Capitol Fax.com - Your Illinois News Radar

Question of the day

Posted in:

Illinois

* The Peoria City Council debated yesterday whether congressional candidate Aaron Schock ought to reimburse the city $38,252 in costs, including but not limited to police protection, associated with President Bush’s attendance at a Schock fundraiser earlier this year…

[Police Chief Steve Settingsgaard] said even though it was no secret Bush was in Peoria for a political stop on behalf of Schock, it is still his department’s duty to protect the president.

[At-large Councilman Gary Sandberg] then cited a portion of city ordinance defining “prohibited political activity” as anything “preparing for, organizing or participating in any political meeting,” rally, demonstration or other political event.

“If we do not abide by our ordinance and bill the person who this fundraiser was for, we are violating the ordinance in that we allowed compensated employees to partake in a political event,” Sandberg said. […]

But Sandberg said since the federal government is being reimbursed by the Schock campaign for the use of Air Force One on its trip to Peoria, then the city should be reimbursed as well.

Schock’s campaign manager last week said the federal government will be reimbursed for the use of Air Force One according to a governmental formula that has been in place since the 1980s. The manager also said that no campaign has ever had to pay for local police protection requested by the Secret Service whenever the president visits.

* The question: Should political candidates reimburse local governments for expenses in situations like this? Explain fully, please.

posted by Rich Miller
Wednesday, Sep 24, 08 @ 11:34 am

Comments

If I recall correctly, the president did not make any public appearances. The sole purpose of the trip was the fundraiser. The only beneficiary was the campaign.

In this case, the campaign should reimburse the city for the obvious and necessary expenses related to the president’s visit.

I remember I thought it was pretty sad the president couldn’t squeeze in at least one public appearance. It’s part of the job to give the folks a chance to cheer or boo when you’re out and about the country.

Comment by wordslinger Wednesday, Sep 24, 08 @ 11:41 am
Nope. By that standards both the Obama and McCain campaigns should be reimbursing the federal government for their Secret Service protection on the campaign trail. When it comes to necessary protection of public officials I have no problem with the costs associated. I think their is a distinction between reimbursing the federal government for the use of Air Force One and the cost of protection.

Comment by wndycty Wednesday, Sep 24, 08 @ 11:45 am
Yes.
Any candidate that impinges on their neighbor’s costs should ensure that those costs are paid and that appreciation of the neighbor’s good will and patience be acknowleged.

It doesn’t matter if a president schedules a public appearance. Candidates demonstrate their fiscal concerns when they ensure that any costs they generate are paid.

Comment by VanillaMan Wednesday, Sep 24, 08 @ 11:49 am
==By that standards both the Obama and McCain campaigns should be reimbursing the federal government for their Secret Service protection on the campaign trail.==

Um…I think 1968 changed this standard as official party nominees are awarded this protection.

To the QOTD: Absolutely the campaign should reimburse the city. As wordslinger noted I could even give a pass if the prez made at least one token, public appearance. The only beneficiary of the visit was A?S’s campaign, and they should pay for all legitimate costs.

Comment by Vote Quimby! Wednesday, Sep 24, 08 @ 11:52 am
Windy City, I believe it’s federal law that the two major party candidates and their families receive Secret Service protection. And I believe it’s also law that candidates prior to nomination can request protection if they can demonstrate a reasonable threat.

I know Jesse Jackson had Secret Service protection out in Iowa in 1988.

Comment by wordslinger Wednesday, Sep 24, 08 @ 11:59 am
Quimby- An official party nominee is not conducting the state’s business, their role is purely political. So I can’t understand why anyone would expect a campaign to cover the cost of protecting the president during political activities when we cover the costs of the nominees. To me once a person is deemed in the need of protection (presidents, governors, mayors and other elected officials) we shouldn’t be worrying about being reimbursed for their protection. The cost for Air Force One is different.

Comment by wndycty Wednesday, Sep 24, 08 @ 12:00 pm
The president of the US was in town, and the city had to provide the protection. If he was there for a personal visit to the mayor, would the mayor then be responsible to personally reimburse the city? I would hope not.

This is also a slippery slope. If this becomes standard, every campaign would be subject to bills and possible harassment from an incumbent municipal administration, which could convenient lowball or forgive those they support, while fully billing opponents and publicizing them as deadbeats. Why set the precedent? So, assuming the question implies that campaigns be REQUIRED to pay the expenses, I would answer no.

