and oranges.
Second, events such as March Madness brings gobs of business into Peoria for its entire duration. Bush was in town a few hours and drew a compartively microscopic crowd.
Do you understand this obvious, enormous difference? Ignoring that is willful refusal on your part, not lack of support on mine. This is a de facto example of apples and oranges.
What you don’t seem to get about the indignation is that it is anything but selective. There is a very specific trigger, and we have explained it ad nauseam: It was a private, elitist event that we were required to pay for.
Even though it serves as an exemplary metaphor for his entire presidency, $40k for a few hours of Bush is not worth it to an area the size of Peoria. I guarantee you it was not matched–let alone exceeded–by the number of dollars spent on local businesses by those who attended.
September 30th, 2008 at 2:48 pm
Paul — It took place on private property, in an enclosed space separated from the public, and was open only to those who could afford $500 tickets.
The elitism speaks for itself. The way this event contrasts with (as it’s often compared with) Obama’s local appearances is worlds apart. I find the idea that this fundraiser was not intended for a certain demographic hard to swallow.
September 30th, 2008 at 2:50 pm
This is all a matter of scale. Any candidate who has or brings to town someone who has a big enough draw that it requires $38,000 in municipal services and demands $500/plate can afford to pay for the municipal services he uses. I’ll bet Callahan was able to cover all the police protection she needed for her fish fry — namely, $0. So I think your argument that this policy is going to somehow discriminate against poorer candidates is fallacious.
September 30th, 2008 at 2:57 pm
Fair,
When did I ever say or even hint that “POLITICAL Rallies” should not have to pay for costs of City services provided to that rally /or event? My position is according to City Ordinance, it is illegal for city staff to use city equiptment for political purposes, rallys, fundraisers, events. PERIOD!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Change the law, but I have not desire to.
September 30th, 2008 at 3:42 pm
CJ, you should be ashamed of yourself. They should pay dearly because… they can! Wow. I thought you were a bigger thinker than that.
September 30th, 2008 at 3:47 pm
would that go for the use of police cars and uniformed officers in campaign commercials and mail pieces?
September 30th, 2008 at 3:49 pm
so private equal elitism?
and CJ, your very state is discriminatory., but that must be okay since you believe it is okay.
Poster children for cognitive distortions….
Councilman Sandberg,
what are the city’s policies on employees performing duties while either intoxicated or under suspicion of intoxication? What are the ramifications/disciplinary actions which should be taken in documented cases?
signed a constituent.
September 30th, 2008 at 4:40 pm
C.J.: Colleen didn’t require Secret Service . I’m sure if she asked the Peoria County Sheriff’s department for help, they would have provided it. And I’m sure if anyone threatened her, some of the union guys would have stomped some heads.
OH, I just remembered … former Sheriff Jim Shadid in there. Maybe he was packing heat. If not, well, I still wouldn’t ant to tangle with him.
September 30th, 2008 at 4:41 pm
Paul, What’s discriminatory about it?
Diane,
That’s a total misrepresentation of what I said. When you bring a celebrity or dignitary or whatever to town, there are always costs associated with it. The bigger the celebrity/dignitary/whatever, the higher the costs. Bigger celebrities charge more for their performances. Bigger dignitaries cost more in security. The prices people pay to see these celebrities/dignitaries reflect those higher costs. The costs are directly proportionate to the demand. That’s just the way the market works.
Billy’s argument was:
My point was, none of those people will ever need $38,000 worth of protection (unless they become president), so it’s a moot point. They will need some protection, but that protection will be directly proportionate to their demand/need for security. Are we really supposed to believe that if Cynthia McKinney came to town, the police, fire, and public works departments would give her an escort to the venue and a barricade to protect against terrorist attacks? No. There’s no need for that level of protection.
That’s why I think the argument is fallacious. No one is saying that every candidate needs to pay $38,000. We’re saying every candidate should pay for whatever security is needed for his or her political fundraising event. It should be built into the cost (tickets, whatever). One picture with the president would cover Peoria’s costs in Schock’s case, with lots of money left over. No one is “paying dearly.”
