Latest Post | Last 10 Posts | Archives
Previous Post: SUBSCRIBERS ONLY - Supplement to today’s edition
Next Post: Today’s Golden Horseshoe Awards
Posted in:
* In a long story about how members of the state’s congressional delegation legally use their campaign accounts for meals, travel and other expenses was this weird revelation about Congressman Aaron Schock…
Schock’s campaign spent $407 at a Lombard studio that offers ultrasounds for expectant mothers and $452 at a Peoria maternity boutique, all of which were identified on the disclosure forms as gift expenses.
Um, OK.
posted by Rich Miller
Friday, Dec 20, 13 @ 8:31 am
Sorry, comments are closed at this time.
Previous Post: SUBSCRIBERS ONLY - Supplement to today’s edition
Next Post: Today’s Golden Horseshoe Awards
WordPress Mobile Edition available at alexking.org.
powered by WordPress.
Wow. I’m sure it is nothing. Absolutely sure, but seriously who thought no one would notice this?
Comment by Jimbo Friday, Dec 20, 13 @ 8:41 am
While the table in the article was extensive, the article dealt with a lot of nickel-n-dime stuff.
To the point, Bill Foster spent 7.7 million from funds raised, the largest amount spent by the Illinois Reps. Just over $5M (65%)went to ‘Media and Advertising’. In the last year he has been my US rep, I have yet to receive a mailing from him. The article gave no ink to this information.
Comment by Darienite Friday, Dec 20, 13 @ 8:44 am
Maybe Congressman Schock was taking wrapped Christmas or birthday gifts for the Ultrasound to see what people got him(?)
Comment by Oswego Willy Friday, Dec 20, 13 @ 8:50 am
Certainly don’t want to jump to conclusions but it’s hard to understand those type of expenditures from a campaign fund.
Comment by Stones Friday, Dec 20, 13 @ 8:53 am
What do you book that under, Constituent Service? Future Constituent Service?
Comment by wordslinger Friday, Dec 20, 13 @ 8:55 am
This development is really going to wreck his abs.
Comment by Montrose Friday, Dec 20, 13 @ 9:04 am
And I thought the cuff links would be the problem for Schock.
Comment by 47th Ward Friday, Dec 20, 13 @ 9:07 am
When will people learn?
This is not what campaign funds are donated to be used for. The candidate doesn’t own them;they are given in trust to be used for winning campaigns.
It is an insult to the donors to misuse their funds, regardless of the rules.
Comment by walkinfool Friday, Dec 20, 13 @ 9:17 am
—
This is not what campaign funds are donated to be used for. The candidate doesn’t own them;they are given in trust to be used for winning campaigns.
—
As to when they will learn? when they are prosecuted for a crime. Until then politicians make sure the rules are pretty loose on these things just so they can get away with using the money… No rules for them. But if you forget to check a box on a form or expense that one dinner… just wait for that audit.
Comment by RonOglesby Friday, Dec 20, 13 @ 9:23 am
On second thought, perhaps these expenses should be booked under Constituent Serviced?
Comment by wordslinger Friday, Dec 20, 13 @ 9:33 am
“It is an insult to the donors to misuse their funds”
That is only true if the donors care. When you have Congressman Rush who funnels 1 of 4 donated dollars directly to his wife to run seemingly nonexistent campaigns, I think the donors donate with a wink and a nod.
Comment by Plutocrat03 Friday, Dec 20, 13 @ 9:38 am
I’m going to guess a gift to a struggling mom as part of a PR move to promote healthy pregnancies or life issues.
Comment by Mom Friday, Dec 20, 13 @ 9:43 am
- Mom -,
You may be on to it! Mail piece or video.
- wordslinger -, you last post was priceless.
Comment by Oswego Willy Friday, Dec 20, 13 @ 9:46 am
Word for the win!
Comment by Norseman Friday, Dec 20, 13 @ 9:50 am
Excellent guess, Mom. He’s far too savvy to use his own campaign funds for hush money as others implied.
Or it could be a gift to one of his three siblings, each of whom is married with children. Maybe one is struggling financially? But if it is that, he will have some explaining to do.
