Originally Posted by clarkstoncracker
just so you know, Bouchard isn't hiding anything. He took a 2nd mortgage on his house for 250,000, and his campaign spent just over 480,000 so far.. That is less then how much Butler took out of his own pocket for his election. (yes, he is a pastor at a church who makes over 1 million per year)
Stabenow released today that they have 5.2 million in their campaign fund. Bouchard has 570,000.
have not spent more then
. You are just following the bias of the media..
The National Taxpayers Union Foundation has added up the public costs of the presidential election. It found that of the nearly $700 million spent, taxpayers paid almost half.
* Nine of the 11 presidential candidates in the primaries took a total of $61 million from taxpayers to run their campaigns -- with George W. Bush and Libertarian candidate Harry Browne rejecting public funds.
* The GOP convention in Philadelphia cost taxpayers $46.5 million, and the Democrats' convention in Los Angeles cost another $53 million..
* As for the general election, 37 percent of the $124 million Bush raised was public money -- while 62 percent of Al Gore's $133 million came from taxpayers.
* Then there is the $7 million that will be spent on the inauguration.
Source: Editorial, "Our Publicly Financed Election," Investor's Business Daily, December 14, 2000.
I didn't state that Bouchard was hiding anything. Simply stated that he hasn't played all of his cards. The man has some pretty high up political connections as well.
for what it's worth, I support Mr. Bouchard, and wasn't intending anything slanderous towards him, or the republican party.
and careful which sources you cite related to campaign funds. a bitter democrat might twist it around and start spouting about PAC funds, soft money, and other big business sponsorship of our nation's elected officials.
regardless of where you stand on the issue(s) Bush, and many
may make a point of not taking public funds for their activities quite simply cause they don't need to, and it makes a strong statement to certain individuals.
quite similarily, how Oakland County has the lowest (or tied for lowest) county tax millage rate in the state. (authorized to collect more, but by having it 1/10th of a mill lower than anyone else, it exudes some bragging rights when counting other demographic ares.) - ok, that was a stretch of an analogy... but hopefully you catch what I mean.