September 30th, 2008 at 4:52 pm
Secret Service protection is afforded to major candidates for president of the united states. If the Secret Service requests assistance in protecting any of these candidates, I cannot imagine any decent police force refusing that request. And fundraising is an integral part of campaigning. Do you suppose that the loonies who want to hurt America by hurting our leaders would beg on such an attack because on a fundraiser like the one Schock had with Bush?
I’m an essential services first guy. Public safety is an essential service.
September 30th, 2008 at 4:54 pm
my statement was
“If POTUS had gone to the fish fry there would have been similiar security measures.”
There is not a doubt in my mind had the candidate’s function had been reversed then no one would have said a word. This is politics pure and simple.
The street brawl that happened at Bradley’s Fieldhouse. That was on private property, open to the public, it pulled police from my area to protect the Uplands. etc. is my area going to be reimbursed for its lack of coverage during that time period. Should there be a surplus fee for that police protection to those residents, after all “they can afford it” just because of the demographics?
You will argue that it’s absurd, but once you start the arguement, who draws the line, If Aaron then all, regardless of income, event type. Equal rights under the law….
September 30th, 2008 at 5:05 pm
Hmmm… How is Secret Service protection determined? According to this site:
The site also points out that Nader does not get Secret Service protection.
Again, no one is saying that there shouldn’t be security. Everyone agrees there should be. The question is over who pays for that security. I think the reason it hasn’t been an issue before is because it’s always been a negligible amount in the past. This time, however, we’re talking about a lot of money — $38,000. That’s made cities sit up and reevaluate their policies, as they should. It’s not just Peoria — other cities are doing the same thing, including Springfield.
By the way, did you hear the news? Schock is paying the city back. Kudos to him.
September 30th, 2008 at 5:11 pm
This will soon be a moot point, because WMBD is reporting that Schock intends to pay any bill sent to him by the City of Peoria. Ha. Remember the old saying be careful what you wish for. Let the record reflect that Sandberg and Schock’s opponent got their wish. AARON SCHOCK ROCKS!
September 30th, 2008 at 5:11 pm
Oh yeah, and CJ too.
September 30th, 2008 at 5:12 pm
Ugh. meaning CJ got his wish too. Dang deficit disorder.
September 30th, 2008 at 5:14 pm
Paul,
(1) If the president had gone to the Callahan rally, I believe the reaction would have been the same. Of course, since it didn’t happen, whatever we think might have happened is nothing but speculation.
(2) The two situations you cited are not in any way analogous.
September 30th, 2008 at 5:16 pm
Diane — Yes, I mentioned that at the end of an earlier comment. I’m pleased to see Schock step up to the plate and do the right thing. Kudos to him.
September 30th, 2008 at 5:18 pm
Paul, where did I say private = elitism. The elitist part of it was in the cost of admission. One does not plan an open-to-all debate in an area as traditionally blue collar as Peoria, IL and charge $500 at the door unless they are appealing to the upper class.
There was no public purpose for the president’s visit. As such, all costs incurred during the time should be reimbursed if nothing else for the principle of it.
Anyway, remember that thing I said earlier about precedent? Read ‘em and weep:
http://www.wsbt.com/news/election/2008/17443859.html?corder=reverse
http://newsblogs.chicagotribune.com/clout_st/2008/05/police-send-sea.html#more
According to the Federal Elections Commission, Schock owes the cost of travel at the very least: http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qn4188/is_20060831/ai_n16713554
A 2006 House report listed the cost of running Air Force One is $56,518 per hour: http://oversight.house.gov/documents/20060316113550-47530.pdf
As for the Obama campaign’s recent rally in Springfield, here’s what I found from their main newspaper, an article posted today:
http://www.sj-r.com/local/x436985062/City-says-it-will-send-bill-to-Obama-in-a-few-weeks
I’ve also called their newsroom and they seem to be under the impression Obama is going to pay. That wasn’t good enough for me, so I called the Obama campaign, who directed me to fill out a request for information. I’ll let you know if or when I receive a reply.
And that, my friends, is what we call a smackdown. Who wants to contact the Schock campaign and ask about the money it owes the federal government for Bush’s travel expenses?