That being said, Schock could give himself a big public relations boost by footing the bill.

Comment by Snidely Whiplash Wednesday, Sep 24, 08 @ 12:02 pm
Why should the public pay for a private appearance? But if this is not the first time something like this has occurred and it has become an issue for reasons other than concern for taxpayers, that’s a different story.

Comment by cynically anonymous Wednesday, Sep 24, 08 @ 12:04 pm
Yes. The campaign should reimburse (or in the case of Hillary Clinton) pay in advance. All special precautions, overtime for police, traffic control, etc. should be paid for by the campaign.

Comment by David Wednesday, Sep 24, 08 @ 12:14 pm
Didn’t Winnetka face this issue regarding a Bush fundraiser some years ago? I recall they debated sending a bill to the host of the event. Not sure how it was resolved. Anyone?

Comment by 47th Ward Wednesday, Sep 24, 08 @ 12:16 pm
windy: We are already paying to protect the president through the Secret service. But if public assets (vehicles and manpower–did you read the article?) are used for a private event the beneficiary should pay for ALL costs. I disagree with your statement the cost for AF1 is different. This confirms the fact is was a private event, and the campaign should do the right thing and pay its bills.

The RFK murder in 1968 is why candidates get protection now…

Comment by Vote Quimby! Wednesday, Sep 24, 08 @ 12:19 pm
I absolutely agree with the City of Peoria. I have had to endure the frequently over the top demands of the Secret Service for a Presidential visit, and they are extraordinary and far beyond what might be termed reasonable local police protection. Certainly no one in a President’s retinue ever had to give any thought at all to the costs associated with their demands. If the Presidential visit is indeed necessary and non-partisan, and directly connected with Presidential duties, then the local government and long-suffering citizenry just have to endure it. It is quite another matter, however, when the President is flitting about conducting partisan activities for the benefit of his political party. In my opinion, local government owes him nothing under those circumstances and should not have to pay costs over and above what would normal.

Comment by Skirmisher Wednesday, Sep 24, 08 @ 12:23 pm
This sole purpose of the trip: political support to Schock.

Schock benefits.
Bill comes due.
Schock pays — in full!

Comment by Philosophe Forum Wednesday, Sep 24, 08 @ 12:33 pm
Did Obama reimburse Springfield for his two announcements at the old State Capitol - announcing his presidential run and then announcing Biden as VP candidate?

Or is this just another trite stick-it-to Republicans deal?

Comment by Pay Up Wednesday, Sep 24, 08 @ 12:45 pm
No.

Candidates should not have to subsidize government agencies (police) for doing their job.

Requiring candidates to shell out this money would infringe on their 1st Amendment rights. This is a free speech issue.

Comment by Frost Wednesday, Sep 24, 08 @ 12:47 pm
Pay Up: Yes, the Obama campaign was billed $60,000 for the Biden announcement. His initial announcement cost less because of a lower crowd and less security.
So quit your whining…it’s not just the GOP.

Comment by Vote Quimby! Wednesday, Sep 24, 08 @ 12:48 pm
No.

The president is the president whether he is at the UN, the White House, on his Texas ranch, or at a private luncheon in Illinois. The protection is as much for “the office” as it is the officeholder.

And, having worked a number of presidential events, I found the USSS staff relatively easy to work with, given the demands of the job and situation. Other staffers and people who get a chance to get in the act, do tend to let that go to their heads at times.

As for Springfield and Obama… I live here, and the last I have heard was that the city officials had no intention to bill the Obama campaign for their $60,000+ in expenses and overtime.

Comment by BehindTheScenes Wednesday, Sep 24, 08 @ 1:36 pm
Mishawaka, Ind., made former Rep. Chocola pay police overtime for a Bush fundraising visit.

http://www.wsbt.com/news/election/2008/17443859.html?corder=reverse

Comment by Hoosier Daddy Wednesday, Sep 24, 08 @ 1:39 pm
==Candidates should not have to subsidize government agencies (police) for doing their job.==

Big-time political rallies are a significant drain on police resources. These events drive up the police overtime costs like you would not believe. Who pays the overtime costs? The taxpayers pay, that’s who. Political candidates should be prepared to foot the bill for the extraordinary impact they have on local government.

