Patterico's Pontifications

10/23/2007

Larry Craig pays Legal Fees from Campaign Funds

Filed under: Politics — DRJ @ 12:07 pm



[Guest post by DRJ]

Senator Larry Craig will use campaign funds to pay legal fees in the appeal of his Minnesota guilty plea conviction and the Senate ethics’ investigation. He’s paid $23,000.00 to one lawyer already:

Sen. Larry Craig (R-Idaho) has used $23,000 in campaign funds to pay the top Washington ethics lawyer, Stan Brand, who is fighting his case before the Senate ethics committee, according to Craig’s latest filing with the Federal Election Commission.

No additional legal expenses appear in the report, but they eventually will. Craig, according to his office, has decided to use his campaign committee for attorney fees related to his criminal defense in Minnesota as well.

“A better read (of the latest report) is that Stan Brand bills more quickly,” Craig’s spokesman, Dan Whiting, wrote in an email. The report covers spending from July 1 to Sept. 30 and showed Craig with $475,000 left in the bank.”

Craig’s campaign stated that use of campaign funds for legal expenses is authorized by the FEC, and one expert speculated the various legal matters could not only help clear Craig’s name as a Senator but might also assist Craig’s case in a Senate ethics investigation.

I can see why it’s legal to use campaign funds to pay lawyers’ fees, especially given the litigious nature of politics these days. But paying lawyers to undo a candidate’s guilty plea isn’t what I expect my (infrequent) donations to be used for and I imagine that’s true for most donors.

— DRJ

9 Responses to “Larry Craig pays Legal Fees from Campaign Funds”

  1. Unfortunately, he has nothing to lose by pissing off his donors/voter. He’s not going to win and he’s not going to run again (knock on wood).

    dave (0606c0)

  2. Now that is something campaign finance laws should address….

    but, look who wrote the laws…

    reff (bff229)

  3. Reason #4 why Craig reneged on his promise to resign. (Ask me what reasons 1-3 are.)

    nk (da3e6b)

  4. NK,

    What are reasons 1-3?

    DRJ (fb1a22)

  5. 1. He needs to travel in order to indulge his lifestyle;
    2. He needs the Senate perks including the travel expense account;
    3. He needs the self-esteem from being a Senator because he does not have much as a man (and I don’t mean because of his sexual preference).

    I don’t see doing what’s best for his constituents or even his party as part of his motivation.

    nk (da3e6b)

  6. How can it be a shock that a pol is using campaign funds for something else?

    No calculator can give us the number of times.

    King Pandeen (87ec7f)

  7. This IS shocking. I thought that Larry Craig’s legal bills were being paid as a lavish gift from Fabian Nunez’s campaign funds.

    nosh (53dd5b)

  8. His defense is simple. He said in his statement that “he began going to the bathroom” after sitting down. Unless he has to sit down to pee, we can safely assume it was a number two. That leaves two possibilities, fecal matter either did leave his rectum and was deposited in the toilet bowl, or it did not, either because of constipation, thus explaining his “wide stance” to achieve leverage or because he saw the officer’s badge and experience an involuntary sphincter muscle contraction. He has a chance to beat this thing and win re-election only if the first instance is true. I don’t recall if the officer inspected the toilet bowl subsequent to the arrest and I also don’t recall the toilet being flushed after the Honorable Senator Larry Craig, Republican, from the great state of Iowa, entered the stall. And if you check the Senator’s sworn statement subsequent to his arrest, you will read that he definitely reported that the previous occupant of the toilet stall in question did flush the toilet before vacating the stall, thus eliminating the possibility of any fecal matter discovered by the officer originating from any source other than Senator Larry craig’s own anus, the Senatorial Anus, unless of course the toilet did not flush properly or lacked sufficient centrifugal force to impel the feces or feces downward through the flush pipe, or that one or more of the feces had a high degree of emebedded gas within it structure, a phenomenon colloquially referred to as “floaties.” In other words, “If he shit, you must acquit!” and he deserves another term to continue serving the people of Iowa and these great United States of America.

    Gibbo (14fbd7)

  9. At some point I might just conclude Larry Craig hasn’t been truthful. I don’t know when that point is, mind you, I’m just saying it could happen.

    Christoph (92b8f7)


Powered by WordPress.

Page loaded in: 0.0840 secs.