September 30th, 2008 at 5:23 pm
Crap. There’s an epic response awaiting moderation right now, but while I was whipping it up, Diane came out and broke the news. There goes my moment of triumph
Anyway, good for Aaron. Doing this buys him much more good publicity than the $38k would have if this were hanging over his head.
September 30th, 2008 at 6:00 pm
Aaron Schock was on WCBU saying that he would pay any bill the city sent. I wouldn’t hold my breath waiting for a bill. Jim Ardis was also on WCBU saying that he didn’t think they bill Schock. That the council would maybe come up with a policy at the October 14th meeting.
September 30th, 2008 at 6:00 pm
Someone’s probably already said this, at least they should have, but this whole thing is crap. I can’t provide a citation BUT – I’m sure an identical situation has occurred herebefore involving Democrats and I’m sure today’s critics were silent then.
Get. Over. It.
September 30th, 2008 at 6:07 pm
I heard both interviews as well, and I believe Kohlrabi meant to write “Jim Ardis was also on WCBU saying that he didn’t think they should bill Schock”.
September 30th, 2008 at 6:12 pm
CJ, the principle has nothing to do with scale. If local police must be reimbursed for assiting the Secret Service then it doesn’t matter how large or small the event is. Either that is part of police duties or it is not.
Of course Callahan’s fish fry didn’t require police protection, no one was there with federal security requirements. Not so when House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer came to the district to campaign for her. The Capitol Police certainly asked for local police to assist on that. Not a big deal but there was some local police involved.
But to get to the issue, all presidential candidates have Secret Service protection. And the Secret Service routinely asks local police to assist everywhere they go. John McCain’s campaign a year ago was almost broke and most certainly could not have afforded to reimburse local governments for the police assistance that the Secret Service requested for each of his fundraisers. Ditto, for events by Biden, Dodd, Huckabee, Kucinich etc. If the Secret Service feels they need local police assistance to make the events safe, but struggling candidates cannot afford to pay, should they not be allowed to have fundraisers and just be forced to drop out?
Postsimian, you hypocrite. Obama has had more “eliitist” events than anyone. His big dollar events cost $28,500 per person. AND his campaign has reimbursed ZERO to any municipality in the nation for police protection for his mega fundraising events, not to mention rallies. Not that long ago, he had a big one at $28,500 per person in St. Louis.
And why should only political events reimburse for local police protection? Why not concerts or March Madness. Again, people have to pay for tickets to see them. Some like basketball, some don’t but everyone pays. One policy needs to govern all big events that require extra policing or it is unfair.
Anyone voting against Obama becuase he hasn’t remibursed a dime for local police protection for his fundraisers?
September 30th, 2008 at 6:19 pm
FAIR – Hypocrite? I’ve been quite critical of Obama’s big dollar events, jacksauce. Way to fail at argument.
Anyway, looks like there’s no use trying to reason with you. You think a taxpayer-funded, political Bush visit is the same thing as an event like March Madness. There’s a word for this: naive.
September 30th, 2008 at 6:32 pm
As usually, Renal misses the point.
September 30th, 2008 at 7:14 pm
“FAIR” — I assume you’re being deliberately obtuse to make a point. By your logic, no one in the city should have to provide private security for anything. They should just rely on the city’s police force to provide security at the city’s expense. I’m sure the Civic Center and other venues will be thrilled to hear they can now cut their security payroll completely. Let the taxpayers pick up the tab!
I’m sure there’s some middle ground here where we can come to an agreement. We need some sort of policy that protects the taxpayers from getting soaked, while still providing the safety we need.
September 30th, 2008 at 7:36 pm
the only middle ground appears that you get to pick and choose which events qualify and which don’t. bill those who have the money because they can afford it. With your logic it then doesn’t matter if the events are similiar, only that someone has an issue with it. I could cite a number of items that the city has paid money for. Civic Center tickets are not free. I can’t afford to go to events, yet my taxes support it and the police provide crowd control and answer calls regardless. Again, once the path is breached it opens it up for anyone wishes to throw a tantrum.
Let the games begin…..
