- Home
- Our Party
- Events
- Our Candidates
- Our Agenda
- Education
- Creating a 21st Century Economy
- Strengthen Small Business
- Developing an Information-Based Economy
- Unemployment Benefits
- Improve Wages and Working Conditions
- Make Government/Business Relationships Serve the Common Good
- Hold irresponsible Wall Street speculators accountable
- Rebuild America’s infrastructure
- Keep jobs here at home
- Address the high cost of food and energy
- Foster fair global trade
- State Fiscal Policy
- Affordable Health Care
- Security for Our Families
- The Environment
- New Energy for Texas
- Public Safety
- Rural Texas and Agriculture
- Property Rights
- Transportation
- Restoring Public Trust
- Immigration
- Veterans
- National Security
- Take Action
David Edwards | The Raw Story
Republican presidential candidate Ron Paul has campaigned on cutting the size and cost of government, but it turns out the Texas Republican is a big spender when it comes to air fare.
An Associated Press report published Monday found that since May 2009, Paul had billed taxpayers for 31 round-trip flights and 12 one-way flights, all first class.
In all, taxpayers paid $52,000 for flights where cheaper tickets were available. AP found that Paul’s office could have saved $27,621 by selecting economy tickets instead.
“We always get him full refundable tickets since the congressional schedule sometimes changes quickly,” Paul’s chief of staff Jeff Deist explained.
But a review of the records showed that nearly two-thirds of the tickets were purchased two weeks in advanced or earlier.
“You could almost always beat the government rate,” Taxpayers for Common Sense vice president Steve Ellis told the wire service. “They need to be walking the walk, and one of the ways they can do that is to be fiscally responsible for how they spend their member office money.”
Throughout his presidential campaign, Paul has blasted his Republican opponents for not being serious about cutting spending.
“You are a big spender,” the candidate told former Pennsylvania Sen. Rick Santorum at a debate earlier this month. “You are a big-government conservative. To say you are a conservative is a stretch. Somebody has to point out your record.”
Josh Israel | ThinkProgress
Three Republican appointees to the Federal Election Commission may be as responsible as anyone for the lack of transparency of post-Citizens United political spending.
Two years ago today, when the Supreme Court issued its Citizens United ruling, one bright spot was that the majority explicitly endorsed the constitutionality and necessity of disclosure rules that inform voters who paid for the political ads they see. “Disclosure is the less-restrictive alternative to more comprehensive speech regulations,” they affirmed.
Federal statutes require that for all significant “independent expenditures” and“electioneering communications” — the two major classifications for political expenditures made by outside groups unaffiliated with political candidates — the names and addresses of large donors must be identified.
But the FEC, through its rulemaking process, gave these groups a loophole. They said that the identities of donors behind the outside spending must be identified, but only if the money was specifically earmarked for the political expenditure. This means that a secretive right-wing group like the Karl Rove-linked Crossroads GPS need only identify the funders who pay for their attack ads if those donors explicitly say the money should be used for attack ads. Few do.
In April, Rep. Chris Van Hollen (D-MD) asked the FEC to close the loophole for “independent expenditures” and filed a lawsuit challenging the loophole for “electioneering communications.”
Last month the six FEC commissioners killed — on a 3-3 vote — a motion to begin consideration of Van Hollen’s suggestions. By law, the agency may have only three members of any political party. By tradition, the president chooses three commissioners and the other party’s Senate leader chooses three. The three Republican appointees — Commissioners Caroline Hunter, Donald McGahn II and Matthew Petersen — were the three “no” votes. The same trio also made headlines last month when they took the view that even coordination between Super PACs and candidates might not qualify as coordination between Super PACs and candidates.
The lawsuit is still pending.
Because of these loopholes, virtually none of the funders behind the Super PAC attack ads in Iowa, New Hampshire, and South Carolina will be disclosed until well after the voters there have cast their ballots. And the funders behind 501(c)(4) attack ads may never be known.
So while it was the Supreme Court’s majority that opened the floodgates for corporate money in our elections, it is the deadlocked FEC that is keeping voters from even knowing where that money comes from.
