Perry campaign funds to cover future legal costs
Source: Associated Press
AUSTIN, Texas (AP) — Republican Texas Gov. Rick Perry says any future legal bills he incurs fighting two felony indictments will be paid for with campaign funds, not taxpayer dollars.
Perry has spent $80,000 in public funds on the case so far, and has retained a high-powered team of attorneys moving forward.
But spokeswoman Lucy Nashed said Thursday that further legal bills would come out of campaign coffers. She says she didn't know if there are plans to reimburse the state for Perry's past legal expenses.
The governor isn't seeking re-election, but may run again for president in 2016. As of June 30, he had $4 million-plus in campaign funds.
Read more: http://www.stltoday.com/news/national/govt-and-politics/perry-campaign-funds-to-cover-future-legal-costs/article_18a7ecdc-52ab-542b-a462-41e4d871d74c.html
Anyone up on the legality of this? Seems I remember someone else recently getting into trouble for using campaign cash for lawyer bills.
= new reply since forum marked as read
Blue Cheddar net
http://bluecheddar.net
If you are, that case may not be entirely applicable, because whatever Perry did was in his role of governor and not as part of any personal hanky-panky.
http://www.fec.gov/law/litigation/fec_craig.shtml
On June 11, 2012, the Federal Election Commission filed suit in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia against former U.S. Senator Larry Craig and his authorized campaign committee, Craig for U.S. Senate, claiming that they converted more than $200,000 in contributions to Mr. Craig’s personal use. The suit names Craig for U.S. Senate ("Craig Committee"
, Kaye O’Riordan (in her official capacity as treasurer for Craig for U.S. Senate) and Larry Craig as defendants.
The complaint alleges that during 2007 and 2008 Mr. Craig used campaign funds to pay legal expenses he incurred in connection with his June 2007 arrest at Minneapolis-St. Paul International Airport, his guilty plea to a misdemeanor charge of disorderly conduct, and subsequent efforts to withdraw that guilty plea. From July 9, 2007, through October 5, 2008, the Craig Committee disbursed more than $480,000 for legal fees and other expenses. This sum includes more than $200,000 paid to two firms for expenses related to Mr. Craig’s efforts to withdraw his guilty plea.
The suit claims that these legal expenses were not incurred in connection with Mr. Craig’s campaign for federal office or with his ordinary and necessary duties as a Senator, and that the payment of these expenses with campaign funds amounts to impermissible personal use. The FEC seeks a declaration that this conversion of funds to personal use violates the Federal Election Campaign Act (the Act), a permanent injunction against future similar violations, an order that Mr. Craig repay the funds to Craig for U.S. Senate and a civil penalty against each of the defendants. . . .
On March 28, 2013, the United States District Court for the District of Columbia denied the Motion to Dismiss finding neither of the defendants' arguments persuasive. The court concluded that the expenditures for legal fees could not be characterized as ordinary and necessary expenses in connection with Mr. Craig’s duties as a federal officeholder and that the expenses would have existed irrespective of his duties as an officeholder.