September 30th, 2008 at 9:36 pm
I think Billy’s opening statement got it right, he is not a Schock supporter, but still he sees how problematic a political, after the fact , approach to this issue is. Anytime the President of the United States comes to Peoria, Illinois for any reason, I think the city of Peoria should be proud and honored to showcase their finest in support of that visit. The cost for a one day event should not even be an issue for discussion. To try to turn this into a political “got cha” thing is just wrong; period!
46 plus comments later I think Billy’s opening blog hit the nail on the head. It was well reasoned, objective, and fair; something I do not read in everything Billy writes.
October 1st, 2008 at 9:36 am
“Anytime the President of the United States comes to Peoria, Illinois for any reason, I think the city of Peoria should be proud and honored to showcase their finest in support of that visit.”
This is getting awfully close to a “we should support the president no matter what” type of reasoning. I’d tread carefully there, if I were you.
October 1st, 2008 at 12:44 pm
Postsimian,
I think Fair is talking about showing respect for the office. Hummm you folks remember respect don’t you.
October 1st, 2008 at 6:57 pm
Yeah, let’s write a principled, indignant, and detailed policy on when and how much candidates have to pay when they visit Peoria. That’ll teach ‘em.
That’s really seeing the big picture. The fact that it would be moot because Peoria would be placed immediately on the “don’t go that backwater town it’s one of the screwed up places that biils you” list is just a silly little technicality.
I’ll admit that I may be wrong – we probably already made the list with this smalltown, backwards thinking farce.
October 1st, 2008 at 9:05 pm
Postsimian,
I respect the office regardless of the officholder, and I stand by my comment, and no I will not tread carefully on that position.
Peoria doing its job for the visit of ANY SITTING PRESIDENT is what I was saying. That is not an endorsement of the individual. Man you have a chip on your shoulder.
October 1st, 2008 at 9:54 pm
Doing its job is one thing, welcoming and considering it an honor is another. I understand respect for the office, but the office and the officeholder are intrinsically bound together–you simply cannot separate them for the duration of their term.
In short, when I hear someone say they will respect the office of the president just because it’s the office of the president–regardless of who the president is and how unprecedentedly abusive he’s been with his position–he’s no longer president, he’s a monarch or a dictator. That “support the office no matter what” garbage is what enables it.
Anyway, I’d rather have a chip on my shoulder than be a good German, that’s all I’m saying.
October 1st, 2008 at 10:15 pm
Postsimian,
I just firmly and steadfastly feel the office is so much more significant and important than any one person who holds it at any one time.
The person and the office are not intrinsically bound together. Respect of the office dictates we welcome whoever the officeholder at any given time is. When the officeholder lives up to the office then they are intrinsict; one and the same. When the officeholder is less than we hope and expect (i.e. Bill Clinton to many of us, George Bush to many of us) then they are not intrinsically connected.
Bottom line in my mind, a Presidential visit to Peoria is a good thing no matter who that person is. The cost to deal with a Presidential visit should be part of running the city of Peoria. It should not be politicized. That makes Peoria look petty and weak. I think Peoria is better than that.
October 2nd, 2008 at 12:09 am
Meh, I haven’t made up my mind on who ought to be paying for it. I definitely don’t think taxpayers ought to be paying for anything political outside the voluntary public funds for presidential campaigns we donate when we do our taxes. Remember, Peoria was not the reason he came to Peoria.
Moving on, I think the main reason why I see them intrinsically connected during the duration of the term is because of the power that comes with the office. I really don’t think they can be separated while that remains in play, which it, by necessity, must.
Good talk.
October 5th, 2008 at 7:46 pm
Hey Diane;
Re: comment #42… It would really bother me, if I wasn’t certain that you’re joking. Who are you to “shame” someone else…
And for that matter, yes, Aaron & Steve Shear & Jim Ardis can all offer their opinion, but simply because the mayor has an “opinion” on the issue, do you feel that makes it right?
Using that logic, when the Mayor and Police Chief of Birmingham said it “is acceptable” to use knight sticks on the “heads of children of n*gg^ers”, then you surely had to agree with that, right? I’m not accusing — I’m only trying to ask that you use your logic consistently – not just as it’s convenient for your argument.
And to everyone who thinks Aaron should not pay the bill, then compares it to Obama’s address in Springfield: it’s not EVEN apples & oranges — it’s more like apples and cadillac bumpers.