Comment by Jake from Elwood Wednesday, Sep 24, 08 @ 1:51 pm
I’m still trying to figure out why Blago gets to zip through traffic. . .

When it comes to abuse of public services, we all have our own issues.

Comment by Skeeter Wednesday, Sep 24, 08 @ 2:04 pm
Absolutely he should. He could use it to his advantage also. Bush made him a heck of a lot more than the $38k that the city is seeking. Make an ad showing that he is a dedicated public servant who is not going to use taxpayer money for his own campaign purposes…and even though not required to, he paid for the police protection for his fundraiser.

Comment by Mountain Man Wednesday, Sep 24, 08 @ 3:11 pm
I’m not sure if Obama was billed for the extra police time incurred by the City of Springfield when he first announced his campaign from the Old State Capitol. I do, however, remember seeing an article in the newspaper that the Chief of Police was going to pursue asking for $60K from Obama for the announcement of Joe Biden as VP running mate when that announcement was recently held in Springfield. Whether the request makes it past the democratic mayor, Tim Davlin, or not remains to be seen, but as far as the Chief of Police is concerned, he thinks his department should be reimbursed and I don’t think he would be a bit shy in asking for same. I also think Springfield should be reimbursed for both, considering the obscene amount of money that is being hauled in and spent by both candidates.

Comment by You betcha Wednesday, Sep 24, 08 @ 3:32 pm
I gotta ask one question before I express an opinion on this one. With all of the secret service protection that the president has…..what role did the Peoria Police Department play in his protection.

Comment by downhereforyears Wednesday, Sep 24, 08 @ 4:15 pm
Yes. It was a personal appearance by the president for the campaign; not a “presidential” visit.

As a sub-question: There was a significant IDOT commitment of manpower and resources to help with the road closures and detours (as always happens wherever the pres visits). Shouldn’t they be reimbursed too in this case?

Comment by Cornerfield Wednesday, Sep 24, 08 @ 4:29 pm
No, but…

The USSS should prepare “going forward” guidelines to cover these situations in the future for both candidate details and POTUS/VPOTUS details where local assistance is requested and a bill is subsequently presented. As Corner notes above, the local costs of a POTUS stop aren’t all police-related and could include fire and street depts at a mininum depending on the venue.

AA’s concern is inconsitent treatment of similar situations and/or the apparent absence of written guidelines for reimbursement.

What I think the people beefing about 50 grand in Peoria don’t realize is the millions spent on executive protection throughout government nationally. Except for Blago, who despite Chuck Goudie’s best efforts still abuses the privilege, there isn’t any abuse left at the State level (AA could be wrong here…)
The Federal Government is another story. Seems like every mope above the Deputy Undersecretary of Ag has got a detail and a batch of Black Tahoes all lit up every time he/she is on the move. More planes than one would think, too. 50 large wouldn’t cover the annual gas bill for one of these fleets.

Comment by Arthur Andersen Wednesday, Sep 24, 08 @ 6:21 pm
Pay Up and Behind-the-Scenes are “spot-on” as Kass would say.

POTUS needs protection at all times and “stick-it-to-Republicans is always, always, the theme of the day.

Barack’s absurd Springfield announcement and attendant costs is just the beginning.

Off-topic: Mayor Daley wants bar owners to stop serving liquor after the seventh inning of a playoff game, or they will be “voted dry.”.

However, is Harry Caray’s in Wrigleyville getting special dispensation from City Hall to increase their capacity (e.g., removing tables, etc.)during the playoffs?

Just wonderin’.

Comment by Boulevard of Broken Dreams Wednesday, Sep 24, 08 @ 8:39 pm
Obviously, policies need to be set and discussed in advance so that they can be considered by fundraising committees. Slapping someone with a bill after the fact, if that’s what happened, seems a bit unfair.

In setting those policies, municipalities should of course also consider the impact these charges might have on local businesses. Is the event being planned at a local hotel or private home? If the latter, are local caterers involved? etc. etc.

If there’s a nearby town where the event could be held instead that DOESN’T charge for police and fire services, the fundraising committee might decide to hold the even there, resulting in potential loss of business and publicity.

Therefore, it’s a little difficult to fully agree that the event could not have benefitted Peoria in any way at all without knowing all the facts, or if the facts did come out, whether the public safety department might have reconsidered their request.

Comment by Anonymous Wednesday, Sep 24, 08 @ 10:50 pm