Comment by Robert the Bruce Friday, Dec 20, 13 @ 9:53 am
I never even noticed that he had a baby bump. Must be the cut of the clothes
Comment by Hank Friday, Dec 20, 13 @ 9:57 am
===
“It is an insult to the donors to misuse their funds”
That is only true if the donors care.
===
True. Donors that give because they feel they derive some sort of benefit may not care. Those that give for ideological reasons would probably care. If I was running a campaign against Schock, I would mail this article, highlighting the most damning sections, to all his disclosed donors in an effort to dry up future money.
Comment by Just Observing Friday, Dec 20, 13 @ 10:27 am
Poor guy was trying to keep this gift to a needy person discreet. But, alas, the paper trail caused it to become public news. Methinks he hid it right where it could and would be found (i.e. didn’t hide it). Now there’s nothing left to do but tell the whole very touching story.
Comment by A guy... Friday, Dec 20, 13 @ 10:30 am
Meh, being kind to a constituent in need should not generate any sort of negative press…good for him if this is the case…he should use this to his advantage as I’m sure he will…
Comment by Loop Lady Friday, Dec 20, 13 @ 10:35 am
Rich, why did my tongue in cheek post cross the line and get deleted?
Comment by Chicago Cynic Friday, Dec 20, 13 @ 10:44 am
Cynic, read your comment again, listen for the whistle, go and sin no more. You only get confession once with Rev. Miller.
Comment by A guy... Friday, Dec 20, 13 @ 11:00 am
A Guy,
Worst kept secret…sigh.
Comment by Chicago Cynic Friday, Dec 20, 13 @ 11:10 am
How long before the story that this mother kept the baby, put it up for adoption–did everything but abort?
Comment by Nonplussed Friday, Dec 20, 13 @ 11:12 am
- Chicago Cynic -, lol.
To the Post,
It’s the week of Christmas, after petitions, it has no legs on its face, and now even “hiding it in plain sight” for a bump for ONE needy family/woman is not the stuff of good politics as a blind pat on the back. It gets an “explanation” only if it makes it a multi day event. Schock will dictate how long it’s a story.
Comment by Oswego Willy Friday, Dec 20, 13 @ 11:21 am
Did some good deeds, and didn’t try to take credit for it, which is by definition the heart of a good deed.
Comment by Ghost Friday, Dec 20, 13 @ 12:29 pm
–Did some good deeds, and didn’t try to take credit for it, which is by definition the heart of a good deed.–
The dude has a gig at $174K with golden perks and bennies. He doesn’t have to pick up a check for a meal or airfare if he plays his cards rights.
If he wanted to do a good deed anonymously, I imagine he could have scraped up $850 without tapping his campaign fund and reporting it.
Comment by wordslinger Friday, Dec 20, 13 @ 12:35 pm
===If he wanted to do a good deed anonymously, I imagine he could have scraped up $850 without tapping his campaign fund and reporting it.===
In reality, who would say, “Charge that through the Campaign, wait until we get that sweet bump after this is ‘discovered’ and we bring out what it as for!”
Yikes!
Comment by Oswego Willy Friday, Dec 20, 13 @ 12:40 pm
The Tribune needs to do a follow up story.
One that quotes donors on their view of these expenditures. Not the big-wigs, either.
Donors making less than the $174,000 a Congressman makes.
Donors giving $10 or $20 to the candidate instead of going to the movies that night or out for ice cream, because they believe in that person.
Let’s hear what they think about this judicious use of their post-tax dollars.
Comment by Formerly Known As... Friday, Dec 20, 13 @ 1:42 pm
Better yet, put these candidates in a room with those donors. Let’s hear them explain how it was so vital their $ went towards baby booties or a suite at the Ritz.
Or $130,000 worth of trips to Las Vegas, Mexico and other sunny destinations.
Or how more than $.25 of every dollar donated goes to the candidate’s wife.
Ugh.
Comment by Formerly Known As... Friday, Dec 20, 13 @ 1:45 pm
Word I think life is making you a bit cynical
Comment by Ghost Friday, Dec 20, 13 @ 2:56 pm